Human Beings Possession of Equal and Inalienable Rights - Essay Example

Running Head: Human Beings Possession of Equal and Inalienable Rights Name Institution Course Date Traditionally, human rights were thought as being moral rights. Rights exists both domestically and at an international level and in most cases are created by judicial decisions and legislative enactment. Entitlements attributed to persons by virtue of being Homo sapiens and setting of minimal standards pertaining how individuals should be treated are set by these two decision bodies. Rights are given high priority and are morally enforceable claims existing to protect legal, social, and political interests and dignity of people as human beings. In referring to rights, people usually mean the category of rights that are universal, equal and inalienable. It is assumed that all human beings possess same entitlements, their rights to be universal taking into account that human beings are to enjoy them. It is imperative to note claims stating human rights as equal, universal and inalienable is disputed. There exist groups who reject the idea of universal, natural, equal and inalienable rights because of their claim as a western assumption that morality exists independently of culture (Chappell, Chesterman, & Hill, 2003). The argument of these relativists points out that since there is no considerable disagreement as to what encompasses moral behaviour between cultures, there exist no basis for universalist claim that existence of rights applicable to people all the time are there. This essay will evaluate critically the proposition of all human beings possession of equal as well as inalienable rights entitlement regardless of any aspect such as colour, race, religion, opinion, national origin or language. Donnelley (2003) asserts that no matter how badly human beings are treated or how badly we behave, people cannot simply “stop being human” and hence human rights are considered inalienable. Human rights are universal rights because all people are considered members of Homo sapiens species and thus they are human rights holders. Others are of the opinion that some rights are rendered alienable by bad behaviour and the simple logic of being human is usually not enough. Distinction between acquired rights or those created by legislative enactment and natural rights are usually made. A right imposes obligations and permits actions to individuals; a right is therefore an entitlement requiring individuals to act in a certain manner and at the same time have others behave toward us in a certain way (Chappell et al., 2009). Human rights are used in referring to a wide variety of values thought to protect human interests or enhance the human agency which are declared as universal in character. They are claimed equally to all present and future human beings. These rights belong to individuals or groups of individuals because of being human, or as a requisite for a just society, or because of human inherent vulnerability (Weston, 2014). Human beings all over the world require realisation of their various diverse values in ensuring the collective and individual well-being are achieved. Through membership in a family, religion, community, class, indigenous nation or state, people acquired responsibilities and rights throughout much of mankind history. The Bible, Koran, Analects of Confucius, Code of Hammurabi belonging to Babylonians, and the Hindu Vedas are the written oldest sources that addresses questions concerning people’s rights, responsibilities and duties (Beitz, 2011). The proposition entitling all human beings to equal and inalienable rights regardless of such factors as race, religion or language is contained in the article 2 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that everyone without distinction of race, language, religion, race, social or national origin, political opinion, property or birth status are entitled to all human rights and freedoms (United Nations, 2014). It set common standards for achievement of nations and individuals universal rights. Equal and inalienable human rights came up as a result of philosophical debate that characterised the colonial descendants and the European societies spanning more than two decades. The argument has since focused on searching for political organization and behaviour moral standards that is separate of contemporary society. Contemporary human rights were achieved as a result of thinkers and political philosophers raging debates that paved way for human rights emergence out of natural rights tradition. There were those who object to this notion arguing that rights could only come from a particular society law and not any other inherent or natural source (Donnelly, 1999). In 1945, United Nations was founded and United Nations General Assembly adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights that replaced the expression of natural rights to human rights (Weston, 2014). The natural rights phrase was in 19th century fell out of favour because of the natural law concept controversy with the legal positivism rise that rejected the proposition by Roman Catholic Church that a law should be moral in order to be a law. In addition, rights of man phrase were replaced and it was not universally understood as including women rights. Human beings have come to demand more respect and equality in the way they are treated by individuals, societies and governments. Human rights groups and non-governmental organisations has and still calling for fair treatment of all individuals regardless of race, religion, personal opinions or any other facet. Human conduct was judged in ancient Rome and Greece contained in the Stoics doctrines according to law of nature (Weston, 2014). Stoicism contributed largely to natural law formation and spread hence Roman law allowed natural law existence and certain universal rights extending beyond citizenship rights. Natural rights became associated with natural law after Middle Ages period, which is 5th century Roman Civilization collapse and Renaissance period (beginning of 13, 14, or 15th centuries depending on European region). Natural law doctrines mainly concern with the duties rather than man rights in medieval and Greco-Roman times. Moreover, these doctrines recognized serfdom and slavery legitimacy but excluded freedom and equality which have become important ideas in understanding of human rights today. Equal as well as inalienable rights idea because one is simply human was a feature absent in traditional Islamic, African and Asian and Western societies (Forsythe, 2009). In the ancient Greeks, they practised slavery and foreigners and citizen women were denied basic rights. It was also a foreign concept to Athens, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Aeschylus and Thucydides that equal and inalienable rights should be bestowed to every individual. Much is also true of both empire and republic of ancient Rome. Universality of Christianity and spiritual egalitarianism expressed itself deeply in medieval Europe where the idea of having equal and inalienable human rights would have been viewed as moral abomination-transgression against the God’s order , had it been contemplated seriously (Forsythe, 2009). If today’s world of social and liberal democratic welfare states could be the medieval Christian world characterised by serfdom, hereditary aristocracy and crusades, it is hard to imagine where similar transformation and development of universal human rights that has been achieved could be conceivable. Nothing in the medieval culture predisposes Europeans to develop ideas relating to human rights. New Testament adherents had no issues with slavery and in the Old Testament; people were specifically chosen by God. In the light of this, there are no widely endorsed Christian scriptures reading that supported the notion of having broad sets of individual equal and inalienable rights that all Christians held. Pre-modern societies had the equal and inalienable human rights idea and practice because of the few anthropological universality advocates (DeLaet, 2006). In most cases, attempts were being made to point out to the universality of justice and fairness values. It is of great importance to note at this point that some states and nations were before the emergence of modern societies responded directly or otherwise to the pernicious and false notion that ideas of human rights are Western in substance. They therefore have limited validity. The real issue that should be identified is whether there exist any cultural impediments to the adoption of human rights in parts of the world other than western world. Anthropological universality advocates are continually insisting that every cultural tradition have for a long time held values that today we refer to as human rights. The cultural traditions that they held thus provided powerful resources that people around the globe could use in adopting human rights ideas. It is a not mostly controversial claim that no consensus has been found on the claim. No society, culture or civilization prior to late 17th century had widely endorsed or practice the idea of having equal and inalienable rights (Forsythe, 2009). Even so, human rights meaning was rarely discussed and there is no consensus in its meaning even in the present time. Human rights meaning is contested and there is no agreed universal meaning. This may be partly due to absence of human rights universal foundation. Human rights principles are widely accepted but nature and scope of these rights as well as their definition is widely contested and no complete agreement. Inalienable and equal human rights proposition is not universally accepted. This is because the understanding and genesis of these rights is not in unison (Freeman, 2011). The context and nature in which these human rights are both to be observed and treated is something yet to acquire conclusive answers. All human beings are claimed to possess at birth inalienable and equals rights regardless of whether he or she is black, white, Indian or Mongolian; religion being professed; or the language spoken but basic questions concerning these rights have not receive substantial answers until today. These questions include whether these rights possessed by all human beings are to be seen as moral, legal entitlements, or divine; whether validation will be done by culture, social contract, custom, intuition, human dignity achievement, prerequisites for happiness, or as distributive justice principles; and whether its understanding is in irrevocable or as partially revocable context (Weston, 2014). Human rights meaning can be categorised into two; bare human rights and legal human rights. Bare human rights are those necessary for human life bodily survival while the legal human rights obscures bare human rights existence (Mooney, 2012). Legal human rights have a defensible foundation because of its universality. Meaning and legitimacy of human rights is facing a crisis with legal, political and social consequences brought about ironically by the law. Equality of fundamental human rights such as inalienable and equal human rights is regarded as a weighty issue by the United Nations and they advocate for treatment of individuals equally regardless of religion, race, genotype of origin and language. These rights are contained in United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 1 to 30 (United Nations, 2014). Fundamental human rights contained in this United Nations charter has not be fully achieved in all parts of the world as it was intended by its creators. Racial prejudices, segregation in terms of religious lines, political opinions, colour, national origin is still practiced and the claim that basic and fundamental human rights belongs to all Homo Sapiens equally have never been fully realized. These rights is understood widely to belong to all human beings by nature and mere membership as part of human species, without any special qualification according to wisdom, intelligence, virtue, genetic endowment, health, strength, or beauty differences (Dyson, 2007). The declaration in the United Nations charter is itself universal and all human beings all over the world are required and entitled to claim these rights. In the modernised and international perspective, they are referred to as natural rights acquired at the time of birth in distinction of any status be it race, language, origin or any other characteristic. Human rights are inalienable, universal and equal; interrelated; interdependent and indivisible. Everyone is born and they immediately possess the same rights hence universality of human rights regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, place of residence or religious faith. . Human beings are thought as possessing inalienable rights because these rights cannot be taken away from them. Interdependent and indivisible because all human rights-social, cultural, economic and political are important equally and there is none which can be enjoyed fully without the others. Universal Declaration of Human rights specifies minimum conditions in which human being can have a dignified life regardless of where an individual lives, place of birth, social or national origin (Donnelly, 2003). It sets standards sometimes even the wealthy people regularly fall short of. The origin of the person is not important and no matter where he or she chooses to live, equal and inalienable human rights are possessed by them. In conclusion, inalienable and equal rights set universal standards that extend beyond a specific society. They can thus be used in judging any society forming a benchmark in which governments or individuals from a given society can criticize the norms that are followed by other cultures or governments. It may be legitimate for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, democracies, socialists, or capitalists to censure each other with human rights acceptance all over the globe (Forsythe, 2009). This criticism across political, economic or religious divides gains legitimacy out of universal moral standards enshrined by human rights. One is therefore left to assert that their way of thinking as compared to somebody else’s thinking is better in absence of human rights which are fully universal. The Universality of human rights is stressed more by the United Nations since the inception of Universal Declaration of Human rights. References Beitz, C. R. (2011). The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chappell, L. A., Chesterman, J., & Hill, L. (2009). The politics of human rights in Australia. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press. DeLaet, D. L. (2006). The global struggle for human rights: Universal principles in world politics. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth. Donnelly, J. (1999). Human rights, democracy, and development. Human Rights Quarterly, 608-632. Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Dyson, R. W. (2007). Natural law and political realism in the history of political thought: From the Seventeenth to the Twenty-First Century New York [u.a.: Lang. Forsythe, D. P. (2009). Encyclopedia of human rights: Vol. 1-. New York: Oxford University Press Freeman, M. (2011). Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Mooney, A. (2012). Human rights: Law, language and the bare human being. Language & Communication, 32(3), 169-181. United Nations (2014) The Declaration of Human Rights [Online]. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (Accessed on 30th April 2014). Weston, B.H (2014) human rights [Online]. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275840/human-rights (Accessed on 30 April 2014). Read More