The Way in Which it isn't

Think of differences:

Yesterday in class, we were told to compare and to contrast the Mosaic Code with Hammurabi's Code by making a Venn diagram with our assigned groups. I thought this activity was very useful and fun. In this activity, i cam to notice certain things that i would never have noticed if i had not had to compare and contrast the individual codes with each other. As is obviously well known by most, the Mosaic code was done by Moses, who was instructed by God. This makes the Mosaic Code a biblical text. This biblical text teaches lessons as does most of holy text tend to do. To me, this was possibly the most noticeable difference between the two. You see, the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's Code are clearly both moral, maybe one more than the other, but to some level they both are. Now, the difference comes in in the way that these morals are further expressed. The Mosaic Code seats a list of values that must be followed. Hummarabi's Code is also a list of values that must be followed, but it is also a list of restrictions that must also be followed. Hammurabi's Code unlike the Mosaic Code sets what must be followed and then the possible punishement for failing to follow it. All in one, Hammurabi's Code is all about consequence while the Mosaic Code is more about teaching and putting out there what is to be viewed in what way, be it negatively or possitively. It offers more freedom for interpretation of punishment while Hammurabi's Code was basically set down in stone.

The naturality of Natural Rights

This week, we were asked the question "Do human rights exist? Are they real, or why did we decide to create them?" We were then all told to participate in a conversation as a whole class to talk about what we thought about this. At first, i thought we were talking about human rights as we know them now, as a set of  laws striving for justice and equal opportunity for all human beings. But that was not it. Instead, was i later came to understand was that it was not human rights themselves that we were being asked about but rather, about the idea of human rights, being rights we all deserved and simply had the 'right' to have just because we are people. This idea, as i think i mentioned in previous blog posts this week, is the idea of Natural Rights. As the title for this post hinted, i would like to speak of the possible naturality behind this idea of natural rights.

While the actual, literal idea of natural rights sounds to be an obvious phony, the idea behind it makes complete sense to me. Strangely, as the man in document 2 from a reading we had said, wanting is not enough, and i think the should is very similar to wanting, you think something should be because you want it to be so, so bad. So unlike i did in my first post for this week, i do not wish to speak about the answer to the question, but rather of what i think of the question and what i think about this idea of human rights being true natural rights

Silly if you go right

IN the textbook, there is a reading titled The evolution of Justice and Human Rights. the very first sentence of it shocked me. It made me laugh at how unresonable it is to me, but the reason that is, is because times have changed, and obviously, point of views have changed. I think the connection between Laws and peoples opinions and how closely related to one another they seem to me, is interesting. The connection between these two that i see is the way that they influence each other. Actually, that is something that confuses me. Is it that Laws are the once that influence what is seen as wrong or acceptable in society, or is it society that decides what things should become law? Technically, it can go either way.


A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.
You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
You can get out of paying for a dependent's medical care by praying for him/her.
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.
One may not bathe without wearing "suitable clothing," i.e., that which covers one's body from neck to knee.

Do Human Rights exist?

I think that the question of whether human rights exist is entirely different from whether they are real. In the documents given during class, various opinions were given.  These documents did not talk about if they existed, but rather, some referenced the idea they had that such a thing should exist, therefore we should make it be that way. Others, then spoke of the idea of human rights as being something that naturally occurred, something we all deserved and were entitled to from birth. And then there was the one that challenged that by saying that for one, it is complete and utter nonsense that we are 'born' with such a divine right to have 'human rights', and that the idea of such a thing occurring simply because we wanted it to is ridiculous because, as was the example given, hunger does not produce bread.
So to me, do human rights exist? Yes, of course they do, many laws exist granting us with what are considered to be universal 'human rights'. But I don’t think that all these human rights are looked at in the same way by all, much less accepted by all. So how does this universal human rights thing work?  I find it hard to understand how a set of rights can be universally agreed upon when such rights are made to maintain up to some level and to create equality, or at least some certain sense of equal opportunity and treatment, for all. There is no denying that different morals exist in different areas of the world, some things that are considered good in one place can be considered terribly bad in another place, so by setting a universal code for human rights, I think it kind of ignores such differences. Although, not the most basic ones, because I don’t think that there exist such a culture who’s beliefs are against the happiness of individuals. So Yes, I do think human rights exist, just not natural human rights. Yes, every human being should have the right to be happy, but it isn’t so, because if such a thing were actually true, if it were a natural right, we would not find ourselves throughout history, violating such a thing, and also fighting for it. It would just be, and that would be the end of it.

So the whole idea of natural human rights, it really does sound like a lot of nonsense, as one of the documents pointed out. I think we created them and that because we wanted them to be real so badly, we made it evolve into something we all think of as natural. Natural in the sense that it should just be, so it is, and no real reasoning is needed, just because we think it makes sense that way.

Apart from the Whole

Apartheid was a big issue in south africa, as mentioned in the previous post. It boldly gave power, and took it. It oppressed, the minority, and lifted the oppressor. In south africa's case, the minority was not literally the minority, they were just the powerless

Political Exile

I still dont know the name of the movie we are watching in class, but it is very interesting. Currently, it is very suspenceful. I dont see myself making any educated guesses as to how things will work out because i keep on thinking about all the what ifs. Anyway, while i agree with the parents ideals about getting word out and creating social change in south africa, i dont think that they have the right to avoid telling their children what is actually going on. Yes, they are very young, but i believe they can understand. Personally, i have a connection to this. When i was little, i was told we (my parents and my sister) were coimg to the united states for a vacation. In this so said vacation, we were going to head to Disney World. Sadly, that has still not happened, now, ten years later. While i dont really remember when it was that i understood we were not going back, i do remember understanding i could not complain. My family's reasons for leaving our country were certainly not like _____'s family's reasons, the overal one, of leaving in order to be safe and still create change, was very much similar to what my own parents strived for.

The influence of Peace

Im amazed at the power that peace movements have had through out history. In the movie, Cry Freedom, South Africa has been segregated legally for quite a while by a set of laws named Apartheid. I definitely do not agree with Apartheid, and luckily many others did not either. Propaganda has a lot to do with movements. It helps get messages out there, it helps to influence people to follow a 'movement'. For example. In Cry Freedom, we could see that while Apartheid was very well known, those whom it oppressed were mostly the only ones that felt it's cruelness.