This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: VIEWPOINTS, p. 52-53. Excessive human rights are anathema to nationhood because they denigrate the compromise, discipline, and sacrifice needed for collective work in pursuit of common goals in favor of the immediate gratification of individual desires. With personal desires enshrined as rights through justifications of ideology or theology, there is no need to share them or to compromise on their definition, cost, or speed of actualization. Rights are absolute by definition. With claims to rights clear, the shared community values and goals that helped bond society when rights were fewer and resource constraints more obvious are much less important. There is less need to work together and thus less of the glue of nationhood. Even when nationhood is diminished or destroyed, however, government structures remain to service the rights of individuals and small groups, including the employment rights of bureaucracies and unions built to provide services justified by rights. RIGHTS PREVENT AN ETHIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CAUSE CONFLICT John A Gentry, retired Army officer, researcher and writer on defense and security issues, 2004. HUMAN RIGHTS: OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS, p. 55-56. A key consequence of the proliferation of human rights is the deterioration of personal responsibility. When the government guarantees rights, there is no need for personal responsibility in those aspects of life the rights cover. There is no personal responsibility to pay for rights that states exist to deliver. Thus the idea of a personal payment, denominated in money, time, or blood, for rights-based objectives is offensive. Virtually any price is too high, hence the need for an obtuse, federal fiscal policy. In a world dominated by human rights, humans should expect to get what they want without paying. Rights come without strings. Rights do not bear the symmetrical burdens of duty and responsibility that privileges carry. In a rights-based society, privileges have little value and compel correspondingly modest obligations. MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INVALID ESPECIALLY IN THE FACE OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS Priyankar Upadhyaya Fulbright Visiting Profe...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 11/20/2013.
- Fall '13