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?
I don't think it's pointless. As some people said in class if you settle with the present then what? Settling places limits and will never evoke change. However, many of the rights will not be obtained any time soon. I just think that's something we have to accept, but that doesn't mean give up.
ReplyDeleteWhen we debate about whether the UDHR is effective or necessary because it is not the reality in the world, I think we are thinking within the wrong framework. We are blaming the ideal for not fulfilling the reality when we SHOULD be blaming the reality for not fulfilling the ideal. Instead of focusing on the supposed pointlessness of rights, we should focus on the wealth distribution injustices throughout the world. We should focus on the gender inequality and consequences of that throughout the world. We should focus on the racial discrimination that shapes jobs, class, education, etc. When we fix those things, the rights will be fulfilled. In other words, the problems in the world aren't the rights' "fault," but the rights exist regardless of their fulfillment or unfulfillment, and it is our job to work so that everyone has equal opportunity to access those rights.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is pointless to strive for the unattainable. As Dr. Johnson said, if we work for something that is attainable, what do we do once we attain it? Nothing, for then we will have nothing to look forward to. I believe that the founders of the UDHR were aware that the rights that they laid out were ideal in the fact that they would not be attainable to everyone. But because of that society would have the space to grow as it develops to reach the ideal state that the UDHR proposes.
ReplyDelete