Introduction:
To live in a place, where equality, peace, security and dignity are guaranteed is a good fortune to those who found a just society. Though it is not an easy task to establish a just society, but it is not an impossible idea. A just society requires a society of law abiding citizens who work together for the betterment of the society, where laws are human rights informed and social policies are effective.
The paper will focus on the notion of a just society supported by Rawls theory of justice (1999), concept of human rights supported by Donnelly (1989) and Freeman’s (2002) arguments and counter arguments, human rights laws as requirement for just society supported by Vieru’s (2010) arguments , importance of citizen’s virtue in
…show more content…
The main international human rights laws includes the international bill of human rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966. Though there are international agreements on human rights, but agreement on the implementation of human rights standards would require agreement on values. Because every society has its different values. Implementation of human rights varies according to the organization, resources and values of different societies. Practice of human rights values is more important rather than theoretical values (Freeman, 2002, p.58). Therefore Freeman suggests that the human rights law’s application depends on every society’s values and national …show more content…
Citizens are an important component of a society. In a just society the equal rights of the citizens are ensured. In a society where citizens do not participate in the political process to promote the public good and hold political authorities accountable, just society is not possible there.
All human rights laws will fail if the citizens are not willing to obey those laws. Moreover, enforcement of the social policies also depends on the voluntary cooperation of the citizens. The state will be unable to provide health care services if the citizens are not willing to maintain a healthy diet with respect to their own health (Kymlicka, 2002, p.285 ). Consequently, social policies to meet the need of the child, disable, women and elderly cannot be effective if the citizens are not willing to share this responsibility by providing some care for their relatives.
In Bangladesh there are more than two hundred environmental laws and several policies for the protection of the environment. But environmental destruction is increasing day by day. The state cannot protect the environment by legal rules and policies as long as the citizens do not practice reduce, reuse and recycle in their own consumer
Today’s society civic and political participation is so important. The more people that participate, the greater insurance of freedom there is. If people ignore their civic responsibilities and don’t help make important decisions, then only a few people are deciding on who deserves government positions. It’s our duty as citizens to protect our rights and participate politically. And it is up to the people at large to protect and maintain the rights and freedoms we hold dear.
Religious Freedom Remains Alive and Well For many years there has been significant discussion surrounding religious freedom and politics relating to the state or the government. At times they are distinct and separate from one another, yet at other times the two intersect. The two men credited for their insight into the “Catholic social thought in the United States were foundational for upholding a core principle in Church social teaching, namely, the distinction between civil society and the state.” In the article, “Religious Freedom in a civic culture”, by Fr.
Instead, it is too corrupted to even regulate the local chemical plant, sewage plant, and toxic waste incinerator, which produce so many pollutions and toxic that deadly harmful to the people live there. It is devastating to me that our politicians do not even address the issue. It seems to me that the government just totally abandon that
Imposition on Human Rights The modern conception of civil liberties involves a long list of individual rights which include the right to liberty and security of person, rights to property and privacy, right to a fair trial and the rights to free speech. These civil and political rights are now framed as “human rights” and are protected by numerous international treaties. Freedom of movement is also broadly recognised in international law and bills of rights. Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of each state.
The “Four Freedoms” was the main reason why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was developed. “The Declaration was drafted over two years by the Commission on Human Rights, chaired by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.” (“The Four Freedoms” 1). It was adopted on December 10, 1948 and is known to be “one of the most widely translated documents in the world” (“The Four Freedoms” 1). This declaration insists that all rights be upheld by governments and people to secure basic human rights (“The Four Freedoms”
John Rawls’ uses his work, A Theory of Justice, to define justice and injustice. Rawls’ general concept of justice follows that all social goods are to be equally distributed unless there can be a situation in which unequal distribution is the the benefit of everyone. The primary social goods he discusses are income, wealth, liberty, opportunity, and the bases of self-respect. Iris Young criticizes Rawls’ conception of justice in her work Justice and the Politics of Difference. Young claims that the focus Rawls places on distribution and the end product of said distribution leads to a limit on the scope of justice.
In this essay, I will explain John Rawls’s argument concerning distributive justice and Roland Dworkin’s argument concerning why a government should be a welfare state, as well as arguing for the fair and just treatment for those least advantaged in society, whatever that society might look like. Rawls’s argument in favor of distributive justice begins with his initial overall idea that one’s ability to lead a good life should not be based upon things one cannot control, such as his endowments, but instead based upon one’s ambition. This gives everyone the same opportunity in achieving success within their life. Being ambition-sensitive is key to his argument because one’s success should be based upon the work they put into life (their ambition)
Introduction on Rawls & Sandel Rawls stated his Principles of Justice in his essay as a body comprising two main principles, namely liberty and equality; which was then revised in Justice as Fairness: A Restatement . Equality is then subdivided into Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. He arranges these principles in ‘lexical priority’, prioritising in the order of Liberty, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle . The order of these principles work together when they conflict in practice and first principle is given priority over the second . Moreover, they are intended to work as a single conception of justice – ‘Justice as Fairness’.
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls aim to justify the principles of justice as fairness by reference to individual rational choice. He grounds his view on the ideas on “society as a fair system of cooperation” and of “citizens as free and equal persons” (Rawls 1995:11). Acknowledging that people have diverse interests, the tries to answer to how they can reach an agreement in matters of justice. The conception of justice as fairness is important in order to understand the logic of principle of justice. In this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, Raws states that free and equal persons concerned to further their own interests define the fundamental terms of their association.
John Rawls’s most prominent work ‘A Theory of Justice’ has been occupying a pivotal position within political philosophy for over thirty years. Rawls aims to introduce a notion of justice that assumes the presence of a hypothetical social contract as the main factor for determining justice. In doing so, he makes use of the so-called original position which implies a hypothetical scenario in which people are put behind a veil of ignorance which denies them any awareness of their physical attributes as well as their socioeconomic circumstances (eg. one’s gender, religion etc.). People participating in this hypothetical scenario must consequently decide about the social justice of a society, as if they were to inhabit the given society afterwards.
He supports the idea that human rights are a result of society. This is because he viewed human rights claims and institutions as being “unique”. He argues that human rights in an institution specific to particular culture and historic context and is in fact a human construction. Waters does not believe that all human rights do not involve all made against the state. Human rights can only include claims that are recognised as fundamental to a political community’s member’s humanity in Waters’ opinion.
Once of the main factors of the essay I will comment on will be the Human Rights Act 1998, Since October 2000 the Human rights act 1998 has been in force; it’s main purpose is to protect every living individual by maintaining their human rights. The Human RIghts Act ‘gives further effect’ to freedoms and rights guaranteed under the European Convention. This means that the judges have to read and also give effect to legislation but the way it is done has
They find that there are not only differences among people; it is of no doubt that human beings share a large number of common qualities. They believe in human rights, that is, “rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human” (Weston 2014). Furthermore, the Unite Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted a document Universal Declaration of Human Rights; this document was written “for fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion” (Encyclopedia Britannica 2010, 657). The universal human rights theory declines cultural relativism because it sets unified rules for all human beings. Therefore, a heated discussion has begun in academic circle.
Environment therefore has to be conserved in order to maintain, and improve the quality of mental and physical health. Although there has been a growing awareness for the protection of environment but appropriate steps has not been taken yet at the international level. The term Environmental Right has not been fully recognized by the international forums for human rights. Although the judicial decisions of different states as well as the writings of different jurists recognizes the environmental right as a human right but at the international level it is still
Natural resources are considered as a gift from the god and they are inherited property of all mankind. These resources cannot be appropriated for private use by any individual. The state can give the ownership right to an individual only when there is something beneficial coming outof it, but not at the cost of environment. Intrue sense, state is altruist. The protection of natural resourceshas also given rise to the concept of sustainable development for present time as well as for future time.