Human rights studies - Essay Example

It also provides that every person has the right to highest attainable standard of health; and the right to clean and safe water in adequate quantities. As may be seen, Dole Food Company opted to use Nemagon, a banned pesticide, was not only illegal but also immoral. In the case study, it emerges that the company knew that the pesticide was known to cause sterility, yet it went a way to use the pesticide. By so doing, the company can be seen to have intentionally been blind to the kind of harm which they were exposing their workers.

As a registered company, it is assumed that the company knew the provisions in the UN charter on human rights and intentionally failed to observe it. For instance, it is the fact that the company used the harmful pesticide and still expected human labor to interact in the environment that had such chemicals was a violation of UN charter that everyone has a right to reasonable working environment. There was the option of using an alternative pesticide that would not have put the workers’ health at risk but the company avoided taking that direction.

Another violation of human rights was that by using Nemagon, the company failed to protect the community’s right to healthy environment. The pesticide used has been observed to have left traces everywhere, especially on land and in water. The result is that people and animals are equally affected and it is estimated that the effects may last in the soil for as long as 200 years. As a result, suckling mothers have indicated signs of infection by the pesticides to levels as high as 700 times.

I every essence, the use of Nemagon as the company’s pesticide is a gross violation of human rights. How can you justify the existence of human rights? The existence of human rights has been justified on various grounds though the common denominator always points to promotion of equity, justice and healthy living. It is usually a concept of universality that by the mere fact that one is born a human, then the person must be granted certain level of protection that will ensure his/her survival (Orend p. 16). Orend argues that it is not just for one to violate others’ rights and retain his.

His argument seems to highlight the need for people to realize that as much as they have been allowed to enjoy their human rights, so is it their noble duty to also allow others enjoy such rights (Orend p. 38). This applies to the above case where the management of the company should have also considered letting the Nicaraguan banana farm worker enjoy their right to a clean environment. This is something that should be observed not just because the law provides it so, because the law is a just a guideline anyway, but on the basis that human life is worth protection from harm.

The existence of human rights is therefore also seen to be anchored on ethics of utilitarianism and consequentialism (Mill, 2012, p. 39). It widely seen that the consequences of certain actions would degrade life, and because the actors motives cannot be predetermined, existence of human rights is enshrined to prevent such unforeseen eventualities of what is probable if a contrary path is taken. The basis of philosophy of law is anchored on such foundation (Aquinas and McDermott, 2008, p. 87).

According to Raymond Wacks, the existence of human rights can be justified on basis of duty (Wacks, P. 55). Wacks observes that although human rights may also be justified on the basis of duty, it is not all the time that when one has a duty over