Most people believe that rights are something which connected to an individual and cannot be taken away by others. This means that, everyone has their own rights to do whatever they wish and no one can take other's life. Right is actually has a connection between deontology as deontology concerns to treat people as they are human. In general we can classify deontology as duty and moral obligation. As we accomplish our moral obligation to others this means we fully understand and respect people rights. Here, we can see right is commonly describing the relation among people.
The traditional answer on where rights come from is that rights thought to be naturally connected to human. People believe that rights are naturally gifted to them by God. A person has the right to life, liberty and property. Personally, I agree with the thought because as we all know there is no law or constitutions which stated that a person rights is belong to anyone else. I prefer that rights are universal and available to everyone all over the world as long as no one interrupts into a person's life. However, by determining rights come from nature does not assist in specifying which right does person has. In contrasts, one can argue that rights are related to political system as rights can be created by political law and role of government. Based on libertarians, government should play their role on protecting the citizen against violence by other person. Beyond that, government should not interrupt into individual's personal life. Political system also commonly connected with law. Law could be sorted into three parts: law protecting individual against themselves, law protecting individual against violence by other and law to help one another, such as welfare. Libertarians totally reject the first and the third law, as they said there are no such laws against turn out to be drunk or intoxicated, it is a personal's affair and decision. Libertarians also said that, there no rule that individual should help others. Person should not depend on other attempt and effort to lead their life. There are no such "free" in this world; everything is valuable and need effort to get into it.
2 comments:
Of the two potential sources for human rights, governmental allowance and divine right, there is no question as to the more personally gratifying option. By attributing these rights to something fundamentally human, we ably delude ourselves into believing that we will never be made to live in the absence of such fundamental freedoms, as they cannot be isolated from our humanity. Nothing could be less true.
Over the course of human history, totalitarian regimes and dictatorships have stripped populaces of their rights with shocking ease. Ancient Rome brutally oppressed the free and nomadic people around the Mediterranean, forcing them into compliance and servitude. The Spanish Conquistadors were hailed as gods by the indigenous Latin Americans, and left in their wake a swathe of disease and destruction. More recently, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany brutally condemned millions, simply as a result of their ancestral heritage and religious orientation.
It is beyond dispute that in each of these situations (which constitute but a tiny fraction of historical cases), man has robbed man of the rights and freedoms that are allegedly inseparable from his person. This speaks to the fallacy of the "intrinsic rights" argument.
On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked, and the right to life of her citizens challenged. America is known throughout the world as being the greatest guarantor of freedom and rights in the world, and the attacks prompted a response from the most powerful military the world has ever witnessed. Even so, America did not send her forces into battle in the direct defense of rights – the United States military is tasked with the defense of the Constitution, not rights. In defending the Constitution, it is incontrovertible that our Soldiers indirectly protected our freedoms, but herein lays the distinction – we fought to protect the Constitution, the governmental allowance of rights. If government can both seize and defend rights, it follows that rights are fundamentally bound to government, not mankind.
To view rights as moral obligations or divine gifts is a deontologist point of view when truthfully morality has little to do with the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The OP is stated that rights are our moral obligations to others meaning that rights are founded upon the relationship between them and being human. Although this is true now, this is not how rights came to be. I believe that rights were imposed because of the basic human element of survival. Therefore in order to protect life a form of consequence must be imposed. In order to solidify that agreement between life or consequence, the right to life was born. Treating another human in a particular fashion because he is human is not logical.
As social beings we inevitably in some form interfere with someone’s rights. To say that, “beyond security, the government should not interrupt an individual’s personal life,” means that we would not allow the government to go beyond certain rights. If the government cannot go beyond the right of “privacy” for instance, means that we are not allowing the government to fulfill its duty of security. I believe that in order to gain rights we must give up others and if by allowing the government to interfere with my privacy would grant me security I would let them.
Post a Comment