The Moral Code Of Social And Individual Rights And Universal Principles

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Universal theories state that, regardless of race, origin, religious beliefs or culture, every human being is entitled to basic rights. These rights are inherent to the fundamental nature of that person, and are meant to be implemented transnationally, without bias. The universal theory of legalism states that the “only way to create social harmony is through legal rule”, and that there cannot be an expectation on individuals to regulate themselves (Juric). The regulation of individuals is achieved through government. However, the government agents are also subject to the law. This notion is known as the Rule of Law and states that no individual is above the law. Legalism proposes “that the law is not arbitrary, they are rooted in reason and agreed upon by all of us” (Juric). Legalism makes the assertion that the only creditable government is democratic in nature. Through a majority vote democratic governments give the individuals of the society the ability to choose the legislative party that is responsible for creating the laws that the citizens abide by. In this way, legalism states that citizens have influence over the laws and policies of their country. In order for Legalism to be considered a valid universal human rights theory, it must be accepted by all nations. This paper discusses the notion that the universalist theory legalism is inoperative because of its Cultural limitations, and difficulty implementing Human rights Standards. There is a strong Western

Human rigths is an essential component of a tolerant and individually satisfied society. They are created to defend people’s dignity, equality and liberty. However, for thousands of years people lived with no garanteed rights, until 1948, when United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But is the Universal Declaration of Human Rigths really universal to all states and humans living in them? I am going to argue if Human Rights should or should not be unically adapted to different cultures, religions and beliefs.

It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

First, I would like to address the teachings of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his studies of deontology, or duty ethics, which is “an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (virtue ethics).” (Mastin) Kant specializes in many ideas, but the ideas I will focus on are: the will, good will, the categorical imperative, and the principle of humanity.

It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not

* Kantian Ethics- the belief that people should be treated as ends and never as means to the ends of others

A Kantian view on ethics prescribes that a person should act in such a way that if all people acted that way it would be okay. For example if you gave your promise to do something, you would always keep it because if everyone broke his or her promises it would defeat the purpose of a promise. He also believed that reason alone should be able to reveal what the ethical decision should be. Another view of Kants’, states that you should never treat people as a means to an end, but rather, as an ends in themselves. This means that we cannot use people in a manner in which we would not wish to be used.

Social justice is a long debated subject that continues to prove controversial and divisive all over the world. Opinions on what constitutes social justice vary on a continuum from more conservative opinions which note individual responsibility to a more liberal stance which promotes a moral responsibility to support social equality (Mapp, 2008). Despite the varying opinions of what establishes social justice, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as the first step in promoting social justice by outlining the basic rights that should be afforded to humanity (United Nations, n.d.). More specifically, Article 22 of the UDHR states that all people should have access to social security protection that works to provide essential needs, provisions for preserving dignity, and freedom to pursue personal interest (United Nations, n.d.). In spite of the established declaration, social justice remains unavailable for too many people. Worldwide, the lack of social protection leads to 1.4 billion people struggling to meet their essential needs due to lack of access to resources which promote a decent standard of living. Another 100 million fall into poverty due to unforeseen complications (GIPSPSI, 2011). Therefore, there is a crucial need to recognize social protection as a human right in order to guarantee equal access to basic services and equal opportunity to all of humankind.

The third ethical and moral theory That Kant devised is the ‘good will’ Kant describes the good will as the desire or inclination to do your duty because it is your duty, unlike the ‘categorical imperative’ and the ‘hypothetical imperative’. According to Kant’s theory of the ‘goodwill’ if you have a good will you are a good person, if not you are not only a bad person you are not even considered to be essentially a human. In the ‘good will’ Kant believes having perseverance being courageous, intelligence etc. does not make any difference you still remain a ‘bad’ person, as you could use all of those same traits such as perseverance, intelligence and courage you may use those same traits to become a murder or abuser etc. furthermore Kant states;

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to

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

Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.

In recent decades, universalism of human rights concerning abortions has emerged into the world that we know today. Many believe that human rights are universal. Others believe that universalizing human rights do not even exist. Looking at the United States of America, Africa, and Latin America, I have come to the conclusion that universalism of human rights concerning abortions does exist in our world today. A study on how universalism of human rights are violated reveals one challenge facing the world: universalism of human rights concerning abortions in the United States, Latin America, and Africa. Is abortion a violation of human rights or are humans a violation of human rights?