The UDHR: An Argument Against The Universality Of Human Rights

1357 Words 6 Pages
In 1948 UDHR was officially established but it did not guarantee human rights in each of everyone in the world. It took time to for it to be establish. The UDHR became official written rights that is supposed to protect each individual Human Rights, while there is human rights, it is different from actually enjoying this rights. Human Rights is important, and it 's often argued upon whether human rights are inalienable rights or human rights have limitations to it could extend to few. There are a lot argument placed about the universality of Human rights, either for its universality or inclusion which is against the idea of universality of human rights. Some arguments for human rights all humans regardless of race, class, and gender. There …show more content…
It argues that everyone has human rights. The right came from God and it was given to every human beings on the planet. According to Goodhart, “The rights described in the Declaration are moral ideas known as natural rights, derived from the natural law, which in Christian civilization had to do with the moral character given by God to his creation (29).” The idea derived from Christian 's view of human rights that are God given rights for everyone to enjoy. The rights are given for all humans to enjoy just because we are humans. Human are entitled to have human rights. It is only naturally given to humans and this natural rights would then become natural law. Following the argument of entitlement, Donnelly states that “If all human beings have human rights simply because they are human, then human rights are held equally by all(Donnelly 19).” All of humans regardless of class, gender, and race are equal as long as they are human. Additionally,“Being human cannot be renounced, lost, or forfeited. Therefore, human rights are also inalienable. Even the cruelest torturer and the most debased victim are still human beings (Donnelly 19).” A persons status is not enough to take away their rights. As we see, a victim and torturer have the same rights just because the are entitled to be a human. Human rights cannot be take away regardless of the status of a person long with the physical and social attribute …show more content…
Problems arise when powerful actors abuse Human Rights and that the abstract idea of human rights itself is problematic itself.
“Thomists do not even consider utilitarianism to be a moral theory. Thomists and most utilitarians... endorses human rights as a political conception of justice(Donnelly 39).” This means that human right have multiple foundations to be based on. Moreover, human rights as concept of politics means that it is a categorized of political, legal, and social theory. Human rights for them is not morally grounded. It means that human rights is not practiced universally but in difference perception of justice the way that a state practice it. A government is a powerful tool in implementing human rights. There are reasons why human rights are not practiced the same throughout the world. Culture is one of the most important aspect that influence the details of implementing human rights. Donnelly mentioned that. “Human rights are relatively universal at the level of the concept, the broad formulations characteristics of the Universal Declaration such claims in Article 3 and 22...(Donnelly 450.)” Article 3 states that” everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security to person. Article 22 states the rights to social security. Both articles shows that human rights is relative. The to right to liberty, security to person, and social security shows that

Related Documents