Conflicting Ideas of Human Rights

I believe in Ying and Yang. 

Everything that happens in the world is a balanced between good and bad. 

Nothing in this world we can identify as good without understanding the perception of bad. 

Unless we cannot determine what is bad, we cannot know what is good.

Truthfully, in discussing Human Rights, I am still confused. This confusion is happening only in my mind. Such confusion is inevitable. Why? Because our mind is built with a balanced perspective, including my mind. When we discuss about Human Rights, there are so many ways to discuss it. However, I never expect to get the right and rigid answer with my confusion because in this way I can develop my understanding of Human Rights. In this case, I will discuss Human Rights largely with the context of reality and it includes certain aspect of politics.

In these past two days, I have been observing Prof. Ibrahim's class which is about Human Rights. With an approach of letting students discussed about each topic assigned for the presentation, one thing I realized is that my classmate opinions are usually contrasted by either two opposing sides. That is not uncommon, in fact, the division led us think more deeply and realized having different opinion is needed to understand each other. One topic that caught me was the connection between Utopia and Human Rights. My friend said that Human Rights is ‘not yet’ enforced. It has deep meaning that connect the principle of Utopia to Human Rights. Utopia itself, in my opinion, is an imaginary goal. It is a destination where humanity should be working together towards to achieve and realize this imaginary goal. However, the ‘imaginary’ term should be acknowledged that it is only an idea that help human to reach that goal. 

In a simple meaning, Utopia is the reason why we should keep walking towards the destination. Moreover, Human Rights in this case has similar tone in meaning of imaginary goal. One moment remind me of the important belief in imaginary goal. For example, I remember watching movie about Abraham Lincoln that depicted 19th century politics of America, in the movie, there was a debate in Congress about abolishing slavery. In that moment, one of the congressman who denied abolishing slavery said that “After abolishing slavery, what else? Giving them (Black) votes? Women’s votes?” All members in the congress booed at him because mentioning those things were unthinkable and absurd at the time. Ironically, everything that Congress reject at 19th century has had all accomplished at this time. Black votes and Women’s votes in particular. Personally, I also believe that Human Rights will be able to be achieved and enforced however it does take time. My point is, Human Rights are always there. If human set aside their prejudices, everything is possible. The problem arises when the human itself create the barrier to enforce it.

Everything starts with the mind of human. With perspective, every person has their own way of interpreting values. Therefore, what happens in the world is a consequence of decision made by human mind. So don’t be surprised to see what happen in the world and wondering why these injustices occurred, these events are the outcome of human’s mind. Everyone has their own thought but what matters is whether the context within the tought is morally right.

Right now I'm writing, there is 7.437.982.580 human in the world. That means 7.437.982.580 ways of thinking. This different way of thinking is not what I'm gonna discuss here, but what I'm point out is that there will be some people out of these population whose thinking are affecting  others. In this case, I would mention politician as the one whose perspective relatively matters than the others. I would like to affirm that in my opinion, I'm not putting politicians position are superior than others, but the requirement of their positions -by deciding on political matters- in country affairs do affect every citizen hence the rights of its citizen. That means the consequences of their decisions will affect daily life of their citizens.

Now, back again to the fundamental of Human Rights. Human Rights is a simple thing that bears a complicated meaning. It is simple because it is a right that is inherent in every human being. However, as I already stated, Human Rights is a paradoxical thing. It can only be seen based on perspective. If observed by individual, it is an absolute inherent freedom that belongs to human. But in other way, it also means that since every human has the right, it led to the principle of equality between human. But I also want to affirm that although Human Rights bear equality value yet the human itself destroy it. The reality in this world deeply occur with the latter conception. We are fighting with each other for freedom in the name of freedom. But the concept of ‘fighting’ already destroyed someone else’s freedom because human counter human in order to achieve its freedom. That is the biggest irony of achieving individual human rights. On the other hand, there can never be an absolute freedom of a human. Human is no island to itself. In order to fulfill their needs of life, human are born as a social creature. In this case, there is a reason why there is a social contract between human and a state. In other meaning, the state provide and protect the rights of individual. However, in return, human should subject to the law of the state as a citizen. In reality, this is already achieved. But, to which extend the rights of individual given by the state is varied according to each state. Furthermore, these rights are considered part of Human Rights of individuals. 

It makes me think, does imprisonment work? or is it morally right to give death penalty to a human? while this convicted people had committed a crime, it raises a question on where is our 'right' to judge him by execute him and it is also conflicting the idea of justice to not punish him because of his crime. Therefore, the idea of justice and human rights cannot simultaneously implented since both contradict its basic principle. Whereby human rights contradicting itself with the concept of absolute freedom. Within the context of freedom, every human will insist on conducting its benefit of rights in the name of freedom. In the political context, it will be used as an advantage to voice bad influence. 

Further example is that it is not surprising to see nowadays how hate speech by politicians inflict divisions in the people and hate speech is claimed as freedom of speech. Freedom does really important in human life. But if everyone in the world claim freedom as their right to conduct on each behaviour, that is when the world falls again. So, in my opinion, to achieve the greater Human Rights, it should be start with every human value similar moral principle which is simple. Being good. Since it’s important to know that immoral idea led to immoral behaviour.

In reality, Human Rights is stripped off by human, not animals or other thing. Therefore, the problem is the human but the solution is the human as well. But again, it is the human who gives the judgement on destroying the rights of human. Power and ambition are some of the main factor in human mind that feeds the behaviour of immoral people to create barrier on achieving and enforcing Human Rights. In simple way, the world we live in is where Idealists pushing forward Human Rights whereas Realists dragging down Human Rights. Moreover, by discussing the idea of Human Rights, I understand that some part of Human Rights cannot be achieved because it will contradict its principle. It contradict itself. Moreover, these ideas are entirely derived from my perspective.

December 3rd, 2017