Analysis Of A Canadian Philosopher 'I' By Charles Taylor

“Ideas about human rights have evolved over many centuries. But they achieved strong international support following the Holocaust and World War II. To protect future generations from a repeat of these horrors, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and invited states to sign and ratify it”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, categories all human beings as free. Article one identify all human beings as 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. Article two states, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,

Human rights as stated in the universal declaration of human rights is that every human is born with equal rights no matter what sex, age, race or sexuality they are. It also means every person is protected by and under this law no matter what.

Human rights have been the major factors of human equality and freedom. It was recognised to develop the potentials of each human beings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was lawfully signed by the United Nations in 1948. It was to promote the social progress in the better standards of life, freedom, peace and the pursuit of happiness. Human Rights was set out for all human being, regardless of their differences in culture, race, and religion.

On a global political stand point there was a uniting of ideas and governments; what we know today as the United Nations (UN). One of the main ideas which the UN has grown up around is ‘The individual possess rights simply by virtue of being Human’ (The Universal Declaration of human rights); which was adopted by the general assembly in 10th December 1948. This statement is reflect in the core principles

In December of 1948, the United Nations presented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nations approved of and followed the declaration to prevent people from suffering across the globe from human rights issues such as civil rights, abuse, human trafficking, political and religious freedom, and child labor. Eleanor Roosevelt was the main support behind the declaration. The rights belonging to humans through God or nature is a founding idea and belief in the U.S. Constitution

The third component, however, is somewhat difficult to grasp and harder for some to accept; but it is also the most crucial when adopting the attitude of respect. If one fails to accept Taylor’s third element then one cannot adopt the attitude of respect. This is where Taylor is mistaken. Taylor fails, or at least neglects, to consider the importance of his third element. Instead, he places most of the emphasis on moving to deny human superiority and then concludes that by doing so only then can one respect nature. Yet, in order to allow Taylor’s fourth element, one must first concede that all Teleological Centers of Life have equal inherent worth. Therefore, when one accepts and believes the third component of the biocentric outlook only then can they adopt the attitude of respect. Subsequently, I plan to show that the third element and not the fourth is fundamental in adopting the attitude of respect.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The declaration explains, in detail, the thirty rights that every human being came into this world with. Article 1 states “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Universal, Article 1)”

Donnelly concerns shows that the argument shows what I take to be the main strength of the article. It is a thoroughly logically diverse question that have been taken together and by doing so provides clearer and more specific understandings of constantly disputed points. Distinguishing what he calls intangible, useful, legal global, overlapping agreement and anthropological. Donnelly describes that the question of whether human rights are diverse and is well understood as a related set of inquiries into how they might be common. These divergent questions have different answers that he tends to defends as conceptual, functional, legal international, and overlapping consensus universality whereas holding that study of people, society and cultural universality are politically weak.

General Assembly of the United Nations implemented The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, following the end of World War II and it was created after the formation of the United Nations in 1945 (Moscrop, 2014). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights consist of code of conduct and international laws came to life following the recent two world wars, genocide, violence and social inequality (Welch, 2015), and are meant to provide an international bill of rights to all humans. Welch (2015) notes the drafting of the Declaration took 2 years, 168 amendments and over 1400 votes and has been translated into 337 languages and the components of the Declaration are equality,

Relativism and Universalism is the debate regarding the human rights source and applicability. Human rights are the rights that the human claims as being human, in accordance to the societal and cultural norms. While the former believes the rights are defined by the culture; the latter opines they are universal to humans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Relativist argues that, is based on the western history and thus does not adhere to diverse culture globally prevalent and rather is pretentious towards culture. Therefore they doubt the relevance of the post conflict ad-hoc tribunal for Rawanda and the International Criminal Court which are based of notion of Universalism.

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

The fact that the concept of human rights originated in the West does not undermine its universal applicability. The creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) signifies the recognition of human rights across the world. Forty-eight states voted in favor of the adoption of the UDHR in 1948. By 2011 the number of United Nations member-states had increased to 193 (United Nations Human Rights, 2014). However, in reality the confrontation between universalism and cultural relativism as to whether human rights are universally applicable underlies the discussion of human rights in theory and practice. The rationale behind the universalist interpretation of human rights is that its genuine concern for human dignity and flourishing finds echoes in all cultures, religions, and traditions that have survived the transition to the modern era. In contrast, the theory of cultural relativism holds that an individual’s beliefs and activities can only be comprehended in terms of their own culture; therefore there are no objective standards by which others can be judged. Thus, moral values are historically and culturally specific rather than universal. Jack Donnelly (1989), a renowned human rights scholar, maintained that cultural relativism in reality had little to do with local or indigenous cultures and often

“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.” These opening words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights express a concept of man which underpins the framework of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration and the two international covenants of Human Rights. Western political traditions is a concept that it derives from, is in harmony with moral and social teachings to be found in many other traditions and patterns of belief.

These documents, at the same time, take back the sociopolitical thought that had been developped in a long tradition, and whose most striking stages are: the supreme value of reason as basis for any sociopolitical relation such as we discover at the Greek Polis and such as it is presented by the great thinkers Plato and Aristotle; the intrinsic value of human person, son of the same Christian God, and capable, because of his freedom, either of salvation or of condemnation, as it was understood by the main thinkers in the Middle Ages; the human Individual, considered as a juridical subject, capable of making contracts and assuming rights and duties and, therefore, as the last foundation of any sociopolitical organization, as he was thought by the liberal tradition embodied by Hobbes, Locke and the Encyclopedists. The concrete praxis of these theoretical principles in democratic societies and nations where the Individuals are the cause and the end of this sociopolitical order such as we find in Great Britain, Switzerland, Holland, USA, France, Sweeden, Norwegen, Canada and many other nations throughout the five continents.