Declaration Of Rights Essay

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted in 1789 by the National Assembly, explicitly defines “the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man” (Declaration, p. 1). Two philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx, object the document, especially its usage of natural rights, by presenting different arguments against its language and function. Bentham centers his argument around the Declaration’s promotion of anti-legal rights and its vagueness in description in his essay “Anarchical Fallacies.” Marx criticizes the Declaration’s perpetuation of social alienation and for not pursuing human emancipation in “On the Jewish Question.” Of the two arguments, Marx presents a better and more convincing argument than Bentham. Marx advocates for complete human emancipation beyond political emancipation whereas Bentham does not go beyond the criticism of the legislators, of their use of language and design, as opposed to the law itself.

"The Bill of Rights was created by our forefathers to attempt to protect basic rights of the American Citizens. With the Introduction of the Internet and mass surveillance revealed by whistle-blowers such as Edward Snowden, those very same Citizens are having their rights infringed upon by the government that has been set up to protect our rights, those laid down in the Bill of Rights.

Chapter one, Source 1 (The French Revolution): The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

That human rights should be available and potentially useful to everyone is an aspiration, not a moral truth. It is the promise of human rights that makes them so appealing, especially to those who have no other recourse.31 One reason I dislike accounts of human rights that are not inclusive—such as the argument from autonomy—is that the mere admissibility of some justified exclusions opens the door to the possibility of others. The exemptions also become ripe for abuse, as with arguments about the limited "rationality" of all of those historically excluded from natural rights arguments. Such accounts undermine the promise, and thus the appeal and the legitimacy, of human

The idea of human freedom is seen in multiple aspects through the eyes of multiple theorists. Human freedom is an extensive topic because it extends throughout many different aspects of life, such as politics, religion, and education to name a few. Throughout this paper, I intend to address the aspects of human freedom as seen through the writings of Emile Durkheim, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Max Weber. Each theorist presents his own ideas on what human freedom really is and how it can exist, but they also share a few ideas as well.

“ The government is morally obligated to serve people and protect their rights such as life, liberty, and property. The Constitution was created to make a stronger central government to protect the rights of its people. The Social Contract protects the natural rights of the citizens, but with the Constitution protecting every other rights. The writers intention of the Bill of Rights was to ensure the safety of citizens rights. Most amendments apply in daily life, but might not realize it. The First amendment, freedom of speech, amendment two, the right to bear arms, and amendment four, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. These three amendments are a major factor in daily lives for citizens.

Law raises critical and complex issues concerning equality, fairness. There is a common saying that ‘All are equal before the law’. In political issues, freedom comprises of the social and political opportunities to which all group individuals are entitled. In On Liberty, John Stuart probed the question “how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control" their becomes a distinctive hostility amongst freedom and

One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its

that everyone is equal and should be treated the same. Not one person is better than another, and

It is also important to note that while the language used in the Universal Declaration might reflect former articulations of Human Rights, it may not specifically invoke human nature, a Divine Being, natural rights, or any other theoretical root for human rights. Since legal rights have law as their foundation, it is correct to state that human rights have humankind as their basis. Many theorists have proposed that the most relevant theories to the development of the human rights notion are natural rights, religion, natural law, legal positivism, in addition to Marxism. The idea of individual rights rose from the understanding that because reason is the key characteristic human beings possess, every individual has the right to choose their specific authorities as well as to formulate their own laws. A simple question, thus, is the valid authority and duty of government in the framework of human rights.

People's Rights in History During the late eighteenth century due to philosophical writings of men such as Rousseau and Locke, the question of what governments should be and the rights that every person should have began to be questioned. In France it led to revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. The events in France influenced many in Britain to try for reforms to their own government. Both France and Britain advocated many rights for their people; this essay will discuss what those rights were supposed to be, who pushed for them, and what the realities of these rights were.

Griffins project is to respond to what he sees as the debased, vague and ill- defined human rights discourse by tightening the conceptual boundaries around the term ‘human right’ as derived from a substantive theory of normative agency. He seeks to provide eloquence and determinacy to the justification of human rights.

The aim of this essay is to critically evaluate the statement 'The European Convention on Human Rights exists to guarantee legal protection to fundamental rights'. It will examine how rights are protected in law and the way the UK approaches the protection of these rights. Explanation will be made of the way that the UK addresses the implementation of the rights in the English legal system. Issues such as conflicting rights and legal limitations will also be considered. An evaluation will be made of whether or not The Human Rights Act 1998 protects the fundamental rights of UK citizens as contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The first part of the essay will concern itself with a more genealogical approach by looking at early philosophical origins of human rights and how these evolved over the years. With this I seek to outline the fact that while efforts to institutionalise human rights were initially a reaction towards global injustice and oppression, in contemporary politics they are used to create power relations, and implicitly, inequality. This will provide a good basis for the second part in which I will look at the incompatibilities within the theory- religion versus Rawls ' consensus based theory. Analysing the multitude of frameworks with their different ways of approaching and grounding rights underlines and reinforces the fact that there can 't be a universal foundation for human rights. The third part will deal with the fact that trying to ground rights into one universal foundation creates an exclusion of those who are different and how we can seek to move away from this problem.