Today, I had my first lecture in Human Rights Law, and we talked about the main conceptions and we got to talk about the major assumptions in human rights thinking, and it got me thinking...
The major assumptions are:
> that we as human beings are uniquely 'special'
> Legal protection is needed against those in power
> Rights can be sufficiently defined in law to offer that protection
& also that what law is trying to tell us is that we should not trust any of those that are in power, e.g. the Prime Minister, the President, and any others who are of high status in the governments.
We were also posed this question: "Is it better to be 'free' than 'not free'?"
We discussed and talked through the whole lecture, and we were asked whether do we agree with the assumptions, whether do we and should we trust those in power and "Is it better to be 'free' than 'not free'?"
With the assumptions, I personally do not agree with the first one, but I do agree with the last 2, I agree that we should not trust any of those that are in power, considering how easy it is for them to be so corrupted and to abuse their power.
With the last question, I said that there should be a balance between...being totally free means we can do anything we want and not be told what's right or wrong, so there should be some boundaries and limits...and I actually there's one particular country which I thought has way too much freedom.
Now I'm posing the questions to you guys for your views and opinions...
1/ Which of the assumptions mentioned do you agree/disagree with??
2/ Do you trust any of those that are in power? & Should we?
3/ Is it better to be 'free' than 'not free'? & why?
Thanks very much for taking the time out!! :)
