Human rights are rights that all people have, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or another status. Human rights include, among other things, the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of thought and expression, the right to work and education. Knowing your rights and fighting for them to protect not only yourself but others is important for human rights defenders like Mohamed Soltan, who has experienced grave injustice firsthand.
Inalienable
Human rights are defined as those that cannot be taken away by anyone. However, this definition does not necessarily make all rights inalienable and cannot be abolished. Instead, it means a right cannot be forfeited because of alarming conduct or because the holder voluntarily gives up that right. Not all human rights are inalienable in this way. Inalienability is not universally accepted in all contexts; people must endorse it before a right can be claimed. People who believe that human rights are inalienable must also support imprisonment as a punishment for certain crimes. Further, they must acknowledge that a convicted person’s freedom is not sacred.
Universal
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It outlines the rights of all human beings. The paper is the first to recognize the inherent rights of every human being, regardless of gender, race, nationality, religion, or political affiliation. There are a lot of other human rights declarations that are equally important, but this one is the most universal.
Minimal
Human rights are fundamentally the rights of every human being, regardless of sex, nationality, religion, or language. They are interconnected, interdependent, and inseparable. They must be respected and promoted, but we can’t impose them on others. If we can’t protect ourselves, we cannot defend ourselves. So we must ensure that our fellow human beings are treated with dignity.
Justification
Justification for understanding human rights involves analyzing why they should exist. In this paper, we discuss two common approaches to the subject. We call these approaches the interests theory and the will theory. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, but both ultimately produce conclusions limiting human rights’ full force. Philosophical supporters of human rights may have to combine themes and elements from each approach to find a justification for human rights that will appeal to them.
Consistency
While socially recognized human rights have traditionally been reinforced through education, a consistent human rights understanding is more complicated. While states have long been held accountable for human rights violations, governments are increasingly linking human rights to business practices and public health. Moreover, attention to persecuted ethnic groups is steadily increasing. This is all contributing to a more comprehensive human rights understanding.
Justification as a Thin Form of Existence
When considering the nature of justification, the first question is whether it requires access to information. The internalist view holds that reason requires access to relevant information. The externalist statement claims that the basis depends solely on external factors. Ultimately, both words are correct. The latter view, however, is the more common position.
