A right is defined as the the legal and moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something, or to obtain or refrain from obtaining a thing or recognition from civil society. Who then defines what a person should or should not be entitled to? What does our birth into the world really entitle us to? The world is filled with people of different values and perceptions of right and wrong. We don’t have a global culture that shares one set of values of beliefs, how then is it possible to impose human rights on others? One man’s meat may possibly be another man’s poison.
US’s invasion of Iraq was seen initially as a liberation, freeing the people from the enslavement of Saddam Hussein. But it can also be seen as one stronger party simply imposing it’s interpretation of right and wrong on a weaker party. Its like a vigilante breaking up a less-than-perfect or abusive family by killing the parents to liberate the children, after which becoming the new parent and applying his ideals of a family. But who is to say that the children, though disgruntled and abused, did not mind the family and tolerated and loved the parents despite their imperfections. Who is to say that the children wanted the vigilante to do so, and who is to say that the children prefer the vigilante’s ideals of a family? In fact, many reports and personal accounts of the Iraq war has shown that, in fact their lives, in many aspects, have worsened and were better under the government of Saddam Hussein and many would have preferred his rule though it was far from perfect. Who is to say what is human rights when one person’s ideal of human rights and liberation, is another person’s idea of enslavement and suffering?
Who is to say what is the ‘norm’ or even whether it is ‘right’? Even consider discrimination and slavery, it may be evil and unjust in some societies but it may also be the norm and the social balance of some societies which are established with caste systems, whereby lower caste people were discriminated (which violates UN’s human rights). In ancient Greece and various olden and modern religious societies, slaves were seen as the norm and simply playing their role in society and, though not all, some filled their role with contentment. Most ancient writers considered slavery not only natural but necessary. Who has the right to decide to impose equality and break up the social system in place, which may lead to further and worse chaos and disorder? What would ensue from the breaking down of the caste system in these societies? In imposing of human rights, there may be negative consequences or collateral damage that even outweigh the damage of the original human abuse. And in the first place, who defines the norm and accepted right or wrong, when it defers from society to society and era?
However, I do feel there still are sets of universal values and interpretations of right and wrongs, governed by a higher moral law. These are things that I feel are defined universally among all mankind, such as the right to live. And I feel these can and should be imposed and ensured, as they are values intrinsically rooted in all humans. The problem is that it becomes dangerous when we go beyond these basic human rights and dictate right and wrong based on opinion. Going further may do the opposite and imposing your definition of human rights on others, may in fact result in enslaving them to something they do not want. Its like the Christian Crusades, in which a dominating force imposes its arbitrary set of beliefs and values upon other cultures.
