The Contemporary Alienation of Labor

As we were discussing Marx throughout the week, I found his idea of the alienation of labor to be very interesting. I would like to discuss its applications at the time, and the extent of their relevance in the contemporary world. However, I'm not sure that I have a complete grasp on the concept, so please feel free to correct any misconceptions that I express.

Marx says that there are four ways in which labor alienates a worker. First, he is alienated from nature: he puts effort into production of a good, but instead of being able to then enjoy the fruit of his labor and proudly claim it as his own, he must send it through the rest of the process of production and sale, where it will eventually end up in an unknown consumer's hands. Next, he is alienated from working itself, as the satisfaction that one is supposed to receive from exerting effort into production is lost due to the endless monotony of his job. He is also alienated from himself, and his species-being, in that he learns to think of himself as less than human while working, despite the fact that Marx sees labor of any sort as a fundamental aspect of human nature. Finally, he is alienated from his peers as a result of the competitive nature of the workforce.

These descriptions seem quite pertinent to the state of labor at the time of Marx's writing, and the fact that so many people worked in factories. However, I don't think this is quite as applicable today. Most people do not work in production, but instead at an office or in sales, marketing, etc. Thus, the concept of the (literal) objectification labor does not apply. I'm also disinclined to think that the workforce is as competitive, at least in the same manner: I can't imagine two potential professors duking it out and playing chicken with their salaries. Competition is certainly still present, but the means by which individuals compete tend to revolve more around their educational backgrounds. Unfortunately, I do think that Marx's other two points still stand. Most of the employed people that I know complain about their work over-frequently, and dread going in every day, even if the nature of their work is one that they used to enjoy.

While I think that Marx's theories on capitalism and its division of the classes is very interesting and remains relevant today, it seems to me that his idea on the alienation of labor is not wholly applicable in today's working society.

Active Engagement at Rhodes

Over the past few days, there has been a great deal of talk about Dan Savage. I am so happy that we had a discussion in class today so that everyone is better informed about the whole issue. Beyond class discussion, however, I am also happy that students have been discussing this outside of class. I have never seen so much discussion and passion about an event at Rhodes. Tons of rumors have been spreading about the protest, and that isn't productive, but regardless, I am proud to be part of a school that is willing to talk about such issues. I am also very impressed with the maturity level of the different parties involved. Since the night of the protest, when things got way out of hand, the conflict has been handled well. There is still active dialouge with mutual respect and openness.

What I am interested in in relation to this class is the idea that this passion can be translated into other issues. We were talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how people are very uninformed about the rights that they have and the fact that the United States has agreed to upholding these rights. I wish that students were passionate about issues that extend beyond Rhodes and that we did something to inform others about topics we have learned abut in class. I think this will be even more true after we have finished our research papers.

Classes like these inform people of problems and solutions, but students rarely translate them into the real world. I will admit that I am one of those people. I have become a different person since I have been at Rhodes but I have yet to take the knowledge I have gained and do something with it. I know that I will in time, and I think this class and my overall experience at Rhodes will greatly influence how I live the rest of my life.

I guess for now, I would just like to know how you guys feel about what we have learned in the class and if anything has inspired you to make change. It is hard to take theoretical knowledge and apply it to the real world, so do you have any ideas about how we can get people talking and acting?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder"

Today we discussed Dan Savage and his upcoming TV show Savage Campus. It was enlightening and informative to hear the various opinions/arguments for the different sides. Seeing it from an MTV point of view if Dan Savage just sat there and nonchalantly asked broad questions about sex on campus, relationships, etc then it would be a fairly dull TV show. Viewers want to see the honest “dirty” side of students. However students are very reluctant to truthfully say what they want sexually.

Are we just scared that we will tarnish Rhodes integrity? Why don’t we honestly say what’s going on? We must be too scared to tell the nation about the promiscuous nature of our students and wide use of stimulant and depressant drugs. We must not want to admit the astronomical problem of drinking and driving among students. Should we pretend that rape never happens on campus? Why are we scared? Eventhough all these activities are done by certain individuals and not descriptive of every student, it happens at Rhodes. Rhodes College accepted every student interviewed in this show. So what makes you say that they can’t give their view (screwed as it may be) about Rhodes sexuality when they have just as much of a voice as any one of us?

We are being naïve and immature by not acknowledging that controversial activities happen on college campuses, especially ours. Even though Savage’s crew is pushing people to make comments they would be reluctant to say, he is painting a realistic portrait of what goes on in college. Sounds like we are scared of the truth. Sounds like we want to control the words of our interviewed peers even though they have just as much right to be heard as we do. Don’t get me wrong, I signed the petition like John Hancock but I’m being devil’s advocate and acknowledging there are two sides.

Reproductive Rights

Here's a pretty interesting article about a recent report issued by the UN regarding women and their reproductive rights:

http://jezebel.com/5853887/un-recommends-everyone-stop-telling-women-what-to-do-with-their-bodies

As the article notes, this isn't something we as Americans can distance ourselves from. My home state, Mississippi, is trying to pass what I (and interestingly, my bishop) find to be some pretty disturbing legislation regarding "personhood." Here's a link to some info on that:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2097340,00.html

Personally, I'm onboard with the UN and Planned Parenthood and will gladly yell "My body, my choice" in the streets when I go home if need be. At the moment, I plan to send all my anger back to the Mississippi legislature in an absentee ballot. That being said, I know it's a controversial issue. I started looking at the report and other articles to see what was being said and how. Here's one summary:

The report calls for decriminalization of and the removal of legal barriers related to four specific things: abortion, conduct during pregnancy, contraception, family planning, and provision of sexual and reproductive health education and information.

The report finds that such criminalization is discriminatory, generates and perpetuates stigma, distorts perceptions among health care providers (which in turn hinders access) and violates the right to health by restricting access to necessary goods, services and information.

Of course, the UDHR makes no explicit mention of reproductive rights but guarantees access to adequate healthcare, "security of person," and freedom from "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." For me, forcing a rape victim to carry the child of her rapist denies all of those things. Beyond that, denying women the right to control of their bodies in terms of reproductive care in any situation is what I would call a total violation of the security of person and a denial of adequate healthcare, as the report notes.

What do y'all think of the argument for reproductive rights as human rights? Are you convinced? Why or why not?

A Thought-Provoking Look at Rights in Context

Trafficking

Human trafficking has been in practice for too long. The underground nature of this heinous practice makes it hard to track as well as find the culprits. The questions I will be attempting to answer in my paper are as follows:
-Is human trafficking (and more specifically for my paper, sex trafficking) a human rights violation? This is obviously a yes, but due to its violation of multiple writes in the doctrine, I want to explore which rights it violates and how.
-According to Kant (and maybe Mill), why is human trafficking unjust? Is there any way it could be seen as just? Could the trafficking possibly be better for a specific country etc. Would Kant and Mill have opposing views if the trafficking is overall good for an area? I'm not sure how sex trafficking could be seen as good, but I could see a possibility for a utilitarian view there.
If I have time and resources, I want to examine why 87% of human trafficking is sex trafficking specific to women. Though this number could be skewed due to inadequate reports of this world, the very nature of sex trafficking violates multiple human rights in a gender biased way. Are the girls justified when becoming the leaders of other sex slaves in order to break their own bondage? Could it possibly be a cultural thing? Where is trafficking most prominent? Why is that?
My current decisions are whether to focus on sex trafficking in the United States or a more global perspective and if to (or possibly how to) include a gender biased aspect to my paper.

Child Soldiers

I've decided to do my research paper on child soldiers. My claim would be something like this: During times of war, several countries force children into the role of soldier, which conflicts with their human rights. Children are abducted from their schools and home and forced to become soldiers; others see it as the only alternative. When they become child soldiers, two of their rights become violated.
The first right violated is the 5th article of the United Declaration of Human Rights, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment." The children are tortured, beaten and threatened into joining the army. Once in some are made to do suicide missions or to clear landmines. Girls are subjected to rape and sexual assault and are sometimes given to military commanders as wives. In addition to the physical abuse is also the mental damage from killing others and often times one's own family.
The second right being violated is article 26, "Everyone has the right to education." They don't have time for schooling when they are being put on the front line of the battlefield.
So what do you think? Should I be more specific with a certain country?

A right to democracy?

For my research paper I'm going to write about the right to democracy. Article 21 of the UDHR outlines a right to political participation but there is some debate about whether or not there is really a right to democracy. So far in my research I have found that democracy promotes peace and encourages politicians to uphold human rights. Also democracies tend to have less violence. Since there is a human right to peace and security it seems clear that there is at least a connection between democracy and human rights. The question seems to be whether democracy simply promotes and protects human rights or if it is itself a human right. To answer this I think it needs to be known whether democracy is necessary to best uphold human rights, such as the right to peace and security, or if it is just one of a few scenarios in which these rights can be achieved. If peace, human rights, and democracy are all interlinked and dependent upon one another, than it would seem that democracy would be itself a necessity in human rights. If it is the only way to grant people peace and security and people have a right to these, than it would seem that it too was a human right. Does democracy embody a human right? does it just serve to protect them? Is it just a means to achieve them?

The Universal Healthcare Issue

Our goal this week was to determine a topic for our human rights paper. This topic needed to be something that interests us and, when considering my own personal rights, I feel that health care is a major human rights issue. This issue is constantly in debate on how we can make health care more accessible, if it should even be more accessible, and whether it should be universal. Personally, I find the idea of knowing I could be without healthcare terrifying. As a person of a lower class I am able to have access to government provided healthcare--which is part of the second clause of Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which “childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”—however, I will lose this healthcare next year and will not be able to protect myself if something goes wrong until I graduate and obtain a job which provides healthcare benefits.

From a more general standpoint, the UDHR states (in Article 3) that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.” I feel that this statement can include the right to healthcare which is essentially protecting your right to live. The security aspect applies to the idea that one needs healthcare as a plan for security in your times of need. Then, the UDHR directly states in Article 25 that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Some may argue that healthcare is a privilege or that it is not in fact a human right but the UDHR, which the United States recognizes, clearly states that medical care is a human right. This human right, therefore, should be protected and provided to every citizen regardless of “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

What if we consider people of the middle class who do not qualify for government assistance but are still unable to afford healthcare or the expenses to visit a doctor or in an emergency? Doctors are there to help people regardless of class and should not just be available to people of a higher class simply because they are in a better economic standing. Healthcare should be a necessity for every human being and not a luxury for upper class citizens (and mothers and children).

Since we didn't have a formal class this week...

...I have decided to simply use this as an outlet for fleshing out some more ideas for my paper as we did in class. So excuse me as I use this outlet for discussion for my own selfish ends. I was originally thinking about writing my paper on the Patriot Act, however, seeing as how I did a lot of work with this piece of legislation last year in high school, I decided to try something slightly different. The general topic I wanted to discuss is the right to life, which intrigued me earlier in our discussion of human rights (which is slightly evident from my previous posts). Focusing a little more, I want to talk specifically of the inherent violation of the right to life in the taking of a life in the specific case of the death penalty. Now, using the link that Courtnee sent all of us as a guide (thank you very much by the way), I came up with a few basic questions that my paper should answer in pretty much the order in which I want to answer them.
1. What is the right to life and why/how do we have it?
2. What is the justification for a rectificatory judicial system?
3. How far does the jurisdiction of this judicial system extend?
(4.) What happens if this jurisdiction is exceeded?
5. Is the taking of a life a human rights violation?
6. Are there exceptions?
7. Is the death penalty a human rights violation?
I am fairly certain the fourth question represents an unnecessary tangent, but I figured I would see what y'all thought on the matter. I am probably going to use each question as the heading for a section in which I discuss only that question and then tie it all together at the end. I figure each question would probably require a minimum of 2-3 pages to answer it sufficiently, so I am worried this might be slightly too broad still. Go!

Scary Science

The other day, I was having a conversation with one of my best friends, Derek, who studies at Wesleyan. We were discussing the power of human decision making and he enlightened me on his views of human existence. He proposed the idea of a huge supercomputer that could take in all information of one's past life, everything that would influence their decisions, and then churn out precisely what that person's next decision would be. Therefore, everything in the world is predestined and we are only fulfilling a fate decided by variables such as the environment we grow up in and the classes we take in school. In response, I simply said "I can do plenty of things right now, I could choose to hang up the phone or keep talking to you. How is this already known? It seems like I have a few choices in front of me from which I can pick." He replied with another proposition: all of the choices that we don't make are illusions. There is only one choice in the big picture, and according to a scientific theory, it was going to happen before you even made your decision.

Alright. This idea scares me a lot. I can't decide whether to regard it with any respect or not, because what does it really prove? It does seem relevant to our class, because it seems like it would increase the responsibility laid on a person who has committed an injustice, yet I cannot for the life of me figure out what to do with this theory. I'd love some help from ya'll, opinions, questions, anything.

Peace

Gadhafi: Murdering a Murderer

Here we go again. Another volatile, violent and oppressive ruler is dead, and the world is likely safer. However, just as we saw with bin Laden a few months ago, people are reacting with joy and celebration over the murder of another person. This again evokes controversy over how we should react when a human dies, and what is "just" in this type of situation. Yahoo! News reports, "Dragged from hiding in a drainage pipe, a wounded Moammar Gadhafi raised his hands and begged revolutionary fighters: "Don't kill me, my sons." Within an hour, he was dead, but not before jubilant Libyans had vented decades of hatred by pulling the eccentric dictator's hair and parading his bloodied body on the hood of a truck." Is this justice? Does this vengeance reverse the suffering caused and evil committed by this man, or is this an "eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" type of situation?

Kant would seemingly argue that the brutal murder of Gadhafi is both unjust and immoral. We cannot wish the murder of an evil person as a universal maxim, can we? We cannot wish torture as a universal maxim, can we? Mill might lean more towards allowing the murder, given that murdering one man is more beneficial for the greater good than the suffering and death he caused his people. However, is setting this precedent for "allowable torture" truly beneficial to the greater good? The murder of Gadhafi certainly violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly protects people from torture and murder. Still, the world rejoices in the wake of the brutal murder of another human. Where is the line? When does the warranted desire for vengeance become malicious and malignant for society? Evil people have always and will always exist. Can we really continue to celebrate when they are brutally murdered? Why do we exclude these people from the role of the justice system and instead create our own justice system, one in which murder and torture are celebratory practices?

Gun Control

In movies they are used in mob shoot-outs, for bank robberies, and headline titles for five o’clock news. Overall, guns have a negative connotation as people are fearful of their easily manipulated ability to end a life. People who have never been exposed to a gun in their life are many times afraid of guns. Guns take time for people to develop a sense of comfort around them and to realize that they are not a toy, or something to be condemned out of fear, but rather a means to ensure protection.

A little more than a year ago, I was afraid of guns (I still am); however, now I realize the importance of guns and the message that is behind them after receiving an email that had an enclosed PowerPoint presentation about gun control. After reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I realized that nowhere in this document was there any reference to the right to bear arms. In the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” In addition to this statement and Article 2, I began to think that gun rights should be in place. It is ultimately up to the people to protect their rights. Check out these statistics according to the PowerPoint I received from John Santanen.

Gun control was established in the Soviet Union in 1929, and between 1929 and 1953, there was genocide of 20 million people. Gun control was established in Turkey in 1911, and between 1915 and 1917, there was genocide of 1.5 Armenians. In Germany, gun control was established in 1938, and between 1939 and 1945 there was genocide of 13 million Jews. In China, gun control was established between 1935 and between 1948 and 1952, genocide of 20 million dissidents occurred. Similar occurrences such as the previous examples where gun control was established followed by genocide has occurred in Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia. Overall, during the 20^th century over 56 million people have been the victim of genocide as a result of gun control rights.

I realize that many of these countries have separate situations; however, there seems to be correlation between the two. These interesting facts have sparked my decision to further research gun control and to determine if it should be included (in my opinion) into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Initially hearing these statistics, what are your opinions on gun control and right to bear arms?

Genuine Altruism vs Medical Disorder

Last night I was catching up on my missed episodes of House, and the latest one I viewed really resonated with what we've been discussing in class this semester. A very wealthy man was giving his money away to anyone who showed himself as deserving. House, the protagonist of the show, a very cynical person, believed the man's altruism was part of a disorder versus his true character. Long story short, the entire episode centered around the argument that altruism isn't true to human nature. One line, which I am simply paraphrasing, that stood out to me is when the man at question said that he didn't care if he lost his family as long as his boys at least had a roof over their heads and enough money to survive at the bare minimum. He asked why should he treat his family more special than any other people, when there are people everywhere starving and living in poor conditions and we're all apart of human kind. As extreme as it is, this made me think. We as humans value our families because we know that there is a blood relationship and therefore do things for them without a second thought, however when it comes to others that are not family, we pick and choose who and how we'll help, whether it be bare minimum or million dollar donations. This episode really stood out to me, but I'd like to know how you all feel about this.

Do you ever second guess your actions when it comes to helping family versus a stranger? Do you agree with House's cynical nature, or do you believe that altruism really does exist?

Priorities among Human Rights

This week, our job is - as you all know - to find the topic of our research papers. In order to find arguments for my topic, I was reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights again and while reading it, something really interesting came to my mind.

I remember that I read an article about human rights violations that are committed right now all over the world, even in so called developed countries. We all know that this happens and even Germany was sentenced to change some ways in which it deals with high-security prisoners, because the way it was done before was against human rights. The basic idea is that these kind of prisoners, that is to say people who are a high danger for the society and it is likely that they redo their crimes such as rape, mass murder and similar ones, are not released in their freedom but in so called preventive custody. The human rights violation here had something to do with the process after which a prisoner was allowed to be hold in preventive custody.

But do we really think that this violation is on the same level like torturing prisoners or even crimes like genocides? I guess, we can all agree that there is a huge difference between the articles in the declaration but they all need to be followed or obeyed with the same effort. Personally, I believe that this might be one of the most striking reasons why it seems to be so unrealistic and unattainable for one nation to follow all these rules and provide all these rights equally. The only possibility would be to agree on something like different levels of priority among the diverse human rights, because looking at the charter, we can see rights that need to be provided such as article 1 to 12, but also other ones that are either very hard to provide or not unconditionally necessary to have in order to be able to live a decent life, such as article 13 and 21. Of course, I agree that we need to provide every single one of them, but if we had to choose, which one we would violate, there are bad and worse ones.

The point that I‘m trying to make is that I wonder if it would be easier for countries to follow the Human Rights charter, if there were must-haves and can-haves in it.

What do you think about this theory?

This is Just Awesome

Stateless People and the Claim-Against

When reading through the essay "Human Rights as Rights" and learning about the different rights theories, I found myself quite convinced by Nickel's argument for entitlement-plus theory. With the addition of a "claim-against," it certainly seems to be more thorough and applicable to the idea of a right than simple entitlement theory. As Nickel proposes, a right without a claim-against is nothing more than a high priority goal. There must be a two-way interaction with rights: an individual claims ownership of a right to something, while another entity protects that individual's claim. Thus, entitlement-plus theory is a satisfactory solution to both ends.

The importance of the claim-against came into view when we discussed the Texas law prohibiting illegally immigrated children from receiving public education in the state. We talked about whether it should be every UDHR signatory's responsibility to protect, and in this case provide for, an individual's rights. We learned that one's rights stem from his citizenship of a sovereign state, and that said state is the one that is supposed to provide for his rights, such as that to an education. In this case, although Texas would be denying children of an education, it would technically avoid violating their rights by deporting them to their home country.

However, do things change when an individual's country of origin is no longer recognized as a sovereign state? Does he still have a claim to his rights? I think a good example of this can be found in the movie The Terminal. A man arrives in the United States for a visit, but is detained and refused leave from the airport when officials discover that he is from a country that just erupted into civil war. Due to the war, the United States no longer recognizes the country's sovereignty, and so will not allow a nationless man into the U.S. While it is a rather lighthearted movie, it still raises serious questions. The protagonist is already being denied free movement within a state, so what other rights could have been violated on the basis of him being stateless? This seems extremely unjust, as he certainly had no control over the U.S.' decision to change their opinion of his country's sovereignty.

Of course, this is only a movie, so perhaps the specific logistics of it are inaccurate. However, the point remains: why should stateless people be stripped of their rights when they are otherwise identical to other human beings? I believe that there is a strong necessity for an overarching claim-against, higher than simply state-level. I know that this evokes a question as to who, in fact, should take responsibility for the stateless, and I don't have a definite answer to that. I am certain, though, that someone must.

Working Towards the UDHR

After our class yesterday, I couldn't stop thinking about our discussion and what the UDHR means for our country. I know some controversial ideas were brought up, so I know we all have a lot of thoughts on the topic. I think that the Declaration is a set of ideals that all people need to be working towards. The writers knew that many of the articles could not be fulfilled in the near future or maybe not ever. I think they were all realistic enough to realize this, especially after they saw how terrible human beings could really be (Hitler was the perfect example of the evil that exists in the world). As long as there are selfish people in the world, the Declaration cannot be applied everywhere; however, just because this is true does not mean that the Declaration didn't need to be written. I think that if ideals did not exist, we wouldn't have anything to work towards. When we know what we are working towards, we can figure out the steps to get as close as we can to the ideal. Like we discussed, I agree that it is very important to be realistic. The Declaration is not that at all. In the world we live in today, the Declaration is not realistic. These rights cannot be enforced anytime soon. That doesn't mean we should settle though. There is a difference between accepting reality and settling. Settling would mean that we would not strive to make the world better. If we accept reality, then we will be able to know how to move forward.

I think that Mills would agree with the UDHR. If his basic idea is to do things that create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, then these rights fulfill his idea. A great percentage of the world does not have their needs met while other people are living with way more than they need. If things are redistributed more evenly, then more people would be happy. If a millionaire gave some of his money to people who truly needed it, the wealthy person would still be happy and he would also make many more people happy. Now obviously a millionaire isn’t going to go around handling out money but if people who were able gave money to open schools and feed the hungry or if money were spent on healthcare instead of bailing out huge corporations, then these people who were helped would have their rights met. This would increase the amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. When it comes to things like torture and genocide, genocide obviously causes a great deal of hurt and anger for not only the people involved but people removed from the situation. We also talked about how ineffective torture is and how it makes people feel uneasy because they know it could happen to them.

I think that as a basis, these rights mean the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This would mean that the rich wouldn't be as rich but more importantly, the poor wouldn't be as poor. Despite the odds against humanity, I think we need to work towards the rights of the UDHR and see them as an ideal we need to at least try to get closer to while still being realistic. What do you think? Is it pointless to strive for something that we admit is unattainable?

"Pay attention to the man behind the curtain."

We talked a lot today following Tommy's assertion that perhaps we shouldn't go along with the UDHR because it is a noble lie. It is true that we as human beings with flaws will never all abide by every article all the time. And I think that most people understand that. With blatant violations every day in every part of the world, there's no denying that these idealistic articles are not implemented like they should be. But that's the point: the countries that signed the document, and the people within those countries, know that the UDHR expresses ideals that truly will not be strictly enforced, not in our lifetime and probably not ever, because of human flaws.

In Plato's Republic, he says that a lie leads to "ignorance of the soul," but a noble lie is only an imitation of that ignorance. If this is true, and I believe it is, people subscribing to a noble lie of course know that it doesn't represent truth or reality. Going along with Doctor J's analogy, I think virtually all of society sees the man behind the curtain. In fact, the curtain is transparent. Maybe only some of us openly acknowledge the man behind the curtain and the truth he represents, but that can be said of any other noble lie as well.

My point is, does it's being a noble lie make the UDHR less valuable? I say absolutely not. It isn't hurting anyone to create a standard for improvement. And no one really believes a noble lie, if we accept Plato's definition. We well know about that man behind the curtain.

Continuing from Class Today...

So, let’s keep today’s discussion going, yeah? I think we left off here:

On the one side, we all recognize that no country is able to provide fully all of the rights presented in the UDHR (although apparently four countries are doing okay). If the way things work now is any indicator, we just don’t hold ourselves accountable to all of these. They’re unrealistic on the home front. Further, the enforcement of the UDHR at the international level is a mess in a number of ways. When I went to the Amnesty International site to find the breakdown, this article popped up:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/canada-urged-arrest-and-prosecute-george-w-bush-2011-10-12

Now, who is going to arrest the former President of the United States for war crimes? Nobody. It doesn’t matter if he should be put to trial for what were absolutely human rights violations. It’s just not going to happen. That’s a political nightmare. Also, we have ideas about state sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and our own levels of responsibility that make enforcement across the globe difficult if not impossible. Given this, why shouldn’t we look at the way things actually are and create a feasible set of rights and goals, accepting our imperfections? OR accept that the UDHR is a lie? (Please feel free to correct me if I have presented this side of the argument incorrectly.)

On the other hand, since the UDHR was signed in 1948, the following things have happened (I’m sticking to the US for the moment): the Civil Rights movement and its legal and social byproducts, the second wave of the feminist movement, the elimination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the institution of Miranda Rights, and the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Of course there are other things that we could discuss in terms of advances in human rights. Internationally, apartheid ended. I'm not saying the UDHR is responsible for these things, but interestingly, racial equality, gender equality, open public service, and fair treatment and trial under the law are all mentioned in the UDHR. In the face of the huge way we have left to go, these can seem like a drop in the bucket, but they’re really important. They are especially significant for those who had been excluded from the “build from the way things are; we can’t meet everyone’s needs” formulation before these things happened.

I’d also say that a number of these things weren’t especially feasible even as they were being sought. The fact that people were beaten and jailed while seeking their rights speaks to the point about human imperfection and the reality of society, but the laws changed, even if attitudes were (and still are) a little slower to come around. These groups claimed a right that was not being given to them and the laws changed. That’s why the UDHR is important. It gives an individual or a group the opportunity to reach for something better for themselves and it gives everyone else responsibility in meeting the needs of others. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard, even if we can’t meet it consistently, it still lurks around, reminding us of what we could have done and should do better in the future. It pervades our expectations and our discourse. For me, the UDHR is a standard of behavior that we created for ourselves and we have the responsibility to try and meet it.

What do y'all think?

Something to Think About...

When we began our discussion about human rights, we talked about the idea of a “right to life”. We discussed whether it can exist in a world where humans dominate all other forms of life and what determines who has this right or not. The majority of the class agreed that the “right to life” is an intrinsic right that every human being shares. The only problem is that there is more to life than humans on this earth. This topic brought to my mind some ideas that we discussed in chemistry last semester about the development of life as we know it. From a more general point of view, we can look at the time line of life on earth and when human life began. Although the planet earth itself has existed for over 4.5 billion years, human life has only been around for relatively 2 million years. Earth began with single cell organisms, then multi-cellular organisms and eventually plants and animals- THEN humans. Just based on this fact alone we see just how insignificant human life on earth is compared to the history of other organisms. I think human beings like to believe that the earth was created for them; and, therefore, they have an intrinsic right to life and the right to end life where they see fit. As it was pointed out in class, it would be so simple and even plausible that a more developed species could come into existence and take over just as human beings have done. I do think though that there is something very distinctive and unique about humans which clearly separates them from any other organism- which we have touched on- and that is our reason. However, how can this mean that we are any better or deserve life any more than any other form of life on earth? Just thought this was something interesting to think about.

High Expectations

I know how rights differ from goals, I mean I basically wrote the précis on it. But I didn't understand how Eleanor and Co. could have possibly imagined a society in which all of these laws are protected. I couldn't see how they could comprehend a society in which every person has a claim to free education, a say in their public office, and the choice to own as much or as little property as they want, among other contradicting rights.

Personally, I think the Declaration was written with the full intention of being mandatory, but without confidence that it would be so immediately. Therefore we have many abstract rights that differ from goals in no sense other than name. The declaration is tailored to an unjust society. Because of this, it can appear to never lead to a perfectly just outcome.

Think about this: Aristotle's creation of a "perfect" society accounts for human injustice with the addition of the "spirited," even though in a completely just society, there would be no need for cops and the like.

Differently, the Declaration as a whole is meant to give people a claims to/against for use in a court of law, rather than just establishing the court of law itself. Because the Declaration focuses on the principles of good or bad actions without focusing on punishment, it is possible that it will build moral character. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if respected and applied by all humans, would produce a perfect society.

I love seeing how Philosophy moves along in time. It keeps getting more and more specific with each wave of new philosophers, and the difference between the something like the Declaration and Aristotle's Perfect Society is breathtaking. The values and framework haven't changed much, it is the method of implementation of these values that continues to spark passion and discovery each year. Problems are being solved! Brighter days ahead! Let us go forth and ponder, my friends.

The View of Rights

“Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind… “-Preamble of Declaration of Human Rights

The very first article of the Declaration of Human Rights defines human beings as rational agents with a conscience. A conscience in this case simply means that humans are animals that feel the need to give value and lack of value to different actions and objects. Humanity trends towards categorizing things by importance and value. The Declaration of Human Rights is a document intended to put down in writing the things obligated to human beings simply due to their existence as humans. If something is an obligation, the lack of it in one’s life is a travesty. In the preamble it describes the disregard of these rights as ending in “barbarous acts” which “outrage” humanity. However, in reality, are people really outraged by disregard for these rights?

In class today we discussed how people view human rights violations: only in the most extreme cases. When referring to instances of slavery and torture, any person would respond with disapproval and anger. Most people would argue the need for more to be done to help decrease these horrific things happening every day. The thing is: there are constant human rights violations everywhere that would probably not be seen in the same light by the general public. Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless, receiving inadequate healthcare, children are not being educated and that is only the beginning of the violations seen. Each of these living conditions are stated as not entitlements but rather obligations of which humans have the right.

I personally think there are two main contributing factors to these human rights violations lack of attention in our society: the desensitized view Americans seem to have towards rights transgressions and the lack of knowledge of this declaration. There are human rights violations going on in society yet they are constantly disregarded as common occurrences rather than priorities to be dealt with. I am not saying society is not trying to find solutions to problems such as homelessness, but rather that they are reworded to seem less extreme as one would see a human rights violation. Like when the president reworded genocide into ‘genocidal actions’, similar perspective is happening in society towards the constant occurrences of humans living without their basic rights.

As discussed today in class, a very important part of the preamble is the, “common understanding of these rights and freedoms (as) the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge…” Very few Americans probably even know about this declaration’s existence, let alone fully understanding all that it entails. More priority is put into teaching the state capitols to people rather than the fundamental rights of humanity. More focus needs to be put into this or else the goal of the declaration will never be achieved.

So the questions that arise are: How exactly do we move society towards maintaining more of the rights humans have? Is the declaration really just an optimistic view of what is possible, or is there a way to allow humans to live within the 30 articles stated?

What Would the Philosopher Say?

In class today, it was mentioned that Plato's theory of justice counters the discourse of rights. Rights are goals that are both high priority and definite in the sense of having specific beneficiaries and addressees. The addressees (or duty bearers) are those who must act to make available the freedom or benefit identified by the right's scope. Because addressees are an important element of rights, rights discourse does not correlate with Plato's idea of justice. According to Plato, "...justice is doing one's own work and not meddling with what isn't one's own." Therefore, the addressees of rights would be qualified as unjust to Plato for interfering with others. The entitlement theory- which holds that a right is a very strong moral reason why people sholud have a certainfreedom, power, protection, or benefit- may be more acceptable to him.
I believe that Kant would be more accepting towards the discourse of rights since deontology is based on principles and obligations. A rational agent could interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a list of maxims. In addition to that, his Universal Law of Justice states that one ought to act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone. In following the Universal Law of Justice you would at least be respecting the negative rights of others (i.e. a secure claim against severly cruel or dehumanizing treatment and a secure claim against unfair treatment) because you would be treating others as you want to be treated. So what do you guys think? what would some of the ohter philosophers argue?

Rational Agents

Typically in science, humans are considered animals that possess the character trait of reason. Many of the philosophers base their assumptions on rational human agents; therefore, how do we know when we are rational? When looking at the literary example Lord of the Flies by William Golding, it is evident that when displaced from society, children behave based off of their animal instincts. In the United States, the concept of “under 18” plays a drastic role in determining whether or not an individual can make a legal decision. This magic number almost automatically assumes that as we are older, wisdom is achieved; therefore, we can be called rational agents and ultimately be held accountable towards the law. However, when looking at the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the author depicts that the human nature of even the best of citizens has the ability to transform into irrationality when placed into the wilderness with no authority. Therefore, is a universal law an attempt to create rational agents?

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Rights dictates that all individuals are granted the right to elementary education. Does education create rationality? If we did not have a set language that is learned by all individuals, we would not be able to communicate and be considered rational. On another note, in elementary school, a basic component of the education (correct me if you disagree) is to learn how to interact with other children. Before a five year old is placed into school, he/she has never been forced to cooperate with other individuals. This teaches the concept of sharing in a give and take relationship. Through learning positive and negative behavior, we learn how to live peaceably with other individuals. Without learning these set standards, would humans just be animals without order? We are attempting for perfection within our society; however, at times it feels as though, as humans, we are striving to succeed in being “the survival of the fittest.” It has taken thousands of years for humans to reach the basis of our knowledge and accepted norms. Is rationality an attempt to create order within a world that is bound with disorder? In science, entropy is the tendency for matter to naturally become messy with disorder. It requires work to organize; therefore, does rationality require work?

It seems that the UDHR sets forth a reasonable description of human rights that can generally be agreed upon to benefit people. As humans we do feel that we have rights and we want them to go unviolated. Why then have we not done more to uphold this document? Countries, or the US at least, have done little to educate their citizens of the existence of the document or its importance. Without any kind of general understanding we cannot hope to have people as a whole live by and respect this declaration of rights. Some of these rights are already outlined in the unwritten cultural rules of society, but by adopting the UDHR as an authoritative document these rules would gain more power and people would feel more of an obligation to diligently follow them. For example, Article 4 states that there should be no slavery in any form. Many societies accept this as true. People believe that slavery violates the individual right to freedom and life. In reality, however, slavery still exists today. If the UDHR was given more authority and the countries that pledged to achieve it took it seriously, they would feel an obligation to end slavery everywhere. It would no longer be a personal believe in the injustice of the situation, it would be a worldwide obligation to take action against this injustice. It seems that the countries that pledged to uphold the document need to commit to their promise. They agreed that people were entitled to these rights so now they need to educate people of the importance of respecting them and protect those who are suffering from human rights violations. People would be better off if we all lived to achieve universal respect for human rights, so why are we not working harder towards this goal?

Blind Leading the Blind

Many of the posts focus on the context of the UDHR, such as the ambiguous terms and their interpretations as well as the grounds on which many of the rights are established. In general I believe these Universal laws need to be in place and have sound reason to be. Despite whatever we may find wrong or inconsistent with these rights, they exist because in some way or fashion there have been clear and repetitive violations of these rights universally. However, not many of the posts seem to question the United States’ commitment to these rights, when as a country, the U.S. violates a majority of these rights daily.

I do not understand how a group of countries can come together to determine how it’s their personal duty to uphold these rights, when there is not clear evidence or support that they themselves govern themselves by these same laws. The U.S. has a strong reputation for being a powerful country that intervenes on the behalf of other countries when in need, yet from the inside looking out, many of the causes are based on self-interest. Many of the international issues the U.S. frowns upon are happening in its own backyard, yet the United States can sign an agreement that it will uphold a series of rights to protect every other nation. This makes no sense to me. The very basis of these rights being enforced and protected by countries that have no grounds to enforce their protection, is like giving criminals the task to establish laws and rights that protect violators of the law, and then have them commit to enforce these laws and rights. If I am a violator of the rights I’m claiming to protect, how can I properly and consistently ensure I will hold others to the true standard?

There are so many sayings about how one must first be in the position to help himself before he can help others, and I feel that any of these proverbs can apply to the United States’ commitment to upholding the UDHR. Before even considering signing this pledge, the U.S. should have been in a position in which the country itself reflected the same values and rights stated in the UDHR. Because this is not the case, Americans like many other citizens of other nations are still experiencing violations of their rights, under government officials that fail to recognize that rights are being violated and that a document such as the UDHR even exists.

How do you feel about the U.S.’s pledge to uphold the UDHR? Do the violations of rights in our country reflect the U.S.’s ability to uphold the universal rights else where?

UDHR: What's Your Point?

Because Flo already outlined some of the concerns I share about the western nature rights themselves in the UDHR, I would like to think more closely about the implementation of those rights and whether effective implementation is truly possible. It is obvious that many of the rights set forth in the UDHR are not protected around the world. In fact, in scrolling through the document, I can think of multiple instances in nearly all of the Articles in which countries have failed to protect the outlined rights. For example, Article 21 declares, "Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country." Surely we can agree that DADT blatantly excluded many members of American society from an equal service experience in public service. Article 23 states, "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work." According to the Economics and Statistics Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, women made 78.2 cents to every dollar that men made in 2010. In other words, Article 23 is clearly being violated in the U.S., not to mention the even more blatant gender wage disparities around much of the world.

This raises the question of how a right can exist while it is being violated. Does the UDHR hold the same weight when the rights that it outlines go unprotected, or is it simply a piece of paper with words scribbled on it? Approaching the problem from a different angle, is the goal of the UDHR for the outlined rights to be fully protected and enforced, or is the document meant to serve as more of a set of guidelines/model for us to aim towards? What do you think?

Right to Life

The argument for why humans are "superior" to other animals is usually that we are self-aware and that other animals are not. While it is impossible to know, due to the lack of ability to communicate with them, for certain if they are aware of their own existence, it is a reasonable assumption by virtue of the fact that they cannot communicate their own thoughts. We therefore afford ourselves certain rights, such as the right to life. We cannot say that all animals are afforded this right because we regularly take that right away in order to survive. I would argue, however, that this falls outside the right to life and into the realm of nature. Humans are, to my knowledge, the only animal that wastes. Most other animals will only kill to eat or to protect themselves. True, by killing them, you are taking away their right to life, but in doing so you are asserting your own right to life. As we discussed in class, certain rights have more weight or have a larger scope than other rights. It can be concluded then that our right to life simply trumps other animal's right to life. Individually, every animal would take a life in order to save his/her own, or in order to provide sustenance to continue living. Would we call an animal a murderer if it killed me to eat or protect itself? No, we would simply say it was acting like an animal—so, too, with humans killing other animals. Humans are the only being, therefore, capable of murder, or (for my purposes) the unnatural destruction of another human's or other animal's right to life. This allows for all animals to have a right to life without hypocrisy.

This argument, however, only holds water if one believes that any living being a fundamental right to life. I am going to assert, however, that this is true using the exact same argument Mill used to argue the idea of justice. It is in the best interest of all to agree with the fundamental right to life simply because if this were removed, nothing would protect anyone else from simply killing another person. It is through sympathy that we are able to generalize our own self-preservation in order to agree, in the common interest of all, that we should protect the life of all. It is therefore illogical to disagree with the right of everyone to life.

Human Rights - Pure Western Arrogance?

In my post this week, I would like to continue our discussion about human rights, we had in class.

As you may remember, I posed a question about the origin of the human rights and the problems that might occur from it. In order to summarize that quickly, human rights are mostly based on western beliefs, especially shaped by the enlightenment movement, that is to say in the very base mainly by Immanuel Kant. Due to the fact that we all grew up with these very basic ideas of individualism, freedom of pain, dignity and so on, and we probably all experienced their advantages in our lives, it is very simple for us to accept Human Rights as a founding groundwork of a well-working domestic and international society.

Why do we accept Human Rights as such a important part of a good life for the greatest amount of people? In our western belief, human beings are distinguished from animals and other forms of living by the fact that we are able to execute Reason. This Reason tells us that the only way to achieve happiness (another western belief) for the whole humanity is, to create claims like the Human Rights. These two basic ideas, namely Reason and happiness (or a good life or however you might call it) are defined by western philosophers and their predecessors.

My question was, what might happen, if somebody from a completely different cultural background cannot accept Human Rights in a way that is very simple for us. Why could that happen? One possibility might be, because the very founding belief is not the distinction between humans and animals by Reason, but by any other difference, for example by the capability to recognize the divinity. A rational way to argue would be that humans are therefore only humans, if they act according to the divine laws, which can be totally different from our ideas of Human Rights. This argumentation is completely of equal value as the one mentioned above, based on Reason and happiness.

According to you, what makes the Human Rights then universal and worth to be applied by every human being?

Another question is, what we should do with people, who don‘t accept our ideas of Human Rights, e.g. like religious extremists. Of course, we have to try to argue in a reasonable way with them, but what if they still don‘t believe, what we based on our Reason? Is it possible to force somebody to follow these norms, to even believe in them? Kant would maybe say that it is contradictory to act irrationally (forcing to believe) in order to achieve a rational goal. Utilitarians would say that it is for the greater good and therefore right to force them to act according to the rules, even if they don‘t believe in them.

What do you think, what we could do with disbelievers of Human Rights?