Terra Promessa

The fight for human rights is based on a relatively simple concept : that all people, regardless of their race, religion or gender, wealth or nationality, deserve certain basic freedoms and certain basic rights.

The idea is that no human life is intrinsically worth more than another human life.

And it’s a nice idea.

However, the current state of world affairs suggests that many people don’t buy into it. Whether a conflict is about religion or ethnicity, about natural resources or political power or a combination of all of the above, the lowest common denominator is two or more different perceptions of the same situation.

Those situations are further complicated when people take action – often drastic -based on their perspective and the conviction that their view is the most reflective of reality.

Perception is not based on facts but on an interpretation of facts.

Human beings are subjective animals and the greatest flaw in any theory or model – political, economic or otherwise –  is to overestimate people’s tendency to be  rational.  We are all influenced at some point or another in our lives by our beliefs and our emotions and these are, by definition, irrational constructs.

We don’t always make decisions based on logic. We can sometimes do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons. Sometimes we do things not because they make sense, but because they feel right.

With that in mind, the question of human rights becomes a question of human nature.

Are we naturally inclined to egalitarianism? Or is it merely an element of the (Western) civilization that we’ve built in order to restrain our more barbaric instincts?

Over the course of the world’s recent history, different governments and international organizations have dedicated a lot of time, energy and resources to agreeing on things. They’ve come up with documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals.

They’ve agreed that poverty should be eradicated and that genocide is a bad thing. They’ve (mostly) agreed that something needs to be done to protect the environment. They’ve even agreed on rules for war ( The Geneva Convention).

Many things have been agreed to in theory.

But they haven’t been agreed to in practice.

In practice,  many of the efforts to deal with various humanitarian problems are uncoordinated and working at cross purposes. NGOs and charities compete for limited funds and someone somewhere has to prioritize; has to place an arbitrary value on what is more important. Is it access to fresh water or is it access to education? Is it access to health care or access to employment? The series of valuations is endless.

In practice, the reality of war, genocide and crimes against humanity make for uncomfortable conversations. Unless forced to confront those realities most people will choose not to.

In practice, there are those who profit from human suffering, warfare and political instability.

And if these are the realities that we must contend with, why do we constantly seek consensus in ideals and in ideology? Why do we agree to things in theory, if we lack the honest to goodness drive to implement those theories and alter the reality?

We agree to things in theory because our good intentions make us feel better. We espouse ideals of equality and universalism because so long as we have the right destination  in mind – that world where all people, regardless of their race, religion or gender, wealth or nationality, have certain basic freedoms and certain basic rights – we’re headed in the right direction.

Believing that makes it a lot easier to forgive ourselves for the wrong turns we take and those we abandon along the way.