Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Human Rights: Eurocentric Or Universal?  
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

Based on another thread (the one about the two gay teenagers having been hanged in Iran), one A.netter posted that human rights are a Eurocentric invention and are depending on culture, so therefore it should be acceptable to enslave, kill or torture people, just because it is traditional in a certain region.
Here is the UN Declaration of Human Rights from 1948, which all UN members have to sign and to adhere to:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

"PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

"

Jan

Edit:
Here is the full text of the UN Declaration of Human rights:
Article 1.

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.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

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.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Jan

[Edited 2005-07-23 01:06:18]

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Thread starter):
so therefore it should be acceptable to enslave, kill or torture people, just because it is traditional in a certain region.

The fewer people competing for my food and my childrens food the better. These countries want to look like assholes and morons by killing their own people; let them have at it for all I care. So long as I don't directly cause the death of someonelse in a foreign country, I'm sleeping VERY well tonight...


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 911 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

>> Based on another thread (the one about the two gay teenagers having been hanged in Iran), one A.netter posted that human rights are a Eurocentric invention and are depending on culture

I wouldn't call it Eurocentric at all. The first time I can remember any world leader articulating anything resembling 'human rights' would be Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points. Self-determination, peace, freedom, etc, etc. In my opinion, human rights are more Wilsonian than anything...

Not to mention, it was Woodrow Wilson who was the primary empetus for a global organization (i.e. League of Nations) that later gave rise to the United Nations.

>> so therefore it should be acceptable to enslave, kill or torture people, just because it is traditional in a certain region.

Great example of cultural relativism, but that's one ethical system I'm willing to categorize as bullshit. There's nothing acceptable about genocide even if the Hutu's think they're just killing the cockroaches.

I would definitly call 'human rights' a universal right that should be enforced or striven for by the leading western democracies like the U.S, EU, etc, etc.

>> The fewer people competing for my food and my childrens food the better.

Oh whatever...  Yeah sure

[Edited 2005-07-23 01:14:16]

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Obviously the Declaration of Human rights is the result of the various genocides and massacres in world in the 1930s-1940s. People were especially shocked by the work of the Nazis and the Japanese, as well as from what was heard about the Soviet Gulags. Also massacres, like the one of Turkish done to the Armenians played a role.

Jan


User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

Wow MD11engineer, I was just about to start more or less the same thread, also because of the Iran teenagers thread. I was going to call it: Religious tolerance versus other kinds of tolerance.

Here's what I was busy writing, since you beat me to starting the thread:

I believe strongly in religious and cultural tolerance, but the thread about two teenagers killed by Iranian Sharia sentencing for being Gay brought up a dilemma I often think about: those who preach tolerance often find themselves torn, where the rights of various groups seem to clash with the right to religious freedom. (Sometimes it is advocates of women's rights versus advocates of the right to practice certain cultural or religious beliefs; other times the rights of women versus the rights of unborn babies as perceived in many religious traditions; sometimes it is even the rights of ANIMALS versus the right to practice religious slaughter traditions, etc. etc)

The specific reactions in the Iran thread pitted those who privilege universal tolerance for homosexuality against those who privilege what they see as universal religious or cultural tolerance.

Of course, in each of our thinking, one must always win out. For me, the answer there is simple and clear. I'm appalled by the murder of these kids, and I believe that this sentence violates basic human rights dictated by nature. Religious tolerance, and anti-imperialism, should not extend to cases in which human rights are violated, whether in the US or anywhere else. (As an aside, however, I don't think that we should DIRECTLY intervene in the Iranian government--in fact I'm sure that our recent bellicosity and even just the threats of intervention in Iran played a role in spurring the reactions that brought the hardliners back to power in the elections last month...and I can't even begin to fathom the extent to which starting another war in that part of the world would hurt everyone involved rather than helping... I do however believe--as a couple people asserted in that thread--that all forms of pressure should be put on Iran by the international community through cooperation to change these policies.)

I think Jaysit (as always) hit the nail on the head:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 89):

We constantly hear about how those who are progressive and support individual civil liberties should accord equal credence to the antidiluvian views of those who would prefer to subjugate individual rights to hideous religious laws. We hear this from right wing Christian conservatives in the US, and from Islamic fundamentalists in Holland.

Sorry. Logic and decency and do not dictate that my tolerance should extend to the intolerant. My viewpoints allow the intolerant to live their lives without undue interference; their viewpoint denies us all that right.

To pan out to the broader dilemma though: In the end, there is no such thing as "universal tolerance." There will always be clashes between groups. It seems to me that the claim that ANY group has inalienable rights is based on imposing our own priorities on everyone else--this is just human. And I don't think there is any way around it. For me, the fundamental set of rights is basically in accordance with the UN declaration and organizations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

Note, for example, that people who claim that "imposing" tolerance or "Western" ideas of human rights is imperialism, and that they have a right to do what they want in other countries, are actually invoking a principle of sovereignty and post-colonial international law that they themselves would like to impose on others. But the idea that it is a human right not to be reprimanded (or historically: invaded/conquered) by foreigners who disagree with you is a fairly recent phenomenon. (And a good phenomenon, don't get me wrong, but still no more a "universal right" than the rights that those who invoke it to defend themselves are often violating)

I know where I fall, but how do others justify their ultimate decision to privilege one kind of "universal right" over another? (Many people base their ultimate priorities on their religious teachings. I don't and I'm curious how others think about this.)

[Edited 2005-07-23 02:22:23]


It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

Interesting question and clearly could spawn a lot of very lengthy essays (and a few moronic rants) but there are some questions I have to begin with.

I copied and saved the UN document and will read it offline. Perhaps I am cynical but I question the nature of these "rights."

First off I think we have an ethical, moral, or religious duty (take your pick) not to deny these "rights" to other people. It is just wrong.

That said, how is it that a baby being born somewhere in the world has these rights? Where did they come from? Did GOD grant them? (If so, will God guarantee them?)

Just at a glance, some of the rights will cost money to deliver. Who is the person born with the obligation to provide that money, or that service which costs money to deliver? Giving that person the obligation - isn't that an imposition of involuntary servitude and therefore a form of slavery?

I'm serious about those questions, not really Attila the Hun here.

Now I'll go and read the whole document then check back and see some responses here.

edit: P.S. I suspect, I fear that we have no rights at all, none! All we have are temporary historical advantages, all won by combat. Like I said, I may be a cynic.

[Edited 2005-07-23 02:17:41]


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

I am shocked and dismayed by the perversion of my previous statements.

It is not my assertion that the concept of human rights is Eurocentric - I do believe that the idea of human rights is universal. However, WHAT those rights actually are is by no means universal in practice, a UN Declaration drafted by a small group of nations and violated in part by nearly all notwithstanding.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Rights are relative however... a lot of people seem to forget that, particularly when spanning the gaps between different (to the point of alien) cultures.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 6):
It is not my assertion that the concept of human rights is Eurocentric - I do believe that the idea of human rights is universal. However, WHAT those rights actually are is by no means universal in practice, a UN Declaration drafted by a small group of nations and violated in part by nearly all notwithstanding.

What do don't understand about articles 2, 3 and 5?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Thread starter):
Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Jan


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I will respond in more detail tomorrow, but the basics of human rights are universal truths, and the cultural mores are simply regional habits.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
What do don't understand about articles 2, 3 and 5?

1. Sexual orientation has not been recognized universally as a protected status.

2. The death penalty is a legitimate punishment.

3. Is corporal punishment torture?

Just three things I thought of off the top of my head.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21080 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
Rights are relative however... a lot of people seem to forget that, particularly when spanning the gaps between different (to the point of alien) cultures.

When a country signs the declaration, they signify that they agree to be bound to it. If they don't agree with it, and want to be free to choose their own version of morality and human rights, then they have every right not to sign. But once they put their name on the dotted line, they are bound to uphold the declaration, whether it conflicts with their culture, religion, etc. or not.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 5):
That said, how is it that a baby being born somewhere in the world has these rights? Where did they come from? Did GOD grant them? (If so, will God guarantee them?)

I would think that they come from the same place that the US rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" come from. Be that God, the creators of the Declaration of Independence (which would in this case be the Declaration of Human Rights), or wherever. The document was created, it was signed by the nations of the world, and to me that implies that the various governments of those nations are bound to uphold those rights. So, in essence it would be the governments giving the rights to the people.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 10):
2. The death penalty is a legitimate punishment.

What does this have to do with anything? Articles 2, 3 and 5 are very similar, if not almost identical, to the US's Bill of Rights, and obviously the US sees no problem with the death penalty.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

The UN declaration was written in 1948, when homosexuality was still a taboo topic in the western world as well, and before the publication of the Kinsey and Masters-Johnson reports.

But this paper has to be signed by any country joining the UN. AFAIK, is e.g. Iran a UN member.
That this declaration has not been enforced due to opportunistic reasons mostly of the five permanent security council members, should not detract from the fact that it is in fact binding for all UN members.
BTW, there are similarities with the American Bill of Rights and the French revolutionary Declaration of Human Rights.

Jan


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 12):
That this declaration has not been enforced due to opportunistic reasons mostly of the five permanent security council members, should not detract from the fact that it is in fact binding for all UN members.

But it does indeed detract - an agreement is meaningful only if it is ultimately enforced by the parties.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
ts are relative however... a lot of people seem to forget that, particularly when spanning the gaps between different (to the point of alien) cultures.

Well, legal rights are.

However, rights don't always have to be enshrined in legal documents. They can be part of the cultural realm.


User currently offlineBhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 924 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

Sooooo....If a nation decides not to sign it, then what? Should the other nations "impose" the Declaration with the pointy end of an M-16 or AK-47? Some "right". We all seem to forget...humans do what humans do in cycles, look throughout history, same stuff different millennia.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 4):
But the idea that it is a human right not to be reprimanded (or historically: invaded/conquered) by foreigners who disagree with you is a fairly recent phenomenon.

"Fairly recent?" What about the Crusades? Look folks, we can attempt to be as nice an "civilized" as we want, but the reality is "rights" come from whoever is the strongest and richest...plain an simple. "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely". My belief is "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." And no, this is not an exclusive Christian philosophy.



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Quoting Bhill (Reply 15):
"Fairly recent?" What about the Crusades?

 confused 

Exactly, that just seems to SUPPORT my point, that historically groups of peopla and nations have invaded each other without a concept of the right to be left alone culturally or religiously.

How do the crusades contradict this?



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineWorldVoyager From Canada, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Historically, the UN Declaration was nothing more than a shifty political stunt at the end of WWII and at the dawn of the Cold War. It was just a bunch of contradicting compromises born out of Western ideology. It helped, of course, that an enormous part of the non-Western world at the time was under Western power. Some of the articles, such as the socialist policies of Articles 22, 25, and 26 are blissfully off course from the topic of "universal human rights". If countries the world over had really taken the Declaration seriously, would they have ever agreed to ideas such as Article 21's democracy? Hardly.

The UN Declaration is just a rehashing of Western liberal ideas that historically date to events such as the Englightenment, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. There is no doubt that if the United Nations had not been born in Europe and North America but in a totally different culture (let alone political structure) such as Russia or China or a Masai tribe or the Australian Aborigines, the Declaration's tone and layout would have been strikingly different because of cultural and especially, religious differences. After all, the whole concept of universal human rights implies that there is a higher power or ideal of sorts who/that is endowing them, and the different cultures, religions, and values of different parts of the world assure that there are exist several different but linked versions of definitions of what these human rights are.


User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 5):
First off I think we have an ethical, moral, or religious duty (take your pick) not to deny these "rights" to other people. It is just wrong.



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 5):
P.S. I suspect, I fear that we have no rights at all, none!

How did you get from point A to point B there? Any follow-up thoughts?

Quoting WorldVoyager (Reply 17):

Historically/anthropologically I agree with you; but, though I struggle with these ideas (as you can see from my rather convoluted first post above), I do conclude that wihtout a concept of human rights we cannot have any moral system at all, and I believe that the Enlightenment-derived system we are left with as part of international law is the best there is.



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2536 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

It all looks really good on paper....but if the UN wasn't such a scape goat organization, maybe half the things they've been solving on paper, would be solved in the real world....

some comments by certain americans on this forum worry me, several generations ago, your ancestors came off boats from basically all over the world.....be careful, you might be insulting your own family line...



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Report On Qatar's Human Rights Abuses posted Tue Jun 27 2006 13:42:34 by Dtwclipper
Human Rights Violations In Saudi Arabia. posted Thu Jun 8 2006 09:38:38 by Himmat01
Inside Iran: Human Rights Records posted Wed Mar 29 2006 18:15:50 by Aleksandar
Sarcasm, Western Or Universal Concept? posted Tue Aug 2 2005 06:22:24 by AGM114L
China Rates U.S.A. Human Rights Record posted Fri Mar 5 2004 03:10:49 by Photopilot
Saudis To Host Human-rights Conference posted Thu Jul 3 2003 11:34:37 by Keesje
Human Rights Lawyer Brings Charges Against US posted Wed Apr 30 2003 22:20:31 by I LOVE EWR
Human Rights Perspective On War With Iraq posted Sat Mar 15 2003 21:53:58 by SKYSERVICE_330
UN Picks Libya To Head Human Rights Commission posted Mon Jan 20 2003 22:01:57 by Cfalk
Human Rights Group And Suicide Bombers posted Sat Nov 2 2002 09:09:40 by Jwenting