Monday, July 6, 2009

Universal Human Rights

Are there any universal human rights? This is a really tough question. Have you thought about it?

Eleanor Roosevelt and the UN published in 1947, the year I was born, a list of some 30 what they claimed ought to be (declared to be) universal human rights. See this web site, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ if you want to check it out. Many of them revolve the core concept of the "dignity" of every human being. Life. Liberty. Freedom. Equality under law. Own property. Trial. etc.

I've been asking this question, "what if any do you think are universal human rights," of people for the last year or so and am amazed at how few people believe there are ANY.

Mother Nature doesn't seem to grant any. No right to live, right to reproduce, right to freedom, speech, mental health, a whole body, or any of it. No right even to dignity. Birth defects, mental illness, a little too much of one of the 300 brain hormones or a little DNA/RNA reproductive malfunction, a missing gene or two, and boom, you have schizophrenia, spinal bifida, cleft palates, and various syndromes. Mother Nature's way is perhaps a harsher way.

So "rights" seem to be granted by cultures not by nature. My philosophy friends may pick this all apart; it seems that almost everything has been discussed before. Nevertheless, what rights should a culture grant its citizens? Clearly this varies across the globe.

Life? Should we do everything we can to keep every human being alive regardless of quality of life? That's a big one. Oregon says not necessarily. It's an important question, though, because it has huge implications for the kind of universal healthcare (more later) that a society might or might not offer. Should every citizen of every country have equal access regardless of wealth to flu shots? Setting broken bones? Blood pressure medication? Cesarean section birth?

What about the right to have children? Consider this dilemma. A man is born with severe birth defects including cerebral edema, webbed hands and feet and diminuitive skeleton. He has fifteen or more operations to be able to function minimally in society. He's unemployed. He marries and has a child who has all of the same defects. The baby girl will go through the same series of a dozen or more operations costing upwards of a million dollars in order to get rudimentary fingers and toes and skull plates inserted so her brain can grow. Her father says he wants to have more children. Should he be allowed to do so?

Should we have a license to become a parent? Does everyone have the right to reproduce? If not, who would decide and on what criteria? Clearly the couple above are making decisions that impose a large financial burden on society. Should society accept that burden? We say one has to have a license to drive, to drink, to bear arms, and to practice certain kinds of professional activity. What about reproduction?

The right to freedom? What does that mean? Freedom to speak? To move to another location? To publish? The American Bill of Rights spells out some. Freedom from poverty? Does every human deserve or rather "have" the right to basic necessities of life?

Again, Mother Nature does not grant any of these. But some cultures grant some of them.

For me, there is an intersection somewhere between human dignity and self reliance and social compassion. That intersection is a large gray area obviously--as people try to figure out how much to emphasize each one. If you push on self reliance, then some will go without healthcare. If you push hard on social compassion, then some will abuse the system and get a 'free' ride. If you push hard on the equal human dignity dimension, then someone has to pay for health care and prisons.

In nature, it seems, that birth defects, variation in talent and ability, variation in sexual orientation, variation in appearance, in susceptibilty to disease, even social attributes (see Nigel Nicholson's book, Executive Instinct for example) are facts of life. How do we collectively, culturally, respond to these variations? Do we/should we do all we can to keep everyone alive artificially? Some might argue yes on the one hand and then condemn stem cell research on the other.

I want to believe that every parent to brings children into the world should accept responsibility for the well being of that child. If they cannot care for them, they should not bring them in and then "dump" them on society. Clearly, not everyone does accept that responsibility. I think society should hold biological parents accountable for their offspring. If the children are not able to become self reliant, then the parents should care for them. We shouldn't, I say, make it easy for parents to reproduce and then abandon.

Every child, it seems to me, should have the best chance it can to survive and grow. I no longer believe that the natural parents necessarily know best what to do for those children. I've seen too much abuse and mistreatment even in the name of religion to continue that mythological belief. The problem is who should decide? Not facists. Not communists.

The reality is that our local sub-cultures decide whether we want them to or not. Hence a rapee in Asia might be stoned. A woman sold. A female child in Africa "circumcised" (sewn up) while the community looks on in approval. A street person in Los Angeles dies alone in the gutter.

The concept of "rights" also implies we might infer the concept of "responsibilities." If a society is going to grant me some "rights" (since Mother Nature does not), then I must have some responsibilities to that society in return. If I ask about my rights, should I not also ask about my responsibilities?

What's your list of "universal human rights?" What about the related "universal human responsibilities?"

Mine would include the following:
1. Right to choose life or not.
2. Right to choose to sustain another's non-viable life or not.
3. Right to basic health care in my society.
4. Right to a basic education.
5. Right to move, to speak, to believe, to work where and how I want.
6. Right to know the whole deal--not just what you choose to tell me. We should not profit from the ignorance of others.
7. Right to own things.
8. Responsibility to be self reliant. I "should" be able to take care of myself and my family.
9. Responsibility to care for those I bring into the world.
10. Responsibility to contribute to my society from which I benefit. This might be in taxes or service or both.
11. Responsibility for the consequences of my actions especially as they affect others.
12. Responsibility to behave in ways that if all participated in, society would be enhanced, not degraded. (Kant's universal imperative)

3 comments:

mUjA said...

Thanks for your great informations.
Health Advisor

OhSupport.com said...

Nice Post


farmville strategy guide

frank56 said...

I actually am surprised someone is saying a lot of the things I have been saying for some time. Like requiring a license to parent. I think the biggest obstacle would be religion. "Be fruitful and multiply", some fundamentalist interpret that literally. The Right to Lifers would be against aborting a grossly defective fetus. But something that is the very foundations, is the economic system itself. Which gives individual rights more authority more power than collective rights. What you are asking or suggesting what is best for society, for the majority? I don't think any solution, is attainable under our capitalist system. Excessive or unplanned reproduction keeps wages down, keeps workers even more oppressed. If excessive births or population caused a drop in profits each time a child was born, you can bet, abortions would become legal. Socialism is for both planned production and reproduction--True socialism that is.