The UN Declaration of Human Rights was established in order to lay out the rights for people who had been violated. Preece makes the strongest argument for the declaration because he lays out a path of how minorities slowly worked towards this document. Whereas Moyn and Makower simply regarded the declaration as a triumph for all human beings.
Moyn claims that human rights did not start as something that mattered until the 1970s. He claims that natural rights are not the same thing as human rights. He states that natural rights are protected and guaranteed where as human rights must be respected by the state. Therefore, the creation of United Nations Declaration of Human Rights outlines what rights states must respect. The issue with the declaration …show more content…
This argument captures how human rights slowly evolved from the idea of minority rights. Preece outlines the idea that human rights have been evolving for thousands of years in order to get to where they are today. They might not have been originally recognized as human rights but in each large event there has been slight similarities. These similarities have added up to what we recognize as human rights today. This declaration may not completely protect everyone, but it is a very strong start to helping the outcasts of society. The most important thing that came out of this declaration is the protection for people who could not do it for themselves. Thus, the major powers coming together to form this declaration shows the slow evolution of respect for minorities. This is a huge change in history because this is the first time that the majority population stood for minority rights. The main issue with Moyn and Makower’s arguments is the that they establish human rights for the greater good. This means that they were not concerned with the minorities who were working to gain these rights, but instead trying to get these rights for all humans. This is an issue because the majority did not need to work for any of these rights. But, the minorities were the ones fighting for the rights and thus were the ones who most benefited from the United Nations Declaration of Human
Moyn claims that human rights did not start as something that mattered until the 1970s. He claims that natural rights are not the same thing as human rights. He states that natural rights are protected and guaranteed where as human rights must be respected by the state. Therefore, the creation of United Nations Declaration of Human Rights outlines what rights states must respect. The issue with the declaration …show more content…
This argument captures how human rights slowly evolved from the idea of minority rights. Preece outlines the idea that human rights have been evolving for thousands of years in order to get to where they are today. They might not have been originally recognized as human rights but in each large event there has been slight similarities. These similarities have added up to what we recognize as human rights today. This declaration may not completely protect everyone, but it is a very strong start to helping the outcasts of society. The most important thing that came out of this declaration is the protection for people who could not do it for themselves. Thus, the major powers coming together to form this declaration shows the slow evolution of respect for minorities. This is a huge change in history because this is the first time that the majority population stood for minority rights. The main issue with Moyn and Makower’s arguments is the that they establish human rights for the greater good. This means that they were not concerned with the minorities who were working to gain these rights, but instead trying to get these rights for all humans. This is an issue because the majority did not need to work for any of these rights. But, the minorities were the ones fighting for the rights and thus were the ones who most benefited from the United Nations Declaration of Human