I. Introduction Singapore frequently comes under criticism from the international community of states and non-governmental organisations for its violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in particular Article 19, which states that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ To justify these violations, Singapore has responded in one of two ways – either, it argues that the Declaration allows for states to impose restrictions on the absolute freedom of expression and that Singapore’s actions are an exercise of this provision, or, that the …show more content…
Donnelly sketches the connection in the following manner: all humans have an intrinsic moral worth, and owing to their moral nature, their humanity only flourishes when one lives a life of dignity. This results in the need for a system of human rights that ensures that a human being is never denied his or her humanity by being forced to live a life without dignity. Since what it means to lead a life of dignity changes with developments in the material and political world, human rights similarly contextualise themselves to protect individuals against anything that would force them to lead a life without dignity in their given …show more content…
The very notion of human rights is an acceptance of some degree of moral universalism, yet ‘[t]o insist that all human rights be implemented in precisely identical ways in all countries would be wildly unrealistic, if not morally perverse.’ Donnelly further divides the ‘concept’ behind an article in human rights from its ‘implication’, and attributes the universal aspect to the former while suggesting that we can take on a more relativist approach with the
Human rights are the rights in which all the human beings are entitled by virtue of their being as a human (Manchester University Press, 2001). The concept of the human rights itself is an abstract. However, when it is applied, it has the direct and enormous impact on the daily life of the people in the world. How the human rights applied in the broader circumstance is really having a long journey. Until in 1945, after the World War II, the United Nations (UN) was established as one of the effort to uphold the human rights to encourage the governments in promoting and guarding the human rights. Human rights are a central element of international law and also the UN Charter’s broad approach for the international peace and security
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
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
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
What seems to most like the debate of the West versus the rest, the debate of whether to enforce universal human rights of individuals (set forth in documents such as the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)) or to promote difference and recognize group rights, is as alive as ever in recent years thanks to intellectuals like Seyla Benhabib, Martha Nussbaum, Chandra Mohanty, Susan Okin Moller and Charles Taylor. The primary question behind this debate of universal legal principles versus group rights is whether or not a concept of universal justice exists. Benhabib, Nussbaum, and Alcoff believe that it does, while Mohanty does not.The more convincing arguments are put forth by Benhabib, Nussbaum, and Alcoff, who believe in universal principles of justice and also problematize, yet favor universalism over
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are
The aim of this paper is to provide a brief analysis of the First Generation of human rights. Without the purpose of being redundant, an Epistemological, Phenomenological and Ontological overview on how these rights were constructed is necessary, in order to holistically understand all the possible implications that they had, are having and will have when being implemented. Despite the central argument of “relativity” vis-à-vis “universality” would be mentioned, the core premises of the discussion will try to use analytical approaches rather than mere descriptive ones.
The idea of human rights has arguably been the most debated and controversial subject in history. Who gets them, what do they consist of, and how do we enforce such a subjective idea? Answers to these questions have been given tested by the greatest leaders and brightest philosophers, yet in modern times parts of society still contests what constitutes as a human right and who gets them. The six primary documents we read this past week allowed us an insight into how the idea of human rights has been discussed throughout time.
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.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
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.
Jack Donnelly, when making this distinction, set forth the criteria of universality, equality, and inalienability. Using his criteria, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the first human rights document, formed out of an overlapping political consensus after World War II (Donelly 25). Donnelly argues early on in his book, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, that in order for rights to be human they must be universal. He goes into more depth about the subject stating that humans obtain human rights merely because they are human beings. Therefore, by his definition of universal, since humans can never become anything other than human, human rights are also inalienable (Donnelly 10). Then there is paramount importance in accordance to the UDHR. This is where my view leads astray from Maurice Cranston. Cranston uses both paramount importance and universality when analyzing "human" rights, but claims the last ten articles of the UDHR are not of paramount importance. To be of paramount importance, it must relieve distress, but not provide pleasure. I argue that the last ten articles are of paramount importance because without them, for example the right to education, one may not be able to get a job provide for himself or herself and will constantly be distressed. Also, without having social interaction or the ability to think for oneself the individual would be being oppressed and could go
A general definition of human rights are that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled to, simply because there human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ The thought that human rights are universal emerges from the philosophical view that human rights are linked to the conservation of human dignity- that respect for individual dignity is needed regardless of the circumstance, leading to the notion that human rights are universal. The earliest form of human rights can be traced back to European history- the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen which says that men are born free and equal in rights.
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 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,