Comparative Analysis, Research Paper Example

The United Nations adopted a human rights act as a standard for assessing and criticizing native institutions for them to reform. The declaration of rights was to apply in all countries. Satisfaction with human rights can help to analyze policies developed by financial and trade institutions. The United States requires regular reports about human rights satisfaction in other countries to make adjustments on foreign policies according to the reports given on minimum standards to fulfill human rights. Human rights in the united states play a significant role in setting standards, monitoring, make reports by non-governmental organizations both locally and internationally.

Dallmayr (2016) proposes that human rights have the meaning to provide relief for disadvantaged people in society. Rights have the primary objective of providing protection for weak individuals and acting as a means of domination when mishandled by influential people in a community. An example of such a scenario is in the case of wealthy people enjoying their property rights while violating the fundamental rights of other individuals. Dallmayr (2016) focuses on the idea that a person recives human rights according to their society’s status. However, he does not dispute the notion that rights are universal but questions whether there is equity in enacting the rights. Dallmayr has a different perspective on the human rights approach to global justice compared to that of Beitz.

The United Nations did not come up with a body to monitor and enforce the declaration all over the world. Most people still get their rights violated for being part of a minority group or social class. Many countries have adopted the declaration but are still to oversee full implementation.  . This can cause worry in the case whereby a government objects to efforts to make it comply with the United Nation’s doctrine on human rights. Beitz (2001) states that human rights are political standards that are necessary to comply with regardless of a person’s beliefs about social justice and political legality. Human rights strive to remain neutral between conflicting political principles and ideologies.

Dallmayr (2016) states that human rights are entitlements to conditions that support activities carried out by humans. In efforts to anchor human rights, various people choose to classify them according to human nature, reason, and spirituality. There exists opposition for the classification as there is no defined manner whereby character can act as a source of ethical or permissible ties. The resistance to spirituality is whether God can do away with the benefits of various people’s rights. However, it is a requirement that one has to fulfill the conditions for them to carry out their actions effectively. Fulfilling the needs ensures the success of any action individuals intends to undertake.

According to Beitz (2001), people hold the beliefs that human rights depict a specific view or that of a family about social fairness and political lawfulness. In this case, human rights act as identification of conditions that society should meet to be genuine. However, there is no evidence in existence to show that the conditions are in each person’s view. Bietz also argues that the United Nations declaration does not have any enforcement strategies. In contrast, covenants refer to treaties consented by national governments to act as the international bill of human rights that outlines rights recognized internationally. International agreements have identified and provided an enormous scope of rights with special consideration to genocide, forced labor, racial discrimination, and those for children. The main point of view driven by Beitz is that human rights depend on a person’s beliefs and perspectives.

Dallmayr (2016) highlights that effective exercise of human rights involves claims against other individuals, but for them to be relevant human interactions have to prevail. He quotes Jack Donnelly, who states that human rights can be due to God, nature, and useful facts about life that need installation through human nature and dignity. In societies people get to enjoy fundamental rights according to the dignity they hold. This helps to establish social conditions that promote and enhance the enjoyment of moral character.  Dallmayr states that efforts to ground human rights have never been successful as they meet deconstructive pragmatists. Many people have continuously adapted western culture to be the main shape and definition of human rights due to economic and technical development. However, many people tend to ignore the questions on whether and how claims to human rights promote or alienate the cause of justice. Dallmayr states that foundationalists promoted the idea that human rights rely on invariant human nature, reason, and spirituality, with relationships between various people not playing any role. Anti foundationalists have the belief that rights are historical or willingly created.

According to Beitz, the international conference held in Vienna in 1993 outlined that human rights are global, not divisible, and relate with each other.  However, set international human rights to be neutral hence minimal or no conflict that may arise as a result of practices endorsed by various groups.  Some of the human rights that can result in conflict include; freedom of expression and participation in making political decisions that contradict some of the traditional beliefs. Asian culture is an example of such a tradition as its political views value social harmony while discouraging citizens’ conflicts. The culture also promotes a common societal interest rather than individual ones. Furthermore, Islamic culture does not promote the freedom of its women. The women face unequal treatment and protection from the law, forced marriages, and gender discrimination.

Dallmayr (2016) states that rights hail from humanization, which allows the growth of a sense of justice and fair thinking; however, it requires interaction and collaboration between individuals. Depending on the characters involved, human rights may receive more strength and, in other cases, weakened.  Foundationalists have the assumption that human nature is uniform; therefore, no need to follow a learning process as everything is already known.  Anti-foundationalists treat cultures as self-enclosed systems, thus treating learning to be impossible or as a means of colonialization. Dallmayr also promotes the idea that the traditional perceptions of Asian culture do not free the government from the requirement to enforce internationally approved human rights.  Asian values create the perception that human rights are unethical hence should not be observed. The primary influence on Asian values not supporting human rights fully came from the classical Chinese language, which did not incorporate terms that promote current rights-talk. The speech did not promote freedom, liberty, choice, and rights hence the lack of universal human rights.

It is necessary to know the difference between United States outlined rights and the basic rights each human being should enjoy(Beitz, 2001). If nonparochialism acts as a restriction for genuine rights, it would allow some fundamental rights such as democratic reforms, religious toleration, equality for women, and a chance to choose marriage partners. However, the restriction would exclude some of the rights perceived to come up with particular duties. Nonparochial human rights have a target on reasonable human beings who have the ability to accept conceptions of political and social injustice in the world. Human rights should promote an agreement between various political cultures. The requests also create the norms that control governments and other institutions’ conduct, allowing people to hold their political beliefs. A value can also count as a human right as long as members of a specified culture accept and incorporate it into their moral conventions. Beitz claims that it is necessary to develop a new human rights doctrine limited to a common core or overlapping consensus. The primary reason people prefer nonparochial or a neutral doctrine to human rights is the connection they have to justify any form of interference. Those who object to interference with the aim to protect human rights have the claim that it is unlawfully paternalistic. Paternalism has a reference to a person’s personal choices on the basis that interventions are beneficial to them. In some cases, interference has the main aim to infringe some individuals’ rights with the primary purpose of protecting others. This helps to eliminate any harms and dangers that may result from another person’s actions.

Dallmayr states that Confucians had a concern about the qualities of persons and the type of people displaying the qualities. The Confucians believed that for individuals to have a human status, they had to undergo a complicated humanization process that needed the development of qualities through proper interactions. However, critics state that Confucianism had a teaching that denied individuals selfhood. This has led to the separation of liberal democrats and collectivist thinkers. Confucianism also promotes the notion that individuals should benefit themselves and others through mutual trustworthiness and obligations.  The culture has its main focus on the first life contexts before expanding to outward ones. The culture also had a doctrine of graduated love that had a center in a family unit whose main priority was instant and tangible compared to universal principles and ideals.

Beitz (2001), one of the primary reasons for limiting fundamental human rights is that it can help to distinguish between minimal and full legitimacy. Minimal legitimacy refers to a regime with respect as a member of an international society though it is not entirely legitimate. He highlights that human rights are usual standards that would have fulfilled by any decent regime. A proper administration shares the same standing as participating members with liberal societies. Decent authorities, therefore, have the power and freedom to govern their military without interference from foreign governments. Any decent community supports the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. For a person to state that they enjoy their rights they have to have the right to choose their faith, speak freely, and enjoy equal enforcement of laws as other people do. Such citizen should also have ther right to make decisions concerning electoral and economic matters. A decent regime eliminates aggressive rule to adopt an efficient concept of justice. Such an administration puts each person’s interest into consideration and also observes respect for fundamental human rights, and also condemns discrimination against women. In cases where decent regimes comply with regulations seriously, they have a higher possibility of eliminating non-democratic rules and create efficient democracies.

Dallmayr promotes the idea that there are three types of rights; the Western culture had an inclination on administrative and governmental rights while the socialist movements campaigned for communal and financial privileges. Non-weatern cultures offered ethnic and shared civil liberties to their people. The international human rights community incorporates the three generations of rights to create harmony in varying states. To ensure equality of rights, there needs to have an assessment on their promotion of justice and rightness. Disparities in equal distribution of human rights are visible in the case of America, which is one of the wealthiest states in the world. The country has had over two hundred years of talks about human rights. Still, it is yet to offer its citizens proper and affordable housing, quality healthcare, and raising them from poverty levels. The country also has two percent of the population controlling over fifty percent of the nation’s wealth. Therefore, the state is yet to achieve universal human rights’ main objective, which is to protect the underprivileged and minority groups in society.

Beitz states that society does not have to satisfy the outlined principles of justice as a means of being termed legitimate by other nations. He says that a community has the freedom to rule on its own beliefs and values as long as it does not interfere with other nations’ security or convey any form of harm. The main elements that a country can use to define itself from others include; having a specific rule of law, allowing all people to have a legal personality, and the ability to participate freely in public life.  However, such a society has to ensure that none of the fundamental human rights faces violation in the process. However, some communities can promote all of the above elements but lack to ensure observance of fundamental human rights. Human rights play a significant role in regulating a range of actors guiding political circumstances in the modern world.  A human rights doctrine that would be effective in a contemporary world should play three roles; monitors domestic compositions of states and rules that govern international organizations and regimes. A second role is defining social goals applicable in modern societies. It can not receive influence from external factors, and the third role is to eliminate any form of political criticism.

According to Dallmayr (2016), the rights discourse aimed to establish a politics of rights to liberate oppressed groups of people to create a civilized form of existence. Western culture has been the primary influence on universal human rights, which many states worldwide observe. For each citizen in a country to enjoy human rights governments should promote global justice for them to receive a shield more so minority people in society.

Citizens enjoying their human rights have a fair and equal opportunity to vie or choose people to hold public office. Human rights also enable people to assemble freely without interruptions, except for situations that threaten national security.  However, some of the institutions lack some of the basic features of democracy, such that the people lack freedom of expression, voting, and political competition. Some people hold the belief that international human rights are necessarily not rights but stipulations and guidelines as they think that it is a good idea destroyed by overextension. Unless a human rights doctrine is neutral to all individuals, it can not serve the purpose of promoting equity and responsibility. Political action does not consider preservation of basic human rights so many people still see their rights violated; therefore, the ability and chance to apply for international support is minimal. An expanding human rights doctrine can allow room for misuse as a tool for dictatorship power rules according to its interests. Some states also find it hard to regard fundamental human rights in a political context. Human rights are moral standards that help to define various people.  Generally, Dallmayr has a different perspective on the human rights approach to global justice compared to that of Beitz.  The main point of view driven by Beitz is that human rights depend on a person’s beliefs and perspectives.   Human rights strive to remain neutral between conflicting political principles and ideologies. Human rights help to eliminate potential harm to individuals as a result of unequal sharing of privileges. Human rights are political standards that are necessary to comply with regardless of a person’s beliefs about social justice.

Reviewed Result

Dallmayr focuses on the idea that a person recives human rights according to their society’s status and that the rights aim at peoviding protection for the people from any type of violation. He also states that preservation of human rights depends on the interactions between people and a government’s control. Beitz has a main focus that human rights have a dependence on the political state of a country therefore enforcement of basic human rights varies from one country to another. Beitz also states that there exists a distinct difference between human’s basic rights and the ones outlined by the United Nations.

References

Human Rights as a Common Concern. Charles R. Beitz. June 2001. Volume 95 (Issue2) Results page, p.269To – 282

Fred Dallmayr, “Asian Values and Global Human Rights,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 52 No. 2 (2002) pp. 173-189