The topic concerning global human rights has served as a spark, initiating many instances of heated debate and provoking great controversy. While many episodes of insufficient progress are often portrayed in the media and other informational platforms; there are actually a great deal more successes eluding the majority of the world’s population in regards to securing human rights. Specifically, the international community is, in fact, making substantial leaps in the right direction toward the immense feat that is securing rights for every human walking the Earth. The Amnesty International Report of 2014/15 correctly reveals occurrences of violations of human rights, while also making it apparent that the international community is virtually
…show more content…
Natural law and positivism are ideas that, more often than not, clash in ideas and beliefs. First, natural laws are believed to be God given laws, where on the other hand, positive laws are viewed as man made. Second, natural laws are universally accepted and practiced unlike those of positivism, only applicable to a specific geographic territory governed by one body. Finally, natural law is based on reason and the concept that human beings have free will to decide right from wrong. Conversely, positive law lays out what is right or wrong and people have to abide by such guidelines. It is also important to note that natural law can exist even in the absence of man but positive law is dependent on the existence of man. Two other opposing concepts are those regarding universalism and cultural relativism. Universalism dictates that human rights should be applicable and available to all walks of human life, no matter the conditions and/or circumstances one may face. However, cultural relativism states that human rights and morality should be dependant upon the culture of an area over any other environmental factors. Personally, I believe that certain surroundings and cultures dictate a person’s moral code, rather than being born with a predisposed “laws” given by a higher power. While slightly contradictory, I think that universalism is an …show more content…
This philosophical undertaking magnifies the fact that if presented with a clear and present problem issue, such as saving a drowning child, most would jump in to rescue the kid since they are certainly able. So, if this is true and it is a moral obligation, why is it not the same in respect to saving other people in other countries whose human rights are continuously being violated? Essentially, the point is made that anyone who is able to, should join the battle advocating for human rights globally due to the fact that in that battle, much worse happenings are occurring and being inflicted upon people in larger numbers than just one drowning child. With that being said, in this scenario, no, the global community is not making enough effective progress in securing global human
Natural law and positivism are ideas that, more often than not, clash in ideas and beliefs. First, natural laws are believed to be God given laws, where on the other hand, positive laws are viewed as man made. Second, natural laws are universally accepted and practiced unlike those of positivism, only applicable to a specific geographic territory governed by one body. Finally, natural law is based on reason and the concept that human beings have free will to decide right from wrong. Conversely, positive law lays out what is right or wrong and people have to abide by such guidelines. It is also important to note that natural law can exist even in the absence of man but positive law is dependent on the existence of man. Two other opposing concepts are those regarding universalism and cultural relativism. Universalism dictates that human rights should be applicable and available to all walks of human life, no matter the conditions and/or circumstances one may face. However, cultural relativism states that human rights and morality should be dependant upon the culture of an area over any other environmental factors. Personally, I believe that certain surroundings and cultures dictate a person’s moral code, rather than being born with a predisposed “laws” given by a higher power. While slightly contradictory, I think that universalism is an …show more content…
This philosophical undertaking magnifies the fact that if presented with a clear and present problem issue, such as saving a drowning child, most would jump in to rescue the kid since they are certainly able. So, if this is true and it is a moral obligation, why is it not the same in respect to saving other people in other countries whose human rights are continuously being violated? Essentially, the point is made that anyone who is able to, should join the battle advocating for human rights globally due to the fact that in that battle, much worse happenings are occurring and being inflicted upon people in larger numbers than just one drowning child. With that being said, in this scenario, no, the global community is not making enough effective progress in securing global human