The Most We Can Hope For…Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism
Human rights activism in not only a collaborative enterprise whereas activist groups are seeking a particular aim. They have carefully designed strategies to reduce the human pain and reduce the human suffering. Human rights fights would have persuasively refuted an individual’s entitlement to equal moral consideration. This was necessary to protect individuals. According to Ignatieff, “the rights language creates the basis for conflict, deliberation, argument and contention (454). This meant disagreements and agreements were an important aspect in joined forces. In other words, human rights activism may have fought for autonomy, yet there were consequences. In their joined forces to create independence, they produced hostility among other organizations. In order to secure basis human rights, a demand was made to recast political, moral and economic entities among other transformations. As one door opened at the same time the other door closed. Society members may obtain the rights to govern self: however, the state control placed in various devices that closed citizen’s political autonomy, financial autonomy and moral autonomy among other liberties.
Hence, human rights activism cannot be reduced to “a pure defense of innocent and powerlessness” because the existence of other powers are engaged in the success and or failure of autonomy. Most discussions about human rights overlapped into political resistance. Freedom of speech (speaking out about human rights) in particular populace is against the law. During socialism, citizens did not have any rights to speak about their ideas, opinions and beliefs opposing human dignity. This meant the human rights arena became a political forum. Their conversations were in direct conflict with particular rules that govern communist countries. As Ignatieff claimed, “Without the freedom to articulate and express political opinions, without freedom of speech, together with freedom of property, agents cannot organize themselves to struggle for social and economic security (Pg. 457). This meant human rights activism fought for the right to govern one-self, and they may have won and they man have not won. Needless to say, activist focused on reducing injustice against humans and simultaneously they caused the government to seize any moral autonomy and economic autonomy.
First, most human rights activism dialogue about morality had important consequences for the broader field. The human rights activism hoped for moral goodness. And they believed in a chance to transform the principles of good behavior as well as respectable acts. Government control prevented any activism groups from recasting the moral clause. So, I believe collectively organizations cannot just fight for human rights without encountering the other significant issues such as moral independence. As stated, ” even free speech, or perhaps, especially free speech in an age of corporately owned and governmentally beholden media, can deepen the subjection of the populace to undemocratic discourses of power, at the same time it permits lots of talking” (Pg459). In other words, human rights activism can openly converse about the inviolability of human dignity; consequently, government aggressively stifled any progression for moral principles.
Second, many human rights activism had a dialogue about the possibilities of economic independence. In accordance to Ignatieff, “he insist human rights must be limited to security the capacity for the individual to act, he also insist this very capacity itself constitutes the necessary preconditions for political engagement that in turn can produce economic improvement and even security” (Pg. 456). Anyone familiar with fighting for a particular purpose must consider all options. Although organizations fought for a significant cause they cannot ignore the challenges to obtain economic independence and security which was related.
To truly achieve human rights we must stop the torture, beatings, killings and physical cruelty against all human beings. Also, we must argue for both moral and economic power to ultimately acquire basic rights. We cannot assume that fighting for just human rights is enough without looking at the broader consequences. The effects could have moral destruction, political eradication and economic defeat.
