Darren J. O’Byrne, author of an Introduction to Human Rights (2003) defines human rights as universal and belonging to each of us regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, age, religion, political conviction, or type of government . This idea is clearly beneficial to many but it does come with an array of difficulties which will be touched upon later in the introduction. O’Byrne pushes the notion that human rights should be incontrovertible. Are human rights be incontrovertible? Under this idea, rights are guaranteed and do not fall under the states jurisdiction to deny them. Our rights cannot be negated under this pretense. Although both may seem identical, they are two entirely different aspects of human rights. One is defined
…show more content…
They create a hierarchy of rights which eliminate the idea of equality between all rights. This creates a conflicts of rights where only few rights (Or in reality, only one…) can be considered incontrovertible. Authors have their own set of rights which they consider to be incontrovertible: Hobbes (security); Kant (freedom); Arendt (citizenship) and Locke (life, liberty & property). According to them, the rights mentioned in parentheses are superior to other rights and must be respected within conflicts. This may cause societal division as individuals have a multitude of perspectives as to what rights we should hold important in society. Onto the following issue of incontrovertibility, the problems linked to duties. Humans are in possession of rights largely based on the fact that they accompany duties. Two elements composing this are brought to light within the Darren O’Byrne writings would be positive duties and negative duties. Thomas Paine elaborates on the idea of positive duties while John Locke explains negative duties. Positive rights can be as simple as paying taxes in order to receive universal healthcare. In contrast, negative duties are required so that all other humans may possess rights by limiting the magnitude of your own to respect others’. An example of this would be limiting my free speech by disallowing hateful rhetoric to it in order to respect your rights to
They create a hierarchy of rights which eliminate the idea of equality between all rights. This creates a conflicts of rights where only few rights (Or in reality, only one…) can be considered incontrovertible. Authors have their own set of rights which they consider to be incontrovertible: Hobbes (security); Kant (freedom); Arendt (citizenship) and Locke (life, liberty & property). According to them, the rights mentioned in parentheses are superior to other rights and must be respected within conflicts. This may cause societal division as individuals have a multitude of perspectives as to what rights we should hold important in society. Onto the following issue of incontrovertibility, the problems linked to duties. Humans are in possession of rights largely based on the fact that they accompany duties. Two elements composing this are brought to light within the Darren O’Byrne writings would be positive duties and negative duties. Thomas Paine elaborates on the idea of positive duties while John Locke explains negative duties. Positive rights can be as simple as paying taxes in order to receive universal healthcare. In contrast, negative duties are required so that all other humans may possess rights by limiting the magnitude of your own to respect others’. An example of this would be limiting my free speech by disallowing hateful rhetoric to it in order to respect your rights to