Human Rights Are Important Because They Serve

Human Rights are important because they serve to achieve a certain level of human dignity. But what does one mean by the term human rights? Human beings have an inherent value simply by virtue of being human. One generally treats something of value with respect and holds it in esteem. Simply, human rights dictate a basic treatment to which every human has the right. Dignity is the outward emanation of self-pride, self- love, and self-regard. It bespeaks a consideration of place in the universe. Dignity involves one's views of right and wrong relative to one's actions and the actions of others. Human rights help a person achieve a certain level of self-value. Human rights and dignity go hand in hand.

How do human rights translate into dignity? What makes them so important? As an example, a freed slave, though not accorded the respect of a white man in 19th century America, was held in greater esteem than a slave was. A freed slave could make decisions. This gave him a sense of self that the slave did not have. One need not ask a slave if this was true. This nation fought a war over the right of self-determination for this segment of its population. The basic human right of self-determination was translated into dignity for a nation as well as a people, when it made the decision to abolish slavery.

One may argue that it was the right of slave owners to maintain their economic way of life, without the judgment and interference of others.

A slave was provided food, shelter and work. Slaves were valuable property.

No one had the right to disrupt the status quo of the slave owner. One did not have to own slaves. If slavery did not fit into one's moral stance, one did not have to participate. Even the economics of the issue were to the advantage of the free man. Unpaid labor certainly must have kept the price of goods low for all those who could purchase them. What right did the abolitionists have to condemn slavery?

Yet, the argument is larger than economics. Slavery is an issue of basic human rights. Slavery denies the slave self-determination, not to mention numerous other rights. A slave's life is not his own. This is not to say that a slave was without dignity. However, in the larger sense, the dignity of a slave is constrained in a way that a freeman's dignity is not. Nevertheless, the practice of slavery continues in countries around the world.

Another way in which human rights provide a human being with dignity is in the fact that they transcend cultural tradition.

Violence against women, including female genital mutilation, wife burning, dowry related violence, rape, incest, wife-battering, female foeticide and female infanticide, trafficking and prostitution, is a human rights violation and not only a moral issue "(United Nations summary).

A woman or girl child cannot experience simple human dignity if they are born into a culture that demands these types of abuse. In many societies, women and female children do not have rights. An interesting note from this quote is the movement away from morality to rights. When one tries to dictate morality, one is forced into a morass of religious secularism. The movement toward human rights seems to be an approach designed to avoid that issue.

The principal form of discrimination and one which has far-reaching implications for women is the preference accorded to the boy child over the girl child" (section B, United Nations). "Son Preference" negates the inherent human value of the female child and it is culturally acceptable, and in some cases, mandated by secular law.

One may argue that cultural tradition is the basis of human development. How, then, can one disregard social tradition by imposing a different view of morality on a society with opposing views? As the world shrinks people, find it more difficult to maintain a distinct culture. The implosion of fast food chains, media, and western culture is overwhelming the priorities of traditional societies. "Teenagers, in particular, have to live in two very different cultures, where different values prevail. At school they move within the very liberal setting of the Western culture; at home they have to conform to values held by their parents" (United Nations Section A).

Is this not the basis for the current crisis in the Middle East?

The answer to this objection lies in the idea of objective vs. subjective reality. Subjective morality allows the idea of right and wrong to be transitive. They are determined, not by a higher authority, but by a situational norm. Objective morality looks to a higher power and determines an absolute right or wrong. Can human rights be subjective? Is dignity subjective? Most human beings would say no. The desire to insure human rights for all people does not have to be considered a judgment on morality. Rather, morality an opportunity to understand the idea of human rights. The idea of basic right and wrong should not change with the circumstance. Nor do human rights differ between races, cultures, and beliefs.

One final case that supports the idea of human rights and their importance to dignity is the death with dignity issue. Do basic human rights allow a person to take their own life? Must a person suffer the acute pain of cancer; endure the process of dying, and the cost, without the option of death as a choice?

This is a controversial issue, yet the original premise rings true. While some may find the right to die morally indefensible, they have not addressed the issue from a human rights point-of-view. If a human has the right to his own life, does he not also have the right to his own death? Without this right, one is condemned to suffer against his wishes.

The strongest argument against the right to die is the potential for abuse. Non-supporters point out that this week it may be a terminally ill patient, next week a mentally ill patient, and finally, perhaps, a person who has no "value" to society. Some look to the physician's oath to first, do no harm.