I believe that human rights have to be in the context of a country's economic status and communitarian values.
For any country, human rights develop over a very long period of time. It took the French Revolution before Europe became, to some extent, more democratized. Everything takes time. An individual's human rights is based on the notion that he/she will not infringe on another's or do damage to another human being. This is a social contract which only financially comfortable individuals can aspire toward. A person without money will only think of making money. He/she will not be that concerned with philosophical theories. Even when a poor person heeds philosophy, it cannot be avoided that the person will only see it in the context of how it can benefit him. The person will not see the clear rationale of benefiting other people. The person will only want to think of "me, myself, and I".
Human rights is primarily based on benefiting others, thereby benefiting oneself. Do you honestly see a poor person thinking of food to put on the table to be able to see that? Thus, rich, democratized countries going in to "liberate" other countries is a foolish act performed behind the zealous smokescreen of human rights.
So long as there is no excessive injustice and exploitation, and there are just and capable leaders in the government, is there an excessive need of this noble but sometimes inaccurate application of ideology?
Even when a country excels economically, I also believe in human rights in the communitarian context. Stability is of utmost importance. Since the basis of liberalism is based on a social contract with the end result of stability to resolve the state of nature, is it that wrong that it must be seen in this way? If Hobbes and Locke were still alive, I'm sure that they would want to see it apply in the communitarian context as well.
And this means not speaking irresponsibly, and speaking only when backed with concrete facts. And most importantly, it must be constructive.
Assuming, let's say, that a particular country has complete free speech, but certain ideas or exposition of certain truths will undermine the whole social fabric which is otherwise mostly just, and acts in the best interest of the people. Would you then still advocate complete free speech?
Let me put it in another way to make it simpler. If your parents told you that they do not like a particular act of a relative, and told you to keep it to yourself - assuming if you told that relative what your parents said, it may lead to fallout, as this issue is sensitive. You yourself like this particular relative a lot. Other than that act, all of you get along very well. My question then is- Would you still tell your relative what your parents said?
If you answered "yes" to this question, I have nothing to say. If you answered "no", then I would have conveyed my message.
For any country, human rights develop over a very long period of time. It took the French Revolution before Europe became, to some extent, more democratized. Everything takes time. An individual's human rights is based on the notion that he/she will not infringe on another's or do damage to another human being. This is a social contract which only financially comfortable individuals can aspire toward. A person without money will only think of making money. He/she will not be that concerned with philosophical theories. Even when a poor person heeds philosophy, it cannot be avoided that the person will only see it in the context of how it can benefit him. The person will not see the clear rationale of benefiting other people. The person will only want to think of "me, myself, and I".
Human rights is primarily based on benefiting others, thereby benefiting oneself. Do you honestly see a poor person thinking of food to put on the table to be able to see that? Thus, rich, democratized countries going in to "liberate" other countries is a foolish act performed behind the zealous smokescreen of human rights.
So long as there is no excessive injustice and exploitation, and there are just and capable leaders in the government, is there an excessive need of this noble but sometimes inaccurate application of ideology?
Even when a country excels economically, I also believe in human rights in the communitarian context. Stability is of utmost importance. Since the basis of liberalism is based on a social contract with the end result of stability to resolve the state of nature, is it that wrong that it must be seen in this way? If Hobbes and Locke were still alive, I'm sure that they would want to see it apply in the communitarian context as well.
And this means not speaking irresponsibly, and speaking only when backed with concrete facts. And most importantly, it must be constructive.
Assuming, let's say, that a particular country has complete free speech, but certain ideas or exposition of certain truths will undermine the whole social fabric which is otherwise mostly just, and acts in the best interest of the people. Would you then still advocate complete free speech?
Let me put it in another way to make it simpler. If your parents told you that they do not like a particular act of a relative, and told you to keep it to yourself - assuming if you told that relative what your parents said, it may lead to fallout, as this issue is sensitive. You yourself like this particular relative a lot. Other than that act, all of you get along very well. My question then is- Would you still tell your relative what your parents said?
If you answered "yes" to this question, I have nothing to say. If you answered "no", then I would have conveyed my message.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |