Defense of Human Civil and Natural Rights - Research Paper Example

Natural and Civil Rights: A World Community Issue Introduction When the topic of rights are considered, the responsibility of defending of those rights comes into mind. Natural and civil rights can easily be stripped from those without their own sources of defense. Therefore, it is important for the courts, interested organizations, and even civilian awareness to work together to provide protection for all people. In a discussion of the defense of civil and natural rights, it is important to define what these terms mean. As well, defining where those given rights end and the responsibility of the individual begins must be determined. A discussion of consumerism will also shed light on the extent for which the global community has both fought against in order preserve these rights and ignored transgressions in order to continue the flow of goods and trade. Civil and natural rights provide a measure of the enlightenment of the world. It is vital for these rights to be defended in order to preserve global levels of health and welfare as well as to protect those from exploitation who cannot protect themselves. Defining Civil and Natural Rights The civil and natural rights of the individual, when violated, shadow the integrity and ethical values of the world. While it would be simple to limit this discussion to one nation, the issues of violation of these rights in other nations are tied to each other as the world has become a global community. Consumerism and information via the internet has tied one nation to another, creating symbiotic relationships that no longer allow for homogeny to be an effective policy. The question of civil and natural rights and the defense of these principles requires a definition to be put into place. While the definitions appear simple, the implications can be quite complicated. Civil rights are defined by the right of the individual to be equally protected under the law. Civil rights mean that one person has no more protection or less protection, no less right to access to services, and no less respect of his or her person than another individual regardless of class, gender, or status (Wilson). The concept of natural rights are concerned with the universal rights that should be given to every person on a global level. These rights are granted under what can be determined as by “God and nature” (Tierney 193). These rights, however, have been routinely usurped by power, greed and consumerism. Some of the natural rights of an individual can be viewed as the rights to safety, to food, to health, and to basic freedom. According to Tierney, the idea of natural rights as they relate to political responsibilities was developed in the fourteenth century by William of Ockham who formulated a concept of “subjective natural rights” (14). Ockham proposed a series of arguments and philosophies that were influential in the development of contemporary political idealism and democracy. One of those ideas was the separation of church and state, providing for an acknowledgement of the right to believe as one chooses, while protecting the individual from the imposition of belief in regard to behavior. In other words, the state cannot mandate an individual to practice religious beliefs that the individual does not believe. Natural rights are often now referred to as human rights and are constantly under scrutiny in the international community. Ockham suggested that the subjective natural rights were the right to leisure, to work, to culture, to health, and to modesty. These rights are the foundation of the enlightenment approach to the writing of the American Declaration of Independence, which is the event that launched the first founding of a nation on the principles of an ideology (Caldwell 117). Most nations are designed around commonalities in culture, heritage, and ethnicity, but the United States was founded on the principles of personal freedom. While this idea has yet to be achieved, the utopian ideas that began the nation are based on the principles of the freedom to have those natural rights. Slavery, Consumerism, and the Global Responsibility Unfortunately, global trade and consumerism has stretched these beliefs to a point where they have routinely been ignored in order to promote economic advantages. In order to believe that these natural rights are valid, one must believe they are right for all people on a global level. To create an example of this contradiction of belief and the support of the violation of these rights, slavery is an important topic of discussion. It might be obvious to discuss the existence of slaves within the colonies and the subsequent nation that was formed after the American Revolution, but instead a contemporary example is available. Slavery still exists in the world today and the product of that slavery is eagerly and enthusiastically consumed by the American public, and indeed the nations of the world. Chocolate is produced from the agricultural production of the cocoa beans. The majority of cocoa beans are purchased by manufacturers from West Africa where a horrible crime of human rights is committed in order to produce the beans. Young boys are captured and enslaved under horrendous conditions in order to work on the farms where the beans are produced. An astounding figure of 186 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are working in the world today which represents 15.5 percent of all children in this age group (Kris-Katos 20). An unknown portion of these children are trafficked into slavery, sold as a usable commodity. According to Bales and Soodalter, a special on HBO portrayed the lives of these children after revealing their existence to their viewing audience. The children, mostly boys, are beaten and starved and are left with stunted growth and a lack of proper development (152). The point of this example is that through consumerist habits that support the purchase of beans from these growers, the lives and liberties of these children are stunted, leaving them with no access to basic natural and civil rights. If the political machines of the nations who have industries that support these growers do not act for these children, who will do it? Without laws enacted to prevent the association with trade activities that violate human rights, corporations in the search for profit will continue to purchase beans grown through the use of slave labor. Is this an exaggeration? This statistic will prove that the world is responsible for this atrocity and should be held accountable for stopping its propagation. Two thirds of the cocoa beans used in the world are grown in West Africa (Shillington 570). The Power of Political Movement As in the example of cocoa beans in West Africa and their human rights violations in growing the beans, sanctions and trade embargos area political means through which this can be changed. The world political community has found that war and forced change is not near as effective as using profit and the denial of profit in order to make profound change (Czinkota 76). South Africa was under a system of apartheid that provided for a separation in civil liberties between black and white racial identifying characteristics which was enforced by the National Party between 1948 and 1994. In order to provide a means in which to protest and to apply pressure, the United Nations in the mid 1980’s condemned the policy and the United States, United Kingdom, and 23 other nations passed laws that placed sanctions on trade with the country in order to promote an end to that policy. The boycotts and sanctions were in some part responsible for the end of apartheid, giving weight to the ideology that world participation in relieving the suffering of a people of a foreign nation can be achieved (Bales 93). The Problem of Perspective A difficulty arises, however, when ideologies differ in regard to how rights are viewed. An example of this can be seen in the position of women in many Islamic nations. There are a variety of laws, traditions, and religious ideas that result in what is seen as the oppression of women from some cultures in the Middle Eastern countries. However, this point of view is subject to interpretation depending on who you are in regard to this issue. From a Western point of view, the traditions and laws are primarily oppressive and violate a series of human rights concerns. However, from the point of view of the people who have chosen to live through a belief system that has aspects of female oppression, this might be seen as a freedom to practice religion issue. According to Ramazanoglu, religion can be a smoke screen behind which patriarchal power manipulates women and children to fall into line under that form of familial and political control (152). The problem with this belief system is that there are many women within these cultural groups who believe in the life that they live. However, the question becomes whether or not they would still believe if introduced to a less oppressed freedom. As well, is it the right of the world to then introduce these freedoms and violate their cultural beliefs, thus changing the nature of their social structure? However, the problem with that argument is continued when one a culture determines that the extermination of another culture is within their belief system. Does the world community sit back and watch taking the stand that to interfere is to oppress the religious and social freedoms of that society? This is the problem that plagues human rights activists as they try to achieve goals while preserving cultures. To bring the issue to a more basic and highly controversial issue, the problem with abortion and belief exemplifies how natural and civil rights are in conflict depending on personal and group ideologies. On the one hand, pro-life supporters believe that an abortion denies a fetus the right to life. This belief extends human rights to the child and establishes that life begins at conception. However, the contrary opinion does not believe that life begins at conception, but that a fetus is nothing more than a growth of cells and subject to the rights of the mother and her needs in regard to reproducing. Her rights would violate should she not be able to choose her own destiny in regard to giving birth. As an example, this issue creates very volatile reactions from both members of the debate. There have been acts of terrorism from pro-life activists that have resulted in the bombing of abortion clinics, taking lives and causing injuries which would seem to run in dark contrast to the initial argument of the pro-life believers (Blanchard and Prewitt 212). However, in which direction should the legislature move in order to preserve liberties? Acts of violence in support of a cause should not be tolerated in a society. However, the law must seek to protect in such a way as to violate the least number of natural rights. In this example, no answer seems to have the best result. When Ockham termed natural rights as subjective, the description was very accurate. The point of view of the one who defines the nature of what they deem to be right is defined by their own system of beliefs. However, civil rights have a far more clear measure of what is right and what is wrong. Rights that are given to one section of the population without being given to another would violated and create a human rights issue. The situation with apartheid in South Africa is a clear example of how rights for the one community were not extended to another one within the nation. This caused civil unrest and created international issues for the nation. In contemporary society, the issue of civil rights has almost universally been decided as laws that affect one individual are most often afforded to another individual. This, however, does not include nations where men and women have differing rights under the law. As well, even in the United States an issue of inequality and denied opportunity is still being debated. The issue of marriages between same-sex couples has risen to a level where the former President of the United States, George W. Bush, proposed an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman, without variation (Rozell and Gleaves 142). The problem creating such a definition is that it is based on religious factors while marriage is considered under legal factors. To deny unions between all but one man and one woman is to deny the legal privileges of insurance, inheritance, property ownership, and other economic factors to those whose innate biology and lifestyles do not provide for a single male and single female union. Conclusion There are of course many sides to each of these issues. A perfectly balanced society with all rights respected and without violation is most likely never going to be attained. Basic rights to health are violated every day as people are left starving and without medical care because they haven’t the financial means to provide those life sustaining needs for themselves. As well, economic factors effect the way in which the pursuit of happiness may be stunted when it is not feasible to spend money or anything other than basic need. Rights are violated all the time in small ways, in large ways, and in political decisions that falsely see a side to the debate through a lens of the sentimental, as in the right to marriage. However, the pursuit of the defense of those who are currently in situations without access to defending themselves is a noble pursuit. Even though some ideologies and economic issues might fall to the efforts of foreign interference, the basic rights that are universal must be defended for those who cannot defend themselves. Economic, cultural, and educational opportunities can be stunted, therefore denying power to those who may be oppressed. It is the responsibility of the world to provide a framework of action in which these issues can be resolved to the betterment of the global community. Works Cited Bales, K. Ending slavery: how we free today's slaves. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Blanchard, Dallas A., and Terry J. Prewitt. Religious violence and abortion: the Gideon Project. Gainesville, Fla. u.a: Univ. Press of Florida, 1993. Caldwell, Wilber W. American narcissism: the myth of national superiority. New York: Algora Pub, 2006. Czinkota, Michael. Fundamentals of international business. [S.l.]: Wessex Press, 2008. Kris-Katos, K. “Does globalization reduce child labor?”, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.vwl.uni-freiburg.de/iwipol/publications/kiskatos_globalization-child- labor06.PDF Lowenberg, Anton David, and William H. Kaempfer. The Origins and Demise of South African Apartheid: A Public Choice Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Ramazanoglu, Caroline. Feminism and the contradictions of oppression. New York: Routledge, 1989. Rozell, Mark J., and Gleaves Whitney. Religion and the Bush Presidency. The evolving American presidency series. New York, NY [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Shillington, K. Encyclopedia of African history, vol 1.New York: Taylor Francis Group, 2005. Tierney, Brian. “The idea of natural rights: studies on natural rights, natural law, and church law. Client Last Name 10 Emory University studies in law and religion, no. 5. Grand Rapids, Nich: William B. Eerdmans (2005) 1150-1625. Wilson, James Q. American government: brief version. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. Read More