Проблемот со човековите права

Не ми се преведува, па го постирам како што е напишано…

We are bombarded with human rights rhetoric every day. It has come to a point where the phrase passes through our stream of consciousness without registering, it has blended in the background, it has become a “noise” infusing our communication channels. So, what is my “problem” with human rights? First, let me pose a question: when did this idea enter in the realm of discussion? Was this with the French revolution, was it in the opening passages of the american constitution (right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness…). Whenever it was, it seems that it was a good thing, it seems that the humanity has finally evolved to a point that it began to consider these very important questions.

But, I am arguing exactly the opposite. When you start discussing a thing, about a thing, you classify it by necessity. Whether it is human nature, or a “law” of nature, a “pro et contra” attitude emerges. Furthermore, you can now enlist the notion of human rights to serve a purpose, i.e. put it to use. Now, the rights can be an excuse for starting wars, limit the sovereignty of a nation, or position yourself and / or your country as a defender of certain rights, or in a judicial position, deciding who is limiting those rights, and who is uber – righteous. And, as we endlessly debate, the definitions naturally become blurry. Recently, in the EU, the right to vacation has been declared to be a human right. The right to clean drinking water is a human right. Yes, it is, but really, does it need to be discussed? The right of air to breathe is also a human right, the right to…

We are spiraling into an absurd state, of classifying obvious facts, of defining them, and then of inevitably perverting them and putting them to work for our selfish ends. This fact was well known to the mystics of old, and I hold the position that this is in the heart of the reasons why for example in some religions the supreme deity was not to be represented in human terms (you will not create an image of God). They realized that as soon as you apply a human classification scheme to obvious or ethereal things, they deteriorate. So, if we are not to discuss human rights in order to best protect them, how we are to act in the real world of human needs and deeds? I believe that the way out of this predicament is to act with empathy and without the need of quantified and codified “rule book”. It is precisely because of the obsessive need to define such an ethereal subject matter, we are going to end in perverting and distorting it, as it is already happening. Try to grasp smoke in your hand, and it will slip through your fingers.


Your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s