In the West human rights were born in the modern age as a result of the Industrial Revolution and thrived in the age of the “liberal state.” With the establishment and consolidation of modern democratic political structure since the late eighteenth century, the value of individual freedom was substantiated and power of individuals recognized. Consequently, the mentality instilled in people for centuries that the sovereignty belongs to the ruler broke off and was replaced by the new mindset that the nation is rooted in people. It was John Locke (1632-1704) who first set rights on the political agenda. He asserted that every man has the right “to preserve his life, liberty and estate” (Locke, 1962, p. 87). This ideal was later echoed and …show more content…
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
John Locke’s idea of Natural Rights created a whole new aspect of how the government should be constructed. Natural Rights is the freedoms people are born with and should be protected by the government, if not then the citizens have the right to overthrow the government since their rights are not being preserved. This Enlightenment ideal is an important aspect in both today’s world and during revolutionary periods
“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”
This paper is about John Locke who was a philosopher in the 17-century. He was an Englishmen and his ideas formed the basic concept for the government and laws, which later allowed colonist to justify revolution. I agree with what Locke is saying because everybody should be able to have their own freedom and still respect the freedom of other people. John said, “Individuals have rights, and their duties are defined in terms of protecting their own rights and respecting those of others”. This paper will present to you information about his enlightenment, personal information, and how we as people feel about his decisions.
In the 17th century, the eminent philosopher John Locke stated in his natural rights theory that “Every man has the natural right to life, liberty and property”. Locke’s philosophical theory became so remarkably prominent that it influenced the phraseology of the United States Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Which the ideology was to indicate that every single individual in the United States has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately these beliefs are not applicable to every person that resides
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
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, both had an impact on influencing the development of liberal ideology. Due to this, the term “rights” is now prevalent everywhere in politics. “Natural rights” is the principle in which, every individual is born with rights and these cannot be removed by force or law. It is the entitlement to act or to be treated in a specific way. The essential human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. In order to maintain stability in society, Locke exclaimed humans should have a right and duty to live peacefully without any threat.
The shared passion of visionaries, thinkers, and writers profoundly influence society in the modern world and hold in their hands the ability to craft a better future. They inspire new ,, and sometimes even revolution. Two documents of the 18th century, The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of man established and angle for which we view human rights, liberties, and human freedoms. While the underlying motivations of the declarations each have a distinct purpose, the intent to establish universal human rights parallel and often mimic one another in language and meaning. Both documents however have interesting contradictions and inconsistences with regards to whom the liberties should apply, from whom the authority is derived and the motivations behind the drafting of each respective declaration.
A fundamental principle of Locke’s book is that of liberty, where he defines it as “man being free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule” (§22). Evidently, Locke dubbed liberty as a dominant notion which should be bestowed on every individual, seeing as it is a right. Moreover, Locke highlighted the way in which humans should be free, which he refers to as “the law of nature”, a state where humans are permitted to determine their moral code. All in all, Locke’s concept of liberty has shaped much of society today, reinforcing why he is referred to as the “father of Classical Liberalism”.
After studying political science for 3.5 years at Boston College, I never fathomed why America was so obsessed with the idea of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’. I remember it immediately. I was glancing at my professor in our “Political Philosophy of Liberalism” class while he introduced Lockean Liberalism. I was enamored by him, for he is a brilliant man. Freedom, Individual rights, negative and positive freedoms, democracy, toleration, and many other political-philosophical keywords overflowed in my head.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a universal document that is likely acceptable and applicable for everyone. The UDHR identifies basic human rights that are based on the theory of Universalism. On the other hand, relativist claims that human rights are culturally dependent, and that no moral values can be made to apply to all cultures. Second notion is the UDHR are product of western political perspectives, such as Magna Carta of the UK, the American Bill of Rights, and the French revolution. Looking at these different theories about relativism from the Kevin Avruch's piece of reading, I believe that all three forms of relativism (descriptive, normative, and epistemic) contradicts the claim by the principles of the UDHR.
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
While the UDHR is derived from European cultures, it is applicable to other cultures, because they are based on normative ethics. Cultures are also malleable and can change, therefore, even if one of the articles is not accepted in the culture as a right, that can change. However, how they are influenced to change raises ethical questions. Despite cultural differences,
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
Post WWII on the 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was espoused by the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to agree on the notion that such atrocities that occurred throughout the Great War and the Second World War would not ever be reciprocated. The document that was drawn up in less than two years by the UN and Western states, and although ambitious it would guarantee a premise for life and living for every individual all over the world. The UDHR are founded on nobility, equality and reverence, and are said to be aimed at all cultures and religions within the West and East of the globe. However there is great discrepancy regarding
“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.