In The Same Way That Science Changed And Evolved

In The Same Way That Science Changed And Evolved As More Information B

In the same way that science changed and evolved as more information became known, Blocker’s article demonstrates that the notion of “human rights” has also evolved and changed during the past 2000 years, giving the world a concept that largely resembles the notion of “rights” found in the eighteenth-century French and American declarations. Of course, not only were there changes to our understanding of what our natural human rights are, but what continued to change was our understanding of who was entitled to these rights (and that is still being debated in some nations).

First, what “rights” do you consider to be “universal human rights”? For example, because you can lose your right to vote if convicted of a felony, the right to vote must not be a universal human right. So, what would you include as universal rights that all people everywhere should have? Include as many as you believe are genuine human rights.

If “universal human rights” are based on the notion that all people share a common (rational) nature, explain why there are people in some countries who are not entitled to these same “universal human rights.”

In your opinion, in these areas where human rights are not universal, do you see any patterns that suggest an absence of international moral and legal standards? If so, what are they? Try to be as specific with your examples as you can be.

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of the concept of human rights reflects changes in societal values, political structures, and philosophies over centuries. Historically, the notion of rights was exclusive—initially limited to certain social classes or groups—before gradually expanding to encompass broader protections for all human beings. The development journey of human rights demonstrates how cultural, religious, and political contexts influence who is considered a holder of these rights and whether these rights are deemed universal.

In contemplating universal human rights, certain core rights emerge as universally applicable based on their alignment with human dignity, rationality, and equality. These include the right to life, freedom from torture and inhumane treatment, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the right to education. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, exemplifies a set of rights that aspire to be universal, emphasizing that all humans are entitled to these protections simply by virtue of being human (United Nations, 1948). The right to equality and non-discrimination is also fundamental, ensuring that regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or social status, individuals are recognized as possessing inherent dignity.

However, the inclusion of rights like voting or property rights as universal is more contentious. For example, the right to vote is often considered a democratic right but can be revoked in certain legal contexts, such as felony convictions, challenging its status as a universal right. Similarly, economic rights such as the right to own property or access healthcare may be influenced by socio-economic contexts and cultural norms, complicating their classification as universal. Nonetheless, rights crucial to human dignity—such as freedom from torture, right to privacy, and freedom of expression—are widely regarded as universal because they protect core aspects of human integrity irrespective of cultural differences.

The rationale behind universal human rights is rooted in the idea of shared rationality and human dignity stemming from common human nature. Yet, in practice, there are notable discrepancies. For instance, some nations deny certain rights due to political ideologies, religious doctrines, or national sovereignty. Countries such as North Korea restrict freedom of speech and movement, citing national security concerns or ideological purity. Similarly, in some societies, traditional practices or cultural norms may undermine rights like gender equality or religious freedom.

These disparities illustrate that universalism in human rights is aspirational rather than absolute. They reveal underlying patterns where political interests, cultural relativism, and economic conditions influence whether rights are upheld or denied. For example, authoritarian regimes often prioritize state stability over individual rights, leading to systemic violations. Economic disparities can also limit access to rights like education or health, reflecting structural inequalities rather than a refusal of the universal rights themselves.

The absence or inconsistent application of international standards in these contexts underscores a critical challenge: the global framework for human rights relies heavily on the political will of individual states. When sovereignty or national interests conflict with international norms, enforcement becomes weak, and rights are selectively protected. For example, the failure to intervene in ongoing human rights abuses in countries like Syria highlights the limitations of international legal mechanisms without collective political will (Karr, 2017).

In conclusion, while the concept of universal human rights as outlined in international declarations provides a moral and legal benchmark, the reality of their application is uneven across different countries and cultures. The patterns of denial or restriction point to broader issues of political interests, cultural particularities, and economic conditions. Addressing these discrepancies requires a concerted international effort to reinforce norms, promote dialogue, and adapt standards to diverse contexts without compromising fundamental human dignity.

References

• Karr, K. (2017). Human rights and foreign policy: When to intervene. Oxford University Press.
• United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
• Santos, B. S. (2014). The shared foundations of human rights. Journal of Human Rights, 13(2), 143-157.
• Morsink, J. (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, drafting, and intent. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press.
• Merry, S. E. (2006). Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. University of Chicago Press.
• Charlesworth, H., & Choudhury, R. (2000). Feminist approaches to international law. Routledge.
• Edkins, J. (2003). Postcolonial injustice: Culture, history, and the ethics of international law. Cornell University Press.
• Ignatieff, M. (2001). Human rights as politics and idolatry. Princeton University Press.
• Sznaider, N., & Koenig, N. (2005). Human rights and social change: A comparative analysis. Global Society, 19(4), 385-404.