Realizing the Difference Between Public and Private Rights, Essay Example

The clauses of the different laws and regulations on human rights often involve specific issues that direct human individuals into becoming more aware of what how much they are allowed to consider personal decisions as viable against what is considered to be non-viable based on social norms and values recognized by the human society. In reality, it is of course the right of a person to decide for himself, especially on matters that would involve the condition by which he recognizes the integrity of his life and the manner by which he lives by it. Relatively though, such right becomes viable for alteration when the issue on social concern comes into account. Nevertheless, it could still be realized that the instance by which a private right becomes viable for public distinction still remains debatable in so many aspects of it being specifically recognized fully. What make making decisions on the matter rather debatable is the different grounds of recognition that human individuals have when it comes to realizing the worth of ethical values in their decisions.

It should be noted that social norms are not rules; they are simply principles that are being followed by the society in general because it is what is considered acceptable and viable for recognition by the group of individuals involved. Understandably, this insists on the manner by which a society draws a line on what is normative and what is not, what is moral and what is immoral, what is acceptable and what should be regarded as not responsive to the ‘natural’ rules of defining right versus wrong. Making a strong argument over the need to recognize one’s rights over what the society suggests to be moral is often a source of debate on several rules regarding human rights and its application in actual situations.

To explore the aspects of the said matter, Jean Cohen’s article on Democracy, Difference and Rights of Privacy specifically imply on the course by which private rights and public rights become intertwined together. Alongside such presentation, she also points out how they are at times are stationed against each other because of the contradicting laws of norms and the actual provisions of the legal guidelines applied within a certain community. In this article she tries to present her arguments through grounding her discussion on the aspects of abortion and how it is recognized differently in several states and countries.

Relatively, Cohen imposes that abortion is an act of a woman who has a relative capacity to decide for herself and the child she carries. There are however, different facets of abortion itself that requires particular attention especially when issues of whether or not recognizing its validity more is more dependable. Cohen recognizes in her article that through time, the recognition over the acceptability of abortion in relation to human rights has evolved. There was a particular instance in history when abortion, at times even simply talking about it, is considered a social taboo. This means that the manner by which it is handled even in relation to protecting a pregnant woman’s health is considered ‘against the law’. The assumption of such condition of whether or not to recognize the necessity of abortion is often based on the religious belief of the society involved. People of the ancient times strongly rely on religious grounds when it comes to their decision. Without the recognition of the principles of liberalization, the construct of such ‘natural law’ is quite clear on the minds of the people, and they do recognize such matter as not available for any kind of alteration.

At the time when liberalization was introduced to the society, it could be considered how such intense issues regarding personal decisions have become a source of debate and imbalanced recognition. Abortion for instance, which was considered to be ‘taboo’ has now been submitted for reconsideration in several states and several nations. At present, there are two contradicting values that are being measured in relation to the creation and application of laws regarding the legality of abortion. Such values separate the worth of the mother’s life from that of the unborn child. In this regard, the society has began seeing the matter as a sense of protecting either the life of the woman carrying the baby or the unborn child as it is. Understandably, this indicates the contradiction of whether to value the life of an already existing person or the life of the other whose life is yet to begin.

Feminism is another aspect of social construct that intends to help create a final decision on the matter. Being ‘for the women’, the principles of feminism often distinguishes from the need to recognize womanhood as a basic source of understanding on what should be valued first. Considering women to be a minority in the society, feminists often feel strongly on the need to imply how the rights of the women are fully recognized by the community and by the women themselves. When it comes to issues of abortion, feminists often define it as a manner of protecting the woman’s health. Recognizing the right of a person to his own decision, feminists argue that women should be allowed to define how they are to deal with a situation that involves the integrity of their health. In this case, rearing an infant in the womb is recognized as a choice and not as a responsibility; this is another aspect why the pursuance of laws on contraceptives and safe-sex guidelines has been consistently affecting social guidelines for women’s health.

What makes the arguments more confusing is the existence of the contradiction between religion and the principles of liberalization. Liberalization often assumes the capacity of humans to be free, the need of humans to recognize their own rights as the basis of their decisions, and one of such rights is to control their lives through the decisions they make every day. However, there are instances when such decisions endanger the life of the person himself or perhaps of other individuals in the society as well. This is where the value of legal guidelines comes into light. But what of religion and its rules regarding personal decisions? Relatively, in the current structure of the society, religion is often considered to be under the clause that defines personal decisions. How one person wants to ‘worship god’ is entirely his own decision. Alongside such matter, how a person wants to decide on his life basing from such worship is again dependent on how he decides for himself.

However, in relation to the issues of abortion, it has been observed that because of the contradictions of religions, norms and ethics, a specific law should be created. Creators of laws however are confided with the biggest dilemma of putting the values of religion, norms and ethics altogether in a structured legal guideline. Assuming the function of all three aspects of social structure and fixing the contradiction they have against each other has caused states and countries to view abortion differently. The laws that bind the aspects of democracy, as Cohen insists, often create a manipulative direction on whether or not a specific legal guideline would be able to pass social scrutiny before it could actually be applied for social recognition and respect. Notably, such matter incites a strong recognition on how the individuals want to accept their responsibility of respecting and defining themselves to be under the law.

Another issue to consider when it comes to recognizing and separating private from public rights of human individuals are matters that involve human relations. Although the complexity of abortion is more serious in nature in consideration with the matter, the connection between two people and how they decide their time with each other has become a controversial source of discussion especially when the rise of relationship between same-sex partners have been recognized legal by several states and nations. The case of J. White (Page 478 U. S. 188) specifically points out how the court ruled on the case against consensual relationship that was caught existing between two males involved in a relationship. Two adults, of their deciding age, were found to be having sexual intimate relationships and were presented for case rulings. Relatively, the court defines that ‘sodomy’ as a course of misconduct has already been recognized normal and acceptable in the society at present. Gone were the days when such an act is assumed to be taboo and immoral. Under the law of personal and private rights, a person is allowed to love and be in relationship with anyone he desires to be with especially requiring that the other person has a mutual feeling about the relationship (Page 478 U. S. 188). The other person’s acceptance of another’s irregular vision of himself and his sexual affiliation is sufficing support to the capacity of that relationship to be accepted as legal and recognizable by the society.

Although not all people are amicable to this law, the private rights of a person distinctively allows such consensual relationships to occur. Cohen again insists on the idea of recognizing the provisions of democracy, which imposes on the capacity of humans to decide for themselves [given that they are already at the right age] on how they are going to live their lives for themselves and for those whom they love. When shall public rights come into full recognizable position in this case? The involvement of other people [e.g. affected families of one or both of the partners involved] shall render the relationship viable for court hearings. The family code is still considered to be at a higher position against individual decisions to cohabitate with another outside of a specific immediate familial unit. This however does not include the parents of the individuals involved. Instead, it simply recognizes the need of a person to accept his responsibilities to his legal mate and his children outside of the relationship that has been formed outside of the family’s legal cords. Relatively, the decision of whether or not the person found to be guilty of cohabitating with another [of the same gender] may not be ruled against sodomy but instead on adultery. In this regard, it could be recognized that in the law of humans, there is no such thing as ‘sodomy’. The acceptance of the ‘third sex’ has diminished the power of the law of sodomy to be applied in a modern liberalized community that recognizes the right of people to choose whosoever they desire to spend their lives with.

Along with this issue comes the debatable matter on same-sex marriage. At some point, people often use such debates as a deciding ground on who to vote into position. Understanding the right of a person to choose who he wants to spend his life with against the basic and moral code of family laws often confide such an issue into a source of debatable condition. Not being able to respond to the matter accordingly has placed several nations into presenting an undecided course of legal guideline as to whether or not they should impose the legality of such relationship up to this date. Understandably, some nations have decided not to respond to the matter and let the religious group decide on the issue.

True, the issues of abortion, human relationships and same-sex marriage are all under the directive implication of ethics, morals, and social norms. Notably, this is the reason why creating specific laws around such issues remain as an overwhelming challenge for most law makers around the globe today. Such matter of ethical and moral measure on the value of the laws regarding such issues has been constantly debated upon causing the passing of legal guidelines take so much time before they become established for social recognition and respect. In this case, the deciding matter on how private rights over power public rights and vice versa could only be directed through the balanced consideration on ethics, morals and norms that the society recognizes through time.

Assuming the course of development when it comes to the improvement of several laws that are presented for recognition and application in the society, it could be recognized how laws and their application has changed through time. This simply proves how much the legal forms of guidelines are being fully mandated by the norms and ethical reformations that the society undergoes through the changing tides of time. The principle of democracy and liberalization are among the most powerful aspects of changing elements that has caused several laws to adjust hence recognizing certain matters about human relations and decisions to be acceptable against the others. Through these changes, it could be realized how the law could be altered depending on what the majority of a human population within a certain community considers to be acceptable. What makes a law more acceptable is that of its capacity to recognized what is widely understood by the people to be normal, ethical and moral based on their own understanding of the situations and how time changes their perception of such matters.

References

Cohen, J. Democracy, Difference and Right of Privacy. Justice White. Page 478 U. S. 187/ Page 478 U. S. 188.