Canada in 1950s – a respecter of human rights
“A gift consists not in what is done or given, but in the intention of the giver or doer,” said Seneca, a Roman Stoic philosopher (Seneca, Moral Essays, Vol.3, 1935). Intentions of an event are usually more important than results in determining the righteousness of the event because one has control over the intentions but not the outcomes. Action done out of philanthropic purpose is justified even though the result unexpectedly hurts others’ interests. Similarly, the relocation of the Inukjuak Inuit in 1953 supported Canada’s self-identification as a respecter of human rights because with good intentions, the Canadian government tried to get the Inuit’s consent of the relocation, provided them with more opportunities of a better life and promised to help with the settlement, despite some dissatisfying outcomes.
First of all, the Canadian government …show more content…
However, the historical judgment is still worth further discussion because it is drawn based on the current values. People’s values change over time. For instance, with regard to the mobility rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was set up in 1982 stated the right “to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province” while the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 did not. It was also more specific in term of some other rights. As shown by these details, interpretations of human rights changed with the society progressing at a quick rate, making it hard for the current generation to judge the relocation of the Inuit in the 1950s without any bias. Because of the changing values, the accuracy of historical judgments is always limited. The real history might always be kept as a secret to people
“A gift consists not in what is done or given, but in the intention of the giver or doer,” said Seneca, a Roman Stoic philosopher (Seneca, Moral Essays, Vol.3, 1935). Intentions of an event are usually more important than results in determining the righteousness of the event because one has control over the intentions but not the outcomes. Action done out of philanthropic purpose is justified even though the result unexpectedly hurts others’ interests. Similarly, the relocation of the Inukjuak Inuit in 1953 supported Canada’s self-identification as a respecter of human rights because with good intentions, the Canadian government tried to get the Inuit’s consent of the relocation, provided them with more opportunities of a better life and promised to help with the settlement, despite some dissatisfying outcomes.
First of all, the Canadian government …show more content…
However, the historical judgment is still worth further discussion because it is drawn based on the current values. People’s values change over time. For instance, with regard to the mobility rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was set up in 1982 stated the right “to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province” while the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 did not. It was also more specific in term of some other rights. As shown by these details, interpretations of human rights changed with the society progressing at a quick rate, making it hard for the current generation to judge the relocation of the Inuit in the 1950s without any bias. Because of the changing values, the accuracy of historical judgments is always limited. The real history might always be kept as a secret to people