May be true ...

BUT YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Here are a couple of examples of Human Rights written from the "pen" of different philosophers.

• Søren Kierkegaard – Existentialism

 “Superior Order” (often known as the Nuremberg Defense or “lawful orders”) will no longer be an acceptable defense in any court of law. Every person has the right and obligation to freely make decisions for themselves.

Superior Orders is a plea in a court of law, which claims that a soldier should not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior officer. Søren Kierkegaard, a 19^th-century Danish philosopher, may have argued that this plea is morally wrong due to it’s lack of “authenticity.” In the 20^th century, some European philosophers created a school of thought called existentialism, which stresses that a “good person” is one who makes individual moral choices for themselves (while taking responsibility for those choices). Authenticity, which is the idea of being true to oneself when making moral choices, is the only virtue worth striving for in existentialist theory. In Kierkegaard’s view, choices should always be authentic (these are choices that involve consistency of perception, thought, and action). An inauthentic person, is someone who runs away from responsibility, never thinking for themselves. Oddly enough, this completely describes the actions of someone who would use the Superior Orders plea to try to escape blame. Since this plea is basically the justification that the defendant was told what to do (and had no other options), Kierkegaard would have argued that this defense is the plea of inauthentic persons – and therefore, should cease to be a mitigating factor in court. In the existentialist view, actions, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes are all a matter of choice; choices that every person must make for themselves. Incompatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are not logically compatible categories, rings perfectly true in this circumstance (Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen). (“Incompatibilism.” The Information Philosopher. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2012) A believer of Incompatibilism would agree that free will and the claim of having “no other option” are perfect opposites, and that the Superior Orders plea is contradictory per se.

• Kongfuzi – Humanism

Everyone has the right to free legal representation; it shall be paid through the federal/provincial government, and lawyers will not charge individuals for their services.

According to the text, In the sixth century BCE, crime/violence were on the rise in China. Theft and murder were thriving, and the government had become corrupt. “Business was flourishing, but scholars were unemployed. The rich were becoming richer, the poor poorer.” (HTZ4UO Text) Kongfuzi was born into a life of poverty, and his father had died when he was very young. In other words, had seen hardship firsthand.  Also in regards to the 21^st century, quality legal representation in courts has become very expensive. Often, harsh penalties don’t apply to the worst criminals, but to the defendants with the worst lawyers. For example, at the Nebraska State Bar Association's annual meeting, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her concern about the possibility of executing the innocent and the need for better representation of indigent defendants. O'Connor stated, "More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death." She added that this would continue unless indigent defendants were represented by qualified lawyers. (Nebraska StatePaper.com, Oct. 19, 2001.) More often than not, unreliable defense attorneys play a huge role in their client’s sentencing. This further proves that the less fortunate are not awarded the same stance in a court of law, as someone who can afford better lawyers. Kongfuzi was once one of these less fortunate people, which is why I believe he would strongly agree with this article. He would have suggested that this flaw in the legal system could be solved by free legal representation. This article would be in agreeance with his Humanistic standpoint that emphasized concern for others, in regards to the legal system of today. Historical materialism, is the methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way humans collectively make the means to live, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies). (Pawlett, Sam. “What is Historical Materialism?” Marxmail. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2012.) In my opinion, this approach could be taken when examining both the legal systems and education systems (which applies to both of these articles) of today, so that the flaws due to social classes and money could be resolved.

• Immanuel Kant – the Categorical Imperative

Everyone has the responsibility and obligation to treat the environment with respect. No person, group, corporation, or nation state is exempt from this obligation.

Immanuel Kant, the 18^th-century German philosopher, believed that that moral choices must be judged by the good will of the moral agent (a non-consequentialist theory). He once wrote that, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without

qualification, except a good will.” He maintained that good will had a direct interrelationship with duty, and that duty meant what is rational. Kant believed that there is only one, and that having a good will comes from this single principle; a principle is called the categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim [principle or general rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature. Although this imperative is generally applied in peoples’ associations with other people, it could also be applied to humanity’s treatment of the environment. The imperative leads moral agents to ask, “is the choice I am about to make universally acceptable?” This means that when faced with making a moral choice, people with a good will must choose the course of action that they would want everyone to choose all the time – despite the consequences. This leads into our exploitation of the environment. Even if a state or corporation could justify their actions that worsen our world’s natural state, they couldn’t possibly believe that their behaviour is okay for anyone, at any time. If it was, that would allow humanity to completely destroy the earth in our own selfish interests. Not only is this morally unreasonable, but it would ultimately lead to our end anyway… our survival depends on our environment. Environmentalism is a philosophy and ideology that emphasizes the concern for and preservation of our natural environment. (Runyon, Jennifer. “What is Environmentalism, Anyway?” Renewable Energy World (2011): 1-4. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. 7 June 2012) This philosophy is pertinent to the obligation of respect for the environment, and better describes what the article is trying to achieve. I believe that if Kant could see the effects that we are having on our natural surroundings today, he would agree that protecting our world is the universally permissible, morally right thing to do – the categorical imperative.

Some info:

How Philosophers Answer the Main Ethical Questions

Are Moral Choices Possible?

Socrates: Yes moral choices are possible.
Epicurus: Yes moral choices are possible, doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia.
Thomas Aquinas: Yes moral choices are
Søren Kierkegaard: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. 
Jeremy Bentham: Yes moral choices are possible. The moral choice is the one which brings the most good to the most people. (consequentalist theory)
John Stuart Mill: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.
Immanuel Kant: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has a moral intent. 
Ayn Rand: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has the best interests of the self at heart.



Why Do the Right Thing?

Socrates: Because doing the right/ethical thing is the cornerstone to living "the good life".
Epicurus: Doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia/serenity which is the greatest pleasure of the mind.
Thomas Aquinas: God deemed it right, and Aquinas is condemned to a perpetual life of follwing gods word without fail.
Søren Kierkegaard: Because going against your authenticity feels wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Because moral actions lead society towards the cultivating the overman, the advent of whom benefits all.
Jean Paul Sartre-----------------
Jeremy Bentham: ---------------
John Stuart Mill:-------------- 
Immanuel Kant:----------------
Ayn Rand: Because you wouldnt want "wrong" things done to yourself, so do not do them to others.


Can People Be Good Without Religion?

Socrates: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Epicurus: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Thomas Aquinas: No, conforming to God's rules is "good" to Aquinas.
Søren Kierkegaard: No, people must move beyond judging their actions according to reason or the standards of society, and become only accountable to god. 
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes people can be good without religion. "Faith in god is disappearing, and with it the universal values provided by that faith.  
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes people can be good without religion.
Jeremy Bentham: Not specified, but yes considering he believes that the greatest good to the greatest number of people is equivalent to right.
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarian, so probably.
Immanuel Kant: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Ayn Rand: Probably, but it doesn't specify.


How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions be Determined?

Socrates: Actions that go against the society made up of family and friends (laws) is wrong. Anything that conforms is right.
Epicurus: Right actions pave the way for ataraxia/serenity, wrong actions do the opposite.
Thomas Aquinas: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong.
Søren Kierkegaard: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong. 
Friedrich Nietzsche: People determine their own values.
Jean Paul Sartre: Each person defines right and wrong themselves and acts accordingly.
Jeremy Bentham: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one. (Hitler believed by eliminating the jews he was doing a great good for germany, there were far more aryans than jews in germany so was he doing the "right" thing for germans?)
John Stuart Mill: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one.
Immanuel Kant: The rightness of actions can be determined by the intent of the actions themselves (non-consequentialist)
Ayn Rand: Right actions are those which are in the selfs best interest.