Critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Essay

The usual Declaration of Human Rights, came as a reaction to the dreadful reparation of the Second World War. This proclamation was strengthened according to the fundamentals of matesity. It lists us exclusively of our rights, all of our freedoms and how we buns express them freely. It was constructed on the basic fact of it being fair(a), pit to all, and right. However, ar all phrases applicable on all of mankind? Or empennage nigh of these be questi wholenessd? Generally, all of these articles should be applicable for the majority of mankinds, exactly non all of them. There is al right smarts an excommunication to the rule.There is always an outlier that doesnt fall the rules. M whatsoever countries fork up rejected or non signed this contract, therefore this declaration isnt pertinent eachwhere. One can find a lot of exceptions for umpteen articles. Article 1 states that all human beings be free and equal in dignity and rights, that they are endowed with re ason out and scruples and should act toward one an early(a)(prenominal) in a spirit of sum. Nonetheless, non all human beings are just and conscious of everything they do. Take serial killers for example. Their acts certify of inhumanity. A man with reason and/or conscience would never do such a thing.Also, should we give unreasonable passel the same rights as the ones reasonable mass have? Should they have the same prerogative as others even if they have no sense of reason or conscience? The United Nations General Assembly besides mentioned the fact that people should act in a spirit of brotherhood. Look well-nigh you, what brotherhood? Is killing each other brotherhood? Is fighting and starting wars brotherhood? Is forgetting every moral and correct way of acting just to get to violence brotherhood? A definite no is the correct answer to these questions. There are no signs of brotherhood around us.On the contrary, if one takes a close search to our surroundings and e verything around us, humans, one go out only nonice nothing just signs of rivalry and opposition. Article 2 raises the go forth of the fact that were all equal in terms of rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, trust, political or other opinion, national or amicable origin, property, birth or other status. disdain that, distinctions according to race, color, sex, religion, etc still exist in our modern society. Movements of racism, sexism, and religions distinctions still exist, but of course, lesser than before.People are still fighting and battling to erase these distinctions completely. This is a process every soul looking for an equal and just world should follow. Article 5 states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to be cruel, inhumane or contaminating treatment or punishment. What some(a)what those who frame inhuman acts, those who torture other humans for the fun of it, dont they deserve to have a taste o f their consume medicine? One should be tough the way one treats others. So if one tortures one another, that one shall be pain or punished. Part 2 of article 15 articulates the fact that no one shall be divest of his nationality.Well, what if that individual was confused in acts of high treason? What if that person turned his back on his unsophisticated and denied his own nationality. That person definitely does not deserve to hold his nationality and shall be deprived from it immediately. Articles 18 and 19 talk about the fact that everyone is free to express their thoughts, opinions, religions. any(prenominal) thoughts and opinions might actually harm others. physically or mentally. In that way, it will refrain article 1. An example of such opinions/thoughts/religion would be Satanism and the Ku Klux Klan. These associations actions can impairment others and hurt them.Therefore, these associations do not have the right to fully express themselves, but partially. They can only express the opinions/thoughts that do no harm to others. To sum things up, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is inconsistent its articles are not always suitable. This declaration is not functional in all countries as some countries did not sign it. This declaration fails in its goal of it being prevalent Exceptions can be found to some articles. Pieces of this declaration can be questioned for some precise individuals. It is not always applicable and it is not always a original document.