First Generation of Human Rights: An Epistemological and Ontological review 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 fact that epistemological and ontological perspectives are used, is not fortuitous. Despite this …show more content…
Both documents ignore the core components of societies as its core values, how knowledge is constructed, the multiplicity of roles, the relationships among members, the relation with authority, etc… Therefore, these sets of rights seem to be well-intentioned socio-political assumptions rather than setting a “framework” for human dignity, they are exhorting populations to an unachievable living standard due to economic, social, political and cultural constraints. The fact that they are claiming “universality”, makes a blurred construction of the phenomena of …show more content…
However, is more relevant to mention an actual case, where hybrid epistemologies have worked. For instance, the EZLN 1994 uprising, had a manifesto, which mentioned human dignity within tzeltales logic, in which rights exist in their exercise; while they are practiced and needed in order to achieve an equitable and inclusive society. This manifest, rather than entitling universal rights, entitles “pragmatical” rights, that should be exercised when they are needed, since it assumes, that at some point, through social and cultural practices, an equitable and sustainable society might be possible (Goodale & Merry: 2007). One of the main premises defended in the abovementioned document is (and based n that conception on human rights) “Another world possible; a world where all worlds can fit”. To sum up, if we cannot find a reconciliation between “the essential sameness” and the “essential difference” (Goodale: 2009). These two constructs, have the same roots; both are based on how people encounter and experience similarities and differences among “ourselves” and “themselves”. If we are not able to find a synthesis (in the Hegelian sense) on different epistemologies, we will not be able to set an ontological polisemantic framework, that rather than being universally valid might be internationally applicable, inclusive and
Personal identity, in the context of philosophy, does not attempt to address clichéd, qualitative questions of what makes us us. Instead, personal identity refers to numerical identity or sameness over time. For example, identical twins appear to be exactly alike, but their qualitative likeness in appearance does not make them the same person; each twin, instead, has one and only one identity – a numerical identity. As such, philosophers studying personal identity focus on questions of what has to persist for an individual to keep his or her numerical identity over time and of what the pronoun “I” refers to when an individual uses it. Over the years, theories of personal identity have been established to answer these very questions, but the
The Constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the newly formed United States government. But, what of the rights and obligations of its citizens? Starting in 1791 only two years after the Constitution was ratified the Constitution began to evolve and this process continues to this day. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights outlines the protections which citizens have from the government of the United States. The question raised in the title of this paper is; Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago still relevant today? Of course they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact we will examine each of the ten amendments rewrite each one using common everyday language of today and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. With out the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
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...
According to Hannah Arendt, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history”. (Arendt, 290). She begins her thesis by making this affirmation. However, throughout her essay, she further develops the idea that this “Declaration of the Rights of Man” has been questioned ever since then, because of the fact that these human rights don’t really appear to be implemented over a numerous amount of human beings. This “turning point” which Arendt refers to, indicates that when human rights were first conceived, they stated that only the nation worked as the law, and neither the divine law nor anything else had power over them. This was the moment when control over these rights was lost, since there is a deficiency in the precision of who really has the rule of law over them, if not even the human authorities have been able to manage the “universality” they are supposed to express. Hannah Arendt’s explanation on the human rights article called “The
The quality of uniqueness and the singularity of each human being is a fundamental characteristic of humanity. In describing uniqueness, Heschel explains how man occupies a unique position of being both a natural and a human being. Though as a natural being, man is “determined by natural laws”, he, as a human, has the freedom of choice and the ability to make decisions (37). Ultimately influenced by decision-making, the course of a man’s life is subject to change and cannot be predicted. Human existence is comprised of an unlimited number of events that cannot be replicated, making it inherently unique (37). While people may come from similar circumstances, each man is an original. Every man has a distinct face and name, beliefs and experienced events that are completely singular. Uniqueness is the most constitutive trait of human existence as it reflects the fundamental nature of humanity -- that no two people are the same and that no two people will be shaped by experiences in the same way. All other attributes of humanity flow
As presented in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the aim of Life is to free itself from confinement "in-itself" and thus to become "for-itself." Not only does Hegel place this unfolding of Life at the very beginning of the dialectical development of self-consciousness; Hegel characterizes self-consciousness itself as a form of Life and even refers us to the development of self-consciousness in the Master/Slave dialectic as an essential moment in the fulfillment of this aim of Life to become 'for-itself.' The following paper delineates this overlooked thread of the dialectic. The central thesis is that each step along the path of self-consciousness' attempt at making the truth of its unity with itself explicit, is simultaneously a step in the realization of the aim of Life: to become 'for-itself.' In the review of the Master/Slave dialectic, it reveals itself that the necessary condition for the fulfillment of Life's aim lies in work. Yet...
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.
The priority and absoluteness of rights are very often the subject matter of ethical debates. We can mention some articles which deal with it from different points of view (for example, the articles of T. Nagel, A. Gewirth, R. G. Frey, D. T. Meyers, L. E. Lomasky, P. Pettit, M. Philips, J. O. Nelson, F. Schauer, T. Machan and others).(1) I shall concentrate on these issues through my ethical theory entitled "ethics of social consequences" (ESC). "Ethics of social consequences" is one of the forms of satisficing non-utilitarian consequentialism. A core of that ethical theory is represented by the principles of positive social consequences, humanity, human dignity, legality, justice, responsibility, tolerance as well as moral obligation. Therefore, humanity and huma...
Tasioulas believes that two things that will help explain the criteria for rights lies in possibility and burden. This saying that it is understood that there are cases that interest cannot fulfill duty for many reasons, but it needs to be met at times to let human interests further contribute to human rights. If it is possible to meet the duties needed next you must consider the burden it places on the bearer and on the society as a whole. Tasioulas concludes, “if it can be successfully executed, the interest-based account of human rights promises to make sense of the phenomenon that eluded Wolterstorff: the status of the right-holder as the ultimate source of the moral claim embodied in his rights.” All this to say that there are foundations to human
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.
Therefore, it is clear to see that there is no set of human rights that are more important over the other because, each set of rights improves the other set of rights, in some cases you cannot have one without the other, and that if one were to emphasize the importance of one set of rights over the other then the rights that are being neglected will ultimately cause a society to deteriorate because this will negatively impact the development towards enhancing their human rights
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.
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.’
In early times, mankind was divided by races but as the Nations drew their boundaries, formal societies emerged comprising either of a common culture or cosmopolitan in nature. It is at this stage that differences amongst sections of the society emerged and came to be discussed about. As early as on 10 December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declaring “All human beings are borne free and equal in dignity and rights.” This document was a key in cementing the position of human rights in international law in the aftermath of World War II. It claimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind. Everyone is struggling for better quality of life yet the huge numbers of people across the majority...