A concept is more than a thought, it is a constructive thought. “Universal” means applicability all over the world. Pythagoras’ theorem is universal because it can be shown to be true anywhere in the world (or the universe for that matter). An acceptable theory of human rights must have that kind of claim to absolute truth to be classed as universal. One must be able to show to any reasonable person in the world that it is true. The UHDR cannot reasonably make that claim because articles 22-29 were rights simply invented by idealists in accordance with their personal morality and values. However, morality and values vary from one person to the next and more so from one culture to the next. Then we come to the various religions, each of which has their own morality code. Therefore, these articles cannot be shown to be universally true. The claim that the UDHR has universal application is true only in regard to the articles that meet the above requirement.
Re democracy: it means the method of government that requires decisions to be made by the majority vote of the people in the jurisdiction or their representatives. As it is practiced in the Western World the government has the power to regulate any human activity by this method. I believe this power should stop at the offence of any group’s or any person’s rights. The most usual rights that are presently trampled on are property rights. Remember that in a democracy the authority of the government is the will of the majority. That raises the question of whether or not the majority in a population has the right to ignore the rights of a minority or even a single person. An affirmative answer is a slippery slope down which even civilized nations have slid at particular times to indefensible actions. My answer is negative, which causes me to say that the only proper application of democracy is in deciding what to do with what is owned in common. That is actually much more than is presently conceived. In my theory of human rights, per “Human Rights, What Are They Really?”, the population of a country owns in common all that Nature/God provided, both above and below the ground. They also own the government in common. That is why the government is accountable to the people.
About Islam, this religion puts optional beliefs, that is, beliefs that cannot be proven but rather are simply chosen as truth, above rights of the individual that can be shown to be true. Therefore, I see no reconciliation between Islam and true fundamental rights.
Filed under: Uncategorized | March 3rd, 2016