Utopia of Human Rights

With an eye to the future, I would like to add several rights to the existing framework of Human Rights. Firstly, Human rights must be applied and followed regardless of the power of the person violating them. The reason I chose this as a law is that I believe it could help in preventing tyranny, and abuse of power. If a state was under an authoritarian rulership, it should be mandatory for a ruler to ratify an agreement where it is assured that they won’t abuse their power. To prevent future violence, and unnecessary war, it must be a mandatory human right, in my opinion, to make sure that the government of every nation state is un-corrupt. As times change, we realize we have more power and control than we know, nevertheless, we also forget the contradicting nature of life that we also have less control and power than we know.

Exposing the palpable tension that, although we have these organizations that promise a better and more peaceful world, seldom are all the rules of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or even the basic intrinsic human rights are followed. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and if we aren’t making sure that the rules are being followed, are we really advancing in the 21st century or are we just lying to ourselves and we are still stuck in a world where prejudice about things that can not be helped is still an acceptable social behavior? Making sure that the articles and rules are followed regardless of who violates them may help us get out of these medieval machiavellian ways.

The first declaration that I added was inspired by Donald Trump who is known for his extreme and transparent bigotry, racism, and sexism. He is often compared to the leagues of some of the worst authoritarian rulers of the past such as, Hitler and Mussolini. Moreover, his camps for immigrant children, which have also been compared to Autchwitz and other concentration camps (Devaga, 2018). It was also inspired by the facist and tyrannical people in power of the past as well, not just the ones previously mentioned. For example, Bashar Al-assad, Husni Mobarak, and Saddam Hussain, the KKK, even the apartheid. All these heinous crimes were by people who were abusing their power, this law could help in preventing more destruction and the loss of lives, and it would help those who question the true intentions of the bureaucracy.

Forsythe (2000), states the relevance of human rights in daily life:

After gross violations of human rights, what is one to do? This is the subject of transitional justice, a growth industry for intellectuals and policy makers after the Cold War. Should one prosecute individuals in international courts, or in hybrid or special courts, or in national courts? Should one avoid courts and rely on truth commissions, or bar violators from public office, or just move on to concentrate on building a rights-protective state in the future rather than looking back via criminal prosecution? There are many complexities facing those interested in international criminal justice – meaning those interested in whether to prosecute against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. Beyond punishment of evildoers, one need to keep in mind other possible goals of transitional justice: deterring future atrocities, bringing psychological closure to victims and/ or relatives, producing reconciliation among divided communities, building a rights-protective polity in the future, adjusting to the lingering power of elements of the old regime. (P.117)

Albert Einstein once said that “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it”. The second human rights law that I would like to add is that a safe place must be guaranteed to those fleeing their country for reasons of safety, i.e. The Syrian refugees. Since human rights should be based on our moral instincts, on empathy rather than apathy. Helping those in desperate need, fleeing their own homes to save their lives, in my opinion, should definitely be a human rights law. This falls under the third factor of Kant’s arguments to create a cosmopolitan system, the right to provide ‘hospitality to a non citizen (Stonesweet, P.57, 2012)

From a Natural scholars perspective, the faith in human empathy is vastly overrated because it is indeed an abstract concept. Although most humans are the same, some do thrive on a corrupt bureaucracy built on apathy, for example serial killers, how are we to know their intrinsic values did not tell them murdering is within the norm, and if human rights did get better through out the 21st century, which falls under the umbrella of natural schools beliefs (Dembour, 2010). Apathy is a dangerous thing, because with it, human beings do not care about human rights. Truth be told, even though human rights is abstractly and carefully placed around empathy and moral beliefs. The failures of complying to these laws is what causes corruption in this world. To better understand the apathetic nature, and the Machiavellian ways of certain nations /and people that fail to comply to these basic laws of human rights, and are completely devout to apathy, we can look into a relevant quote from Viktor E. Frankl’s book “A mans search for meaning” (1946) he says that:

Apathy, the main symptom of the second phase, was necessary mechanism for self defense. Reality dimmed, and all efforts and all emotions were centered on one takes: preserving one’s own life and that of the other fellow. It was typical to hear the prisoners, while they were being herded back to camp and their work sites in the evening. Sigh with relief and say “well, another day is over” It can be readily understood that such a state of strain, coupled with constant necessity of concentrating on the task of staying alive, forced the prisoner’s inner life down to a primitive level. Several of my colleagues in a camp who were trained in psychoanalysis often spoke of a “regression” in the camp inmate- a retreat to a more primitive form of mental life. His wishes and desires become obvious in his dreams. What did the prisoner dream about most frequently? Of bread, cake, cigarettes, and nice warm baths. The lack of having these simple desires satisfied led him to wish fulfilment in dreams. Whether these dreams did any good is another matter; the dreamer had to wake from them to the reality of camp life, and to the terrible contrast between that and his dream illusions. (p.29)

Establishing these laws internationally can help rid so many problems in the world, not only those imposed by human prejudice, but by capitalism and neoliberalism as well. Just imagine a world without a corrupt government? It sounds like a utopia, something too good to be true. Would there still be overworked labour workers in poor countries? Would world hunger end? Just imagine how peaceful the world would become. The first human right law I would like to add can be looked at from two different schools of thoughts, Protest School and Deliberative school (Dembour, 2010).

Thirdly, I also think any aggressive behavior from strangers should not be permitted, if a human touches/yells at a stranger in any unwanted/aggressive way, that should be a violation of a human right. Harassment can make people very uncomfortable, and can cause psychological problems. Even though rape and harassment are okay in certain nations, I would like to see a world one day where justice is served properly.

A salient point regarding the laws is that unless they must make sure that people comply, the laws are completely useless. This challenges the deliberative school of thought in a way, if everything required in human rights is within the constitution, why is there so much destruction in the world? Shouldn’t the law be made by the people for the people? Constitutions are difficult to change which challenges the deliberative school yet again.

A fourth law I would like to add is that the voices of people should be heard, not shunned, Stonesweet talks about how the individuals have no direct access to the constitutional council (Stonesweet, P.68). Everyone deserves a voice, and how is a society to progress if it wont work on fixing its holes first, how is a society that doesn’t listen to the voice of its people supposed to progress? Even if states refuse to ratify human right treaties, I hope one day it is mandatory for every nation state and every person within may have a right to a safe and peaceful life.

Human rights is definitely a concept the twenty first century must work on expanding, Looking at human rights with a microscope, we did not improve that much. Torture, murder, rape, racism, sexism, and war still exist, not only do they still exist, but people can still get away with them. Will the power of human rights one day be more powerful than the bureaucracy, or has evil left an eternal intrinsic imprint on humanity. Could we one day, with the help of evolution establish a world where human rights of every individual person truly matter? It sounds like a utopia, thus leading to the name of my paper. The law should not allow this type of treatment to permitted everywhere, hurting people because they are not like you is redundant and wont allow us to thrive as a community.

Forsythe says that (2000)

We do not lack for differing theories about human rights, even among western philosophers there is great variation. For Edmund Burke, the concept of human rights was a monstrous fiction. For Jeremy Bentham, it was absurd to base human rights on natural rights, because ‘Natural rights is simply nonsense .. nonsense upon stilts’. The contemporary philosopher Alasdir MacIntyre tells us there are no such things as human rights; they are similar to witches and unicorns and other figments of the imagination. Karl Marx, for that matter, was not born in Beijing. He was too western, both by birth and by principal area of concern. At one can say that he regarded many civil rights as inherently good and tactically helpful in achieving social ills of the modern world. (P.37-38)

Look at the advancements humanity has already made. Back in the Hunter and Gatherer era, people would be more violent but they would work together. saying that Human rights is impossible is just like saying you still believe we are cavemen, and even if we are what use was all the revolutions we’ve had throughout time if we don’t care about humanity? This concept takes us back to how human rights mattered the most after revolutions were made. They were seen as an irrelevant concept, people were primal and selfish beings and only after wars and revolutions, have they made an actual world effort to create peace instead of fighting. It is completely primal, the hate that is still spreading.

In conclusion, the laws I thought were relevant are based mostly on current events and an analysis of past events. I named my essay “Utopia of Human Rights” because it is what I hope the world may become some day, a world more focused on peace than war, on love rather than hate, on taking care of each other instead of killing each other. I am not stating that the world is completely a hundred percent horrible for everyone , but what about those who suffer? We sleep like babies in the night while some babies have no place to sleep, what happened to human empathy? What type of world are we living in where the president of the “21st century America” rips a family apart and sends them of to camps. This is Facism in the 21st century, and the world needs to do something about human rights, or else we wont evolve and we will yet again, be doomed to repeat history.