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.