"For surely to be wise is the most desirable thing in all the world. It is quite impossible to imagine anything better, or more becoming for a human being, or more appropriate to his essential nature. That is why the people who try to reach this goal are called philosophers, because that is precisely what philosophy means, the love of wisdom. And wisdom, according to the definition offered by early philosophers, signifies the knowledge of all things, divine and human, and of the causes which lie behind them. If anyone is prepared to disparage so noble a study as that I cannot imagine anything he would find himself able to approve of!"Now that will play into the spirit of this post but mostly I quote it hoping that the majority of readers will have gotten bored and stopped halfway through, because I'm going to take a position in this piece (always a mistake) and I'm concerned that people may make inferences about this position that they find offensive. And I suppose all I can hope for is that they will hearken back to Cicero's words and interpret this in the best possible light as a philosopher reasoning through the complexities of human nature in the pursuit of wisdom. This started out as a light hearted piece for mothers day, but perhaps mothers are just too important for any reference to be without substance worthy of debate.
First, let me make very clear that I see a clear distinction between Civil Rights and Human Rights and I feel like these distinctions were clearly made in the last century so I get frustrated when I see them combined and confused in recent positions and editorials.
Civil rights are privileges and freedoms that a society agrees the individuals within it will be afforded within their boundaries. Virtually anything may be decreed a civil right by a society; it is up to them.
Human rights must be more intrinsic to the human condition and experience. They must be fundamental to our humanity and natural cycle of life, so that when we see them violated it strikes us as a clear aberration of the template of the human life.
So, it is hard for me to take you seriously, I'm looking at you United Nations, when you say something like, "the use of the internet is a fundamental Human Right". It makes me think that your views and priorities are hopelessly confused and outdated. It strikes me as maddening that you would put the denying of someone use of the internet in the same class of violation as torturing a person. Surely, along the way, we have missed some other rights, some other elements of the human life that more fundamental than that.
Don't get me wrong, the internet is great, no government of corporation should deny its use, it should clearly be a Civil right in every modern society and the United Nations should urge its members to enact laws securing such rights. But if we are talking about fundamental rights let us take a few steps back to what humans are more organically entitled.
When you are pulled from the womb (even if, like me, it is temporarily without breath and with a squished, purple head from too much forcep pressure from a stupid doctor) you come out with at least two things: your body and your will. The use of these two forces are, by definition, your birth right and these above all other things must be the focus of human rights protection. If babies start emerging Wi Fi enabled I am open to revisiting this issue.
If you having something else at this point in life, it is your mother. Technically you have a father somewhere as well and hopefully he is there holding your mother's hand beaming down at you, or failing that he is close by throwing up in a sink or wearing a Yale sweater and handing out cigars in the waiting room. But we can come back to him later. For now all you have is your body, your yet unfocused and undeveloped will, and your mother. Surely, if there is a human right after the first two we discussed then it would be a right to your mother.
So why are mothers not listed on the UN's list of substantive rights? Why would we turn our focus onto anything else until we had made sure that everyone had access to their Mother or having lost her a suitable substitute?
I know there are myriad of social programs both governmental and non that seek to provide this for those who are unfortunate enough to not have their mothers in their life, but again, I point this out as an example of what I see as missing when something is discussed as a human right. I accept the idea of human rights, but for me it is an issue organic along the path I have presented above. If you have the right to something after your mother it is your father. If you have a right after that it is to your extended family. If you have a right after that it is to listen to Zeppelin as loud as you want with the only constraint being the structural integrity of your ear drums. I am open to the idea of natural law and social contract but to me the first of those would be with your family.
I am open to broader extensions of those laws and contracts with your broader human family but if you are attempting to discuss with me social issues you would need to understand that for better or worse to me the basic unit of a society is that family and I will interpret alternative views as ignoring tens of thousands of years of human and social evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment