Sunday, January 25, 2009

It is very interesting to read these different opinions. Although some claim that human rights are individualistic, I do not see them as such. Wellman notes throughout the book that human rights are rights that human beings have in the virtue of being human. As Indira pointed out, those rights have been rooted in society/people even before laws were created. This is where I come to some confustion. Why is the proliferation of rights regarded as negative? I understand that Wellman argues that it demeans the value of rights, but how is that possible? A right is something one has or does not have. In my opinion, they do not have values.

I also wanted to draw attention to a few passages/arguements that I found to be very interesting.
In the section about solidarity rights, Wellman explains what those rights encompass, as well as possible arguements against their existance. "They include rights of all humanity to peace and to a healthy environment and the rights of any people to self-determination and to it's own culture."(29) Wellman later explains how some critiques of solidarity rights include their unnecessary repetition. What I mean by this is that the rights given to a group of people are overlapping those given to them as individuals. Why is it then that these third-generation rights have come into existance? As Wellman mention, genocide is one of the possible explanation. Even in the case of genocide, peoples's basic human rights were violated, such as their right to life. That means that they already had protection under the first two generations of rights. Something I did find interesting is that Wellman mentioned that the cause for genocide and other attoricities is what brought solidarity rights into existance. He said that the attempt to exterminate a group of people because of who they are is what gave them solidarity rights.

"Not every consideration that might make an action morally right makes it just." (47)
I am a little confused by this statement. Wellman further gives the example of the failing student and rich father, but I am having trouble understanding what the moral and what the just action would be. Regardless, is Wellman saying that even moral actions can be unjust. And how is that so? People, including myself, have the idea of morality as the ultimate justice. I see a moral act as one that is "supposed to be done". Justice can be seen in the same way. I would love to hear others' opinions on this. Feel free to elaborate.

No comments:

Post a Comment