args

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

Thank you, Con. This should be an interesting debate. First off, let me start with providing a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [http://www.un.org...] Under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt in 1945, the Human Rights Commission was charged with drafting the declaration. Representing starkly contrasting backgrounds in culture and philosophy, the members were able to arrive at common understanding of human rights. Thomas Jefferson's Inalienable Rights encompass a very broad spectrum and therefore, become very vague. Also, they came from one man and one mind. All in all, the Inalienable Rights, having come from one man and being as vague as they are due to the broad spectrum of coverage, can become a type of "dough" that anyone can shape. The drafters of the UDHR took into consideration Jefferson's Inalienable Rights, but as for the reasons stated above, they knew that it could not encompass everything and the populace would desire a more finite declaration. Many cultures were drawn upon to draft the UDHR and ultimately ratify it. They took into consideration the battle cry of the French Revolution, "Libert", "galit", fraternit"," Hammurabi's Code, the work of Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and Socrates, and other things such as the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism. The first nineteen articles addressed rights related to various personal liberties (life, security of one's person, diverse protections against cruel treatment, equality before the law, etc.), articles 20-26 addressed rights related to social and economic equity, and articles 27-28 addressed rights associated with communal and national solidarity. According to Ren" Cassin, these groups of rights embodied generations of rights. It is due to these reasons that Con's statement above that, "[The] UDHR cannot "be taken more seriously" until the UN recognizes life's Unalienable Rights...as a prerequisite," is an outright foolish claim. Con is insinuating that the Human Rights Commission did not recognize the Inalienable Rights in any way. In conclusion to my first argument, the UDHR is a beautiful, finite document that encompasses the whole of human rights and presents them in a unified, cross-cultural way. Drawing from the considerations taken into account above for the drafting of the UDHR, the drafters also took into account various religions and found the similarities within them that drew upon basic human rights. Therefore, when comparing Jefferson's Inalienable Rights to the UDHR, it is clear that the one that must be taken more seriously is the UDHR because it draws not only from religious standpoints, it also draws upon historical understandings and philosophers' works to become a non-vague, universal understanding of human rights. I look forward to Con's arguments.