1.
Rights
–
Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, there is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. One way to get an idea of the understandings and senses of the term is to consider different ways it is used. Natural rights are rights which are natural in the sense of not artificial, not man-made, as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal, that is, they apply to all people and they exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and cant be taken away. For example, it has argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights, legal rights, in contrast, are based on a societys customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is considered as the basis for having legal rights. Legal rights are called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning. Some thinkers see rights in one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable debate about these senses throughout history. A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. In logic, this idea can be expressed as, Person A has a claim that person B do something if, every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting, likewise, in jurisdictions where social welfare services are provided, citizens have legal claim rights to be provided with those services. A liberty right or privilege, in contrast, is simply a freedom or permission for the right-holder to do something and this can be expressed in logic as, Person A has a privilege to do something if and only if A has no duty not to do that something. Likewise, if a person has a right against someone else. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide whether or not to do so
2.
Natural and legal rights
–
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a legal system. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any culture or government. The concept of law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Conversely, the concept of rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss, the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights, whereas human rights also comprise positive rights, even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous. The proposition that animals have natural rights is one that gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century, the existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone, the United States Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the self-evident truth that all men are. Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights, almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that “if there are things as rights at all, then, there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life. ”John Locke emphasized life. However, despite Lockes influential defense of the right of revolution, leaders are seen as representative of God on earth, but they deserve allegiance only as long as they have farr, a kind of divine blessing that they must earn by moral behavior. The Stoics held that no one was a slave by nature, of fundamental importance to the development of the idea of natural rights was the emergence of the idea of natural human equality. Carlyle notes, There is no change in theory so startling in its completeness as the change from the theory of Aristotle to the later philosophical view represented by Cicero. We think that this cannot be better exemplified than with regard to the theory of the equality of human nature, charles H. Cicero argues in De Legibus that we are born for Justice, and that right is based, not upon opinions, but upon Nature. Centuries later, the Stoic doctrine that the part cannot be delivered into bondage re-emerged in the Reformation doctrine of liberty of conscience. Martin Luther wrote, Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies
3.
Animal rights
–
They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or beasts of burden. Advocates approach the issue from a variety of perspectives, the abolitionist view is that animals have moral rights, which the pursuit of incremental reform may undermine by encouraging human beings to feel comfortable with using them. Gary Franciones abolitionist position promotes ethical veganism and he argues that animal rights groups that pursue welfare concerns, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, risk making the public feel comfortable about its use of animals. He calls such groups the new welfarists, PETA argues that Franciones criticism does little to help alleviate the suffering of individual animals and also trivializes the efforts of workers in the field who handle cruelty cases. It also creates divisiveness within the animal liberation movement instead of focusing on shared goals, sentiocentrism is the theory that sentient individuals are the subject of moral concern and therefore are deserving of rights. Protectionists seek incremental reform in how animals are treated, with a view to ending animal use entirely and this position is represented by the philosopher Peter Singer. Multiple cultural traditions around the world—such as Animism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are bonobos and chimpanzees. S. Congress with the enactment of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, Aristotle argued that animals lacked reason, and placed humans at the top of the natural world, yet the respect for animals in ancient Greece was very high. Some animals were considered divine e. g. dolphins, the 21st-century debates about animals can be traced back to the ancient world, and the idea of a divine hierarchy. Dominion need not entail property rights, but it has been interpreted, by some, contemporary philosopher Bernard Rollin writes that dominion does not entail or allow abuse any more than does dominion a parent enjoys over a child. Rollin further states that the Biblical Sabbath requirement promulgated in the Ten Commandments required that animals be granted a day of rest along with humans, correlatively, the Bible forbids plowing with an ox and an ass together. According to the tradition, this prohibition stems from the hardship that an ass would suffer by being compelled to keep up with an ox. Similarly, one finds the prohibition against muzzling an ox when it treads out the grain and these ancient regulations, virtually forgotten, bespeak of an eloquent awareness of the status of animals as ends in themselves, a point also corroborated by Norm Phelps. The philosopher and mathematician, Pythagoras, urged respect for animals, believing that human and nonhuman souls were reincarnated from human to animal, and vice versa. Against this, Aristotle, student to the philosopher Plato, argued that animals had no interests of their own. Theophrastus, one of Aristotles pupils, argued that also had reasoning. Plutarch in his Life of Cato the Elder comments that while law and justice are strictly to men only, beneficence. This is intended as a correction and advance over the merely utilitarian treatment of animals, according to Richard D. Ryder, the first known animal protection legislation in Europe was passed in Ireland in 1635
4.
Human rights
–
Human rights are moral principles or norms, which describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They are applicable everywhere and at time in the sense of being universal. They require empathy and the rule of law and impose an obligation on persons to respect the rights of others. They should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on circumstances, for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture. The doctrine of human rights has been influential within international law. Actions by states and non-governmental organizations form a basis of public policy worldwide, the idea of human rights suggests that if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights. The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature, ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the family is the foundation of freedom. All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. According to Jack Donnelly, in the ancient world, traditional societies typically have had elaborate systems of duties, conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights. These institutions and practices are alternative to, rather than different formulations of, one theory is that human rights were developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics. The most commonly held view is that the concept of human rights evolved in the West, for example, McIntyre argues there is no word for right in any language before 1400. One of the oldest records of rights is the statute of Kalisz, giving privileges to the Jewish minority in the Kingdom of Poland such as protection from discrimination. Samuel Moyn suggests that the concept of rights is intertwined with the modern sense of citizenship. The earliest conceptualization of human rights is credited to ideas about natural rights emanating from natural law, in particular, the issue of universal rights was introduced by the examination of extending rights to indigenous peoples by Spanish clerics, such as Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de Las Casas. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions, additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms. These were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. Although the term had been used by at least one author as early as 1742, in the 19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery
5.
Divine right of kings
–
The divine right of kings, divine right, or Gods mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, the king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and it is only an implication and the Bible states Iron sharpens iron, referring to accountability to each other. It also implies the higher accountability of Monarchs to implement policies in line with Christs commandment to Love one another and it is often expressed in the phrase by the Grace of God, attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. In the pagan world, kings were often seen as ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a right of kings could be traced to the biblical story found in 1 Samuel. And the anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, adomnan of Iona is one of the earliest Christian proponents of this concept of kings ruling with divine right. He wrote of the Irish King Diarmait mac Cerbaills assassination and claimed that divine punishment fell on his assassin for the act of violating the monarch, the same angel then visited Columba on three successive nights, and then finally Columba agreed and Aedan came to receive ordination. Adomnans writings most likely influenced other Irish writers, who in turn influenced continental ideas as well, pepin the Shorts coronation may have also come from the same influence. The Carolingian dynasty and the Holy Roman Emperors also influenced all subsequent western ideas of kingship, the immediate author of the theory was Jean Bodin, who based it on the interpretation of Roman law. With the rise of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation, the theory of divine right justified the kings authority in both political and spiritual matters. The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England, louis XIV of France strongly promoted the theory as well. The Scots textbooks of the right of kings were written in 1597–98 by James VI of Scotland before his accession to the English throne. James I based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible, the state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth and sit upon Gods throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal that illustrate the state of monarchy, one out of the word of God. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power, Kings are also compared to fathers of families, for a king is truly parens patriae, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man, jamess reference to Gods lieutenants is apparently a reference to the controversial text in Romans 13, where Paul refers to Gods ministers. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God
6.
Women's rights
–
In some countries, these rights are institutionalized or supported by law, local custom, and behavior, whereas in others they are ignored and suppressed. They differ from broader notions of rights through claims of an inherent historical and traditional bias against the exercise of rights by women and girls, in favor of men. Although males seem to have dominated in many cultures, there are some exceptions, for example, in the Nigerian Aka culture women may hunt, even on their own, and often control distribution of resources. Ancient Egypt had female rulers, such as Cleopatra, Women throughout historical and ancient China were considered inferior and had subordinate legal status based on the Confucian law. In Imperial China, the Three Obediences promoted daughters to obey their fathers, wives to obey their husbands, Women could not inherit businesses or wealth and men had to adopt a son for such financial purposes. Late imperial law also featured seven different types of divorces, the status of women in China was also low largely due to the custom of foot binding. About 45% of Chinese women had bound feet in the 19th century, for the upper classes, it was almost 100%. In 1912, the Chinese government ordered the cessation of foot-binding, foot-binding involved alteration of the bone structure so that the feet were only about 4 inches long. The bound feet caused difficulty of movement, thus limiting the activities of women. Due to the custom that men and women should not be near each other. This resulted in a tremendous need for doctors of Western Medicine in China. Thus, female medical missionary Dr. Mary H. Fulton was sent by the Foreign Missions Board of the Presbyterian Church to found the first medical college for women in China. Known as the Hackett Medical College for Women, this College was located in Guangzhou, China, the College was aimed at the spreading of Christianity and modern medicine and the elevation of Chinese womens social status. During the Republic of China and earlier Chinese governments, women were legally bought and these women were known as Mui Tsai. The lives of Mui Tsai were recorded by American feminist Agnes Smedley in her book Portraits of Chinese Women in Revolution. However, in 1949 the Republic of China had been overthrown by communist guerillas led by Mao Zedong, in May 1950 the Peoples Republic of China enacted the New Marriage Law to tackle the sale of women into slavery. This outlawed marriage by proxy and made legal so long as both partners consent. The New Marriage Law raised the age of marriage to 20 for men and 18 for women
