According to Hannah Arendt, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history”. (Arendt, 290). She begins her thesis by making this affirmation. However, throughout her essay, she further develops the idea that this “Declaration of the Rights of Man” has been questioned ever since then, because of the fact that these human rights don’t really appear to be implemented over a numerous amount of human beings. This “turning point” which Arendt refers to, indicates that when human rights were first conceived, they stated that only the nation worked as the law, and neither the divine law nor anything else had power over them. This was the moment when control over these rights was lost, since there is a deficiency in the precision of who really has the rule of law over them, if not even the human authorities have been able to manage the “universality” they are supposed to express. Hannah Arendt’s explanation on the human rights article called “The …show more content…
The first is that “Since the Rights of Man were proclaimed to be “inalienable,” irreducible to, and undeducible from other rights or laws, no authority was invoked for their establishment…” (Arendt, 291). Additionally from this, Arendt also states that “The Rights of Man, supposedly inalienable, proved to be unenforceable… Although everyone seems to agree that the plight of these people consists precisely in their loss of the Rights of Man, no one seems to know which rights they lost when they lost these human rights.” (Arendt, 293). Finally, she shares the thought that “We are not born equal; we become equal as members of a group on the strength of our decision to guarantee ourselves mutually equal rights.” (Arendt, 301). These three statements made by the author Hannah Arendt can be further analyzed and applied to Little Bee in a very attention-grabbing
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, a Mass of people is a large body of persons in a group. In Chapter 10 of Hannah Arendt’s novel, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt broadly defines the term masses, as well as the mass individual. Before doing this, Arendt clearly distinguishes masses from classes and citizens. As Arendt notes, classes and citizens are part of a nation-state, which essentially represent themselves. Arendt claims that Totalitarianism movements are mass organizations of atomized isolated individuals. In this claim, there are many key features that define Totalitarianism as a political system.
For many people, the 1917 revolution heralded a new age, much as the French revolution had. But instead of bringing on an age of secular republics, and liberalism, it brought on an age of oppressive states based on the Soviet Union’s model of government. To the untrained 20th century eye, the 1917 revolution’s model of state organization was something truly new, bizarre and intriguing. Yet, a brief synopsis of Russian history would quickly reveal that there were more similarities between the Soviet and Tsarist governments than Stalin or any other Soviet official would have cared to admit; the revolution was not as revolutionary as it seemed. This paper will use Hannah Arendt’s definition of revolution to demonstrate that the 1917 Bolshevik
The concept of authority is tied to an original source or a genesis that stands at the foundation upon which other structures are based on. This idea was offered a further credence by Hannah Arendt and her discussion on authority in the context of Roman experience. In her essay on ‘What is Authority’ Arendt argued that the word autoritas was coined from, a Latin verb augere or augment, and those in authority augment the democratic foundations of a state such as the ancient Roman polis. She argued that those who are in authority obtain their power by descent and by downward transmission from those who founded it. Coining from the political philosophies of Plato, Arendt argued that while the leaders amplified the foundations of authority, they are not the original creators. Rather, authority is based beyond the creation and control of rulers, kings, and philosophers, being analogous to natural laws or God’s commands. The mystical authority made it legit the exercise of power and the enforcement of obedience. Arendt sets an authority against both violence and non-violence by staging an opposition to authority as persuasion as well as coercion. Authority, neither entails the use of external force, so that,
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
“The more these things are discussed, the clearer it becomes, I think that we actually find ourselves here in a position between the devil and the deep sea” (Arendt 25). Hannah Arendt was a German born, American political theorist who wrote about topics ranging from totalitarianism to epistemology. Not only is Arendt famous for her eighteen books and numerous articles, but she is considered one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century. Through further analysis of Arendt’s article “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” I will critique her argument regarding what circumstances we are individually responsible for our actions and why.
The French Revolution was a period of time in which France underwent many changes, many which could be considered revolutionary. France’s whole system and way of being was completely changed. New ideas were proposed everyday. An idea is revolutionary when it is a new idea, when it is something that has never been thought of before. The Declaration of the Rights of Women written by Olympe de Gouges on September 1791, was one of the ideas proposed to the National Assembly (Hunt, Web 1). The document proposed that since the French Revolution was all about finding equality for all people, women should be equal to men and therefore, should have the same rights as men did. Women at the time live in terrible conditions. They had little access to education, and therefore could not enter professional occupations that required advanced education, were legally deprived of the right to vote, and were not considered citizens (Class Discussion Notes). If equal rights were not given to women, the French Revolution had not reached its full potential, according to Gouges. She expressed this idea in her document, saying, “This revolution will only take effect when all women become fully aware of their deplorable condition, and of the rights they have lost in society” (Gouges, Web). Anyone that questioned the Revolution was immediately put to death (Class Discussion Notes). If Gouges’ document and ideas were important enough to catch the attention of the National Assembly and for her to be put to death, her ideas could be considered important and revolutionary (Britannica, Web 1) But, the document was not revolutionary. The Declaration of the Rights of Women was not a revolutionary document because its ideas were taken from other people and were no...
Soyinka suggests that one of the most important ideas in history is the belief that every individual is born with certain fundamental human rights. His essay does not specifically delineate what those rights are; but one can judge from examination of the essay that they include freedom from slavery, freedom to live without anxiety or fear, and the right to knowledge. He postulates that throughout history, the primary struggles have been between those who wish to suppress the rights of others, and those who desire free...
Every day, people are denied basic necessary human rights. One well known event that striped millions of these rights was the Holocaust, recounted in Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night. As a result of the atrocities that occur all around the world, organizations have published declarations such as the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is vital that the entitlement to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, freedom of thought and religion, and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of themselves be guaranteed to everyone, as these three rights are crucial to the survival of all people and their identity.
A wise man once said “Man is only great when he acts from passion.” When you hear the word passion, the first thing that might come to your mind is something related to love, and you’re not entirely wrong. According to Merriam- Webster’s dictionary, passion is defined as a strong feeling of enthusiasm or excitement for something or about doing something or a strong feeling (such as anger) that causes you to act in a dangerous way. All in all, it is a strong feeling, be it happiness, sadness, anger or liberality. You can be passionate about many things such as love, sports, food, or intimacy. However, it can also mean having a strong yearning for something.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
Hannah Arendt’s book, The Human Condition, examines the “vita activa” and it’s relation to three fundamental human activities: labor, work and action. Arendt holds that these three activities “correspond to one of the basic conditions under which life on earth has been given to man” and make up politics (7). Throughout the book Arendt ultimately makes the point that our main political job is to discover other people’s opinions about political life and to then go forward and examine these opinions together. Differing viewpoints and opinions are inevitable and through politics we examine these opinions and should be able to find agreements within the discrepancies. In Arendt’s opinion examining opinions together is doing politics. In Arendt’s version of democracy people must find common ground about disagreements, not merely find any agreement to settle upon.
In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9).
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.