Mobilization and Restriction of Ethics and Human Rights - Essay Example

Mobilization and or Restriction of Human Rights and Ethics (Insert Name) (Institution/Affiliation) Mobilization and Restriction of Ethics and Human Rights Ethics and human rights seem to cross paths as one refers to the character of the individual and the latter the society where the morals are practiced and upheld. Human rights refer to the rights of every human being in the society; Donnelly (1999 cited in Beitz 2001) characterizes the concept of human rights as ‘a distinctive, historically unusual set of social values and practices’. Ethics represent rules and laws set aside to protect the individual, community and society from being manipulated, exploited and harmed in any way by people in power positions. Human rights on the other hand advocate for the rights of ethical consideration. For example ethically it would be wrong for a politician to incite violence between communities as it is the right of both communities to live in peace with one another. The human rights arose from the statement of allied arms in the Atlantic charter in 1941 and the United Nation charter ‘declaration of human rights’ adopted in 1946 as a result of pressure from individuals and society, on the need for post war political guidelines. It’s been over fifty years since the United Nations adopted the universal declaration of human rights (Beitz 2001). The charter affirmed its faith in fundamental human rights and ………to encourage respect ‘human rights and fundamental freedom for all’. There are other two international treaties, one on political and civil rights and the other on the social, economic and cultural rights. Together all the documents are refered to as the International bill of rights (Beitz 2001). Nongovernmental organizations have advocated for the human rights, though there are challenges .Outside Europe, most countries do not have the legal framework to deal with human rights abuses. Since its inception, the declaration of human rights has been more activity in the present time than it was during the world war 11. This is true as during the cold war, the division between the anti-communism and the freedom fighters was evident. The policy was to bring down communism regardless of the human rights violations and human sacrifices (Brown 2001). In the society, the political powers have divided themselves into two sides; the right and the left. Those on the left side support one another regardless of what one of the countries may stand for. Those on the right side support one another again regardless of their stand. They refer to either side as “good” or “evil”. In the event of the terrorist attacks on United States ofAmerica, they resorted to change immigration laws as well as did major investigations inclined more to the Islamic people in the country. Those found guilty were imprisoned and immediately lost privileges like their human rights. It would be an understatement to consider all the ‘ethical investments’ that support politics as normal contributions from the society, yet it is true that they are, with the society contributing knowingly and unknowingly. They are so called ‘ethical investment’ due to the purpose outlined that will be ‘beneficial ‘to the society. Most of the contributors of the investments do it subconsciously and hence in such cases the political leaders do not need to account for the ‘ethical investments’ (Laclau 1990). In the book ‘hard road to Renewal’ dedicated to Thatcherism, Hall (1996) indicates that the face of politics changed course in the 1980s where instead of how early it had excluded moral values and had not cared about being popular in the eyes of the society, it took up all these factors making up an inclusive type of politics. These changes enabled for social movements to be set up and advocating of rights for example the gay rights. I believe that all this inclusions was politically staged so as to win over the popular vote and indicate the support for human rights and social structure in the society. When reflecting on the issues of ethics it is paramount that we look at the how justice is influential in implementation of ethical principles. The Marxist theory propagates the idea that the society works together or depend on one another for development and social improvements and therefore rejects the ‘Juridical’ proposed by Hegel where Justice would be the highest power to determine social measures of society (Wood 1972). Most African countries would applaud this theory as then there would be no judicial implications to their political misconduct and misgivings. The detrimental effect of this would be seen on the social structure which would lead to loss of political influence and hence ‘political suicide’. It is with this in mind that major countries have supported the inclusion of the judicial systems in their institutional framework. It is with the available judicial structures in countries that lead to the mobilization of ethics and human rights. Meleto had also embraced a bit of Marxist theory of working together. According to him, when people dream and work together, they eventual contribute to building a nation. Every human being is a builder of either his/her own home, communities or societies. It involves people who will right the wrongs brought about by corruption and injustices. Without justice it is hard to implement ethical regulations, hence a consequence of injustice has been the rise of the gap between the rich and the poor, where for the few to benefit, many have to pay the price (Meleto 2009). To understand how the human rights and ethics work in the face of self-moralization of countries and in the new era of embracing cultural studies, the paper looks at how the two can be restricted or mobilized. In how the human rights and ethical issues were restricted, the information gathered revolved more around how the political powers took stands and positions on frustrating their enemies by judging them and accusing them of violations of human rights yet carry out the same violations under camouflage of fighting terror.. The rate at which they attack other countries so as to protect their own interest is beyond comprehendible. Using religion as a basis to insinuate the ‘axis of evil’ as bluntly put by Blair in his speech (Singer2004:1) back in the colonial times when Britain and Europe invaded Africa for the purpose of the mineral riches and came out not only with the minerals but also initiated slave trade. This as I can say was the worst form of abuse of ethics and human rights. An example of Restriction of human rights is the way immigrants are treated in the European countries. At one time these countries were liberal and had flexible immigrant laws to allow people migrate from their countries to these European countries in search of greener pastures. Since the new millennium and post the 9/11 tragedy, Immigration laws being changed to restrict immigrants from crossing into these countries and the ones that are within being under watchful eye of the authorities. The ones who manage to cross into the country are also alienated from engaging in activities with the rest of the community; hence in many of these countries you will find one particular area occupied by immigrants where they are able to live as one community without suspicion and alienation (Joppke 2008).The proposal to change the immigration laws is done in an effort to fight the invisible enemy, Terrorism. The ethics of most of these countries have been questionable especially in places where they have advocated for penalty measures against other countries in what they term as ‘human right violations’ while practicing the same in their countries. The inclusive of “zones of exception” has made them untouchable. This type of Moralization can only be done away with, through embracing our cultural ways or traditional ways of living. An example of challenged ethics was the former president Bush stand on fighting for the life of an individual Terri Schiavo while accepting the deaths of many iraqians as collateral damage. (Beckett 2005). An example of how mobilization of ethics and human rights was achieved is shown though change of guard, embracing cultural views and the acknowledgement of the new ethnicities. I shall explain all the points above in details. In terms of cultural views, it has been shown that cultural studies are described as unpredictable, unknown and has unforeseeable future hence cannot be influenced by the past. This makes the work of cultural studies ethical, as we all know ethics are principles that reflect on the moral values and beliefs of an individual, community and society and doesn’t rely on prescribed way of action (Hall and Birchall (eds) 2006). Hebdiges (1979 cited in Hall and Birchall (eds) 2006) pioneered the work on ‘subcultures’ in an effort to resist the influences and dominance of the ‘parent culture’, while Hall (1996) recognized the era of ‘new ethnicities’ which indicated the ‘decline of the west from its powerful morality position’. This was depicted in the war fought against anti-racism and post- war black experience in Britain. In the early days, blacks were either all good or all the same. One of the racist statement was ‘you cannot tell the difference as all of them look the same’. With the ‘new ethnicities’, it is impossible to change bad black politics but doing a simple reversal of taking the bad old white subject and in turn replacing it with the good black subject. The blacks got their right to be treated as equals with the whites in the society. With the end of the racism against the blacks, what remains is the diversity of the subjective positions, social positions and cultural identities of the black people indicating that categorizing them by race has no significant cultural value. Blacks were merely seen as objects and not subjects of presentation, hence in the struggle to get represented the path was marred with obstacles from obsessive people who saw the blacks as objects and representation of what was negative or bad in life. Religion binds us together as we look beyond who is from which ethnic group or faith (Meleto 2009). He states that ‘it is imperative for us to love one another and not fight against one another and making enemies of one another’. Evidence has shown that the cultural practices provide a solution to the self-moralization in the world. It could be looked upon as the sober alternative to an uncontrolled world with countries looking at others as threats and in the event denying individuals their rights or putting labels on other communities. Cultural studies provide tools to enable us understand and interpret the morality process practiced by government agencies. The cultural aspect can also provide a framework to bring in responsible politics that will be accountable for the ‘ethical investments’. Though cultural influence can be beneficial to the social system, yet i have to challenge this standby arguing out the case thought out by hall in ‘cultural in bits’ where he states that ‘cultural studies have put politics in a transcendental position with respect to all other discourse’ (2002: 9). This ultimately means, the politics cannot be questioned. I find this as double standards on the part of the cultural studies. It is unethical at one point to defend the rights of humans against a particular political exploitation and then turn and acknowledge and support the actions of politics that disregard human rights or ethical considerations. As I conclude, I would like to indicate that I support Meleto and Marx in their opinion that for us to build our societies we need to work together regardless of age, race, gender or religious affiliation (Meleto 2009; Beitz 2001). According to Meleto the global recession offers hope of a better capitalistic regime that will embrace a more socio-cultural method of politics that will also deal with the social injustices in the society. (2009). Word Count: 1,961 References Beckett, A (2005), ‘Branded for life’. (Review of Joseph heath and Andrew Potter’s the Rebel sell) Guardian, review section. P11. Beitz ,R C (2001), ‘Human Rights as a Common Concern ‘.American Political Science Review. Vol 95(2). Brown, W (2001), ‘Politics out of History. Princeton University Press. Hall S (1888a), ‘New ethnicities’. Kobena Mercer (Ed).Black film, British Cinema .BFI/ICA Documents 7, London: chapter 21 Hall, G and Birchall,C (2006), ‘new cultural studies adventures in theory’. Edinburgh; in Press. Joppke, C (2008), ‘Comparative citizenship: A restrictive turn in Europe?’Law & Ethics of Human Rights. Vol 2(1);pp 1-41. DOI 10.2202/1938-2545.1018. Laclau, E. (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time’. Vol 125,pp 197-8. London: Verso. Meleto A (2009), ‘Builder of dreams’. Published by Gawad Kalinga community development foundation. Philipines. Wood WA (1972), ‘The Marxian Critique of Justice ," Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1(3); pp, 244-282 Read More