INTRODUCTION
Human rights have been defined as “basic moral guarantees that people all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees “rights” suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than discretionary. Human rights are also international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses.
The philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature, universality, justification, and legal status of human rights. The strong claims made on behalf of human rights frequently provoke skeptical doubts and countering philosophical defenses. Reflection on these doubts and the responses that can be made to them has become a sub-field of political and legal philosophy with substantial literature.
Why Humans Have Rights
Rights are due to a man, precisely because he is a person and, therefore, possessing worth and dignity. Man is not merely a piece of matter, a robot, a tool, a bundle of drives, or a meaningless question mark as some philosophers would reduce him to. He is a person, he has the power to think, judge, and reason; he is the master of himself and of his actions; he has a supreme purpose which transcends this life. From the Christian viewpoint, he is infinite value because he is made to the image of and likeness of God, being endowed with an immortal soul destined for everlasting life with God.
By virtue then of his human nature (or by virtue of the natural law), by virtue of his supreme worth and dignity as a person, man...
... middle of paper ...
...s as the formal properties of human rights, object of human rights, and the force of human rights. However, there is much less agreement upon the fundamental question on how human rights may be philosophically justified. It would be fair to say the philosophers have provided many different, at times even conflicting, answers to this question. Philosophers have sought to justify human rights by appeal to single ideals such as equality, autonomy, human dignity, fundamental human interests, the capacity for rational agency, and even democracy.
Bibliography:
Codd, Clara M. The Ageless Wisdom of Life. Wheaton III USA: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1971.
Dumbray, S.M. and Charles A. Introductory Philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1933.
Gilson, E. Elements of Christian Philosophy. New York: Doubleday and company, Inc. 1960.
After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
Human rights are the inborn and universal rights of every human being regardless of religion, class, gender, culture, age, ability or nationality, that ensure basic freedom and dignity. In order to live a life with self-respect and dignity basic human rights are required.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
Introduction One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights.
In the simplest of terms, human rights are those that undoubtedly belong to each person. These rights, from a philosophical standpoint, have certain characteristics that distinguish them from any other. According to Richard Wasserstrom, author of the article, "Rights, Human Rights, and Racial Discrimination," human rights embody several characteristics. Primarily, and perhaps obviously, human rights are those that belong solely to humans (Wasserstrom 631). Moreover, Wasserstrom...
John Tasioulas introduces the idea that human rights are explained by the morals that humans possess through understanding of human dignity. He explains that are three connections that human dignity has to human rights. The first connection presented is that human dignity and rights are rarely distinguished between due to having virtually the same standards in regards to them. The second that dignity is a starting point in moral grounds that human rights build off of. And last, that the idea that human rights are justified by dignity, saying dignity is the ideal basis for human rights. Tasioulas chooses to focus on the last point, that it is our morals that bring about human rights and that our morals come from humans having dignity. The key thing being that human dignity is something that all possess by simply being human beings there is no merit in achievement or by what legislation or social position can give us.
- - -. The Wisdom of Life. Trans. T. Bailey Saunders. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1995.
Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”. That means we are entitled to human rights because we have inherent values to be pursued and realized. Human rights are originated in ourselves, but not conferred by law or others. If a society does not recognize those aforementioned justifications, human rights would be unsupported and a...
In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9).
Rights have been and continue to be violated across the world on both massive and miniscule scales. With rights violations being a constant issue, it is necessary, although it may be difficult, to determine which violations are human rights violations. Two aspects are crucial in this process: universality and paramountcy. Although practicability is also set forth as a criterion by Maurice Cranston, it is not as crucial when determining which acts violate human rights, or when they came into existence. This is due to the fact that when trying to distinguish between rights and human rights, almost all rights, not just specifically human rights, can, in some way, be practicable. For this reason, practicability, for the purpose of this essay, is
The contemporary canon of human rights refers to the entire set of internationally recognized human rights declarations and conventions, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and including all of the subsequently drafted and enacted international human rights instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Declaration on the Right to Development, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and several dozens of other international documents which identify and codify human rights norms. Given that each of these documents contain several dozen articles, many of which describe several, complex rights, all together there are probably well over one hundred things that can be identified as "human rights" based on the canon.
A general definition of human rights are that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled to, simply because there human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ The thought that human rights are universal emerges from the philosophical view that human rights are linked to the conservation of human dignity- that respect for individual dignity is needed regardless of the circumstance, leading to the notion that human rights are universal. The earliest form of human rights can be traced back to European history- the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen which says that men are born free and equal in rights.
Justice can be defined as, valuing the diversity and challenging the injustice in society while human rights refer to, benefits an individual enjoys by virtual of being a human being. Justice is said to exist when all citizens share a general humanity and, therefore, experience equitable treatment, fair community resource sharing and human right support. According to justice citizens are not supposed to be discriminated, nor their well being or welfare prejudiced or constrained on the lines of gender, religion, age, belief, race, political affiliation and even sexuality.
…rights which are inherent to the human being ... human rights acknowledges that every single human being is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction as to race, [color], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [To add on, human] rights are legally guaranteed by human rights law, protecting individuals and groups against actions that interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity (Human rights for