Saturday, June 03, 2006

Human rights?

On the surface, human rights are something we all intuitively agree with. Or maybe we feel we have to, as it tends to one of those dogmas that you are not even allowed to review critically. I’m inclined to believe though that the whole concept of it is fundamentally flawed in a way that is closely interlinked with our own selfish nature.

My main problem centres on the word “rights”. Where did we get the ridiculous notion that someone owes us something, that we are entitled to anything? Yes, our conscious existence is a valuable gift. Maybe it’s a gift from god, or maybe just from extremely rare chemical circumstances. Where we got it doesn’t really matter for this discussion, as long as we can agree that it is a very valuable gift. But does this mean that because of this gift, we are entitled to more?

Let’s say we got another really valuable gift, maybe a big nice sparkly sports car. What would the appropriate response be? I would say you’d be thankful and feel obligated to take real good care of your car and show you appreciate it by putting it to good use. What certainly would not be appropriate is to start demanding fuel and roads to be built, as you are entitled to them because you have a car. That’s just ridiculous. Receiving a valuable gift should make you thankful and humble, not demanding and haughty.

So then do I suggest that human misery doesn’t matter, that people should just be happy to be alive and shut up? No certainly not! I think human life should thrive in a situation where it is given the opportunities and freedom to do so. And this brings us to the second problem with the word “rights”, a problem more to do with our unwillingness to take responsibility ourselves.

How useful is it to define a right? Let’s say I did have the right to have roads for my sports car. Until you tell me who is going to give them to me we’re not going to get anywhere with this are we? It’s all very easy to agree that people in Sudan have a right to have sufficient food, security and education, but if we stop there and then wait for someone else to fix the problem they will never get it. And that’s exactly where we are today. We all agree on human rights, but no one wants to pick up the bill.

It would be more appropriate, and more productive I think, if we would define our behavioural responsibilities in terms of duties. It would mean everyone is charged with some form of action, and not just waiting around for their piece of the pie to be delivered. In stead of a right to food, maybe we should have the duty to feed. Maybe in stead of the right to medical treatment, we should have a duty to care. In stead of the right to live in freedom, we should have the duty to defend each others life and freedoms etc.

It is time for an attitude change. Being human does not mean the world is there to fulfil your needs and desires. Being human means having an obligation to live your life in a worthy way, and contribute to that of others in order to maximise their chances of doing the same. And maybe when we finally realise that we are here to contribute to that joint potential, in stead of trying to rake in whatever we can to fulfil our own, will we find a way to live together in relative harmony.

No comments: