Society Vs Inhumane Society

1215 Words 5 Pages
As times augments so does human society and their freedoms. We can all agree that human society wasn’t the same as it was two hundred years ago. We assume, with technological enhancement, neither would it be two hundred years in the future. Using Nicholas Gane 's Posthuman, Neil Curtis’ The Inhumane, and Jack Donnelly 's The concepts of Human Rights, I will argue how the freedom of religion will differ from the post, inhumane, and current society. I will also connect my own experiences with freedom of society, and furthermore compare my own experiences with one of the three differing societies.Scientists have labelled the post, pre and current societies as “posthuman”, “inhumane”, and current societies, because they differ from past, present, …show more content…
I say this because according to Neil Curtis, “force of habit turns the mind towards what is the same rather than what is different or singular in our encounter with events” (curtis 435). There is no diversity in the expression of religion. Under the inhumane society each citizen’s mind is accustomed to worshipping one god that believes there is no completion. In the inhumane society the citizens believe “Ultimately a politics of the inhuman refuses any notion of totality, finality and completion” (Curtis, 435). One god that believes that there is no completion, totality, finality, and completion? Perhaps under the inhumane society, the people believe in a society that Neil Curtis keeps referring too as evil, a dictatorship. “When they kill it is in the name of tyranny or extremism; it is an outrage and is absolutely inhuman” (Curtis, 434). After all, the citizens under an inhumane society believes that their souls are affected The inhuman, thus conceived, stipulates that the soul does not affect itself, but is affected from outside. (Curtis,435) The concept of religion is definitely available to the people, but the freedom of religion is non-existent. Under a dictatorship the citizens minds are set to think the same and worship only one god, and that one god is not a god, but a person, a leader that believes territorial expansion is never enough. They forfeit all their …show more content…
This does include the freedom of religion, and each and every other basic human right is protected and promised under international law. In Jack Donnelly’s, The Source of Human Rights, Donnelly argues that human rights are given by the people for the people, under human morales. Donnelly includes in his argument “The list of rights in the international Bill of Human Rights can be seen as resting on a morale vision of human nature that views humans beings as equal and autonomous individuals who are entitled to equal concern and respect”(Donnelly 25). I will also use this quote. Autonomous individuals who are entitled to equal concern and respect is seen as a Democracy. A Democracy allows each of it’s similiar citizens to basic human rights. The freedom of religion is currently seen as a basic human right. Therefore, the freedom of religion is not denied, but rather approved in today’s current society.around the world. As Donnelly stated, “humans are entitled to equal concern and respect”. Humans are deemed equal and are guaranteed at the minimum the basic universal human rights.This is not only under Donnelly’s definition, but also under the International Bill of Human Rights. Therefore, I define current society as a democracy that allows it’s citizens to practice or have any basic human right without any

Related Documents

Related Topics