Their fundamental assumption is that each person is a moral and rational being who deserves to be treated with dignity. They are called human rights because they are universal. Whereas nations or specialized groups enjoy specific rights that apply only to them, human rights are the rights to which everyone is entitled. Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights.
We had to ask ourselves, would we accept the actions of others if they were placed in our predicament. His philosophy mirrored the “golden rule” of doing unto to others, as you would have them do unto you. However, on the same note: one cannot base everyone’s actions on the actions of one person. These actions are used when determining moral right and wrong. Categorical imperative determines moral rights based off universalizability and reversibility.
Human rights are explained as some form of right due to a person in a social context because he is human . Looking at the concept of human rights from a historical perspective, it would be seen that it is neither entirely western nor so modern; rather it is the crystallization of values that are common heritage of mankind . The expression "Human Rights" denotes all those rights, which are inherent in our nature without which we cannot live as human beings. Human Rights being eternal part of the nature of human beings are essential for individuals to develop their personality, their human qualities, intelligence, talent and conscience and to satisfy their spiritual and other higher needs. Further it is described that the rights, which are natural and inherent for the life and happiness of every individual are called human rights.
Human rights are the basic rights, freedoms and protections that people are entitled to simply because they are human beings. They are thirty rights revolves around freedom, equality and justice. These rights should be given to everyone regardless of their race, sexuality, citizenship, gender, nationality, ethnicity, or abilities. The entitlements are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law and other sources of international law. The concept of making human rights is inalienable for every human beings led to create The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is a document that identifies the basic standards of living to be able to measure equality and fairness.
To discuss the possibility of universal human rights, we must consider the conditions it requires and what defines human rights. This is particularly important for distinguishing human rights from other kinds of rights – as what one person considers a human right; another might not consider a right at all. In this essay I will critically interpret the notion of human rights universality in the contemporary realm of global politics. Observing the merits and downfalls of this interpretation, I open the concept of universal human rights to challenge by grappling with the definition of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ human rights. In diverse world system increasingly characterized by transnational cooperation I will address the fundamental question of there being a human ‘right to politics’, or more precisely, if human rights require democracy.
(Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A) Communitarianism says that communities themselves define what rightful conduct is, and therefore should not be obliged to follow any universal moral code. Morality arises from the culture that makes up the community, and therefore determines what is right for that community, whether it is or not for anyone else. Communitarians say that there cannot be a universal moral standard because where would these standards come from? Who would decide what is right and wrong? However, the argument communitarianism can be turned against it if these communities are nation-states.
Critical Reading Commentary – Strand 1 Universality or relativity? That is one of the vital discussions in the debate of the concepts of human rights. In Jack Donnelly’s article The Relative Universality of Human Rights，he admitted that “universal human rights, properly understood, leave considerable space for national, regional, cultural particularity and other forms of diversity and relativity.” But he also noted that the relative universality is as a form of universalism. Those words showed that Donnelly endorsed the relativity of human rights in order to strengthen the idea of universality. On the other hand, Michael Goodhart disagreed with Donnelly’s theory.
Most people do not really understand the full importance of ethical thinking; there may be a different code of ethics throughout society but nevertheless the purpose remains the same. I believe the primary purpose of ethics is obviously to be able to distinguish good from bad behavior. Being able to make this distinction will pave the way for success or failure in a person’s life as to whether they can make conformed decisions. Everyone practices morals in some way whether they know it or not, they are implemented into every given situation. Ethics were put into place to be able to do the right thing in certain circumstances in order to maintain an honest and fair society.
Under political theory, there is cosmopolitanism and Rawls’ theory of social justice. Under rights theory, there is human rights. All of these specified topics give a different approach to ethics and how we might perceive what ethics are. The moral theories of Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics all try to explain to us why a certain action is right or wrong. The first of the moral theories is Utilitarianism.
Radical relativism focuses on how culture is a source of values for a region to which human rights considerations must be modified to fit values. Radical universalism, on the other hand, focuses on how all values are universal and therefore human rights are universal and not affected by cultural particulars. Because of these two views, it has been hard to determine how much culture, philosophy, religion, and world views matter in the quest to apply human rights globally. While there is the challenge of applying universal rights without disrupting cultures, there is also the challenge of trying to spread universal human rights to areas in the world where it might be more difficult to physically attain. For instance, it is easier to attain more human rights in 1st world countries than 3rd world countries.