To what extent is it possible to maintain a set of universal ethical standards around the world?
Below are the lists of essential human rights from each of the two groups. Your job now is to create a single list of eight rights. At this point, you may drop your assigned country roles from class. In your discussion, respond to the question at the top of this post. Also, which of the human rights below do you think every country in the world could agree to? Can you think of any modern-day countries that would possibly object to any of the rights below?
As a reference, you may want to glance at the actual Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Group 1:
- right for personal protection (by the government)
- right to food
- right to health care
- right to an education (if wanted)
- right to shelter
- right to the pursuit of happiness
- right to land to grow non-drug-related crops
- right to legal forms of work
- right to govern our country
- right to public free education
- right to a speedy trial and fair and equal representation
- right to food and shelter
- right to free health care
- right to security and personal protection
- right to earn a living within legal boundaries
- freedom of speech
I don't think it is realistic to say that a universal ethical standard could be agreed to. However I think that if every country was at the same place of development and had the same monetary means then maybe this would be possible. I think citizens could agree with the right to own land, freedom of speech, right to food and shelter, right to education, right to health care, and right to protection.
ReplyDeleteWow, well human rights are one thing, and ethics may be involved in the creation of human rights. Well, I mean of course ethical thinking was used to decide which rights all humans should have, unconditionally, by the U.N.
ReplyDeleteYet, a set of universal ethical standards? I mean to ask that everyone's ethics conform to one set, is asking a lot. We have already discovered in class through discussion how much our ethics differ, and we are about a dozen kids of the same age, going to the same school, in the same country. It would be hard enough to ask all kids 17 and 18 in the U.S. to share the same code of ethics, much less kids our age around the world. To actually expect that people of all ages, from all different backgrounds, and from all countries around the world could agree upon a set of universal ethical standards is asking a lot. And if an agreement were reached between a select group of people representing different states across the globe, this is not to say that all people would of course come to terms with these standards. Honestly, I just do not see this ever happening.
As to our human rights that we came up with in class, I think countries could agree upon right for personal protection (by the government)
,right to food, right to shelter, and right to earn a living within legal boundaries.
I can't imagine trying to come to a consensus regarding a set of universal ethical standards. As Marlys and Julianna said, I don't think that it would be possible to do so. Already, a wide variety of ethical perspectives exist and I don't think that coming to an agreement is possible. If we wanted everyone to approve of them, then people would spend the rest of their lives arguing what they believe should be an absolute ethical standard.
ReplyDeleteIt would be difficult to come to a consensus just because every country has a different background in which they are coming from. One can't expect a country with a drug war to agree to complete freedom of speech. As we discussed as a class when we were representing the countries, it was hard to come to a complete agreement about certain subjects because they were against the values or interests of one country.
Maintaining a set of universal ethical standards around the world is something I believe is nearly impossible to accomplish. Due to the vast expanse of ethical perspectives represented by the human population, there is no definitive way to provide a list of ethical standard without going up against ethical beliefs. I do believe that there can be a list made that can define human rights without crossing anybody out of the picture. But I find that a list defining what is right vs. what is wrong is hard to complete without finding and ethical dilemma that defeats the concept.
ReplyDeleteNow as far as rights go, I find that the list my country group, group 1, made is a bit unaccomplished. The last two are really subjective and could be easily manipulated because a government could make any job illegal to oppress it's people. Also what about drug crops that are used for medicine. I figure the crop the "right" might be referring to is cannabis, but there are other crops that are used in the process for making drugs. I think the rights countries could agree to are the right to food, shelter, education and health care, as they are mostly fundamental to human survival. But countries with stronger, more autocratic governments may not want their citizens having access to freedom of speech, personal protection or even self governing by the people because this may get in the way of a regime that is for controlling people more closely.
To me it seems impossible to have one set of universal ethical standards that the entire world adheres to. Ethics is one of those subjects, that have many possibilities and interpretations. One ethical sandard may go against a religion. One standard may be considered morally wrong to some. The values and ideas that each country has may contain some similarities, but they are also full of differences. If it weren't for differences, there woudln't be the diversity of this world, and the task of finding one set of universal ethical standards would be a lot easier.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I can't think of any of these ethical standards that every country in the world would agree upon. I will be the first to admit to anyone that I cannot name every country in the world off the top of my head, and I don't know a lot of stuff about even the "big name countries." I do however, as an example, feel that North Korea would object to the freedom of speech, the right to education, and the right to govern your country. As a communist country, these are rights that completely go against what they percieve to be "right." Especially the right to free speech and the right to govern your country. Education could be flexible if the government meant education to be: this is our country, these are the rules, these are the consequences for breaking the rules, etc. As long as the education the people were obtaining would in no way harm the country or threaten its rulers, then education would be okay. But then, would that really be education?
In response to Marlys's post, I completely agree. If there is so much diversity in one room of of a school that is only one building of a city which is one city of an entire state and so on, how could a whole world of billions agree upon one set of human rights?
ReplyDeleteOne question I have is whether or not we are saying everyone in the world agreed to these standards, or if representatives of the people from around the world agreed upon these standards. Having every single personally individually agree upon these standards is one thing, but having a representative agree for us is another. There will always be outliers and people who disagree whether or not it's for the sake of disagreeing a making life complicated or if they have a legitimate reason for disagreeing.
If we are saying that a rep. would agree for the people, then that could possibly happen, but then it most likely would mean that not EVERY BODY agreed upon the rights and the rights wouldn't be universal. If we are saying that every person in the world individually agreed to these rights, then there would be universal ethical standards. This however, I feel, is absolutly impossible.
What about one single universal ethical standard? Could we agree on one? Or all you all relativists out there?
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has already stated above it is impossible for every single person in the world to agree to a set of ethical standards. I am not 100 % in saying this, but I believe that at some point in history, it was completely ethical and morally right to kill someone if they dishonored a Samurai in Japan. In our culture today in the USA, people dishonor people all the time (sometimes seriously and sometimes not so seriously), but the person who does the dishonoring has the right to a public defender and a fair and speedy trial. In our culture this is ethically right. This small example shows that to decide on a list of ethical standards that everyone would follow and believe, would cause the cultures of many countries to be forced to change and it would alter the ways of people that have been around for many years. I think in that situation, it would be a shame to have all the same standards, as some cultures would have to change in order to follow them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when looking at other situations such as Daniel referenced, North Koreans do not have the right to free speech, and many other rights that we, in the United states, consider human rights that everyone deserves. In this case, it would be beneficial to have universal ethical standards. The lives of many would be very different in North Korea and I think it would be fair to say that the difference would be for the better, as people are starving and living in terrible and violent conditions. In this case, if there were universal ethical standards the steps could be taken by the UN in order to maintain them worldwide.
I think that of the rights that the two groups posted,
ReplyDelete•freedom of speech
•right to public free education
•right to a speedy trial and fair and equal representation
•right to legal forms of work
•right to food
•right to free health care
are all standards that I believe should be included, if a universald ethical standard list were to be created.
Although as many of you have said it seems unlikely that every country would agree on a set of rights but isnt there a set of right already that if broken the world comes in and tries to up an end to it. For example genocide. I know that this does not always work but I feel like there are so things that it is accepted that all humans should be entitled to. I know that some are harder to agree on but i think that although they are not always followed but there are some human rights that everyone accepts
ReplyDeleteI think the right that Camille listed are pretty acceptable although I am wondering whether they are ideals or are they things that the government should provide? Things like health care, free education and speedy trials are things that i think are important but is seems unlikely that poor countries could provide these thing s
I believe that it is possible to maintain a set of universal ethical standards around the world. It would be a difficult task but I believe it could be accomplished. Just as Meru had referenced, there is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It wasn’t an easy task as Mr. Zeichner had mention but it took time and patience to figure it out. I loved what Maryls said about whether all 17 and 18 years old around the world could share the same code of ethics and I believe the answer is yes. I also liked what Andrea said about how countries come from different backgrounds and it’s hard to come to an agreement on certain subjects such as freedom of speech. My response though isn’t there subjects that everyone can agree upon.
ReplyDeleteI believe these rights could be agreed upon by all countries.
Right to a public education
Right to food and shelter
Right to security and personal protection
Right to legal forms of work
Let me throw a twist into the conversation. To what extent should countries have the right to impose their ethical standards on other nations? Think about honor killings, female circumcision, and other practices that are condemned by many, but still occur in some societies.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I changed the question at the top of the post slightly. It now reads, "To what extent..." See if that complicates your responses at all.
I think countries should have some right to controll ethical standards in their country. Ethical standards keep people safe and that should be a right all countries up hold.
ReplyDeleteMy list of essential basic human rights:
ReplyDelete-right to food
-right to health care
-right to pursue happiness
-right to shelter
-right to govern your own country
-right to security and personal protection
-right to earn a living within legal boundaries
-right to an education(if wanted)
I believe that this list is quite suitable for most nations around the world. But, the most important rights for a nation to have are the right to healthcare and the right to pursue happiness. I'm not going to sit here and say exactly how the healthcare should be distributed because I'm not certified to do so. But, as far as the pursuit of happiness goes it doesn't necessarily mean that one must become wealthier or go of to a prestigious college. It simply means (to me) that you should be able to find happiness in anything that makes you a better individual and gives you any kind of advancement in life or society. For example, if being a full-time artist for an occupation makes you happy you should be able to pursue...regardless of what country you live in. I think just about every country would be fine with basic human rights such as these because they add to well-beings and creativity or diversity within their nations. They are very harmless to me.
I don't really know how to answer Mr. Zeichner's most recent question. I think that in the end each nation within this huge world together wants control, safety, and hopefully peace for the world. I don't think it would fair for another country to stop a strong religious act such as circumcision, and etc. in another country. All we should all be trying to do is make sure that we end dangerous things such as wars, genocide, disease and famine in countries...not trying to overthrow a government or empire that we don't believe in. For example, with North Korea although we do not agree with the government we should still try to do whatever we can to put an end to disease and famine, right?
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response.
ReplyDeleteAt first, reading through the first few comments, I agree that it seems an impossible task to assign certain universal human rights to everyone in the world. Because each society and culture differs in their ethical standards and moral laws, it seems that fully agreeing on universal rights would be impossible due to the various circumstances and exceptions in every community and with every individual.
On the other hand, because we are all humans with similar hopes, goals and comparable life situations, shouldn't it be possible to all agree on basic rights? Such as freedom of speech, education, health care, safety and happiness. The rights that Camille listed in a prior post seem to fit cross-cultural, universal standards for human rights.
To answer the question: To what extent should countries have the right to impose their ethical standards on other nations?
I think it's important for a country to have laws in place to protect the rights of the people, not to enforce these "rights". A right is something one should be able to choose to follow, and as long as someone does not intrude upon or violate the rights of others, the government should not have to enforce laws on its people. It should be taken into account that every culture and society defines their rights in different ways, so also I don't think one country should enforce their ideas of what is right on another country. How can we decide which human rights are necessary or vital in a society and who has the superiority to enforce or control these rights?