Critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, came as a reaction to the dreadful damages of the
Second World War. This declaration was built according to the fundamentals of equality. It lists us all of our rights, all of our freedoms and how we can express them freely. It was constructed on the basic fact of it being just, equal to all, and right. However, are all articles applicable on all of mankind? Or can some of these be questioned?
Generally, all of these articles should be applicable for the majority of humans, but not all of them. There is always an exception to the rule. There is always an outlier that doesn’t follow the rules. Many countries have rejected or not signed this declaration, therefore this declaration isn’t pertinent everywhere. One can find a lot of exceptions for many articles. Article 1 states that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights, that they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Nonetheless, not all human beings are reasonable and conscious of everything they do. Take serial killers for example. Their acts prove of inhumanity. A man with reason and/or conscience would never do such a thing. Also, should we give unreasonable people the same rights as the ones reasonable people have? Should they have the same privilege as others even if they have no sense of reason or conscience? The United Nations General Assembly also mentioned the fact that people should act in a spirit of brotherhood. Look around you, what brotherhood? Is killing each other brotherhood? Is fighting and starting wars brotherhood? Is forgetting every moral and correct way of acting just to get to power brotherhood? A definite no is the correct answer to these questions. There are no signs of brotherhood around us. On the contrary, if one takes a close look to our surroundings and everything around us, humans, one will only notice nothing but signs of
Second World War. This declaration was built according to the fundamentals of equality. It lists us all of our rights, all of our freedoms and how we can express them freely. It was constructed on the basic fact of it being just, equal to all, and right. However, are all articles applicable on all of mankind? Or can some of these be questioned?
Generally, all of these articles should be applicable for the majority of humans, but not all of them. There is always an exception to the rule. There is always an outlier that doesn’t follow the rules. Many countries have rejected or not signed this declaration, therefore this declaration isn’t pertinent everywhere. One can find a lot of exceptions for many articles. Article 1 states that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights, that they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Nonetheless, not all human beings are reasonable and conscious of everything they do. Take serial killers for example. Their acts prove of inhumanity. A man with reason and/or conscience would never do such a thing. Also, should we give unreasonable people the same rights as the ones reasonable people have? Should they have the same privilege as others even if they have no sense of reason or conscience? The United Nations General Assembly also mentioned the fact that people should act in a spirit of brotherhood. Look around you, what brotherhood? Is killing each other brotherhood? Is fighting and starting wars brotherhood? Is forgetting every moral and correct way of acting just to get to power brotherhood? A definite no is the correct answer to these questions. There are no signs of brotherhood around us. On the contrary, if one takes a close look to our surroundings and everything around us, humans, one will only notice nothing but signs of