In my essay Im going to look what Human rights are and who is entitled to Human rights. I will mainly focus on the declaration of human rights since it is the most recent establishment of human rights.

Some people even believe that humans are in no position to create their own human rights but only God is because humans are not perfect so their man made rights wouldn’t be perfect either. They believe in natural laws created by God. Joseph Wronka argues that natural laws “are reflections of a dominant ideology, rather than statements of fact concerning human nature.” In his view natural laws are as human right are mere ideologies but unlike human rights they don’t concern human nature. Human rights are less individualistic. They concern the whole of humanity rather than just individuals, which means giving rights to women, minorities and the right to indigenous groups. Moreover Human rights are internationally orientated they can intervene if another country in the world validates them.

So we can see that there are lot of concepts of rights. Therefore maybe if we look at the logic behind human rights or the justifications behind human rights we will find out what human rights actually are.

One set of human rights and a very recent established sets of human rights is the declaration of human rights, which states “That all human beings have, just because they are human beings, a certain set of inalienable rights”. Many people argue that the convention of Human rights is one of the most fundamental establishments for the benefit of human rights, because it forces human rights on the countries, which signed the declaration and previously did not have any human rights. But fact is that the convention of human rights was created at the time of the Second World War, when the west was desperately in the search of a concept of rights, which would make every human being equal despite all religious, cultural and racial differences. However some people argue “if the history of the concept is Western, its validity cannot be universal” but should only be limited on Western countries. People in the west have different views then the rest of the world. So how can one group of people impose their rights on another who doesn’t share the same culture or religion? They might think the way they lived for 100 of years is the right way of living and who are we human being judging other people whether they are right or wrong? As laws, rights can also be right or wrong. They are both made by humans and humans aren’t perfect. But to impose rules or laws on people is like colonialism. At the time of colonialisms countries used to force their ideas on other countries which had no choice then to adopt to their laws.    

 On the other hand Donnelly for example argues that “although non-western cultures have important ethical concepts, they have traditionally lacked the concept of human rights” In his opinion it is the west, which first came up with the proper ideas of human rights. Other people with the similar view argue that it is the manifest destiny to spread the idea of human rights to the whole globe. But again in my opinion these people are just proving the fact that different people have different views. Some countries don’t agree with their concept of human rights. In his view non-western countries never had a formal concept of human rights. But in reality the human rights in other cultures nations could just not have been visible for him because he has a different idea of human rights and other people would either have different human rights or similar rules as human rights. We have to realise that there are even some people believe that human rights are not necessities as water or shelter. Countries as Malaysia argued that you can keep your human rights but don’t tell us what to do. If you impose them on us then it is as imperialistic as Britain and Germany.

So we can see that the declaration of human rights gives you many rights. “Every Human being is free...Everyone has the right to life...No one shall be held in slavery” But in reality the main question is whether these right are right or wrong and who decides whether they are and if you have the right to impose them on people who don’t have the same beliefs as you.

In conclusion I believe that human rights are set of rules, which want to give every human being equal rights. However the problem, which then occurs is who makes those rights. If it’s a human being, how do we know if he is right or wrong? Everything could be right or wrong but you don’t know. It is your upbringing, society, culture religion and peers who influence how you decide whether something is right or wrong. Is it God who should make the ultimate human rights, since he is faultless? But then you would have to prove that god exists. Moreover the question arises if we think we have the right human rights, should we really be imposing them on other countries. All these questions are to complex, therefore I believe that everyone has to search for their definition own human rights, since human rights are just ideologies.  

Bibliography:

M. Freeman Human rights: Interdisciplinary approach Oxford polity 2002

J. Wronka Human rights and social policy in the 21st century University Press of America 1998

J Donnelly Universal Human rights in theory and practise Cornell University press 2nd edition 2002