43 Comments Add your own

• 1. Pierre Michael  |  January 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am

  I have never really sat down and thought about human rights but here is a shot at it:

  I guess from a Darwinian sense, human rights is a silly concept. In that context people thrive on the “survival of the fittest” concept. In other words, people can kill, steal, take harmful drugs, commit suicide and do pretty much whatever they want with little to no consequence(except maybe social). The only rights that humans have is their justification to do whatever they need to survive and ensure their children survive.

  Surely we do not live in that society any more.

  When you start using words like “rights” you start implying morality, and subsequently legality, and protections that are awarded to sustain these rights.

  Conventionally, I have thought of human rights as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (ability to own property). But, I think in today’s modern society a lot more fits under that umbrella. Our government provides protection from unfair treatment to individuals. This includes but is not limited to unfair wages, brutal working conditions, cruel and unusual punishment, right to a trial, discrimination from race, gender, sexual orientation, and many more.

  If I ever had to define universal human rights, I would say there is no such thing, it is all relative to the society you come from. I suppose I could revert to the Darwinian ideology. However, nearly all societies have evolved beyond this. Societies likely used Darwin’s concepts as a base and slowly built more rights in as time progressed, simply to prevent chaos.
  Since then, every culture and society has defined, and continues to define their own set of human rights based on their subjective views of morality. These views stem from tradition, religion and intuition.

• 2. Simeon Trieu  |  January 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  Human rights is simply the respect of human life. But, those words “respect” and “human life” seem to be relative depending on the culture. The US screams human rights violations in China, but many Chinese being “violated” don’t even feel the same level of discontent that their American counterparts feel. So, there’s something wrong with our perceptions here. I hope to clarify, why I at least, believe in my definition of human rights.

  In my humble opinion, “human life” means the overall physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual condition of a human being, from the moment of conception to the the end of a person’s life. Many Indians will live a poorer life compared to the average American, and their rise to power will not actually change much of the overall population’s living conditions, except for the destitute. But they are content.

  Relatedly, the word “respect”, in this context, means to hold value for something. I am admittedly Christian and believe that humans are made in God’s image, and therefore, must be respected. When people murder (destroy), rape (control and humiliate), or betray (break relationships and trust) with other human lives, it is not respecting God or His creations. Respect means holding value for people because they are people; people who are created in God’s image.

  Now that those definitions are somewhat articulated, there are certain rights that are fundamental and certain rights that are relative to the society. Fundamental rights include a right to have life and freedom to have basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing. Also included are rights to have a nuclear family and live in peace. Other rights are more relative to culture and would have to be evaluated based on their history, religious beliefs, cultural norms, and relative sense of morality.

• 3. Witold Sadowski  |  January 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  I think human rights can not be generalized in a universal way (i.e. “Every person has the right to…” etc.), but are more of an individual feeling/belief based on our own past experiences and current situations – and set by society to keep things calm. When society is prosperous, it’s easy to set aside a set of “rights” because it does not affect us, and at times even makes us feel good that we are “sharing” our wealth. But when it’s not so good and it comes down to feeding your family or not – like in a highly competitive global marketplace – survival of the fittest define human rights. Period.

  Dr. Carr – I don’t know if I would be frustrated with those who argue the media’s “party line” on human rights debates and global political issues… or frustrated with misguided people in general. Rather, I just smile to myself and think that although unenlightened in certain things, these are most likely people who have had a very nice and easy going life as of date, and help turn the economy – they are after all, the ideal customers and employees. If everyone shared he same view – or if everyone was smart in general – life would be much harder than it currently is…

  I like stupid people. They make life easier.

• 4. Brandi Eng-Rohrbach  |  January 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

  Living in the United States where we have a large degree of freedoms, I rarely contemplate what human rights are. I guess I would be inclined to go the way of a linguist and first analyze the meanings of the words. I would define rights as the group of things that we believe one should intrinsically have access to. This group of things is something that we grow to understand through our culture. I would then define human as a being that is of the species homo sapien. Thus the combination of human and right is human rights. I would define human rights to be rights that are assumed to be intrinsic to our species as we have come to understand from our culture. I think the fact that word is caught in a certain cultural context is very important. The concept of human rights has radically changed over time and remains radically different today across different cultures.

  For example, I first thought of the right to live when I thought of human rights. This was definitely not considered to be a right in ancient cultures but rather a privilege. I then thought then that today this is considered to be a right. The right to exist that has to be the most fundamental of rights, no? The more I considered this; however, I realized this isn’t even true in my own culture. If you do something that is considered wrong by a culture, you no longer have human rights. I’m talking about the death penalty in this case. So, even within a culture there is not a certain set of human rights but rather they are variations on a cultural level. Human rights certainly are not universal then and a set of universal human rights is impossible to define.

  I guess the most definitive way in which I can conceptualize human rights is at an individual level. I guess they are nothing more than the rights which one as an individual believes they are intrinsically entitled to as a result of their being raised and influenced by a certain culture.

• 5. Tai Massion  |  January 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  I want human rights to mean that every person born has a right to air, water, land, shelter and food. Apparently these are NOT human rights. Being born does not give one a right to anything (except air, which no one has figured out how to profit from- pure air in a bottle??). In America we have social welfare programs that assist those who have little. In China I understand that there are some similar programs. Worldwide and in a general sense I do not know what people are entitled to. It seems like nothing.

  The controversy with China and labor is usually the argument of long hours, low pay, and poor working conditions. Is it a person’s right to work less for more pay under good working conditions? Who has a right to grant that right? Government? Businesses? Consumers? This is an interesting topic and one I don’t really understand. I want everyone in the world to be safe, fed and happy, but primarily I think there are too many people and too much greed to ever have smooth distributions of wealth. I am interested to read the literature of the second post as to how human rights are defined.

• 6. Robyn Bowie  |  January 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  As society’s views of the world have changed so have the so-called “rights” afforded their people. Our forefathers saw owning property as a right, though they changed it to read “the pursuit of happiness” instead. Of course, they did not mean for these rights to be made available to everyone. To them, “men” literally meant men, not women. More importantly, it also meant white, land owning men. Lucky for us they didn’t spell that out, leaving us to interpret “men” as mankind today.

  Rights have always been up for interpretation because they are often based on morality, an abstract idea that differs for everyone. But to me, human rights boil down to a simple phrase we have probably all heard from our parents at one time or another: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” I suppose this saying has a religious context, but that is not really the way I think of it. It’s just putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and seeing where they are coming from. We have all seen people change their tune when they are put on the other side of an issue. For example, somebody may not care about gay rights until someone they love comes out of the closet.

  There is that word again—rights. But what does it really mean? Human rights should entail the right to basic human needs as well as good treatment. This phrase easily describes what good treatment can be. If you don’t want to be killed than you shouldn’t kill others. They have the right to life and so do you. If Hitler had put himself in the shoes of the Jews in his internment camps, he may have taken a different stance on their treatment. If he actually had to live as a Jew in his internment camps, he’d have to be crazy to continue treating them in that way.

  To answer the question of what human rights should not include, ask yourself: what would you not want others to do to you? There are many answers to this question and they vary with each individual. As Americans, we are used to more freedoms and see it as our “right” to do many things such as free speech. Would you want someone to silence your voice? The answer is probably no, even as you make excuses for why others should be silenced.

  The Chinese still struggle with human rights and have been criticized for it. As Dr. Carr says, some Chinese do not seem as worried about certain human rights as Americans are. Take my advice and put yourself in their shoes. Some are not as worried about bad working conditions because working in a factory is better than the alternative. Although I’d like to see this change, some rights are just more important than others. In this case, the right to eat takes precedence, and without a factory job, some Chinese would remain poor, starving peasants.

• 7. Andrew Steen  |  January 19th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  I accidentally skimmed over the above posts on my way down here, and they didn’t seem to negate the passive notion that “human rights” is a relative idea, dependent on variables such as culture. But there must be some universal bounds to the these rights, since I can’t think of any culture in history that appreciates for example, being kicked in the back of their head while they work. So, not being kicked in the head while working must be a “human right.”
  For me, not being oppressed is a big deal. I hate being told that I can’t do something. So I’d put this near the top of the list. But then again, maybe I’m oppressed and just don’t know it. Or maybe some cultures value being oppressed, similar to a caste system.
  I certainly don’t believe that all humans have the right to a life of leisure, or even a even a moderate amount of leisure. American’s (in general) are more pampered than probably any other nation ever, so our perception must be a little Marie Antoinette-ish.
  I know that I have a ton of “rights” that I won’t appreciate until I lose them.

• 8. Angie Q. Dip  |  January 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  Human rights. What exactly is it? I do not know if my interpretation of human rights is correct, but I have always thought of human rights as the right for everyone to be treated equally and fairly. This includes having every human being be entitled to: the right to live, the right to the basic human necessities in life – food, water, shelter, and the right to be free from suffering. To me, human rights do not include everyone being equally financially wealthy, but receiving equal treatment in the necessities of life. I don’t care if the rich get richer, as long as there is no one suffering in the world – all diseases that are curable would be cured (money should not be an issue), no one suffers from starvation or from the heat/cold, everyone gets to drink the same kind of clean or filtered water, and everyone has a place to live comfortably. Everyone also should have the right to say or do whatever they want to do, as long as it does not violate anyone else’s rights. The rich can have more ‘wants’ in the world and get the ‘better’ things in life, but at least let the ‘not as fortunate’ people be able to live comfortably in this world as well. But, I need to face reality. What I consider human rights may never occur worldwide. As Dr. Carr mentioned, human rights to Americans may not be interpreted the same way as by the Chinese or people of other cultures/countries.

  I agree and believe that human rights can have many different interpretations by different people. For example, as have been mentioned many times before, Americans find the conditions that some Chinese people have to endure while working at sweatshops or factories are unbearable and inhumane, and violate the ‘human rights.’ But, many of these Chinese workers do not feel the same way. To them, no ‘human rights’ are being violated. As a matter of fact, these are great opportunities for the workers! Had it not been for these companies to hire the Chinese workers and allow them to work twelve hours per day, seven days per week, these workers would probably have to work in worst conditions for lower pay and longer hours.

  As Americans, we should constantly remind ourselves how lucky we are that we are provided the freedom to many rights, including human rights, which other people might hope for. However, still not everyone is being treated equally in the United States. If so, you would not see beggars on the street begging for money to buy food, and you would not even see them on the streets in the first place if they had a shelter to live in. In other countries, according to our definition of human rights, you see many examples of people suffering. For example, in Africa, you see many people suffering from diseases or rapes, which probably can easily be taken care of if they had the money to take care of it, or in China you see these so-called inhumane working conditions. Realize that human rights are different to every culture, and just be grateful that what we Americans consider human rights is supposedly being protected in the United States.

• 9. Ryan Moore  |  January 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am

  To me, human rights are best described as a person’s ability to make their own choices in life. Although it is true that many economic, social, and cultural circumstances can severely limit one’s options, human rights are those laws (both written and implied) that allow a human being the ability to attempt to improve the quality of their life through free-will decision making. Having said that, I believe it is the innate responsibility of those societies privileged to make a conscientious effort to improve the human rights of their underprivileged.
  Once a persons ability to make their own choices, however limited these choices may be, is taken away, they are essentially enslaved. People may look at China or India’s factory workers and consider that enslavement, but that is a rather ethnocentric viewpoint. If the economic forces in those countries allow their citizens the option to work, and they choose to do so, their human rights are not being violated. The fact that they are working in an impoverished area, under unfavorable conditions, being paid very little, and working long hours is not in itself a violation of human rights.
  If these workers were physically forced to work, chained to a desk, or not permitted to use the restroom, their human rights are being violated. Additionally, if a person is too young to make an informed decision (i.e. child labor) this is also a violation of human rights. Although their working conditions may not be attractive by “our” standards, there has never been a society in human history without an underprivileged class to exploit as a source of cheap labor and quite frankly, a capitalist system like that of the U.S. (and China?) would not function if this was not the case.

• 10. Dena Malloy  |  January 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

  To me, human rights basically mean human freedom. At the most basic level I think human rights allow for an individual to improve their station or the station of their community. When you are starving, and doing everything you can to find your next meal, you don’t have the freedom to move up. When you are oppressed for speaking your mind, for your ethnicity, or for your gender, you don’t have the ability to make a better life. I don’t think governments should necessarily be responsible for providing healthcare for its citizens, but I do think that it is the government’s duty to attempt to keep its citizens free from unnecessary infection. For example, I don’t believe the government is necessarily responsible for providing free AIDS medication to its citizens but it should inform the public correctly on how the disease is spread and not cover up infection rates. I also don’t think the government should be required to provide education to its citizens, but each citizen should have the right to pursue an education and if the government does provide education, each citizen should be equally entitled to receive it. Once again, no country is perfect in these regards, but I think it is the duty of the government to get closer with every year.

• 11. Deanna Haskell  |  January 20th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

  This is a very difficult question with a complex answer. But if I had to summarize my thoughts on the topic today, I would say simply that Human Rights are what allows you to live in a reasonably free way. That is you have the right to make your own choices. Gathering whatever information that you wish. Basic human rights also entail being able to live without opression. If a person wants to work in a poorly maintained factory then it is their right to. But they should have the option of not. In summary, human rights are the right to be happy and make your own choices.

• 12. Chris White  |  January 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  After thinking about this assignment and reflecting upon the education I have received throughout my life, it seems that many teachers have discussed human rights issues and emphasized several instances such as slavery and child labor, but they did not necessarily define these unequivocal rights. Now as I try to formulate my own definition, I realize that it is not as easy as I originally believed. I don’t know if there is a single definition for human rights. It seems that this issue has many varying viewpoints based on a person’s different cultural, social and political backgrounds. I also realized that I may be in violation of some of the rules I have for human rights. With that said, I believe that every person has the right to be treated fairly without being subjected to false pretenses based on race, gender, etc. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed and every child should have access to schooling, food, potable water and shelter. People should be allowed to believe in their religion of choice and speak freely. The main thing is that people should treat others how they themselves expect to be treated.

• 13. Frank Wallace  |  January 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  How do I define human rights? Well, I could give you a textbook type of definition that I’ve heard before, which is they are basic rights that every man, woman, and child are entitled to, but I don’t think that definition is really applicable or possible. I think that is more of a wishful thinking definition that would only work in a perfect world which is universally similar. Since the world we live in is not perfect and extremely different, it is hard to come up with one single way to define human rights, but I’ll give it a shot. I would define human rights more as norms that vary between countries and cultures but should protect the citizens of those countries from injustices and abuses that they might face. So, human rights should include things like political, social, and legal rights. These are certain rights that governments and judicial systems are usually in charge of.

  As for what human rights should not be included, this is an incredibly difficult thing to decide, and it needs to be looked at smaller more specific levels. For example, certain social rights should be protected by the government, but not necessarily every social right because it would be too costly and just not possible. Also, I don’t think religious rights should be included either. It would be good to keep that separation of church and state like it says in the Constitution. The overall point though is that it is very difficult to describe human rights that everyone should be entitled to because everyone is so different and unique, so human rights should be based off of a country’s experience and not the worlds.

• 14. Eric Kvilhaug  |  January 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  I will start off by saying my concept of human rights is probably way off base as my experience level comes from having a good life, good parents with financial stability, and not much training in diversity. Human rights to me are those rights that allow a person to do what one pleases without harming others and not to be oppressed by others. I feel that seatbelt laws are against my rights (I still would), I shouldn’t have to wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle (I still would), I should have the right to smoke pot in my home if I am not effecting others (DUI crash etc.) Even though I don’t smoke pot, wear my seat belt and my helmet, I do not feel that I should be controlled in this way. In turn I do not believe that people should be controlled and dominated, such as Europe in WW2 or the current state of Chinese Communism. Slavery is another big human rights violation in my book, but I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on this, except that I do know it exist in every part of the world, include the USA.

  How does this relate to our China trip and human rights, well if you look at my description of basic human rights who is being controlled more, our selves or the Chinese? Well ok probably the Chinese, but I hope my point is clear (as mud). If not let me clarify my point on the work force. In the US our poor (if they even work) go to a job that they hate, barely get paid enough to feed themselves and take shelter. How is this different from China, they get paid much less but at the same time food is less expensive, as well as everything else needed to survive. An IPod isn’t a necessity of survival so that isn’t factored into the equation. I applaud the Chinese factory workers that go to these jobs day in and day out, doing what is needed to survive, not asking “where’s my handout”.

• 15. Jesse Bilsten  |  January 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  I skipped over the other comments as to not pollute my comment.

  Human rights (I’ve always thought this was extremely simple but I also thought the average person could name two countries bordering the United States…and was proven wrong) are our individual rights to freedom of expression (speech, dancing, religion, who you marry, your job, etc.), property, liberty (that means freedom or not to be indentured for those of you non political people), life, education, food, shelter, and I’m sure a few basic needs/rights that I might be missing.

  They don’t include the ability to take away others human rights.

• 16. Gary Chou  |  January 24th, 2008 at 12:59 am

  500 thousand years ago when we hunted elephants for dinner, there was as much Human Rights (hereinafter as “HR”) as predators swallowed their preys. During Biblical time, “an eye for an eye” was a fair standard, while Jesus and the great Chinese thinker Mencius pioneered the “general love” which dictated the same amount of universal love toward all mankind. In other words, I would just die for you as I would die for my mother; I would do onto others as I would want to be done onto me. Therefore the importance of so-called Human Rights is a rather recent philosophy I must say. (Certainly an emperor or a king would be far more concerned about supremacy and totalitarianism…)

  But at those earlier time (let’s say pre-industrial), human values were relative low compared to now. (And let’s not say it was undervalued then, because it might be overvalued now.) High infant mortality rate and troubling diseases caused mankind to surrender to fate. Slavery, servitude, sacrifice, class, child labor, were largely overlooked; the ability to breathe, to live on, to survive, was in itself precious and mystical. Without dental hygiene, clean water, pesticide and oven gloves, who really paid attention to “child safety seat on the horse cartridge” or “reasonable work load for a 12 years old” or “the emotional health of the 4th wife” when the daily life were considerably more stressed?

  Then thousands of years later when technology enabled the building of clock, water mill, steam engine, and every other belts and whistles within Monticello, surely the time seemed to ripe for entertaining the equality of man. Oh no no no, the man of the year, the lord of Monticello and the writer of the most valuable piece of American history himself, kept a shack-full of slaves as a “necessary evil,” as the man on the nickel aptly put.

  I am not sure the exact wording, since research is not allowed for this assignment, but I am sure he went something to the tone of “all men are created equal.” Let’s not argue the irony of the definition of “a man” and “three fifth of a man” later in the section in regard to voting right, I think we all agree that the issue of HR is not clear cut. It was never clear cut to greatest thinkers, founders of our nation, could it be clear cut to you and me?

  A very prestigious professor of our MBA program once said, at the last mesmerizing lecture he gave us, that the idea of all man are created equal was both brave and new. Is it true? He wasn’t sure. What he was sure, half-jokingly, was that all men are born on a bell shape curve! That’s the statistical truth of the year, isn’t it?

  I think any guiding philosophy, or any moral value, is transient, is modernly tangential to its time. Every period of human civilization requires a set of rules to govern its peace and ensure its common welfare. May it be slavery that does the job (that’s otherwise undoable), may it be polygamy that took care the need (of widows as a result of most men dying from warring), now we have found the shiny term Human Rights for you and me to uphold. We need this term as much as we need freedom, democracy, or whatever belief, because we all need something to hold on, to put our faith in, to abide to, in order to sustain our national identity, in order to justify our international campaign, in order to leave something to our posterity.

  What Human Rights really entails, is really a semantic that is up to you and me, and our children, and their children to define and modify.

  Gary Chou

• 17. Ashley Drum  |  January 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  Human rights mean that an individual is free to live their life as they choose, as long as it doesn’t hurt the lives of those around them. I feel very lucky to be able to define human rights in this way because there a plenty of places in this world where people would be saying very different things. But there are times that I think we, as Americans, give ourselves too many “rights”. The line between rights and privileges is blurred. I have to say my favorite argument for “rights” is when someone says they have the right to own a drivers license. Are you kidding me??

  Looking at China and the rights of their people, it is interesting to question if their restriction on the number of kids they can have is against human rights. You could look at it two ways. Woman should have the right to bear children and the government putting a restriction on that is impacting how they can live their lives. But if woman have too many children in such a populous country, are they negatively affecting how everyone lives in terms of food, shelter, etc. My conclusion to all of this is that my seemingly straightforward definition of human rights can lead to very complex interpretations of how they can be defended. It isn’t always as simple as right and wrong and the more we learn about China and India, the more I realize how true that is.

• 18. Jeff Mohr  |  January 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  A human right is one that is applicable across all cultures and should be accorded to all individuals. In that respect, there are very few human rights. I believe the one true human right is the ability to choose the culture in which you live. Rights are a very cultural issue and each culture that is established creates their own set by which to live. Actions are culturally allowed/disallowed and living in a given culture subjects you to the rights applied by that culture. Thus, I believe everyone should have the right to leave a culture if they disagree with its views. Voting, self-defense, healthcare, multiple children, abortion, access to clean water, and more are all cultural rights. Even here, right may not be the best word. Instead it appears to be more of a privilege for being a proper member of a society. The dispute about human rights arises from one culture looking in on another and applying their own set of cultural beliefs to analyze the situation. To many westerners, China’s one child policy is against the right to build a family of whatever size you desire. This may indeed be against our rights, but overpopulation may hurt the entire culture, creating poverty and risking many lives. No one can claim to be the ultimate judge on these matters, stating what is right and what is wrong. We can only hope to influence other cultures to decide for themselves that a certain behavior should or should not be allowed.

• 19. Naomi Guy  |  January 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  I have been thinking about this for awhile now in hopes to come up with a nice simple answer, I failed. I want to think that every person has the right to health and happiness, but as I think about it, we really don’t. If we lived as a small tribe in the jungle, it would be easy to say we have the right to our surrounding nature, to eat and build off of what the land had to offer. But, culture today has many more elements. We are a communal society with little nature to take from. So with that statement, I define human rights as the ability to use our brain to make decisions about ourselves and our place in the community. In simple terms, our only right is to control our own mind. It should be our right to choose what religion we believe, what food we eat, where we live, etc. However, I do not believe we have rights to healthcare, free money, or housing. If a community decides to offer these services they are utilizing their right to do so, but no human has the right to these simply because they are alive.

• 20. Matt Sprecher  |  January 29th, 2008 at 9:34 am

  Human rights is a tough topic to approach. What may seem like human rights to people in one civilization could seem inhumane or excessive in others. The idea of human rights depending on the culture you are in trivializes the thought, none the less, human rights do and must exist in the communities we live in. For most cultures humans rights surround the idea of “the pursuit happiness.” Being able follow your dreams and go after all aspirations embodies the idea of individual human rights. With our bill of rights and constitutional rights as they are, there really aren’t many thoughts that we are not entitled too. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms all embody what we call human rights.

  What should not be human rights is an even tougher issue to cover. How can anyone say what can and cannot be done? I do agree with Franks comment above that we should separate church and state. Too many times before have I heard politicians world wide bring religion into the issue of making decisions. “This is god’s work” is just one example of phrases politicians use to give justification to their actions. The right of religion is something that everyone should and must have. However, mixing church and state has proven to create jihods and tear countries apart. Human rights are necessary, but abusing them to justify a means is not the proper use.

• 21. Richard Ciesco  |  January 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

  When I was reading this assignment, I right away thought of our basic human rights as spelled out by our constitution and bill of rights. But this is all rooted in how we (I) as Americans have been told our rights are. Then once I sat down and started writing this I thought that there must be more to human rights than this but I can’t seem to grasp it. I wonder if I was from China or some place like Sierra Leone what I would be writing? I think when if comes down to it, the most important thing is for us as humans to be able to think and act freely as long as it doesn’t hurt others.

  I feel that growing up in America we have our basic human rights, but this does not mean equal rights. People who come from poor families or places where a good education is hard to come by and they must over come more obstacles to get where they want in life. So I guess the freedom or the right to work for a better life is part of human rights. When Below is the first thing I wrote to define human rights.

  The meaning of human rights to me is the ability for people to live a chosen style of life free from others telling what you must do. This means you have the ability to learn/train for a career of your choice, be able to express your opinions freely, and reap the benefits of your labor. The ability or maybe a better word would be, freedom to improve life for your family is also covered in our rights as humans.

  Human rights do not give you freedom to do whatever you please though. Directly or knowingly harming another person is not part of human rights. People must respect others. No one must be held down from trying to attain his or her wishes.

• 22. David Zarcone  |  January 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  I have to say that I never really took the time to decide for myself what I think the definition of “human rights” is and should be. First of all, I grew up in a prosperous family where this was never really an issue. Maybe if I had a different history in a different culture then I would have better insights on this topic. However, I will do my best to explain this without my usual “Wikipedia” research.

  I believe that “human rights” have very different meanings in different cultures. Since I have very limited knowledge on the difference between Chinese, American, and other countries’ rights I will steer clear from that topic. Not to mention the definition of “rights” has definitely evolved over the years. America used to be a conservative nation (socially and politically) but now it is extremely liberal. People are free to do pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm others. Additionally, “human rights” have numerous restrictions. (Ex: We do have the right to train for a career of our choosing, but only if we can afford the schooling.) Basically, we have equal rights as members of a monetarily dominant society, but cannot exercise these rights without the proper prerequisites.) This idea has definitely changed over the years.

  Overall, I would have to say that my personal definition of “human rights” is: the ability to act, think, speak, and feel in any way that we choose as long as it does not infringe the laws that guard our society; however, many of these rights are limited by our social/financial standings.

• 23. Steve Munio  |  January 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  When I first glanced over this question I thought it was simple and started writing immediately. Soon after, I realized how complex of a question it really is.

  I suppose my first definition was the one I’ve been raised with as an American citizen; the right to life, liberty and freedom. We Americans also have bill of rights that expand on those basic rights (supposedly) and protect people here more than any other country in the world. Even so, consider this situation: You are born in America. You need food, water, and shelter; the most basic essentials of life. Every acre of the country is owned privately or by the government. You wouldn’t have the right to build a shelter for yourself, since upon birth you are immediately trespassing. You wouldn’t have the right pick fruit for food because it would be theft. You couldn’t kill an animal for food because it more than likely belongs to someone or is protected or requires a license to hunt. So do you really have a god-given right to life from the start? No. We are born into a world that is completely populated, owned and ruled; therefore we don’t have the right to anything. We don’t even need to get into rights of speech, religion, etc. when we are not even guaranteed the most basic needs. Let’s go back a step…even being born is not a right. It is ironic that in this country of “life, liberty, and freedom,” abortion is legalized.

  We are given certain rights depending on where we are born in the world, but there is no universally accepted definition of human rights. We can accept what rights the government we are born under bestows upon us, or we can demand/take further rights through non-violent or violent means. One’s human rights are nothing more than the rights they actualize for themselves.

• 24. Andria Greenlee  |  January 30th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  I think human rights must be analyzed and defined within the context of time and place. While it would be nice to have a universal definition, and subsequent standards, for human rights this is simply not possible in our diverse world. In broad terms, human rights are individual liberties and rights granted by society, government, and culture. The U.S. constitution protects my right to speak freely which all Americans would agree is a cornerstone of democracy. However less than a century ago I would have been denied the right to vote. The point is that human rights evolve constantly, and what I see as my rights in my society are different than what other cultures see. It is important to remember that are products of our culture, making it easy for us to jump to the ethnocentric conclusion that our viewpoint on human rights is superior. I am curious as to just how big of an issue it is to Chinese citizens that they don’t have access to all of the news and information that we do. Do they feel that their human rights are being restricted? Or is this just the way things are?
  This reminds of an article I read on the cover of The New York Times today addressing freedom of speech. It reports on a human advocates couple in Beijing that were arrested for circulating information about human rights to fellow Chinese, something that has been happening more often in anticipation of the Olympics. It will be interesting to follow the guaranteed increasing attention paid by the American media to this issue. I hope to learn more about how the Chinese define human rights, if possible given the restraints currently in place.

• 25. Kyle Tripp  |  January 31st, 2008 at 1:25 pm

  In my opinion human rights is the ability for people to choose how they want to live. Now I know that not everyone is born into a good situation. People are born into poverty and abuse. I feel that it is these peoples right to make a choice for themselves if this is how they want to live their life. If what you are born into is not how you want to live your life then do something about it,get an education, job etc. If you want a change for the better this is always possible. One cannot just choose to be a millionaire and then all of a sudden be one. Though if this is what you want you have every right to do try to make your dreams happen.

  There are always paths that lead the wrong way, but I feel that human rights is the ability to choose for yourself on what path you are going to take. People say that workers in China are treated badly, but this may be an improvement from how they were treated before they started working. So the choice to work in China was their choice and it is their right. If these people do not like how they are being treated then I feel that it is their right to choose to do something else. These choices that we get are what makes each of us an individual and I feel it is our human right to have this.

• 26. Nick Miura  |  January 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  Human rights, in my opinion, can be divided into many tiers. On the lowest level, all humans should have the basic right to the pursuit of survival. In other words, no fellow human should impair another’s ability to get food, water, and shelter. Though simplistic, this right to life is not guaranteed as many governments throughout history have been the aggressors of genocide and population cleansing. Moving further up the human rights platform, the next major step would be the right to pursue happiness. This to me means the right to do what you want to do, given you don’t abuse the basic rights of others. For instance, if money makes someone happy, they should have the right to pursue money without any entity impinging on that right. Continuing upward, the third tier of human rights involves the right to fairness. What I mean by this is once a government makes an effort to protect any right, if another government makes no effort to protect that right, the second government is automatically hampering human rights.

  From my research, I believe China lies in between tier two and three. They protect some rights but also deny others. What is going against China though, is the fact that they are becoming an economic superpower. The world is starting to compare their human rights policies to the United States and Western Europe. Comparatively to the western world, China has a terrible human rights record; however, I can’t believe you’ll find too many people in Iraq or Northern Africa who wouldn’t love to be living in China right now.

• 27. Jesse Dundon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 3:27 pm

  When I first started to write this response, I assumed it would be easy to outline my own definition of human rights. However, the more I thought, the more I struggled to find a view I genuinely believe in, and even as I post this blog, I am still not fully satisfied with my definition. I define human rights as the basic requirements for a person to grow and live, but on a few different levels. Food, water, and clean air are needed to physically survive. Education, shelter, and family are needed to grow psychologically. People must also be free to make whatever choices needed that do not impede the rights of others so that they may find personal fulfillment. Finally, I believe that all people should have the right to live in peace, without the fear of violence to themselves or those they care about. Other than that, I let the right to make your own decisions dictate the quality of a life that one can provide for himself and others.

• 28. Catriona Banks-Orosco  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  To me human rights build the foundation for how a sustainable, peaceful society treats its citizens. On a broader, global level, protection of human rights allows citizens to focus on improving their quality of life. It has taken me a while to decide how I would actually define “human rights.” I immediately think of the Bill of Rights. Most of my original ideas I realized fall under the category of civil rights and what I expect in my democratic society. However, I don’t honestly believe that citizens that do not have all the civil rights that we do in the US are having their human rights violated. So in a nutshell, human rights are those rights, protections and freedoms that every human being on earth is entitled to. These include the right to live a peaceful life without fear of assault, battery, unlawful seizure of property, or unwarranted arrest, this includes not being able to leave a work station for an unreasonable amount of time. Along with ending violent human rights violations, I think we should have the right to the following: the right to change employers without retaliation, the right to clean air, clean water, basic education, and basic health care, as well as opportunities to improve your quality of life. I realize it may not be economically feasible to provide all these things; however, in the long run providing citizens with personal security gives them the freedom and opportunity to improve the world around them.

• 29. Chris Kirk  |  February 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  Human rights are difficult to define but in my own sense I believe that human rights are those rights that we have that separate ourselves from the animal kingdom. Humans should have the ability to express themselves in any way that they chose so long that it does not hinder or infringe upon the rights of others. I think that this concept goes far beyond the idea of simply respecting the beliefs of other individuals. I think that idea is simply oversimplified and unrealistic. Throughout human interaction there will indeed be times in which distinct groups of people will disagree on various subjects. Human rights are compromised however when people begin to harm one another in the name of their opinion (religious or otherwise). The fact that people would harm others in pursuit of their own happiness is completely contradictory to the idea of human rights. Human rights obviously cover a lot of potential topics from religion to war and politics, but the main focus in my opinion is that human rights allow people to express themselves in any way they chose so long as it does not intend to harm or persecute others simply because they have a different belief system.

• 30. Darold Parsons  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  Human rights are just that, rights that every human gains upon birth. These rights, allow us the opportunity to make decisions and choices that allow us to live the life we choose, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of someone else. Furthermore, I feel human rights do not differ from country to country nor continent to continent, but instead, are universal. There is no such thing as Chinese human rights, or African human rights, or American human rights, this kind of thought is what leads to oppression. Some Germans use to believe that Jewish people had inferior human rights and some Americans felt the same way about African people. This thought process can be seen throughout history along with the pain that it has caused.

• 31. Rob Belloni  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  Human rights are a baseline. A baseline that says, “any treatment below this level is not acceptable.” Society defines human rights. There are many societies in this world. Therefore there are many definitions of human rights.

  When defining human rights, the next logical definition to make is - at what point are human rights violated? It may be easy to answer this question on a case by case basis, but no catch-phrase can sum it all up for me. So, at that point my definition of human rights is weak because I cannot tell you exactly when someone’s human rights have been violated.

• 32. Matt Fencl  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:18 pm

  The concept of human rights has evolved so much over time that I’m hesitant to make any absolute statements. This evolution also makes me wonder if anything but a vague definition of human rights could be made today that would continue to be perceived as accurate in the future. I wish I could cheat a little and google something like “history of human rights” and see what definitions were passing a few hundred years ago…or if such an idea even existed.
  Part of the difficulty in defining human rights as a whole comes from inability to agree on what qualifies as a right to begin with. Many human rights advocates today are pushing for legislature protecting “rights” that are secondary to those rights that I feel are innate: While universal healthcare is certainly a noble idea, do people really have a “right” to it? And if so, do people have a right to a home, a job?…or should they just have the right to pursue these things? In my opinion, classifying these things as rights dilutes the definition; it makes our most sacred rights (freedom of speech/religion etc) a byproduct of politics and society, not our birth.

• 33. Nic Marlin  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  I intentionally did not read other comments to this post yet, but I have a feeling my definition of human rights is pretty simple.

  The first words that come to mind when I think about human rights are love, harmony, and fairness. Human rights involve something along the lines of not depriving any person of “life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.” I know that the definition of those terms can be argued, especially cross-culturally, but sticking to a broad definition of those terms is all that comes to me. I think too often morality is collapsed into human rights issues and that is where heated debates arise.

  I could go on for ages about what I think is fair and which morals should exist in the world, but I don’t think that is the assignment.

• 34. Sarah Ybarra  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm

  Constructing my own definition for human rights is a difficult task. As an American I instinctively define human rights as the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Humans are intrinsically entitled to these rights. The right to life is the right to all things necessary to sustain life, it is the right to air, water, and food. It also includes the right to live life without it being taken by another. The right to liberty is the right to free will. It allows people to live as they choose, and make their own decisions. The right to pursue happiness is the right to be treated with respect, fairness and equality, as well as the right to pursue desires.

• 35. Woon Lam "Justine" Wong  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 am

  First of all, I want to focus on the word “Human” in “human rights”.To me, it is always ironic that there are so many pets in the world live a much better life than the children living in the third world countries. Why can a dog be fed regularly, has clean water to drink and can play in its own backyard, while kids in Ethiopia or Cambodia don’t even know when they are going to eat?

  We care about “human” rights, because we are human, and we think everyone who are same as us should be treated equally. In other words, the standard of human rights set by each of us here are the basic rights that we personally don’t want to give up and we think we deserve it.

  My human rights definition is the choice to live and grow happily and healthily. It consists of the freedom to express emotion and opinions, freedom to make decisions and the rights to get sufficient nutrition, sleep and other basic needs. It includes all the things that I NEED to be survived rather than the things that I WANT to keep me survive.

  Sadly, although we hope to advocate human rights and achieve equality, our own wants made us allocate resources differently so to neglect or deprived others’ basic needs.

• 36. Simone Michel  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am

  Today’s world is affected by worldwide terrorism and human rights are being put to the test. If you follow the news, you easily start to believe that human rights can be twisted whatever way by the rulers. But how should you define human rights? It’s almost impossible to fit it into one sentence, but the first thing that came to mind was the central phrase of the French revolution: Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood). Furthermore, I think that human rights are rights that every human being, independent of his status within a state, community, family, job, religion and culture is entitled to the minute he or she is born. Other characteristics like color, sex, language, political orientation, national or social background should not influence the validity of human rights.

  From my point of view, human dignity is also a central point. Every person should be able to follow his or her freedom independent of other people. The state does not legislate these rights, but with help of the state the existence of human rights can be awarded state recognition.

• 37. Shasta Palmer  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  I haven’t ever given a lot of thought to the definition of human rights. However, I would define human rights as the allowable/acceptable ways a person may express him or her self freely. Meaning, if a country were to allow its people to believe how they wish, and freedom of speech they would have more human rights than a place who defined how a person must believe, and filtered what he or she could read. What the term “human rights” should include would be freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, freedom of religious beliefs, ability to read unfiltered information, right to vote and choose what happens in his or her own country. As for what they shouldn’t include, I’m not really sure. There should be some rules, so the people don’t just going around killing other people and thinking thats OK, but there is always a fine line between too many rules, and not enough.

• 38. Glenn Hughes  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  “Human Rights” is a term that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways by different people, or simply by putting it in a different context. It took some time for me to reflect on what I viewed as human rights. Here is what I came up with.

  Basic human rights come down to choice. Some of my peers referred loosely to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in that we need shelter, food etc. However man has a choice as to whether or not he seeks these needs. For example… Humans have a right to choose to seek out shelter, and those who have control over shelter have a right to charge a market rate for the shelter they provide. The consequences of the choice are the side effect so to say of human rights. If someone chooses not to pay a market rate to obtain shelter, they will need to accept that fact that due to their choice they will not have shelter. Basic human rights should include the right not to be physically harassed, abused, or treated with any malicious intent.

• 39. Mark Fairman  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  I interpret “human rights” as an individual’s ability to act on their innermost desires—the desire to live freely, the desire to choose one’s self-identity (culture, government, religion, lifestyle), the desire to sustain health. I understand that these personal desires are affected by many external factors, including time, place, and context—and that it is very common that these factors limit one’s ability to live freely. “Rights” should be more than just “desires,” they should be given—but with the large amount of government control in some countries, these rights are reduced to desires.

  I often think about China’s emergence into the global marketplace and what it has taken for them to get there. There seems to be constant scrutiny of certain Chinese practices, be it political, social, etc. When I read or hear about China’s environmental standards and the affect that their production boom has had—amidst my own personal desire for a healthy planet—I think, doesn’t China have the right to economic prosperity? Don’t the impoverished workers have the right to better pay provided to them by foreign companies?

  I don’t think it’s possible to understand individual desires on a global scale, beyond the basic necessities for living. My generation is the generation of choices—we can essentially do and say what we want, when we want. Although this allows us many opportunities (many of which we take for granted), it also causes us to lack a broader perception what others want.

• 40. David Dougherty  |  February 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am

  I avoided reading the other posts while formulating my response, so I’m sure that much of this has been said…..
  When I think of human rights, the definition that pops into mind is the basic rights that all people are entitled to. I would elaborate on the definition going a little more in depth. I consider human rights to be rights that every person, regardless of race, age, and gender are given and cannot be jeopardized or taken away. Human rights include the ability to make decisions and take actions as the individual sees fit; the ability to make life choices independently of a government or political institution. There is a line between what are and aren’t human rights. I think the line becomes crossed when an individual’s decisions or actions negatively effects others. Basically, without confusing the readers of this response or the author anymore, I think that human rights are the basic, inalienable rights that every person should be given, the right to control one’s own life and destiny.

• 41. Nicholas Dominguez  |  February 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

  Human rights are constructed to represent the morals of a society. They are entirely human generated and determined, therefore, they cannot be considered natural or inherently granted. Not a single human right is specifically granted to a human at birth. If divine intervention is removed from the equation, it is still luck if the sperm finds the egg in the first place. A person literally has no right to be alive. But, we are alive and there is a psychological drive to make the most of life when we get that chance. This is where human rights come into play. The idea of a human right is a majority determined behavior to allow for the progress of an individual’s life. It can be considered an act of respect for the beliefs of another. More specifically it is an act of respect by the individuals in power for the individuals for the individuals perceiving harm from its absence.

  There are only two parties involved in this relationship. There are those that desire a right for the benefit of themselves and those that must grant it or withhold it out of respect or self interest. In the current debate of human rights in the Chinese manufacturing sector there are three parties. There are the Chinese business owners and government; they are lumped together since both have power over the opposite party involved. The second party is the Chinese laborer and the third is the human rights activist. The human rights activist believes that the Chinese laborer and the activist have the same perceptions of harm due to the withholding of certain human rights. In reality this may not be true. For example, it may be entirely beneficial for a worker to put in many hours of overtime for even a small amount of payment if it feeds their family. This leads me to the conclusion that a human right must develop from within a society.

  With all of this being said I still believe in one right that should be placed above all others. This is the right to access information and knowledge. Knowledge can change the way a society perceives itself and can bring forth issues that could never have been imagined in the past.

• 42. LAURA DAWONS  |  February 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SEND ME A COPY OF YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS DEFINING THE TERMS YOU USE (ABUSE)(UNFAIR TREATMENT) IN REGULAR MAIL.

  THANK YOU

  LAURA DAWSON
  2228 DUNE DRIVE
  LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

• 43. Amy Linker  |  February 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Defining human rights is much more difficult than I thought. I started this post yesterday but I could not come up with a good definition. So I gave myself a day to think about it.

  My definition of human rights is the right of all individuals to seek survival without being repressed by a group or even in some cases an individual. This is a very basic definition that could be expanded on in great depth. However, I don’t have that much space or time so I will only expand on it a little.

  Water, food and shelter are the basic elements one needs to survive. In our advanced society we obtain these necessities by working to earn money which in turn allows us to purchase these items. If a group, such as a government, infringes on your ability to obtain these items than they are violating your human rights. The group does not necessarily have to be a government. It could be a business, such as the company towns that trapped and suppressed their workers in the late 1800’s

  I also believe that freedom plays into the concept of human rights. One should be free to practice religion, speak, and learn whatever their hearts desire without being suppressed. That is, of course, unless it is harming another individual or group. This leads me to the last component of my definition of human rights which is the right to feel safe and unthreatened by others.

  I do not believe that happiness should be part of the definition of human rights. Happiness is a very subjective topic and some people will never be happy no matter what they do.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

The posts, comments and/or views expressed on this trip blog, whether by a Cal Poly student or faculty or an outside guest to the blog, do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of Cal Poly, the Orfalea College of Business (OCOB), any of the OCOB's graduate programs and/or other students who participate in the trip.