Why is some Human Rights More Protected than Others - Essay Example

Why is some Human Rights More Protected than Others? In the contemporary world, human rights can be described as the basic moral surety that people in all cultures and countries have because they are people. These surety (rights) imply that they link to specified legal bodies who can impose them, that they are of great priority and their compliance to them is a necessity rather than discretionary. In most cases, human rights are regarded as universal in that it is accorded to every person, and thus everyone should enjoy them. Similarly, they are regarded independent in the sense that not only are they available but also exist as standards of criticism and justification whether they are recognized and implemented by the legal system of a country, or not (Fagan 211). The underlying moral doctrine of human rights aims to identify the fundamental perquisites for every human being leading a relatively minimal good life. Moreover, it aims to identify both the necessary positive and negative perquisites for living a minimally good life e.g. rights to health care, rights against torture, etc. These aspirations have been enshrined in varying declaration as well as legal convention issued over the years by the Universal Declaration Human Rights (1948), and sustained by bodies such as the International Covenant on Civil & Economic Rights (1966) and the European Convention to Human Rights (1948). Together, all these three documents form the basis of all the moral doctrines across the world, which many regard to be competent of bestowing the present day geo political order with what sums up to an international bill of rights (Fagan 211). In the modern world today, there are several reasons why some human rights are strongly protected than others. In some certain sense, the legal systems have regarded the human rights such as ‘right to life’ as one of the most basic and fundamental human rights. Right such as ‘right to life’ are more protected than others because it refers to the most essential good that is in regards to all human beings. This rationale forms the initial point of view that the legal systems as well as key law enforcement officers use to determine which human right is supposed to be protected more strongly than others. In this case, if vivere est esse viventibus as well as the presence is the state of all different merchandise of a singular, then there is no other great more cardinal than the presence of life. Thus, rights that protect human life forms a basis of rights that are more protected than other rights (Reinach 352). Secondly, the reason why some rights are protected than other rights is because some of these rights are considered more comprehensive and universal to people. To some extent, this rationale is not adequate or true. This is because it is not right to utilize some of these rights as a reference point to very specific and most pivotal good since they do not consider the other rights that people have which are not regarded and/ or protected as significant. Thus, although some rights such as ‘right to life’ is protected more strongly than others, a violation of any other right can still lead to a violation of a human being’s essential human right in the inhumane way e.g. through sexual abuse, refusing to grant them a right to freedom, to education, etc. From this line of thinking, it is thus safe to say that rights such as ‘right to life’ is no way a basis of the human rights to be protected more strongly, rather the ‘right of human dignity to be respected’ should attain stronger protection in such a scenario. Thus, some rights are more protected because they regard human life as an ‘end’ in itself rather than a ‘means’ to an end (Seifart 13). Again, some rights in the legal systems are more protected than others because they protect the life of human beings from any forms of evil that is imposed by the individuals themselves. Thus, rather than protecting the human life against evil imposed by other people, legal systems also protects the lives of human beings from evils that can be imposed by the individuals themselves. Rights such as these are strongly protected because human life is regarded as significant and the violation of such right has a great potential of rendering all the other rights useless. This is because once the lives of people are lost through the violation of the basic human rights which are strongly protected, what will be the use of the other rights such as the rights to association and to religion, etc. (Seifart 13). Thirdly there are some rights that are more protected than others because they form a sublime ranking of a good which bestows the highest intrinsic value to the human life. Rights such as ‘rights to freedom of conscience’ which protects acts such as euthanasia and abortion are protected more strongly than others because in general, it bestows the highest intrinsic value to the human lives of the parties concerned. Again, rights such as ‘right to religious freedom’ are more protected than other rights because such rights affect a relatively wider number of people when compared to rights such ‘legalization to gay marriages’. Additionally, these rights (right to religious freedom) give human beings a basis to formulate rules, values, beliefs, and norms that people can use to protect other human rights. These rights are more protected than others because they give people a capacity to do greater good to the human life as opposed to other rights. These rights also give people a chance to freely recognize these values that exceed the value of life, which are intertwined to with freedom of human beings and with the spheres of religious values and moral (Seifart 13). Some rights are more protected than others because it protects the lives of human beings which are the heart and objective of all the human rights. Similarly, others rights are more protected than others because it is founded on dignity and nature of people. Thus, a violation of such rights may lead to a conflict of interests to norms, traditions and cultures that have longed been up held and protected over the years. For instance, the right to gay marriage is not strongly protected in a universal sphere since the conflict of interest arising from this issue is vast. Not only does such right deter with the beliefs and values that have been held since the formation of societies and human beings it also deters with the natural forms of life such as procreation and family structure (Seifart 13). Above and beyond all this, contrary to other human rights such as ‘right to own property’ that some people such as the monk can easily renounce, some rights e.g. ‘right to life’ are more strongly protected because they are renounceable. People cannot easily opt to trade their lives for other pleasures that life can offer; and even if they are willing, the rights of human beings forbids people from taking such actions (Seifart 13). As people continue to understand their rights better and which to execute them, some of these rights may, at intervals, conflict with the human rights of other people. This is particularly true in today’s world where complexities and diverse trends have evolved in the society. Conflicts can arise when a person or group ties attempt to enjoy or execute an interest, a right or a value in an institutional context e.g. housing, employment, school, etc. At intervals, these claims may conflict with rights as well claims of other key variables. Depending with the circumstances, for instance, the right to be free discriminatory acts on the basis of sexual orientation or gender or creed may stand at odds with each other and/ or with other practices, rights and laws. A good example can be demonstrated by answering, “Can a religious employer need his/ her subordinates to sign a ‘morality pledge’ so as to ensure that they do not engage in certain sexual activities?” “How can one resolve a scenario where the guide dog of a professor causes a hazardous allergic reaction to a student?” Due to the varying and conflicting nature of circumstance, some human rights are more protected than other human rights (Hooper 213). In the Canadian Charter of Freedom and rights, a legislative provision of human rights as well as the courts holds that no human rights are absolute. Additionally, these legal doctrines also hold that no human right is more important than others. The laws of this country assure rights such as right to life, freedom of expression and protection against discriminatory acts and harassment on the basis of creed, gender, etc. The legal systems of this country bestow all human rights equal consideration. Similarly, the legal systems recognize that all human rights have limits in some specified scenarios where they significantly interfere with the rights of others (Jenks & Jensen 17). As stipulated above, all human rights in countries across the world are all considered to be equal there are other rights that are subconsciously or involuntarily more protected than others. This is particularly so when, these human rights interfere substantially with the rights of other human beings. The courts in this case have the responsibility of going through arbitration process of case by case basis to ensure that solution bestowed on one jurisdiction reconcile with the competing rights of human beings (Jenks & Jensen 17). Although the process may prove to be controversial, challenging and at intervals dissatisfying to one party, legal systems still have a duty of enforcing these rights. The act of protecting some human rights more fervently than other human rights is a shared effort which is made easier when people better construe the nature of their rights in regards to other people’s rights and obligations. Furthermore, some rights are more protected than others to demonstrate mutual respect for the worth and dignity involved in the varying scenarios (Whitlock 59). Works Cited Fagan, Andrew. Human Rights. Oxford: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. Hooper, John. Canadian Courts CIA Agents and Legal System: Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Jenks, Chris & Jensen, Eric. All Human Rights are Equal, But Some are More Equal Than Others. Harvard: National Security Journal, 2008. Reinach, Adolf. The Apriori Foundation of the Civil Law. Nachgelassene: Texte Verlag, 1983. Seifart, Joseph. The Personalist Project. North High Street, West Chester, PA: Tua Res Agitur, 2014. Whitlock, Craig. Competing Human Rights. New York: Routledge Press, Inc. 1996. Read More