Politicians and philosophers sometimes talk about a human right, a right we humans have merely due to our existence. But what makes that so?
The U.S. Constitution details a few of these rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At other times, individual rights like housing, health care, fresh air and clean water, and others have been mentioned.
The idea is that these are inalienable rights, that is, rights that confer on us as soon as we are born. They do not have to do with our status, our job, our family, or any other external factor. We have them because all people have them, regardless of race, gender, class, country of origin, or any other factor.
Of course, this is an ideal, or an aspiration. As a society, we believe individuals should have these things. But of course, there have been many times in many places throughout history where human beings have not had these rights.
Including the in the United States. Despite what the U.S. Constitution says, historically rights were not given evenly to people based on race and gender. That has evolved and changed over time. But today there are efforts underway to remove some of these rights for some accused of criminal behavior, or others who have questionable immigration status.
Fundamentally, it begs the question: what makes something a human right? Why did life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness make the cut, and others didn’t? Is health care a human right? How do we decide? And if we can have differing opinions, and if we, as a society can change our mind about it, is it a right that we are born with?
Related questions: Is health care a human right? Does nature have rights? Do animals have rights? Personal rights or public safety?
What makes something a human right is that it is a basic need for survival and a meaningful opportunity to thrive.
Most human rights are encompassed in the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights—30 articles that outline what every person, everywhere, deserves simply because they are a person (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights).
For instance, Article 25 states some positive freedoms (i.e., freedoms to) – “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
In the realm of negative freedoms (i.e., freedom from), Article 4 states that “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” Also, Article 9 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”
However, I believe the Declaration falls short in some critical areas. One of the most glaring omissions, in my opinion, appears in Article 2:
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
Sexual orientation is not addressed and should be.
Article 25 falls short in several key areas. For instance, the article lacks free access to clean water. Additionally, certain rights — while implied — should be stated explicitly (e.g., (healthy) food, (affordable and dignified) housing).
The pronouns in the declaration need to be updated. He, him, and his should be edited to they, their, and theirs.
Lastly, the fact that a right is not recognized does not mean it isn’t a right. In other words, rights are not aspirational; they just are. That’s why people fight so passionately for them or to keep them.
Rights can only be maintained when they are backed by shared responsibilities. A government or a constitution can only work when it is backed whole heartedly and responsibly by participating members. Think of places without a good government or constitution to protect them. They are more vulnerable to slavery and wars.
Being too literal-minded here: I believe human rights come from compassion laid over mutual survival strategies.
For societies to thrive, folks need to be willing to co-exist within it’s framework. Too much lack of rights leads to unwilling people. That’s the survival part.
The compassion part is where folks come to realize that we’re all in the same boat, rights-wise. And that not-me is also a person, as much as I am.