Human Rights a Functional reality, or a Myth?

M.K.Sadigh

The concept of “survival and subsistence” is a reference to the totality of existence, consisting of the appropriation and creation of certain conditions and environments that guarantee ascertain and secure such appropriations. In the course of human intellectual history the whole concept of subsistence and survival have gone through a wide range of interpretations, in many views even the denunciation of the subsistence of other creatures, as well as certain races of human being for the sake of achieving higher standard of livelihood for white race have been legitimized and acceptable.

The Richard Chamberlain’s theory of racism and the whole political racist policy of Nazism in Germany is one, Apartheid an official policy of racial segregation practiced in the Republic of South Africa; involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites is another.

Contrary views advocate a more humane, holistic and logical approach to human rights and human relations. They condemn supremacy of any one class or race over the others and the relinquishment of their livelihood for the benefit of others under any circumstances.

The long and brutal encounter between these two views and the consequence of such extensive struggle in the human history, eventually resulted in the creation of some international regulations and civilized commitments, the establishment of the law and order, in some civil societies, and in our modern democratic living system pre-arrangements of some measures of civilized paradigms to guard against any subversion or aggression of one group or nation against other groups or a class against other class.

In spite of such encounters, and strenuous engagement of advocate of justice and fairness, toward eradication of prejudicial social behaviors, conflicts, or political contradictions, still there are great measures of irresolvable social justifications. It is obvious that such social or ethical evolution in human’s culture did not maturated and materialized to a just and required measure for achieving the ideal civility to be led to a truly democratic social system. That is to say, the creation of a common ground, where every member of a society lives fearlessly in an environment of justice and fairness not implied by force but by the consciousness of its members.

Indeed, the ultimate concept of civility as a mechanism of fulfillment of social justice evolved into “civil society” which has been severely misinterpreted, and mall arranged to a degree that became an instrument of social prejudice under a variety of devious pretexts. Countless theories have been formulated around the issues of social justice and the democratic human’s economical, political and social relations.

The central motive, which provokes and stimulates the humanity toward subversive activities and aggression, is human excessive desire to acquire or possess wealth and power more than what he needs or deserves. Human voracity is the major and compelling drive, which motivated the man to extensive wars, massacres, and atrocities, one of the most determinant factors, and potent imputes, that will never be satisfied or hardly could ever be controlled. It would not be far from the truth, if we consider this drive as the mother of all evils, which is a cause or source of suffering, disparity, or destruction, the major cause of social evils of poverty and injustice.

The human insatiability was the major motivation for the established and widely accepted secular and non-secular preventive paradigms. The human voracity profoundly affects and determines the materialization of the general mental disposition of the concepts of justice, freedom, democracy, and human dignity.

The deliberate and conveniently revised or tainted interpretations of the concealed aspects of these sentiments, occurred trough the varieties of social inflections. Identifying these misrepresentations beyond revisions requires a thorough scrutiny. Because trough a long historical, political, and cultural process, these factual sentiments have been depleted from their true meanings erroneously and unjustly. Indeed, they have been introduced expediently, only for the sake of satisfaction of unprecedented specific objectives fictitiously, throughout the human history. Our concern is to recognize only the most common misconceptions of these interpretations among the ordinary notions of the, justice, freedom, democracy, dignity, and human rights.

Reevaluation of the concealed aspects of these sentiments as far as it could clarify the common misunderstandings, would certainly help understanding them beyond the long political, religious and even ethnical realm of misconceptions. This redefinition should draw the attentions of those firm believers that took their fixed unexamined notions seriously, and never bothered to retrace the true validity of these sentiments beyond fixed preservation.

We start with an overview of each concept, and try to dissect them to the most comprehensive details possible to discover those unknown aspects we misunderstood or perhaps were not included in our intellectual and subliminal maturity.

What do we know about freedom?

Assuming that freedom is a state of reality where one is not bound and obligated to any restrictions of believes traditions and presupposed requirements. This condition implies a state of release from slavery and confinement. In this state the only determinant factor would be “the will” which is the power of self-determination. In such level of enhancement the person is capable of being self-activated without any hindrance.

“John Locke 1632-1704 English philosopher” defines freedom, In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) he set out the principles of empiricism, and his Two Treatises on Government (1690) influenced the Declaration of Independence. He believes “in our being able to act, or not to act, according as we shall choose, or will”.

Holmes Oliver Wendell Jr. 1841-1935 American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1902-1932), many of his opinions greatly influenced the American concept of law. He describes “right of strict social discrimination of all things and persons [and it] are one of the most precious privileges."

Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. 1834-1902 British historian who led English Roman Catholics in their opposition to the doctrine of papal which is relating to, or issued by a pope’s infallibility and Incapable of erring, asserts that "By liberty I mean assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes to be his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion."

David Hume believes "By liberty then we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; this is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may."

They all refer to a general and non-material state of being, which is not tangible, usable, or measurable by any predetermined measures, but it is an undeniable reality. A concept or perhaps something constructed intellectually activated by “will and consciousness”, freedom is not a clearly visible concept, encapsulate in one single identity the way that all of us assume its existence and placed it in one of the compartments of other concepts being introduced to us.

The freedom is not something to be given to us in a silver platter, it is an intellectually configured concept, which only exists if we consciously construct it and fatefully safeguard it. Freedom is not distributable and at the same time we strongly believe every member of the society ought to be privileged to assume freedom.

Some believe that the existence of freedom should not be subjected by force, which a government execute such force. It should be the mechanism of social conduct directed to the survival and subsistence of all. Basically this social conduct is not motivated by individual insatiability, but rather by self-consciousness to a measure that acquired for subsistence not beyond that. It is comparative to the intake of air for respiration, which never exceeds more, and far beyond the necessity. That kind of measure is never predetermined or prearranged but rather coordinates with mere subsistence.

Pragmatically in the realm of the living activities, then being free means every conscious individual member of a society is a self-activated being, which his activities whether are calculated or instinctual is directed to his subsistence and as far as he does not subjugate others’ rights he should not be suppressed by domination of any set paradigms of religion or fate of any kinds, politics, or economical power. A free individual then not only is self-activated and is free to do whatever he wish, but also nothing has been dictated to him, no prejudgment influences his decision and under no prefabricated restrains or persuasive power, his determination and pursuit will be altered.

As Lord Acton concludes, “freedom is not something we have gained through the efforts of our ancestors; but, rather, it is something with which we are born; it comes with life's package. It is, as I have already asserted, something that is necessary to our very evolvement and is necessary to our continued involvement in life.”

At any point in human relations whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government the necessity of the self-activation of person and his freedom within the limitation of his rights should be the essential ground for social functionality. Any fabrication intentionally disorients and diverts the freedom of others to exploit and precondition the social structures otherwise, not only is not freedom but also is subjugation and imposition in its true meaning.

John Stuart Mill "The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." Note that we refer to the individual's possession of that precious right of freedom: I say individual. Freedom is a relative concept and can only be possessed by the individual: it cannot be possessed like a parcel of land, in common, by a group of people. An individual, a particular individual, either has freedom, or not.

It was that great French legal thinker Frédéric Bastiat who put his finger on this concept: "It is not the union of all liberties - liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?" Thus; liberty be a state of being, where an individual is sovereign and answerable only to himself; where each is free to put at stake: his own life, his own well-being, his own time and his own property; where each, at all times, lives and acts as he wants within society at his own cost or to his own benefit, as the case may be; subject only and always to the restriction that an individual cannot proceed to act if that act clashes with or is in violation of the liberty of another.

The significance of Justice as a guarantor for existence of freedom

The "justice" defined as, the quality of being just, fairness, the principle of moral rightness, equity- the state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair, conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude, righteousness. As Herbert Spencer describes it, "The root of all well-ordered social action is a sentiment of justice, which at once insists on personal freedom and is considerate for the like freedom of others; and there at present exists but a very inadequate amount of this sentiment."

As we can see the personal freedom to the extent we described it could not possibly be realized unless supported and guaranteed by justice. To understand the significant of freedom, one ought to recognize and be conscious of the value of being free vs. not being free, because we always have the tendency of taking every merit of our life for granted until that merit is missing. It is only then that the value of the missing merit will reveal to us as something that should have been guarded dearly.

So far we have been talking about the freedom and justice, the two conceptual realities, which has nothing to do with perception of a measurable or tangible entities. Justice is a holistic concept which only one part of it is social justice. Apart from this general structure, then we should begin with the “just” and “justice” in a separate regard. This concept in Greek was equivalent to virtue and generally a reference to respected moral standard, which have a broad use in wide social practices. In our time nevertheless justice used in variety of social relation associated with any phenomena connotes virtue, or moral codes.

We talk of just men, just actions, and just states of affairs. But the last of these uses must be regarded as the primary one, for when we describe a man as just we mean that he usually attempts to act in such a way that a just state of affairs results, or at least, that a state of affairs results which is no less just than the state of affairs which obtained before his action.

Hume begins, by asking, in what does the distinction between moral good and moral evil consist? He draws the clear distinction between the dual natures, the virtue and vice as “Zarathustra” called them “Ahura Mazda or Ormazd which is the Wise Lord ahura- lord virtue” and “Ahriman which is the spirit of evil”. Only the compliance with the virtue saves humanity from the evils. He asserts that Justice is the nature of virtue. Hume elaborate further that the objects of moral evaluation are not actions but persons and their qualities.

The distinction between virtue and vice or evil is logically prior to that between right and wrong, and actions are regarded only as signs of the possession of relevant qualities. Justice is taken as a virtue, which a man may possess for justice, is defined, not as a tendency and disposition or an attitude of mind, but as a set of principles governing men's actions. The virtue of justice must consist in acting in conformity to these principles.

This set of governing principles constructed and cumulated trough an extensive examinations and reevaluations of the laws and ethical standards, which functioned as the base for our pragmatic achievements of a concept, we call it “justice”. As a general implication then, justice is not a single attitude, behavior or characterized by only few entity, but rather being responsive and confirmative of a host of variables comprising its social integrity.

Spencer’s theory of social justice is based on three general aspects, the distinction between, Absolute and Relative ethics, his attitude towards utilitarianism, which is the belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility, and the ethical implications of his theory of evolution. Clearly in both the reflection of these two is manifested.

He described Absolute ethics as the study of those moral principles adopted and followed and regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence circumstances. These principles already recognized and respected to be practiced. In the other hand, he refers to relative ethics as principles proposed to be adopted and followed in the existing society. As a matter of fact since perfection of human is a non-existing reality therefore, we should never expect the existence and practice of perfect moral codes in any society to be materialized.

Is democracy, the prerequisite for social equality and respect for the human rights?

Democracy defined as, government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives, a political or social unit that has such a government. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power, majority rule, the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. In French democratize, adoption of Late Latin democratic, from Greek dmokratiad, dmos-people, in Indo-European Roots. kratia -cracy.

For whom and under what social circumstances this social equality will be pragmatic and a reality? If democracy is prerequisite for social justice then, it should not be a protective instrument of privileged segment of the society, whom posses the wealth, economical or political powers.

"Social equality and respect " refers to the respect for the dignity of every individual regardless of his or her status. Dignity defines as the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect. This definition signifies a universal application and the word “esteem or respect” places no distinction for any misinterpretation. Meaning, the major motivation for survival, meaning without dignity the man will be reduced to his animalistic being, striped from the assumed desires and aspiration to higher level of growth and worth.

We presuppose that, the man of our modern era who lives under democratic systems of the western world, supposed to live in a society where under no circumstances his life is compromised, disrespected, or his natural rights, being taken away from him, in contrast to the religious or political totalitarianism of tyrannical and theocratic systems. Yet with all the convocation of persuasions and advocacy of the democracy, justice and freedom in regard to human rights, still great measures of social relations remain in its mystical convolution.

Human rights would be a Myth, if the democracy, justice, freedom and dignity of man do not exist

Our elaboration of the justice, freedom, dignity, human rights and democracy presents the fact that; all these sentiments are the inseparable segments of a holistic concept called "human rights". It would be absurd to assume the humanity could possibly enjoy the freedom and live in a democratic environment, unless all these sentiments are configured in an environment of rationally structured and morally supported society, where the liberated, self activated, conscious members created and safeguarded it.

Superficiality and fraudulent claims and declaration of a democratic system in an environment of passivity profoundly designated by fanatic or tyrannical governing systems, could not allow any revision. Without the appropriation of necessary requirements, any changes are utterly deceptive and not feasible. No one possibly could manufacture freedom, justice, and democracy, Most certainly, the people themselves, are capable of creating the appropriate intellectual and physical environment, providing they are politically and intellectually matured and competent to denounce the impositions and instigations, of religious or political indoctrinations.

Human Rights became the most significant human issue that in course of human historical struggles that, in the decades of nineteen forties finally, it was formulated and explicitly described and introduced to the international publics at large.

M. K. SADIGH

Thursday, July 15, 2004