by Ellend Heath

Created on: August 31, 2007

What are human rights? This question begs another question: What is your assumption on life? I have come to the conclusion in life that everyone starts from somewhere. There is an underlying foundation for every culture on Earth. When we speak about "human rights" in the West, we refer to it through the context of a long Greco-Christian heritage.

We define things in terms of nation-states, a larger extension of the polis (as Aristotle would outline). This belief that has grown amidst the Enlightenment European culture has given us a basis for defining world relationships, our primary foundation. Granted, tribes and ethnic struggle still ensue, yet there is still an overwhelming belief in the fact that the larger world operates in national infrastructures.

Our secondary foundation gives us a Christian (or Post-Christian) outlook in the category of human rights. We believe that people all have rights. These rights are not endowed upon the people by some monarch (with my apologies to those within monarchical structures), but given to men and women by a Divine Being. Jefferson and the Founding American Fathers would advocate that this Divine Being has empowered all of humanity with equal rights. According to English political philosopher John Locke, Providence would empower people to life, liberty and property (or the pursuit of happiness).

We are endowed with these "inalienable rights." With these rights firmly in hand, people can create governments and cultures. Of course, these governments and cultures can become grossly horrific (i.e., Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, etc.), yet the fact remains that all people are made equal.

Europe and its European outposts (USA, Australia, etc.) all share in the same presuppositions that have shaped them in their histories. Other nations, such as the Middle East, Far East and tribal regions, all work within different contexts. There is tremendous room for plurality within the West, as evidenced by its burgeoning immigrant classes. Sadly, the freedom to be culturally/religiously different is not tolerated in great portions of Asia and Africa. Of course, I must qualify that not all nations are perfect.

The United Nations has nations represented from across the spans of the world. The U.N. is not as successful as it should be for the sole reason that you have delegates there with vastly different presuppositions. These presuppositions lead to far ranging conclusions. The histories and religious backgrounds of the nations lead the delegates down paths of nearly irreconcilable differences.

The U.N. is built around the Greco-Christian presuppositions as evidenced in their Declaration of Human Rights. Women do not have basic rights but are merely treated like legal cattle in a good portion of the world (contrary to Article 1). Torture happens in nations around the world, and in some cases within the leading democracy of the world (contrary to Article 5). Marriages are still arranged in some parts of the world (contrary to Article 16). Read the Declaration and see where contradictions exist.

Human rights are sadly subjective across the world. Although, we can argue which context is the best for humanity despite their failures. I would argue that the liberalism of Locke and Rousseau is ideal to the world. Although it would be difficult for a wide variety of nations to adopt these ideals, for Enlightenment was built upon the foundations of the scientific revolution, Reformations and Renaissance. Of course, living up to the ideal of human rights is easier said than done.

Learn more about this author, Ellend Heath.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.