My time living in Asia has truly amplified the contrasts that beg to be made between Western and Asian culture. One of the most stark contrasts is that between individualism and collectivism, and people’s views on their own entitlements. And the more I learn about how living is like in Asia and the values people grow up with, the more conscious I have become of traits that I find undesirable, and tried, as a part of attaining maturity, to purge myself of them. Chief among these is the sense of rights and entitlement that we have been groomed under, as in many instances, there is a causal link between entitlement and pride or overweening self-worth.
Yet, the idea of entitlement appears to be rampant in a very unsuspecting manner. And it’s one that can only be questioned in an authoritarian political environment where one can truly appreciate it on its merits and shortcomings rather than from the distance of a Western liberal lens. It most recently struck me when I read an article (which has been expanded into a book) critiquing Western umbrella approaches to unrest, seeing liberal democracy as a magic ether while ignoring lines of ethnicity and culture. This further raised the question: what about the two words valued so highly in Western law, human rights?
Human rights are one of, if not our most valued entitlement, at least in the modern world. For the most basic of them, they are indivisible and an inherent part of our humanness. They empower us. Yet, what do they empower us to do? Why are we entitled to them? The easy answer to the second question is merely ‘because we are human’. To follow the logical pattern, one must ask what a human is – but that’s a new can of worms that one could write an entire separate essay on. Yet we place heavy weight on seeking them for the mere sake of it, without considering their purposes or consequences.
Let us look at human rights closely. Human rights are a basic and fundamental means of empowerment. This is evident in the usage of themes including ‘women’s empowerment’ and ‘youth empowerment’, mostly in international conferences and conventions. But in using the term ’empowerment’, we recognise that in human rights we are being granted the power, the influence, the control, the means to do something. But what is that something for?
The need to ask this question inherently reflects the truth the human rights are a means, not an end, to our personal growth. As a result, they are like money, or power: abuse has its consequences. Fighting for absurd interpretations of rights has resulted in a culture where people claim entitlement and freedom to own and do anything they want to do simply by using a banner of want. In recent years we have seen the legal system develop a perception of new interpretations of ‘rights’: the right to social security, sexual rights, movements and citizenship. Although many of these rights are necessary, plenty of legislative provisions being lobbied for across the world reflect an attitude which bases itself on self-entitlement – and can cause consequences for society. A major issue arises in that we do not realise this until the consequences materialise.
However, before I elaborate, I ought to insert this mandatory disclaimer: we ought not to take the absolutist road on human rights law. Just because I am about to critique social welfare in the developed world, it does not mean in any way that we should not give aid to the Third World. In fact, it ought to be an impetus for us to continue to provide free education and humanitarian aid for the impoverished, as it allows them to enhance their societies in the same way for the common good.
Consider social security and the welfare system. Yes, it is crucial to realising our dignity that we should be able to have food to eat and a roof over our heads. There is a simple way to do this – toil your soil and work for it. But does this mean that we should be entitled to doing this if we are not willing to do our part in growing the food, or at least paying our dues to those who do, and expect others to cover for us? Not if we were to acknowledge our responsibility to others – yet a lot of free riders in Western welfare states appear to think so, while the welfare system continues to overlook the consequences of propagating this mentality. The same goes for sexual liberties – yes, it is an inherent part of our dignity that our bodies are treated with respect and we must be free from fear of harm to us in that area. And there is a way to do that – discern for yourself. But does this mean that we should be able to have sex merely for pleasure just because they’re our bodies? Not if we were to acknowledge its importance in relations and continuing the human race – yet in the liberal Western world mass-produced contraception created a mentality where sex is a commodity on demand.
So, to close this, it is only appropriate to answer the first question: what are human rights for? Human rights have a source – and that is, our inherent dignity. We need our rights because we need them to fulfil our dignity. We need the right to life, liberty and security because they are essential to our ability of personal development. We need the right to property because it gives us the security of a roof over our heads and a place to enrich ourselves through learning and cultivation. We have the right to freedom of opinion because it enables us to use our brains to their full capacity and purpose – once again, for personal development. We have the right to be free of slavery because slavery is a situation where we are used and yet are not enriched in any way. We have the right to marry because we need to establish strong environments to bond and raise families.
Our purpose in life is not merely hedonistic. There are rights that we have simply because we are human. But in being endowed with gifts and talents unique to our humanness, we have the responsibility to work for the common good. The authoritarian state still recognises some human rights, but only insofar as they allow the individual to contribute to the state. But by the other extreme, the libertarian state simply allows rights for the sake of letting people do what they want for themselves. In this context, the libertarian state only recognises the former statement, while the authoritarian state only honours the latter. Balance can only be achieved through recognising the rights that we need – and we do that by asking ourselves, how do the rights we fight for enable us to fulfil our personal development? Are the rights we seek a part of our dignity? Or are they just a means of us demanding what we want?
The Philosopher's Map 