Rights, as we know them, are legal, ethical or social privileges that are owed to a people according to some official system, social convention or ethical theory. From the days of the Enlightenment era until modern times there has been a belief that these tenets are basic universal entitlements. Many reformers and scholars have discussed the particular details of what qualifies as a human’s right and how these rights should be protected extensively. Most of the views shared by these individuals are similar in theory but each view underscores a slightly different point so that their definitions and applied concepts vary. Regardless, these basic unalienable rights are seen as dominating conditions under which people live liberally and equally. …show more content…
At the onset of the French Revolution in 1789, a group of French non-nobles and clergy, known as the National Assembly and member of the Third Estate, published the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.” This document, written by the Marquis de Lafayette with the help of the philosopher United States Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, author of the United States Constitution, resembled the United States Constitution. In much of its prose and content the “natural rights of man” influenced it where all free people should be protected equally. This discussion of rights of the French citizen was outlined in its seventeen article and was thought to have been a core instigator of the French Revolution. Its preamble, in a similar style to that of the Declaration of Independence, only differed since did not call for a revolt. Instead it suggested that the seeds of corruption and national misfortune bloomed as a result of the disregard of the citizens’ natural rights. The authors believed that the source of the French Government’s debt and economic instability was a result of the King’s Louis XVI flippant attitude towards his subjects. Reform was necessary to protect its citizens. The …show more content…
In an essay written in 1793, titled a “Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind” he explained, that through the scientific advancement of society and its deviation from the strict religious beliefs of the Middle Age clergy, people were beginning to ask questions. Asking and being able to formulate an opinion based on one’s own reasoning, he explained, proved a person’s ultimate independence and was the main objective of human rights. The progress of equality within the nation itself, the day that only free people be born and the complete destruction of inequalities between the sexes were his beliefs. His opinion differed from that of Marquis de Lafayette because he appreciated that while it was appropriate for a government to offer security to those who fostered differing beliefs, it lacked genuine independence driving that entitlement. People should deduce intellectual knowledge based on their own reasoning. Nonetheless, it is difficult to know if Marquis de Condorcet wanted this belief added to the actual Articles because by telling the people that they should think independently he loosely was telling them that the rights they deserved were solely to be used for their own
The enlightenment ideas affected politics for both the French and the American peoples through the form of government and individual rights. Thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed in the individual right of man as a citizen of a sovereign nation. In 1789, Marquis de Lafayette used Rousseau and other free thinker’s ideas to draft his Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to the National Constituent Assembly in France (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoinette/revolution/america_france.html). This established universal rights for individuals that always existed at all times. The document shows many similarities to American documents such as the declaration of Human Rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For instance, they all show a relationship through the declaration of individual rights such as free speech and freedom of religion. However, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen focuses more on individualism while American documents focus more on a community “We the People” (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoin...
His argument was block by block and he started with explaining the common belief of what the “right to speak freely,” by quoting the well known saying by Voltaire “‘I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the right your right to say it.’” This is the definition that most people tend to agree with; however, after displaying the original definition he uses logic and rationale to deconstructs the ethics of people and depict the accurate interpretation of the “right to speak, “ by using tone, syntax, literary devices, and essay organization to give the most impactful article possible. By starting the the definition of the norm and ending with the true interpretation, “we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity.” By ending on this absolute note it creates a space for the readers to contemplate on his
The Declaration of the Rights of Man was formed and intended in 1789 by the National Assembly of France to be the very backbone for the constitution. This allowed the nation of France to become liberated and achieve a more secure and structured society by changing from that of an absolute monarchy to a more constitutional democracy. France sought to gain equality and freedom for all individuals; after being fed up with the constant corruption for so long. France managed to successfully obtain an equal nation and government, in which power was given to the people and not to some tyrannical or dictatorial figure.
When the King of England began to infringe on the colonists’ liberties, leaders inspired by the enlightenment grouped together to defend the rights of the American colonies. As Thomas Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence, “History of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States” (Jefferson 778). The citizens of France, inspired by the enlightenment, desired a government run by the people. Marquis de Lafayette wrote, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness” (de Lafayette 783).
In one corner we have a nation, fed up with the corruption and constant bullying of their big brother nation, seeking the approval of the world for a revolution. In the other corner we have a nation, bent on gaining the equality among all individuals in their state, coming together to lay down the law to their king. Both America and France had a thirst for a new equal nation and government in which power was given to the people and not to a tyrannical figure. Individuals from both of these countries sat down and wrote up a letter of declaration in demand of the freedom that they so rightfully deserved. Both of them won that freedom, as the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen flourished with success in the late 18th century. ‘How did these two important documents come about’ is the question we should be asking ourselves. What separated these two monumental letters from each other? What gave each of them their fire, their spark to gain their rights to liberty? America’s Declaration of Independence focused more on America gaining sole ownership of their nation, abolishing their connections with the British and their tyrant King George, and setting up their own government based on Natural law and equality among all men. France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen confronted the king on his neglect to the equal rights of man, laid down the basic principles of how the nation should be run, and proclaimed that the nation should be and is going to be run by the people for the people. With those key differences stated as well as several other small values, such as taxation, oppression, and security, my concern is how both methods worked so efficiently given their varianc...
The French Revolution was a tumultuous period, with France exhibiting a more fractured social structure than the United States. In response, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proposed that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments” (National Assembly). This language indicates that the document, like its counterpart in the United States, sought to state the rights of men explicitly, so no doubt existed as to the nature of these rights. As France was the center of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment ideals of individuality and deism are clearly expressed in the language of the document. The National Assembly stated its case “in
The fight for equality and human rights has been and still is a continuous battle played out on many fronts ranging from struggles between ruling governments and the people, the definition of societal roles and status, and also within the home on a domestic and individual level. The legacy for these battl...
The English Bill of Rights (1689) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) are roughly around the same period, in that it is possible to think the both documents share similar ideologies. To the thought’s dismay, it is not. Even if both documents start from the same question of taxation, the outputs vary enormously in that each has different aims: the English Bill of Rights (shortened as the English Bill from now on) only changes the crown and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (shortened as the French Declaration) changes the whole society. However, they are similar in that both strived for the representation of the masses.
In answer to the changes sought out by the rebelling French communities, Edmund Burke’s release of the “Reflections on the Revolution in France” in 1790 depicted the man’s careful denunciation of the destructive nature of the people. Concurrently, Thomas Paine published a direct response in the form of two volumes dubbed “The Rights of Man” between 1791 and 1792. But apparently, Paine was ready to support that risk. In conclusion, Thomas Paine’s views are more convincing than those of Edmund Burke, just because of their motives behind the same.
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.
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.
Written as the French Revolution was beginning, the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”was drawn up by the National Assembly to solidify the principles of the revolution. It boldly stated to the king and nobility of France that the people would actively take their rightful freedom and equality. The Declaration also included the relatively novel idea of inalienable rights. And like all treatises written during times of turmoil, they have a historic background driving its creation.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, composed by the National Assembly in August 1789, is one of the key texts of the French Revolution. The National Assembly, which composed the Declaration, was primarily populated by bourgeois members of the Third Estate. Though George Rudé’s assessment of the authorship of the document is correct, it implies that the ideals propagated and codified in the Declaration are solely bourgeois. The Declaration was constructed from basic tenants of Enlightenment thinking in the eighteenth century; equality, merit, popular sovereignty, and reason.
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.
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. A general definition of human rights is that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, simply because they are 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.’