|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Oct 4, 2011 4:37:02 GMT -5
I'm in the middle of doing a uni subject on human rights, so I've had some time to think about this topic. But now I'm very interested in what you guys may have to say about human rights. So, instead of starting the debate with my view on Human Rights, I want to open up the debate with a few fundamental questions. Then I'll post my opinions later. ---- Firstly, here's some relevant information. Human rights were first clearly described in the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). In a large part, this document was made in response after the horrors of the holocaust. Its creation involved representatives from many nations, particularly Western nations like France and Sweden, but also including Eastern nations such as India and China. However it was a non-binding declaration, meaning countries couldn't be held accountable for their actions after signing it. Decades later (in 1966), the two main treaties were written - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These are legally binding. But the enforcement is relatively "toothless"; generally the UN doesn't have the capacity to do more than publicly name and shame the countries who disobey. As you'll find from reading the documents, human rights are specific, like the right to freedom from torture, or the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Some rights, as set out in the twin convenants, can be limited in certain situations for the welfare of the community. Others cannot (including the one against torture; see ICCPR article 4.2 for a list of which articles can't be diminished or "derogated"). Human rights have not always existed, at least in the explicit and codified form they are in now. They are a recent development since the end of World War 2, and countries continue to debate their meaning and relevance. ---- Questions: 1. Do you believe that all human beings possess an innate, inalienable set of rights, by virtue of being human? Why?
2. Do you believe that the standards set out in the UN's Declaration and Covenants on human rights constitute a morally desirable goal?
3. Would you encourage every state on the planet to sign the human rights covenants (ICCPR & ICESCR)? Or would you consider a universal standard undesirable? (Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism)
4. If you were in the position of a leader in government, would you sign the human rights treaties? Why or why not? Would your answer differ depending on the country you administer?
5. Are some human rights less important than others?
6. Do you believe that the human rights bodies such as the UN and treaty bodies can make the world a better place? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 7:29:18 GMT -5
Here's my opinion:
Everyone has the right to live. We were born in this world and no one may take that from us.
Everyone has the right to love. Because if people are unloved they end up doing bad things: to themselves, to others and sometimes both. People have the right to feel safe and happy. We have a right to feel like we have a place in the world. Without any love, no child is going to grow up with any of that.
Everyone has the right to follow their heart. If one wishes to sing for a living, let her sing. If one wishes to play sports, let him. Because if people are prevented from following their heart they begin to respond to it as one would a lack of love and compassion.
Basically, people have rights to be happy, and free, and alive.
Now, if someone wanted to give a right away, they could do that because it's their own choice. But no one can take any of these things from a person by force. That's just wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Oct 4, 2011 14:14:28 GMT -5
1. Do you believe that all human beings possess an innate, inalienable set of rights, by virtue of being human? Why? Well - what is a human being? Let's look at Article 1 from the UN's Declaration: Leaving aside the patriarchal language, this statement seems to imply that only people who have "reason and conscience" are human beings. What about babies - or even embryos - that don't have fully developed brains yet? What about the mentally ill? What about people whose beliefs are not mainstream? Are they human beings too? Or are they somehow subhuman / not-yet-human? But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would argue that criminals like the protagonist in the film No Country for Old Men should not be protected by human rights law, because they go around murdering people in cold blood with utter disregard for society's rules. I feel like it's very hard to place that line, though. So I would have a hard time agreeing to a blanket statement concerning "all human beings." 2. Do you believe that the standards set out in the UN's Declaration and Covenants on human rights constitute a morally desirable goal? I think they're a good start, but they're too vague to constitute a viable end-goal. Two people could both agree to abide by the standards and yet have different understandings. 3. Would you encourage every state on the planet to sign the human rights covenants (ICCPR & ICESCR)? Or would you consider a universal standard undesirable? (Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism) I would consider a universal standard impractical. Even if everyone were to sign the covenants, their "agreement" is meaningless if they all have different understandings in mind. It's like the situation of the Wall Street protest on that other thread here in D&D. 4. If you were in the position of a leader in government, would you sign the human rights treaties? Why or why not? Would your answer differ depending on the country you administer? If my people wanted me to, then sure. But it would be a symbolic gesture more than anything else. It wouldn't actually resolve any specific issues. 5. Are some human rights less important than others? My instinct tells me, "Yes." But if you asked me to rank the rights in a general order of importance, again I would have a hard time doing so. For example, people forgo food (Article 25) in hunger protests to fight for the right to a national identity (Article 15) or the right to think freely (Article 18). But then obviously a person has to have enough bodily strength first before he or she can pursue any of these less material rights. 6. Do you believe that the human rights bodies such as the UN and treaty bodies can make the world a better place? I think they represent a good-faith effort, and there have definitely been social improvements since the covenants were made, but trying to establish universal standards could bring harm as well as good. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Oct 4, 2011 14:32:28 GMT -5
But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would argue that criminals like the protagonist in the film No Country for Old Men should not be protected by human rights law, because they go around murdering people in cold blood with utter disregard for society's rules. Now this is an interesting argument! One that could be it's own thread, even. XD I actually disagree. A terrible person deserves punishment, and punishment is allowed under the Declaration of Human rights. It just can't be an inhumane one. It's similar the the US's own 8th amendment: no cruel or unusual punishment. Must we really become monstrous to punish a monster? I don't think that must be so. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 14:50:39 GMT -5
But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would argue that criminals like the protagonist in the film No Country for Old Men should not be protected by human rights law, because they go around murdering people in cold blood with utter disregard for society's rules. Now this is an interesting argument! One that could be it's own thread, even. XD I actually disagree. A terrible person deserves punishment, and punishment is allowed under the Declaration of Human rights. It just can't be an inhumane one. It's similar the the US's own 8th amendment: no cruel or unusual punishment. Must we really become monstrous to punish a monster? I don't think that must be so. Could you clarify; are you saying that either animals deserve to be punished, or that animals don't commit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" acts? I just don't quite understand your stance on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 15:55:52 GMT -5
But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would argue that criminals like the protagonist in the film No Country for Old Men should not be protected by human rights law, because they go around murdering people in cold blood with utter disregard for society's rules. Now this is an interesting argument! One that could be it's own thread, even. XD I actually disagree. A terrible person deserves punishment, and punishment is allowed under the Declaration of Human rights. It just can't be an inhumane one. It's similar the the US's own 8th amendment: no cruel or unusual punishment. Must we really become monstrous to punish a monster? I don't think that must be so. I agree with that. Prison is okay with me, but if we torture people, that makes us just as bad as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Oct 4, 2011 18:04:31 GMT -5
Well - what is a human being? Let's look at Article 1 from the UN's Declaration: Leaving aside the patriarchal language, this statement seems to imply that only people who have "reason and conscience" are human beings. What about babies - or even embryos - that don't have fully developed brains yet? What about the mentally ill? What about people whose beliefs are not mainstream? Are they human beings too? Or are they somehow subhuman / not-yet-human? But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would argue that criminals like the protagonist in the film No Country for Old Men should not be protected by human rights law, because they go around murdering people in cold blood with utter disregard for society's rules. I feel like it's very hard to place that line, though. So I would have a hard time agreeing to a blanket statement concerning "all human beings." I'm not quite entering the debate yet, but I want to clarify something. Human rights legislation embraces a very liberal definition of a human being. Article 26 forbids discrimination of any kind: So a human being may possess non-mainstream ideas, eg. political or religious ones, but parties to the convention are forbidden from discriminating against them for that reason. Also, the ICESCR protects children. This must mean that children are included in its definition of a human being. Furthermore, if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts by saying, "All human beings are born free and equal..." one would reasonably expect humanity to have begun at birth, meaning all children are rights holders. The UN is very much silent on the topic of whether unborn babies constitute human beings or not. People who have committed crimes still bear human rights, because in Article 1 of the UDHR these rights are considered "inalienable", meaning you cannot lose them for any reason or in any circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Oct 4, 2011 18:10:16 GMT -5
Hmm, Human Rights...tough topic.
They're all pretty basic to me, ethical and reasonable. But still, they don't always get respected. Our constitution in Brazil says everyone has the right to get a decent hospital and medical treatment, yet tons of people die in corridors because there is no room, no doctors and no medication enough.
It would be a start if every single country in Earth signed some papers, but they don't always respect that. Brazil signed and government doesn't manages to take care of all of it, partly corruption, partly political influence and many other reasons I don't know about. It's just that papers are still papers, and not always the right is followed... :/
|
|
