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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your entry set forth very interesting questions. Critically analyzing the text you found the implicit assumptions that would hardly be visible to a non-Philosopher. The depth of thinking that Philosophy requires you to go into fascinates me. Looking forward to discussing the issues in class tomorrow!
In my view, a plausible reason for the inclusion of the word “recognition” is to emphasize the opinion that the dignity of any person is not in question at the moment, rather it is the “recognition” of its existence which is imperative for the purpose of “…freedom, justice and peace…” After all, in the absence of any sort of recognition of human dignity one may be treated as, say, an animal. Of course, as Professor Vaught says, the “recognition” of human dignity must manifest itself in the laws of the land and the international community in order to hold any significant value. But perhaps the premise for the omission of who ought to recognize is based on the assumption that the laws of a society where all its members “recognize the inherent dignity,” of a human being will reflect such a spirit.
I waited to give my response to this blog post because I thought that instead, we may end up covering my subjects of interest pertinent to this article, in-class.
Some comments:
A) What if a country decides to pursue protectionist policies?
B) How do government-sponsored cartels like OPEC get by in accordance to benefically promoting the development of amicable relations between nations?
Clearly, there are exceptions to the word "essential"; what sets forth the allowances in determining what constitutes friendly versus unfriendly relations between nations?
Relating to the idea of entitlement
[As a last recourse, human rights should be protected by law]
However, law is created by man, and not the commonman or layman, no, no, instead universal law is developed by the highly educated richman or by the man serving in the interests of a richman, on his behalf. So I propose this question, are the laws equal across the masses (or majority of people, many of whom comprise the lower socioeconomic strata), all-in-all, to be carved out by the UN, as standards for global human rights? Is this morally just? How do we propose moral and cultural relativism conjunctively factor into the UN's "Declaration of Human Rights"?
Why not argue that this document deems the "commonpeople" as incapable of achieving efficacy relevant to their own aspirations and self-interest(s)?
This is just a preview of the evident legal plunder associated with this document.
Referring back to the discussion we had in class regarding whether or not a human is still considered a human if he/she has been stripped of their economic, social, and cultural rights. I believe too that whether or not an individual has these rights, they still can be considered human. Despite the fact that you, Professor, do not stress the importance of biology in what makes a human a human, I believe we cannot neglect it entirely. After all, each human is different. Not only because of the varying economic, social, and cultural rights everyone possesses, but their biological make up as well. And if one was stripped of these essential rights, they would still have their own unique personality based on their genetic make up and who they are. After all everyone is their own individual because of differing environments and stimuli that affect everybody, everywhere, in many countless ways, shapes, and forms. And I believe if anyone did attempt to deny someone these essential "inalienable" rights, people would join together to overcome the negative force responsible. The Human Rights Declaration itself is evidence of this. This document sets the standards of what each human is entitled to and attempts to ensure everyone what is laid forth in the Declaration.
Post a Comment