Comparing and Contrasting Views on Human Rights -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theComparing and Contrasting Views on Human Rights. Answer: Abstract The purpose of the essay is to provide the distinctions and similarities between the two articles on human rights authored by Julian Huxley and Jacques Maritain. The article by Huxley titled UNESCO, Its Purpose and its Philosophy delves on the arena of human rights. It provides a deep analysis of the evolution of human rights through the various stages of human progress. Maritains article titled On the Philosophy of Human Rights talks specifically about the changes witnessed in the laws concerning human rights over the period. In both the articles, the writers have focused on the need for a single and concrete human rights philosophy. Huxley mentioned the need for a single working philosophy to be adopted by UNESCO in order to execute the rights properly. Maritain argued that human rights must not be based on the vague assumption that it belongs to the rights of the kings and the churches. While Huxleys article focused on the ways UNESCO should implement human rights, Maritains artic le focused only on the Declaration of Human Rights and how it was interpreted over the years. The essay provides evidences from other authors on this topic. Julian Huxley authored the article UNESCO, Its Purpose and Its Philosophy in 1946 as the preparatory commission of the UNESCO. In this article, the author shed light on numerous topics that included the aims that had been laid down for UNESCO, the philosophies incorporated in it, the human progress and UNESCO, the concept of equality and inequality and so on (Huxley, 1946). Similar to it, the article written by Jacques Maritain titled On the Philosophy of Human Rights focuses on the law of the nature and human rights (Unesdoc.unesco.org, 2018). The author asserts that human rights declaration will never be exhaustive and ultimate. Huxley provided a detailed overview of the aims that were laid down for UNESCO. The first aim, claims the author, is to look after the needs of the objects of the UN since it is an international organization. The second aim is to cultivate and promote every aspect education, culture and science in the widest sense. Huxley breaks down the preamble of the UNE SCO Constitution in order to elaborate the aims in details. Maritain in his writing, talks about the evolution of humanity and about the crisis the modern world once faced. The author also, like Huxley, mentioned the UN Declaration of Human Rights and its theoretical and practical relevance. Beitz (2013), who questions the credibility of the human rights declaration, supports Maritains views on UN declaration of Human Rights. According to the author, the dignity that was associated with the UN Declaration of 1048 has lost its way in the contemporary world. While speaking of the aims and objectives outlined for the UNESCO, Huxley points out that there must be a guiding principle that dictates the working of the UNESCO. He states, a working philosophy, a working hypotheses concerning human existence and its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate, a definite line of approach to its problems. The author argues that the absence of a solid ground for UNESCO to initiate plans would lead to the risk of it taking self-contradictory actions. The UNESCO should not base its concepts on the theologies of Hinduism, Christianity, Jainism or politico-economic ideologies like Marxism or semi-socialism. This idea of having a concrete philosophy concerning the rights of the humans reflects in the writing of Maritain as well. The writer expresses his disagreement with the vague concept of human rights as being an addition of the rights of kings and churches. He comments, I disagree with the view that the 18th century concept of human r ights was an extension to the individual of the idea of the Divine right of kings or of the indefeasible rights which God granted to the Church. These two statements by the two authors indicate similar ideas about human rights. Both the authors argue that human rights must be based on proven theories and facts rather than on vague ideas. Commenting on Maritains views about human rights form the Christian perspective Bhuta (2014) opines that the recent incidences of breach of basic human rights like banning headscarves and such reveal that the current approach to human rights tends towards cultural hostility. In Huxleys article on human rights, one could find the explanation for the need of a lawful human rights declaration based on three different stages of human development. The writer describes the evolution of man within the lifeless, biological and social sectors. The lifeless sector comprises the great cosmos while the biological sector comprises the planet Earth and its inhabitants. After millions of years of the progress made in the two sectors, the social sector of human life started to evolve. This gave rise to the complexities and chaos and thus came the need for human rights. Maritain also makes mention of the biological life that made its way for the social life. He laid stress on the natural law emerged out of the misconceptions of the people that the only law is the law of nature that is God. Maritain also gave references to the evolution of human life over the period similar to Huxley. He writes, ? ?the? ?evolution? ?of?the group and despite all errors and confusions? ?yet ? ?definitely? ?advances? ?throughout? ?history? ?along? ?a? ?path? ?of enrichment? ?and? ?revelation? ?which? ?has? ?no? ?end. He states that the misconceptions gradually wore away during the beginning of the 18th century. This gave rise to the evolution of the concept of human rights. Stanton-Jean (2016) points out that the 2005 adoption by the UNESCO of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is not perfectly correct but an important addition to the Bioethical conversation. This declaration has provided further impetus to the general human rights laws. A deeper understanding of Huxleys article reveals that he has given an intrinsic idea of the rights of human that took shape from the time the social life began. However, Maritains article lacks that depth and it only stresses on natural law and the way the misconceptions led to the forming of human rights. Huxley talks about UNESCOs dilemma in choosing either quantity or quality of life. According to the author, progress has consisted in the raising of the upper level of certain properties of the world stuff of which we, as well as the stars, are made. He however adds that in the human arena, progress has been more and more apprehensive about values that include logical, aesthetic, moral and emotional. Maritain however, does not delve deep into the origin of human rights and the initial causes that led to its forming. Further, Huxley in his article attempts to resolve the difficult question of equality and inequality. He states that it is difficult to bring together the principle of equality and inequality. The reason for this is that humans might have equal rights and opportunities to education and freedom of expression and so on, but their biological inequality cannot be resolved. Biological inequality results from the natural endowments of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them. Maritain on the other hand, talks of human rights and its implementation as per the law of the State. He opines that human rights is interlinked between various other rights those which cannot be interpreted by the State. Such laws include the right to live or exists or the right to confess. In the end, it can be concluded that Huxleys explanation and views on human rights has an advantage over Maritains. When one analyzes the two articles, it is easy to comprehend that although Maritain provided a simpler picture of human rights, Huxleys was in-depth. The author provided the explanation of human progress, the human evolution through the sectors of cosmos, planet and the society and the ultimate beginning of the concepts of equality and inequality. Maritain on the other hand was also vocal about the vague establishments upon which human rights were initially conceptualized. In this matter, He resonates with Huxley, as human rights cannot be made out of ambiguous interpretations of natural law but need concrete ground. References: Beitz, C. R. (2013). Human dignity in the theory of human rights: Nothing but a phrase?.Philosophy Public Affairs,41(3), 259-290. Bhuta, N. (2014). Two concepts of religious freedom in the European Court of Human Rights.South Atlantic Quarterly,113(1), 9-35. Huxley, J. S. (1946). UNESCO: its purpose and Philosophy.Free World,12, 27. Stanton-Jean, M. (2016). The Unesco universal declarations: paperwork or added value to the international conversation on bioethics? The example of the Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. InGlobal Bioethics: The Impact of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee(pp. 13-21). Springer, Cham. Unesdoc.unesco.org. (2018).On? ?the? ?Philosophy? ?of? ?Human? ?Rights.Unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 17 April 2018, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001550/155042eb.pdf