Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction for human rights essay
Introduction for human rights essay
Introduction for human rights essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction for human rights essay
1. Introduction to Human Rights Human rights as we think of them today, are similar to how President LS Senghor presented them in his Opening Address at the Dakar African experts meeting in 1979: “Malcolm Adiseshish proposed to us of development and human rights (and) corresponds to our own conception of development: ‘A form of humanism; a moral and spiritual fact, both material and practical; an expression of (humans) as a whole meeting (their) material needs (food, clothes, shelter) as well as (their) moral requirements (peace, compassion, freedom, charity) ...’. In this conception, development, the right of peoples, respects humans and their freedoms.” (Senghor, 1979) Today we also think of human rights as having developed in three generations based on the …show more content…
The civil society is a community of free human beings.” (Global Ethic Foundation, 2015) 2. Development of modern human rights Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) significantly introduced the idea of Liberty, Equality and Independence to human rights philosophy. This means that in an ideal situation, every man should be free to make his own decisions about all matters that affect him; that all men are equal; and that independence of thought and action were paramount to achieving individual (and thus society’s) happiness. (Shestack, 1998) John Rawls (1921-2002) developed the idea of human rights as justice and justice as fairness. He also developed the Original Position/Veil of Ignorance theory: the idea that the only way to ensure a fair system of laws was to blind the decision-makers as to their own identity and then for them to decide the rules of the society. This highlights very clearly the level to which human self-interest mars our ability to be fair. (Shestack,
After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher
Imagine that rational actor X has been charged with the responsibility of developing the guiding principles for a totaly new type of social contract for today’s society. Is there a way for actor X to perform this task in a truly equitable manner? Consider that “with respect to any complex mater of deep human importance there is n o ‘innocent eye’ —no way of seeing the world that is entirely neutral and free of cultural shaping.” 1 As an entrenched member of a particular culture the complete removal of personal biases and prejudices from within the human psyche is not possible; nonetheless, it would of course be necessary to take steps to at least minimize their effects. In his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice , John Rawls suggests that exactly this type of reduction is possible by figuratively stepping behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ int o what he labels the ‘original position’ —this paper is an introduction to the contractarian thinking of John Rawls and its relation to the original position as expressed in his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice.
Refuting in a few pages most of the recent human rights historiography, Moyn contends that modern human rights discourses exploded as late as in 1970s as opposed to the eighteenth century as argued by Hunt and early periods as many historians have said. Indeed, Moyn makes an important distinction between natural rights, which is what he believed the enlightenment project was concerned with and modern human rights. Moyn understands natural rights to be deeply bound to a state-structure power (Moyn, 20) and these were the rights the American, the French and even the insurgents in Saint-Domingue were defending. Natural rights had to do with rights which were guaranteed by a state thus were closely linked to the question of citizenships. Human rights, as it is today understood by various international lawyers and the general public transcend the state. Today’s human rights are (in theory) truly self-evident because they are possessed by all humans, everywhere irrespective of any other variables and exist (again in theory) beyond the state (Moyn, 27). This new understanding of rights came about in the 1970s when figures such as U.S. president Jimmy Carter made use of them in a political platform (Moyn, 154). In this sense, as other world “utopias” had failed by the 1970s, human rights appeared to be the “last hope” of humanity for a better
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
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. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society,. Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound. One strength is the inherent compulsion to look after the interests of the entire society through the Veil of Ignorance. One is unable to look after the interests of a single particular ethnic, political or social grouping because of uncertainty regarding which groups they will belong to within society, so they grant all individuals “freedom of thought, [religion], personal and political liberties”. This establishes a precedent of equality for all and ensures a fair standard of living.
Human rights has evolved over time and has thus made it difficult to identify and define what exactly human rights entails because it is so complex; therefore, human rights have been categorized into three generations of rights, each focusing on the different aspects of living a life full of peace and dignity. First generation human rights focuses on promoting political rights that include rights such as the right to vote and be elected, right of peaceful assembly, and the right to a fair and public hearing for those charged with a crime. First generation rights also concentrates on civil rights that include freedom from torture or cruel inhuman or degrading punishment, freedom from slavery, and freedom to leave any country. Meanwhile, second
In the context of enlightenment Kant believes that freedom is the best way to achieve enlightenment. Freedom accord...
For Kant and Luther, the question of human freedom and the amount individuals are at liberty of, if any, is determined in an effort to achieve high morality. However, it precisely the outlook that Kant deems fatalist which Luther argues for, that is, freedom through faith. For Luther, we do not posses the liberty required to live a moral life without God’s guidance. On the other hand, for Kant, the predestination that Luther argues for places individuals in a state of “immaturity” and therefore unable to achieve freedom to be moral. In contrast to Luther’s argument, for Kant self-determination, autonomy, and morality are closely related to his notion of human freedom.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19 [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
These basic freedoms grant people equality regardless of nationality, sex, ethnic origin, race, religion, or language. The best-known expression of human rights is in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, which proclaims that, “All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” A life free from discrimination is an elemental human right. Periodically, people require additional help to fulfill that time-honored
Over the past century, the basic principles associated with the concept of human rights and their universality have become an inextricable component of international and domestic affairs. As moral constructs, human rights help address societal factors on the human condition and continue to operate as the only viable framework in which human progress can be evaluated throughout the world. In this essay, I will examine the development of third-generation human rights within a unified hierarchical framework to describe how their implementation has impacted the advancement and procurement of other human rights.