On the declaration of human rights By Atzil Adam
Seventy years ago on Dec. 10, the United Nations issued its newly created declaration of human rights at the Palais de Chaillot in the beautiful Trocadero area of Paris with a stunning view across the Seine of the fabled Eiffel Tower. However, just a few weeks ago, on Oct. 2, the press reported that the current U.S. administration has been doing everything in its power to cut funds to the United Nations following numerous attempts over the decades by the Congress to do just that (see for instance “Trump Stealthily Seeks to Choke Off Funding to UN Programs” in foreignpolicy.com). On the surface, this seems quite surprising, as human rights have been throughout the 20th and 21st centuries the most hallowed concept in international discourse. So is it conceivably possible that they may, in fact, turn out to be not so sacrosanct after all? Let´s take a look, having in mind that the most loyal fan base of this administration is the Christian community, what due to lack of philosophical sophistication on the part of mainstream media used to be called the ‘religious right’, the self-proclaimed bastion of what Walter Paepcke, founder of the Aspen Institute, called the “eternal verities” of the immemorial ethics of all humanity. In that sense is it even thinkable that there might be (perish the thought) conscientious objections to the UNO, and therefore that large sectors of the Christian community in the 20th and 21st centuries, many members of Congress over decades and this Adminis-
OPINION
tration over the years have actually been conscientious objectors to many policies and programs of the UNO? Let´s examine at the light of philosophical truth just such proposition, putting aside for a moment the uncomfortable outmoded glasses of political correctness, shall we? The newly minted UNO made its declaration of human rights in 1948 thanks to the praiseworthy efforts of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and following the precedent of the “Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” by the
French Revolution in 1789, that document borrowing liberally both ideas and expressions from the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Bill of Rights thirteen years earlier in 1776. The use of the adjective “universal” meant essentially to indicate all persons irrespective of social status, as the ancient regime granted different rights to different sectors of society. However, although the employ of such term was, above all, a political necessity, in fact it essentially referred to what was commonly known
then as ‘natural rights’ on the foundation of what had been known since antiquity as ius naturale or natural law. It’s the notion that all humans have an innate ethical sense just by virtue of being human, independently of any or all social organization, being as well generally assumed both in ancient and medieval times and right up till early Modernity and the Enlightenment that ‘human’ always by definition included divine faculties in humanity, and so quite naturally the U.S. Declaration of Independence stated: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”. Likewise, the French declaration of human and citizens’ rights affirmed: “Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being the following rights of man and of the citizen [italics mine]”. Nothing more clear: for both the American and French revolutionaries the human is ontologically related to the Divine and that’s precisely the whole onto-ethical basis of the existence of human ‘rights’. Notwithstanding, and in spite of the use by the declaration of human rights of 1948 of the term “universal”, as a matter of fact its ideological origins are entirely different as it is rooted in ideological ideas and not on universal values. How so? Because in the preparatory works towards the declaration on Dec. 10, 1948 the UNO stated that the human rights they HUMAN RIGHTS page 17
NO IDLING VEHICLES SE NECESITA APAGAR EL MOTOR
THE INDOOR SATURDAY FARMERS’ & ARTISAN MARKET SATURDAYS IN DECEMBER 10AM-2PM
Per Municipal Code Sec. 8-3-10 (b) No person shall cause or permit a vehicle anywhere within the Town to idle, except that vehicles may be idled for up to TWO minutes after a cold start. Help improve our air quality! Por Codigo Municipal Sec. 8-3-10 (b) Ninguna persona puede causar o permitir que el motor de un vehiculo este prendido en cualquier lugar dentro del pueblo, con la excepcion de que los motores de vehiculos esten prendidos maximo DOS minutos despues de un arranque frio. Ayude a mejorar la cualidad del aire! Carbondale Police Department Officer Jesus Terrazas 970-963-2662
MONDAY-SATURDAY 10AM-6PM AND SUNDAY 10AM-5PM 16 • THE SOPRIS SUN • www.SoprisSun.com • DECEMBER 13-19, 2018