Human Rights What are Human Rights? Human Rights are commonly understood as being those rights which are inherent to the human being. The concept of human rights acknowledges that every single human being is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Human rights are legally guaranteed by human rights law, protecting individuals and groups against actions which interfere with fundamental freedom and human dignity. They are expressed in treaties, customary international law, bodies of principles and other sources of law.
True liberation and individualism means that all virtues and characteristics are individual human virtues and characteristics, open to anyone who is inclined to pursue and develop them. There are no virtues or psychological characteristics belonging exclusively to males, or to females. As a feminist, one must support closing the gender gap, not widening it-thus clearing the road for a free, individualist and diverse
Moral relativism is a broader, more personally applied form of other types of relativistic thinking, such as cultural relativism. These are all based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is purely a product of a person’s preferences and environment. There is no ultimate standard of morality, according to moral relativism, and no statement or position can be considered absolutely “right or wrong,” “best or
This implies conditional rights. Conditional rights include the rights to property, to education, to movement, to beliefs, but they do not imply to “right to life.” Right to life is the only human right in a primary sense. This right is unconditional in any society. For, Gotama Buddha who is an eastern thinker coined his teaching as ‘Dhamma’. ‘Dhamma’ can mean “human rights, obligations or responsibilities, and laws of nature”.
The freedom of religion and belief The right to freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental right of every human being. The protection of this right safeguards respect for diversity and also contributes to democracy, peace, stability, the rule of law and development. This right can be divided into two dimensions: the internal dimension on the one hand, and the external dimension on the other hand. The internal dimension grants the freedom to have a religion and the right to change religions. There are no exceptions possible to this dimension, which means that no limit can be established to the right to inner conviction and creed.
My purpose in this essay is to explain and evaluate ethical relativism. Ethical relativism states that there are no moral absolutes, therefore, no moral right or wrong. While this theory does have many advantages to it, such that it can promote acceptance and equality, I have to disagree with this theory. I believe there has to be some moral truths in order for society to not become chaotic. Ethical relativism, or also known as moral relativism, denies that moral values and norms are objective or universal and declares that there are no absolute truths.
The sole idea that the inherent existence of rights in every human being itself makes it the only reason why human rights are possessed by all the people, and therefore, they are of universal characteristic . It is also further stated that human rights cannot be valid only in certain contextual grounds, because, their validity comes from their own existence, which is the nature of human beings. Wherefore, the social, economic, cultural and political conditions of people cannot define human rights . Whereas cultural relativism objects this notion, and argues that human rights are culturally dependent and that no moral principles of human rights can be made to apply to all cultures. The cultural relativism scholars further argue that the principles that are stated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Everybody deals according to its own life circumstances and no one can really try on the life of another person, so cannot condemn it. Tolerance can be seen from different positions, one of them is religion. George Carlin in these terms argues, that religion can be compared with a pair of shoes, we can have our own great pair, but we should not make someone to wear it also. Religion is different for everyone, even if we share the same one, some personal attitude to it. Because of that, people should not be condemned for their religious
I want to clear up the point that they are no references that social differences are never explained in any of these definitions to emphasize the point that social differences should not divide society, because social background does not define people´s personality, formal education does not mean real education and people beliefs have the same bases. To begin with, society should not be divided because people´s beliefs have the same bases. Comparing and analysing the bases of most popular religions, we can see that every of them seek for one purpose, which is to find peace and respect each other. Therefore, problems originated by this difference do not have to happen. If every religion is seeker of peace, there is no sense on fighting whit different religion because it goes against it principles.
Every one, men and women, have the right to seek the salvation of their souls. This rights means the freedom of conscience in religious matters. Allah himself does not compel his creatures to believe in Him, but wants them to do so on the basis of their own free will and conscience. To obey the law of society is one thing, to be coerced to have faith is quite another. The Quran says: “No coercion in Religion”[2:256].