What do you understand under the philosophy of human rights and the reality of moral theories
ABSTRACT
The idea of human rights came up as early as 539 BC when the armies of Cyrus the great who was the king of ancient Persia conquered the city of Babylon and he freed all the slaves and gave them the right to chose a religion of their choice. This reveals the history of human rights. However the history of human rights complements the philosophical aspect of the same. Both aspects champion the idea of human rights which emanate from the aspect that human rights are an entitlement to human beings by virtue of them being born human. Freedom, liberty, equality and independence are all important human rights represented in the philosophy of
…show more content…
Kant explains that the ultimate principle of morality must be moral law conceived so abstractly. On the other hand, Locke held that there is no innate human knowledge. He gives his ideas premised on the fact that there is duty, law, legislator and sanctions. He stipulates that no moral law could determine human violation and theory. It follows that moral obligations must be derived from legislation by intelligent beings with power to enforce their dictates by appropriate moral sanctions. On this basis, Locke distinguishes three basic types of moral law by referencing to the legislative source of each divine law, civil law and the law of repetition. He derived the aspect that divine law arises from the God’s right as the creator to dictate morality to all creatures of his own making. He held that denial of God’s existence, moral legislation or control would mean an irrational hope of escaping moral law. Rousseau indicated that humans lived originally in small groups and this allowed them to help each other. As time progressed, there where advantages of distributing labor, wealth began to grow and the desire for more grew. Then there was equality. With the growing inequality, property became more and more important and there was an artificial status hierarchy which established within a society. Hobbes’ social contract institutes inequality as the fundamental conditions of modern society. He outlines that the social contract would never create stability but there
As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the
Throughout years and years of developing our rights in law and off law we have created a system that gives everyone equality. Human rights can be explained in multiple ways. Rights could start from personal rights to rights as a citizen. Without rights our lives would be demanding and complicated. In the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot the author explains many violations of human rights as a citizen leading to social economic abuse.
Human rights can be summarized as the activities and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy and only by virtue of their humanity. These conditions are generally guaranteed in the constitution of the land. They are widely felt in the area as they are divided and not limited to political, social economic and cultural rights. Some of the main principles of human rights include the fact that they are inherent, inalienable and indivisible as well. In this relation, human rights can never be taken away from an individual whereby the enjoyment of one right should not infringe the enjoyment of other. They must all be respected and maintained.
Human rights seem to be one of the most undervalued rights that people are given. Although not tangible, or even visible, in the end they are one of the most significant aspects of life (Universal 1). They keep us civil. As the
Human rights are the recognition of basic rights and freedoms believed to justifiably belong to all human beings.
If our human rights are taken away people rights, our dignity and justice will not be valued; every human being has human rights. Our human rights are one of the most important things you will ever need and they should be valued. The pro of having human rights is that we all deserve them and they deserve to be protected. The con about human rights is that not everyone’s human rights are recognized or taken seriously. There were not always human rights at a point in time but it all changes in 539 BC because of a leader popularly known as “Cyrus the Great”. In the book “Cyrus the Great: An Ancient Iranian King” by Touraj Daryaee, it tells the story about the great king Cyrus and how he gave people freedom. “All should be free to worship their
99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).
Human rights are worldwide acknowledged and assured. Each person has the right to have their personal opinions, including their religious views, and to speak and compose what they ruminate. Everybody has the right to pursue dissimilar resources of data and concepts. Everyone has the right to socialize with other individuals, and to arrange and participate in organizations of their own selection, including employment unions. Everyone has the right to gather and to protest government movements. Furthermore, individuals have a duty to perform these rights peacefully, with consideration for the law and for the rights of other
First off, Rousseau believed that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which he calls natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul. And another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorised by the consent of men. The invention of property and the division of labor represent the beginning of moral inequality. Property allows for the domination and exploitation of the poor by the rich. Initially, however, relations between rich and poor are dangerous and unstable, leading to a
Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the
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. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its
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
“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.
On the other hand, Rousseau is of the idea that human beings are good in nature but they are latter to be vitiated by the political societies which are not part of the man’s natural state. Men need to live in collaboration and help each other to face life challenges. However, with the establishment of political and social institutions, men begin to experience inequalities as a result of greed. Rousseau claims that, in man’s natural state, they only strive for the basic needs and once those needs are satisfied they are contented in that state (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Additionally, Rousseau points out that after the inception of social and political institutions, humans began to be self-centered
Human rights is a concept that has been constantly evolving throughout human history. They have been present in the laws, customs and religions all throughout the ages. The ideas of human rights are present in the ancient world.