Ethics and torture
I read this amazing article just now. It's really good. And since it's actually a transcript of a lecture (and seeminly a really good one with a good speaker) the text is easy to read. They talk about the moral ethics of torture. One example he gives made a big impact on me. He talks about the 'ticking time bomb'-scenario. Where a terrorist has been captured, and this terrorist has planted a bomb somewhere, and the question is whether you torture him/her in order to find out the location before innocent people die. This is the example he gave about 'sacrificing' people's lives.
"From time to time—this is something that happens a lot in England; I don't know whether it happens here as much—but in England from time to time a proposal is made to build a fast motorway through an area of countryside. Often what happens is that this is put to the local population through their local governmental processes, and very often the local population rejects it because of their commitment to aesthetic and environmental values.
But they reject the proposal to build a motorway knowing that if they do so certain concrete people will die who otherwise would have lived. Why is that? Well, we know that motorways are a lot safer than the small roads that they replace. So some people will die in car crashes, absolutely foreseeably, who otherwise would have been saved. We know that motorways are faster than small roads, so we know that certain people will make it to hospital in time to be saved who otherwise would not have.
So here is an example where we choose to allow the foreseeable deaths of citizens not for some kind of overriding moral value, like the rejection not to torture, but for a seemingly less important value commitment, a commitment to beautiful countryside, aesthetic and environmental values.
These examples are a constant feature of political life. Governments frequently give money to ethics programs and philosophy programs; they fund art programs. They do that knowing that they won't be able to use that money to fund ambulances and police officers, knowing that, predictably and foreseeably, certain people will die and will be murdered who otherwise could have been saved. This tradeoff, this idea that we as a society accept costs, even up to accepting the deaths of citizens, in order to maintain values that are important to us is an absolutely central feature of political life." -David Rodin
I have never thought about it in that way before. I am, like Mr. Rodin, completely against torture. I think it does not only degrade the victim, but also the person that is doing the torturing. No matter what a person has done, they are still a person. A living human being. And as seen from the above example, we sacrifice people's lives all the time...
If you want to read the whole text you can find it here. It's really good.
"From time to time—this is something that happens a lot in England; I don't know whether it happens here as much—but in England from time to time a proposal is made to build a fast motorway through an area of countryside. Often what happens is that this is put to the local population through their local governmental processes, and very often the local population rejects it because of their commitment to aesthetic and environmental values.
But they reject the proposal to build a motorway knowing that if they do so certain concrete people will die who otherwise would have lived. Why is that? Well, we know that motorways are a lot safer than the small roads that they replace. So some people will die in car crashes, absolutely foreseeably, who otherwise would have been saved. We know that motorways are faster than small roads, so we know that certain people will make it to hospital in time to be saved who otherwise would not have.
So here is an example where we choose to allow the foreseeable deaths of citizens not for some kind of overriding moral value, like the rejection not to torture, but for a seemingly less important value commitment, a commitment to beautiful countryside, aesthetic and environmental values.
These examples are a constant feature of political life. Governments frequently give money to ethics programs and philosophy programs; they fund art programs. They do that knowing that they won't be able to use that money to fund ambulances and police officers, knowing that, predictably and foreseeably, certain people will die and will be murdered who otherwise could have been saved. This tradeoff, this idea that we as a society accept costs, even up to accepting the deaths of citizens, in order to maintain values that are important to us is an absolutely central feature of political life." -David Rodin
I have never thought about it in that way before. I am, like Mr. Rodin, completely against torture. I think it does not only degrade the victim, but also the person that is doing the torturing. No matter what a person has done, they are still a person. A living human being. And as seen from the above example, we sacrifice people's lives all the time...
If you want to read the whole text you can find it here. It's really good.
I just have to include another quote from the text:
“The real threat of terrorism is the temptation that it provides to engage in a kind of self-mutilation or self-destruction of our own values, because at the end of the day it is only us that can degrade or abandon our value commitments. It is that temptation that I believe we would do very, very well to resist with considerable courage.” -David Rodin
Essay on human rights
Okay, so as you might have realised from the quotes in the previous entries I've been writing an essay about human rights. The topic has been whether human rights derive from Western liberal principles, or of they come from basic human principles common to all societies. I can't decide if I'm pleased or not with the essay, although I do like my arguement. The question is if I'm managing to get it across :P Anyway, you can read it below if you want to...
There is no argument against the fact that the human rights we today make up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has its historical roots in the French Revolution and the Enlightenment period. However, this does not necessarily mean that human rights are not common to all societies. This is what I will argue throughout this essay. I will look at some of the arguments put forward by some critics of universal human rights, especially the argument of sovereignty. I will also look into why the fact that human rights might draw upon Western liberal principles does not make them invalid to other parts of the world. Furthermore, this essay will finish off by looking at the common misconception that human rights are the same as American values.
It is intriguing to see how many non-Western states apply Western arguments as to why the human rights established in the UDHR are not supposed to be universally applicable. One of the most standardised rejections toward human rights is the issue of sovereignty. This is especially the situation in the People’s Republic of China. Xie and Niu are quoted by Donnelly as arguing that “[i]mposing the human rights standard of one’s own country or region on other countries or regions is an infringement upon other countries’ sovereignty.” However, the idea of sovereignty is also a ‘Western invention’ that has been imposed on other countries. Through the Peace Westphalia in 1648 the standard of the nation-state was set up, and sovereignty was one of the characteristics every nation-state was given. Today this is internationally recognised; and as seen often used as a reason to neglect other international principles, such as human rights. If the idea of sovereignty managed to become such a rooted concept throughout the world, why cannot human rights go through the same development? Similar to this, we do not refer to ‘capitalist markets’ as ‘Western’ merely because they have their roots in the Western parts of the world.
Donnelly claims that by looking at the historical account of a social practice “we cannot conclude anything about its appropriate range of applicability." In my opinion this signifies an important view on the universality of human rights. True as it may be that these derive from Western parts of the world, this does not necessarily equal the existence of human rights in every Western state. Which in my opinion helps in diminishing the idea that human rights is based solely on Western liberal principles. One example of this is the human rights violations that the United States (US) undertake every day, and the people around the world that are criticising the US for their actions. What this illustrates is that the problem of human rights violations are as universal as the rights themselves. The rights are not restricted to one geographical area, and neither are the problems of them. The West has had their share of tyrants that have violated human rights. Especially Europe has a dark history. However, when the people became more educated and aware of their rights the European culture was forced to change. Under the pressure of non-governmental organisations and religious and labour groups certain human rights principles were established. Therefore the question arises, if the Western world had to change their culture to fit into the new principles of human rights, why should not the rest of the world have to change their cultures as well?
Another important fact to remember when debating whether human rights derive from Western liberal principles is that there is a difference between the UDHR and American values. Both of these have their roots in the Enlightenment, thus it is evident that they share certain standards. However, one of the many differences is the emphasis that American values put on private property, this is only briefly mentioned in the UDHR. What this demonstrates is that there is a misconception in the world about what human rights are. The implementation of universal human rights is not the same as the spreading of American values. As Donnelly effectively argues: human rights are not implemented and insisted upon by the West, but by the UDHR. Every UN member state has agreed to the UN Charter, and so far no member has rejected or put in a reservation toward the UDHR.
To conclude, I would like to state that I do believe the roots of human rights can be found in the West. To me there is no question about this. However, what I would like to point out is that human rights still derive from basic human principles that are indeed common to all societies. To me there is no valid claim as to why this particular idea should be restricted to a certain part of the world. Different cultures have had no problem adopting similar economical standards, or the concept of sovereignty, why should human rights be any different? Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the internationally recognised human rights, and the American values that the US is being accused of spreading across the globe. By agreeing to the UN Charter, every member state has agreed to honour the UDHR. The origins of the idea then appears to be almost unimportant; and as Ibrahim Anwar puts it:
"Tyranny and injustice are repugnant to civil society wherever they may occur, and to cite cultural differences or Asian values in order to deflect from ourselves criticism against human rights violations is an affront to our moral sense."
There is no argument against the fact that the human rights we today make up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has its historical roots in the French Revolution and the Enlightenment period. However, this does not necessarily mean that human rights are not common to all societies. This is what I will argue throughout this essay. I will look at some of the arguments put forward by some critics of universal human rights, especially the argument of sovereignty. I will also look into why the fact that human rights might draw upon Western liberal principles does not make them invalid to other parts of the world. Furthermore, this essay will finish off by looking at the common misconception that human rights are the same as American values.
It is intriguing to see how many non-Western states apply Western arguments as to why the human rights established in the UDHR are not supposed to be universally applicable. One of the most standardised rejections toward human rights is the issue of sovereignty. This is especially the situation in the People’s Republic of China. Xie and Niu are quoted by Donnelly as arguing that “[i]mposing the human rights standard of one’s own country or region on other countries or regions is an infringement upon other countries’ sovereignty.” However, the idea of sovereignty is also a ‘Western invention’ that has been imposed on other countries. Through the Peace Westphalia in 1648 the standard of the nation-state was set up, and sovereignty was one of the characteristics every nation-state was given. Today this is internationally recognised; and as seen often used as a reason to neglect other international principles, such as human rights. If the idea of sovereignty managed to become such a rooted concept throughout the world, why cannot human rights go through the same development? Similar to this, we do not refer to ‘capitalist markets’ as ‘Western’ merely because they have their roots in the Western parts of the world.
Donnelly claims that by looking at the historical account of a social practice “we cannot conclude anything about its appropriate range of applicability." In my opinion this signifies an important view on the universality of human rights. True as it may be that these derive from Western parts of the world, this does not necessarily equal the existence of human rights in every Western state. Which in my opinion helps in diminishing the idea that human rights is based solely on Western liberal principles. One example of this is the human rights violations that the United States (US) undertake every day, and the people around the world that are criticising the US for their actions. What this illustrates is that the problem of human rights violations are as universal as the rights themselves. The rights are not restricted to one geographical area, and neither are the problems of them. The West has had their share of tyrants that have violated human rights. Especially Europe has a dark history. However, when the people became more educated and aware of their rights the European culture was forced to change. Under the pressure of non-governmental organisations and religious and labour groups certain human rights principles were established. Therefore the question arises, if the Western world had to change their culture to fit into the new principles of human rights, why should not the rest of the world have to change their cultures as well?
Another important fact to remember when debating whether human rights derive from Western liberal principles is that there is a difference between the UDHR and American values. Both of these have their roots in the Enlightenment, thus it is evident that they share certain standards. However, one of the many differences is the emphasis that American values put on private property, this is only briefly mentioned in the UDHR. What this demonstrates is that there is a misconception in the world about what human rights are. The implementation of universal human rights is not the same as the spreading of American values. As Donnelly effectively argues: human rights are not implemented and insisted upon by the West, but by the UDHR. Every UN member state has agreed to the UN Charter, and so far no member has rejected or put in a reservation toward the UDHR.
To conclude, I would like to state that I do believe the roots of human rights can be found in the West. To me there is no question about this. However, what I would like to point out is that human rights still derive from basic human principles that are indeed common to all societies. To me there is no valid claim as to why this particular idea should be restricted to a certain part of the world. Different cultures have had no problem adopting similar economical standards, or the concept of sovereignty, why should human rights be any different? Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the internationally recognised human rights, and the American values that the US is being accused of spreading across the globe. By agreeing to the UN Charter, every member state has agreed to honour the UDHR. The origins of the idea then appears to be almost unimportant; and as Ibrahim Anwar puts it:
"Tyranny and injustice are repugnant to civil society wherever they may occur, and to cite cultural differences or Asian values in order to deflect from ourselves criticism against human rights violations is an affront to our moral sense."
More quotes, cause I can't think for myself anymore...
"Gunpowder was invented in China. Arabic numerals, and much of the mathematics with which they were associated, were developed in the Muslim Near East. Jews in Palestine created Christianity. Yoga is an ancient Indian philiosophy, science or discipline. Submarines, tanks, and fighter jets were invented in the West. Human being themselves first emerged from Africa. From none of these facts do we conclude that the things or practices in question are merely for local application or validity. Nor should we make such an error in the case of human rights."
"We rightly speak of 'capitalist,' 'international,' or 'global' - not Western - markets. We rightly speak of modern states, an organizational form that has penetrated all areas of the globe. Although Westerners played a decisive role in spreading these institutions across the globe, states have been enthusiastically adopted in all regions of the globe and markets have reshaped all but the most isolated local communities."
From Universal Human Rights, in theory and practice by Jack Donnelly.
He is a smart man, if I may say so.
"We rightly speak of 'capitalist,' 'international,' or 'global' - not Western - markets. We rightly speak of modern states, an organizational form that has penetrated all areas of the globe. Although Westerners played a decisive role in spreading these institutions across the globe, states have been enthusiastically adopted in all regions of the globe and markets have reshaped all but the most isolated local communities."
From Universal Human Rights, in theory and practice by Jack Donnelly.
He is a smart man, if I may say so.
Yet another quote from an interesting article
"How can Americans justify insisting-by diplomatic, military, economic, or other means- that every other society adopt the moral and political vocabulary of rights?... The ques- tions become painful to contemplate when we face the reality that the United States is the wealthiest society in the world, yet after over two hundred years of human-rights talk, many of its citizens have no shelter, a fifth of them have no access to health care, a fourth of its children are growing up in poverty, and the richest two percent of its peoples own and control over fifty percent of its wealth."
-Henry Rosemont
Quite interesting if I may say so...
I'm working on an essay about human rights, if it's plausible to have universal human rights in a world with so many divirging cultures. It makes for a lot of interesting reading...
-Henry Rosemont
Quite interesting if I may say so...
I'm working on an essay about human rights, if it's plausible to have universal human rights in a world with so many divirging cultures. It makes for a lot of interesting reading...
Word of wisdom
“To lead as a team,
you must know how to be a team player.
To inspire people or nations to follow you,
you must have a reputation for moral uprightness, wisdom, and veracity.
To hold other people or nations to rules,
you must show that you are prepared to follow them too.
We all know these things.
Why don’t we act accordingly?”
-Chas Freeman
(Chas Freeman is a former US Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, and he said this during a speech while addressing the Member of Congress.)
you must know how to be a team player.
To inspire people or nations to follow you,
you must have a reputation for moral uprightness, wisdom, and veracity.
To hold other people or nations to rules,
you must show that you are prepared to follow them too.
We all know these things.
Why don’t we act accordingly?”
-Chas Freeman
(Chas Freeman is a former US Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, and he said this during a speech while addressing the Member of Congress.)
Guilty until proven innocent
So, the latest news is that I've not only left England behind for a year, but Sweden as well. Now sitting and writing in my new house in Guadalajara, Mexico! It's warm and sunny and Spanish is all around me!
I just wanted to write something about human rights cause I reacted to something I saw just now on youtube. It's a really good clip and you can see it at the end of this entry. Basically the clip states the Universal Human Rights Declaration. And one thing it said there, that I haven't paid much attention to before, is that your are innocent until proven guilty. I did not know that that was in the Declaration of Human Rights. Today we had our second day of orientation here in Mexico and we were told that according to the Mexican legal system you are guilty until proven innocent. Interesting... I was aware of the fact that I was going to a developing country were a lot of things are very different and several human rights are breached. What I did not know though was that this could affect me directly, so quickly. Of course I am not accused of something, and hopefully never will be during my time here, but it's still an aspect of life that you have to take into account. An aspect of life I've never considered before. It made me think, and react. I wouldn't know what to do about it, but I find it very interesting that a state can have a law that contradicts the Universal Human Rights Declaration...
On a completely different note I'd just like to say that our Downtown tour of Guadalajara was cancelled today because Barack Obama is coming to town!! He, the Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and some other important people, are going to meet here during the weekend! So I'm going to be in the same city as Obama! The International Relations-student within me is very excited!
I just wanted to write something about human rights cause I reacted to something I saw just now on youtube. It's a really good clip and you can see it at the end of this entry. Basically the clip states the Universal Human Rights Declaration. And one thing it said there, that I haven't paid much attention to before, is that your are innocent until proven guilty. I did not know that that was in the Declaration of Human Rights. Today we had our second day of orientation here in Mexico and we were told that according to the Mexican legal system you are guilty until proven innocent. Interesting... I was aware of the fact that I was going to a developing country were a lot of things are very different and several human rights are breached. What I did not know though was that this could affect me directly, so quickly. Of course I am not accused of something, and hopefully never will be during my time here, but it's still an aspect of life that you have to take into account. An aspect of life I've never considered before. It made me think, and react. I wouldn't know what to do about it, but I find it very interesting that a state can have a law that contradicts the Universal Human Rights Declaration...
On a completely different note I'd just like to say that our Downtown tour of Guadalajara was cancelled today because Barack Obama is coming to town!! He, the Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and some other important people, are going to meet here during the weekend! So I'm going to be in the same city as Obama! The International Relations-student within me is very excited!
