Right Vs Human Rights

838 Words 4 Pages
A “right” is a word only given meaning in the context of actual or imagined oppression. The “right” to vote, the “right” from slavery and forced labor, and the “right” to reign all conjure up differences in their applications. Who and when are the most pertinent differentiations between the haves and have-nots. A right is a right only if it can be taken away through actions or ideologies and granted by a higher power; be that God, the Law, or an imposer of oppression. While humanity may have innate rights such as those listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), no human is born with rights. “Rights” need a bestower. Like food, shelter, and community, rights too are essential for one to live a life free of the burden of others. …show more content…
A right should be, but too often is not, used to mean everyone. Yes, all life innately should have right X, Y, and Z. But is a right anything more than a flowery idea unless it truly is universal and realized to its full definition? Who is this prime mover of my rights? Was it God? Then why are people born into poverty, slavery, addiction, or deprived of certain physical or mental capabilities? Was simply being born human an interference between my innate “right” and my actualized reality? How can being a human both violate and grant yourself rights? Is it Government? Usually anyone who isn’t a land owning, educated male can attest to their history of oppression mandated by the government as well as to the need of government to obtain those rights. Is it Man? Is it Self?
Entities dictate who is allowed “rights”. It’s wonderful when documents stating an expansion of rights via laws come into being. But it’s also horrific that a group of persons with power can and need to produce such a document. Is it a restoration or a coronation of those rights onto those who, until some law was introduced, were not fellow beneficiaries? For there to be rights there has to be a reality where those rights do not

Related Documents