Assignment 4 – Moyn
Interestingly, Samuel Moyn’s The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History mentions the word “utopia” which refers to something or somewhere imaginary, ideal and ultimately, perfect. The contradiction, though, is that rights, both of man and human, are flawed in their preserved meanings, purposes, and consistency. “The rights of man” and “human rights,” both containing conceptual differences from the past to the present, are not exactly Utopian.
As we have previously examined in prior discussions and assignments, there were precursors that led to this idea of rights belonging to man. These rights that strayed more away from religious influences and kings, and aimed more toward civil liberty, equality before the law and political movement. Enlightenment philosophers began to analyze these rights, speaking upon them, and what they should consist of, vaguely of course. “If the laws of their country did not live up to the demands of the Rights of Man, they were expected to change them, by legislation … or through revolutionary action:’42. However human in basis, rights were national political achievements first and foremost,” (Moyn, 2010, p. 31). Moyn also mentioned the fight for the right to work as a part of the rights of man, which shows that this right was formulated with the intent to continue labor and industrialization for the preservation of that area’s economy, and not necessarily to ensure that man has the capability to do work, considering that compensation was not significant for men of lower socioeconomic status.
“It must have become clearer and clearer as time passed that not the assertion of Humanity before Human Rights 31 abstract principles but the achievement of specific citizenship is what truly mattered,” (p.31). The assertion and push for rights often only became evident when a need for revolution or democratic change appeared among the people of a society. The rights of man ultimately protected and secured human rights
Some time later, the idea of human rights began to gain acknowledgement. Human rights was a more universal proposal, however, they are born rights that belong to each individual regardless of individual differences. It can still be argued that human rights, like the rights of man, has political intention, as opposed to being a pure declaration of obvious born rights. Clearly, there is controversy on the origin of rights and universalism, and therefore, its credibility and effectiveness was and is still shaky.
“The true key to the broken history of rights, then, is the move from the politics of the state to the morality of the globe, which now defines contemporary aspirations,” (p.43). In regard to modern day conceptions of human rights, according to Moyn, human rights now is the interpretation of international ethics and the yearning of ethical rights for each individual. and not necessarily used for political notion.
