Locke argued that all the persons, independent to their recognition by the state, possess natural or human rights. In other words, natural or human rights are non-visible properties of personhood. Locke further argued that people do not need government to furnish them their rights. The people hold human rights irrespective of the state, and simply because they are rational persons. Locke believed that the state exist to protect these right and therefore can be held accountable for such.
The definition of human rights is: “The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human+rights Human rights means being able to work where you’re qualified to work without your skin colour, race or religion being the reason you can’t; it means having the right to be human, that’s why it’s so important. “Human rights are concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our freedom to make choices about our life and develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear, Harassment or discrimination. There are a number of basic rights that people from around the world have agreed on, such as the right to life, freedom from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, rights to a fair trial, free Speech and freedom of religion, rights to health, education and an adequate standard of living.
We human beings need that fundamental happiness. Therefore, it could be said that society should not regard steadiness as the only common good and go extreme to preserve safety. Nevertheless, situations exist where people have to abandon some rights to be happy. Now, we can infer more by taking a look at the freedom of information. It seems very natural that freedom to know is one of the basic rights of us and therefore should be preserved with first priority.
What is human rights? According to the New World Encyclopedia Human rights are those rights that each person is entitled to simply because he or she is a human being. Human rights are guaranteed by law no matter one’s nationality and should not be violated by any state or none-state officials. The idea of human rights depends on the possibility that every individual has worth and nobility and in this way merits certain fundamental freedoms.  With the acknowledgement of these basic freedoms, each person can make their own decisions and form their own opinions without their rights of safety or security being violated or threatened by government or nongovernment bureaucrats.
Some believe that human rights should only encompass things that are necessary for the survival of a human; water, shelter, health, freedom and such. While others believe that human rights should also encompass education and work topics (Jones, 2006). Furthermore, there are some who believe that there should be a set of basic or fundamental human rights that are universal, but that each country or society has the right to implement any other human rights that they think are required within their group (Talbott, 2005, p 3-4). This is important to consider while discussing the development of human rights, this is because the countries that are leading the development of views on universal human rights have similar
Since it has been established that some form of government is needed for societal organization, the question of how liberty is most fully recognized becomes tied to what degree governments should intervene in the lives of its citizens. In a very broad sense positive liberty constitutes freedom to – achieve self-realization, or act as one wants; w... ... middle of paper ... ... Beyond the regulation of the economy the government should also support individual development through funding or subsidizing different activities such as education, welfare, and health care. This notion supports the idea of the equality of opportunity which provides an equal chance for all people to advance in life, regardless of their situation, to achieve an outcome of equality where there is an equal distribution of wealth, income, power, and other goods. (63).
First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions." Hence, right from the beginning, Locke places the right to possessions on the same level as the right to life, health, and liberty. We can say that Locke conceived all the natural rights as things which an individual brings with him from birth, and consequently as indefeasible or inviolable claims upon both society and government. Such claims can never be justly set aside, since society itself exists to protect them; they can be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to give them effective protection. In other words, the “life, liberty and estate” of one person can be limited only to make effective the equally valid claims of another person to the same right.
In the beginning of Universal Human Rights In Theory and In Practice, Jack Donnelly states that having a right includes being entitled to something. “To have a right to x is to be entitled to x...And if x is threatened or denied, right-holders are authorized to make special claims, that ordinarily trump utility, social policy, and other moral or political grounds for action” (Donnelly). Human rights, therefore, are entitlements that people have as a result of being human. Since no human is theoretically born with the entitlement to higher rights compared to others, these human rights are universal. Donnelly's concept of “universal human rights” focuses on the governmental side of this, where he elaborates on how human rights are universal because
It also does not promote exclusion of religion from ethical systems, but rather promote integration for both. However the book implies that human can manage without religion but not without inner values. In our globalized and diverse world, people in all walks of life with different views, cultures, background and religions coexist in close proximity with one another. It is vital to honor and respec... ... middle of paper ... ...her people. In contrast, the advantage that I see in secular ethics is that it first helps us realize that we all common with each other.
Complete universalism cannot be applied in the case of the military. The influence of relativism can undermine human rights, but is acceptable if used for the right reasons. In the matters of safety and national security, relativism can and should be applied to the rights of those sworn to protect. In the issue of displaying religion through traditional garb, civilian peoples should enjoy the right universally, while national security forces and active military should be restricted. Civilians have the privilege and duty to display their culture and religion towards the purpose of obtaining universal acceptance for religious freedom.