Human Rights or Human Dignities?

Should either really exist?

Written By: John Seay 300374

Submitted For: Professor Prempeh

Submitted To: Siomonn Pulla

Class: 56.101

Date: November 21/01

Let me start off by saying that we as a society should not have Human Rights. For that matter neither should anyone else who lives in what is considered a western society. At the other end of the spectrum I feel that anyone who currently lives in an eastern society, should be stripped of all the Human Dignities that they currently posses. Why?. Its really as simple as this, since neither fully cater to all people, and all peoples needs, neither can ever really be beneficial to mankind. They will always continue to cause conflict. Throughout the rest of this essay I will give a brief background into Human Rights and how they benefit some and alienate others and what they find important. I will then give a brief background into Human Dignities and how they benefit the people who share them, but how western society could never adapt to them. In the last part of my essay I will try my best to give some sort of outline for what I think would be a reasonable solution that would incorporate human rights and human dignities, while benefitting everyone.

Human Rights. Laws in general seem to give the public feeling that they have human rights, simply because they are based around them. Since western society was in a sense built on laws and shaped by their imposement on us, we cannot picture a society where they do not exist. It is my feeling that laws and Human Rights go hand in hand. Human Rights in our society are based on what we as a people find important. Since we live in a Democracy it makes sense that our values are based upon civil and political rights. Western societies embrace the thought that we have a say in who rules our government, and laws they set forth.

The basic History of Human Rights is as follows. For many centuries the thought of Human Rights has existed, but the first documented case is the Magna Carta which, King John of England was forced to sign. The Magna Carta gave men certain rights which mainly involved excessiveness of taxes, land ownership, and the freedom to practice any religion. In the late 1700's two major occurrences took place that were a large stepping stone for Human Rights. In 1776, the United States declared independence, and in their constitution declared all men equal Later in 1789 France overthrew their government and enacted the Declaration of the Rights of Man. For the next many years the Human Rights movement seemed to build steam, as small activist groups seemed to form in favor of different rights. Perhaps the biggest event in Human Rights history was institution of The Universal Declaration of Human Right, which was voted into existence on December 10, 1948. The main reason for this having been put into existence was because of the war crimes that had been committed during world war II. After the insurrection of the Universal Declaration the Human Rights, the human rights movement grew even more, groups such as Amnesty International were formed with the simple intent of freeing those who had been unfairly imprisoned for trying to express their own thoughts.

Since the Human Rights Declaration is backed by most of the richest countries in the world, those who live in them seem to automatically think that this is the way things should be, and often try to force their way of life on others. This is not to say that the human rights theory is not a good one, because I truly believe that it is, however it is really better in theory than it is in action. The reason that I think that human rights would not work in an eastern society is because of their governments and their family structure. From what I have encountered the governments that seem to be denying their people human rights are not Democracies, but rather Communist governments and Dictatorships. The mere fact that we have different forms of government works against the thought they could ever adapt to our ways. If the government were to allow all of the people the same human rights as we have, many of the countries would have to change their styles of government because the people as individuals would have more power. The people who live in these countries also have different religious and moral beliefs, both of which sway what they strive for. These people don't care as much about their own individuality as they do for family values, and their culture. It seems to me that as long as their culture is protected they seem more than happy.

From what I have learned up to this point in time, Human Dignities are entirely different from Human Rights. As mentioned before, those who practice human dignities live mostly in an eastern society. In this society, the importance shifts from civil and political rights, to economic, social and cultural. People care about their group rights, they care about family, their underlying problems are mainly starvation and disease, because the people have no control over the government and where their money goes.

To speak of there is no real history behind human dignities the way there is in human rights. In time long ago the term did not even exist. The biggest problem to be addressed if one were to try and argue that human dignity is more realistic than a universal set of human rights is trying to define exactly what dignities are. We know that human rights are rights that all humans have. Dignities on the other hand must be looked at in a more philosophical point of view. One could argue that we are human and therefore are worthy of respect, and from that respect comes dignity. Human rights as we see them are inalienable, however people are capable of doing things that cause them to lose dignity, and so if dignity can be lost, it can certainly be taken away, and that serves to benefit no one. If we go back far enough there are arguments that say that dignity must be earned and is therefore bestowed upon no man, and produces the same problem as in the last argument. The reasons that a western society could never adapt to this is that we have become too accustomed to being born with rights and possessing those rights regardless of what happens. The way I see it, if we were to live in a society dominated by dignities as apposed to rights, we would actually have to work to strive for those dignities, which is in a sense wrong because nobody can tell someone else that they are ready for dignity.

Those are the two main sides of the argument that this paper set out to explain, and with that, the last part will try to give some sort of explanation as to what the world community could do to try and solve this dilemma. Let me just state that this is merely suggestion, and is only based on what information I currently know about each side of the argument. The first thing that needs to be done is the abolishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As much as we probably hate to admit it, the Universal Declaration probably does just as much harm as it does good. If anything we have abused it and used it as a tool to let us enforce our ideas on others different that ourselves, and essentially bully them around. We need to re-adjust our society so that we can change and adapt. The next thing that needs to happen, is that those countries that believe in human dignities need to learn to compromise on some of the subjects that they disagree. At the same time though, they must know that we are not trying to change them as people, but rather make circumstances better for everyone. After this, and only after this can we constructively try and build a document that will apply to all societies, that will not discriminate, and that will not alienate the very people that we are trying help and protect. As politically incorrect as it may sound, there will be times when the rights and dignities of the few must be violated to make all of this possible.

In closing, this paper has greatly broadened my view on rights and dignities. This unfortunately is not necessarily a good thing, rather it has helped me come to the realization that there is a good chance that all people may never agree on a system of rights and dignities. Human Rights have so many good points when it comes to the governing of our countries and allowing people their rights. Dignities on the other hand keeps society closer together, no one is in need of their own voice, but rather everyone is content just to be proud and being seen as one big voice. There are simply too many factors to take into account that all seem to dispute each other at one point. Religion draws that line between western family system and that of many eastern family types. Governments will not soon decide to end there ways and join up with the other side because they suddenly realize that their rules and technics are unjust and oppress certain groups. And finally wars will not cease to exist merely because western society wishes that little Vahid in Iran had his freedom of speech, and eastern society would like to see us redeem our family values. Sometimes people just can't compromise, as sad as that may be, that's life, and sooner or later we will just have to deal with it as best we can.

Bibliography

1.