The discourse on human rights suggests that all human rights must be both both universal and incontrovertible, and some may assume that these terms can be used interchangeably. However, these two terms are very different. The concept of universality, when applied to human rights, suggests that human rights belong to every single person regardless of any personal characteristics. While the concept of incontrovertibility suggests that these rights cannot be negated or taken away by the state (O’Byrne, 2003, pg. 27). So while one concept deals with the application of human rights, the other deals with whether or not this human right can be taken away. The real difference between these two concepts is the fact that neither requires the other (O’Byrne,
…show more content…
The problem of duties, and the problem of a hierarchy of rights (O’Byrne, 2003, pg. 44). To further explain the hierarchy of rights, rights are constantly in conflict with one another, and some rights must be denied at times in order to uphold and protect other rights. Specific situations arise where one right must be placed over another and often it is choosing between two individuals and which individual’s rights are more important. Individuals in our society don’t avidly think about human rights until they are taken away, mostly because human rights are meant to be undeniable and inalienable, and some can’t think of it being any other way. Human rights are our basic rights and freedoms as human beings and the fact that they can be taken away by the state in some situations is unfathomable to some. However, human rights usually aren’t denied for nothing, human rights are usually denied because they come in conflict with the rights of others or the rights of the majority of society. Furthermore, human rights, usually, aren’t taken away without good reason, most of the time it is because of a conflict of rights. Meaning that one individual’s right to do something is harming and impinging another individual’s right. We must understand that most of the time when rights are taken away it is done for the greater good of society. This brings up the idea of utilitarianism, in relation to the topic of incontrovertible rights, this term means that the state taking away an individual’s right is usually done to benefit the majority of society (O’Byrne, 2003, pg.
The problem of duties, and the problem of a hierarchy of rights (O’Byrne, 2003, pg. 44). To further explain the hierarchy of rights, rights are constantly in conflict with one another, and some rights must be denied at times in order to uphold and protect other rights. Specific situations arise where one right must be placed over another and often it is choosing between two individuals and which individual’s rights are more important. Individuals in our society don’t avidly think about human rights until they are taken away, mostly because human rights are meant to be undeniable and inalienable, and some can’t think of it being any other way. Human rights are our basic rights and freedoms as human beings and the fact that they can be taken away by the state in some situations is unfathomable to some. However, human rights usually aren’t denied for nothing, human rights are usually denied because they come in conflict with the rights of others or the rights of the majority of society. Furthermore, human rights, usually, aren’t taken away without good reason, most of the time it is because of a conflict of rights. Meaning that one individual’s right to do something is harming and impinging another individual’s right. We must understand that most of the time when rights are taken away it is done for the greater good of society. This brings up the idea of utilitarianism, in relation to the topic of incontrovertible rights, this term means that the state taking away an individual’s right is usually done to benefit the majority of society (O’Byrne, 2003, pg.