My blog posting will address two separate issues: first, the status of human rights in the first sentence of the Preamble (71); and second, the qualification of entitlement in the first part of the Article 2 (72).
I find this first sentence of the Preamble perplexing. The emphasis in this first sentence is on “recognition,” since everything hangs on it. This recognition is the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (71). But is there a difference between the recognition of the “inherent dignity” of the human person and that “dignity” itself? What constitutes “recognition” of that dignity? I would surmise that it means the legal and political recognition, i.e. by legal, political institutions, and not the recognition of John Q. Public, private citizen. But if recognition is separate from that dignity, I question if there is such a dignity and what its basis is. Is the recognition of that dignity what constitutes that dignity? Such dignity is a lovely thing for two individuals to speak about on a summer afternoon, but that conversation means little in comparison to the legislative and judicial actions bearing on that dignity. The latter is what matters for the UN.
However, I think we can come to the following agreement: that this statement in the preamble could be construed as the conclusion in the argument the Declaration advances. In other words, even seemingly innocuous political documents like this Declaration make arguments and therefore require reconstruction. The question is, what are the premises affirming this conclusion. I’ll leave that to you all, or our classroom conversation.
The second issue I wanted to raise concerned the meaning of the phrase “or other status” at the end of the first sentence of Article 2. We might ask who is the “everyone” being granted in this sentence, but the answer to that question comes in what follows, by the characteristics of what it means to be a human—we’ll address this concretely in class on Friday. But when the authors write “or other status” that seems troublingly ambiguous. For example, does this other status include an individual’s judicial condition? A person guilty of a crime and imprisoned, or worse, on death row for a crime, both imprisonment and the eventual death sentence are infringements upon an individual's human rights. And let’s consider the cases in which this would be truly problematic, such as that of war crimes. Even if “other status” does not include war criminals, it would seem that they would be covered by “political distinction,” since all agents in wars are acting for political causes.
This turns me back to the first question. What is the status of these rights? Are they something that should be recognized, as a kind of ideal goal for the international community?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Interesting point Professor Vaught. As i read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it did not come to my attention that the "other status" in article 2 is ambiguous. Many people can interpret this statement based on their own beliefs. When the article states that all the freedoms are granted to all types of people, I can see how a person who commited a crime or felony have the same rights as indiviuals who don't commit felonies or wrong doings. In fact, I can see how the following article can be argued with the issue of whether Socrates's death was right or wrong?
On the other hand, the point you raise about the first sentence in the declaration is interesting too. Although I did not understand most of it, it seems that a person is titled a human being only if he or she has self respect for themselves and are respected by others. In other words, is the declaration saying that people aren't considered human if they do not contain this dignity within them? And if so, is it true that these right do not apply to them?
To answer to your first issue, I would have to say: yes, there is a difference in recognizing "inherent dignity" of a person than that actual "dignity." To recognize something is to simply acknowledge that it is there. Perhaps Professor Vaught is correct...that dignity can't actually exist unless we acknowledge it. After all, it is a more abstract term to use and there is no basis or scale on how dignified something can be.
What are the premises affirming this conclusion? Well, let's look at the definition of the three terms (as stated on merriam-webster.com, if you want me to cite these and post it I will):
Freedom-the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Justice-the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
Peace-freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
So, the question is, how do we obtain all three of these goals in the entire world? If you look at the US government, we have adapted pretty well to this declaration. Putting the "Declaration of Independence" into action finally called for equal rights for all beings in the US legally. Even in our country, an insignificant portion of the world, we still have not obtained the three goals. However, we definitely moved closer to freedom when the "Separate But Equal" doctrine was outlawed and all people were finally able to be "equal." Of course, there are still flaws and issues with racism today, but that step was a giant leap forward to, what I would say, is a more "peaceful" country (especially in the fact that groups such as the KKK are forbidden and almost non-existant).
Therefore, to bring it back to the Preamble, these kinds of inalienable rights are improving the peace between the human race. Being equal is actually leading up to these three values, and the moment where we can recognize that all the United Nations have reached this sense of equality is the moment we have achieved freedom, justice, and truth.
After todays discussion, I feel that I have a clearer understanding of what characteristics human beings have according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. A human being must obtain equality, reason, conscience, privacy, marriage, nationality, freedom of religion, education, and ability to create a personality. With this, the following question is posed: Are children, like Professor Vaught stated, considered human beings? They obviously don't carry these characteistics with them. Nationality is debatable. People who don't identify with their nation should therefore not have these rights. In addition people who are enslaved are not human beings and do not carry these rights with them. I feel that the definition of a human being is not clarified in the declaration.
Reflecting back onto today's class discussion it seems that the Declaration of Human Right's is more complex and quite frankly it is far more vague than once perceived. In the declaration we discussed childrens' role played an importance to the declaration. Children are born into different families each year, all having different social, and economical status. The problem that arises from this is the question of humanity. The foundation of humanity was based on economical, social, and cultural representation. So the true problem that now aspires is how can we judge what is human from what is not. To some magnitude children are positioned in such a way where they are not considered human but adolescents. Children can not all obtain equal education, and therefore leaving the question open. Can children who do not have equal access to education are they not human? How can this be problematic you may ask?Children unknowingly of their human rights may be exploited and ultimately become imprisoned in such a way where they themselves can no longer judge what is good from bad. This can be problematic in the sense were children can no longer form a basis on positive or negative decision. On another subject, immigrants also face a similar problem. Immigrants may travel from afar in search of economic, social, and even cultural oppression, however their rights may also be exploited. We can even look as far as our own country and within it we can find day laborers working for or even less than minimum wage to support a family. However the problem in this case is that immigrants are not offered the same access to certain treatments such as health care. Not only is this detrimental to an immigrants own well being but, it also does not allow an immigrant the right to a nationality. The Declaration of Human Rights includes the words citizens, but in this case an immigrant is excluded from society, thus leading the immigrant open to exploitations and if not poor and inhuman treatment. Furthermore, it is upon us and other nations to help those whose human rights are being violated. Even if the Declaration of Human Rights is poorly devised we can all agree that unjust treatments of human rights is immoral.
Post a Comment