U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and Morality

Humanity's History of Vital Records

Throughout history, societies have been built upon documents that summarised the essence of their foundational truths. From cave drawings to obelisks covered in relief carvings and hieroglyphics the essence of the society’s narrative was recorded with the intention to endure and guide. Treatises between nations, either in captivity or in cooperation are recorded in similar forms.

Sacred Writings

The middle centuries of the first millennium BC were significant for increased insight, recorded within sacred writings. For the Western world, the Old Testament with its Ten commandments has been the foundation for the highest narrative and ideals of life. The Greek philosophers made a significant contribution. The Eastern societies were built upon documents such as the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, the writings of Confucius, the Tibetan book of the Dead, and the Vedanta Sutras, each example of just some of the vital sacred works.

In the first centuries of the Christian era the New Testament scriptures were written and regarded as sacred writings, the Word of God, and for most, without error. By the Sixth century AD/CE, Muslims believe Mohammod received the sacred writings of the Quran

Magna Carta

As the Western world developed in Common Time (AD/CE) the value of human life developed and found itself codified in the Magna Carta, a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymeade, on 15 June 1215. For the following 800 years, it has influenced law around the world in countless societies, particularly the British Commonwealth, with its prime message that no one is above the law. Most famously, the 39th clause gave all ‘free men’ the right to justice and a fair trial. Some of the Magna Carta’s core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

The horror of the World Wars during the first half of the twentieth century produced such suffering and distress arising, that the United Nations determined that a vital vision for all humanity must be documented and embraced to prevent repeat disasters. The committee represented most corners of the global community;

Dr. Charles Malik (Lebanon), Alexandre Bogomolov (USSR), Dr Peng-chun Chang (China), Rene Cassin (France), Eleanor Roosevelt (US), Charles Dukes (United Kingdom), William Hodson (Australia), Hernan Santa Cruz (Chile), John P Humphrey (Canada).

On 10th December 1948, under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights was produced and embraced by its membership. While highly respected, the declaration has hardly been regarded as binding law even though its member countries agreed to it. Rather we can regard its declaration as outlining the moral imperatives that were agreed to by all members of the global community as appropriate for a civilized humanity. To fail to keep them is to fail humanity.

As humanity manages its pathway forward as a global community, the value placed upon each and every human is vital for the highest form of life across the planet and the planet upon which we rely for our flourishing. Many countries have endeavoured to capture the essential message of its sacred writings in their Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Western society has essentially lived under the Judeo-Christian scriptures until the mid-twentieth century and since then to a degree the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. They are different in nature yet try to guide their communities. They are meaningless without culture yet approach the subject of communities in different ways.

Community Context

The Judeo-Christian scripture is the story of belief in God set within the living story. It contains extraordinary detail of the life of its people to the point of its most ungodly pursuits through to its humble repentance eventually followed by a return to a new time of faithful devotion. It is Godly wisdom in the heart of a complex human community.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a very different type of document for it summarises the greatest aspirations and values of a large percentage of the world following the Second World War. While many Nations did not participate in its formation it was signed by 51 member nations. Unlike the scriptures, it makes no direct mention of the community it seeks to guide. It speaks solely to the highest values of community, as identified by the members. Yet that is not the full story for the representatives slowly crafted each statement, as each sought to make it relevant to their own culture. Valuable contributions were made by each member as they recalled their own history. It features words that hint at this; reason, conscience, for the good of the brotherhood which appears in Article one of the other thirty Articles that constitute the entire Declaration. While each is different in approach both Judeo-Christian Scripture and the United Nations Declaration depend upon context for their meaning.

The Individual and the Community

Throughout history, the balance between the individual and the masses has been a delicate task to manage. Early tribes and societies were very much dependent upon the cohesion of the entire community for its survival. The balance always lent toward the community. According to Karl Jaspers and Karen Armstrong one major feature of the First Axial Period of History, 800 BC to 300 BC, was an awakening in the minds of people across much of the world, of the value of each individual human life. Inspired writings from the Buddha, Confucius, through to the Old Testament prophets and Greek Philosophers produced various forms of the Golden Rule about loving one’s neighbour as one’s self. The Magna Carta of 1218 and the Abolition of Slavery in England in 1833 and in America in 1865, mark notable landmarks of the increased value placed upon all human life.

On the other hand, the signing of the Peace Document of Westphalia in 1648 was instrumental in the formation of nation-states following the indecisive territorial understanding of the City states and tribal occupancy. The sovereignty of nations is highly regarded in contemporary times and citizenship consolidates the heart of every society. The United Nations estimated 1.4 billion tourists in 2019, a statistic that speaks of the concept of a world population spanning the notion of the intermix of the individual and masses.

Formation of the United Nations, its Charter, and Declaration

The difficulty of this delicate balance of the two notions, the individual and the community, reached a concerning level as a result of the World Wars at the beginning of the twentieth Century. With the increased development of an emerging vision of a globalising world in the aftermath of the second world war and to ensure such horrors could not reoccur, an initial meeting of 20 internationals gathered in 1942 to discuss the concern. This was followed by an International Conference held in San Fransisco at which 50 nationalities were in attendance. Its purpose was to draw up the Charter for the United Nations. It was signed on 26 June 1945 and officially came into existence on 24 October of that year with 51 members. The 24th of October is the official Date of United Nations Day.

The Pillars of the UN

Peace and Security

Human Rights

The rule of Law

Development

The purposes of the UN;

Maintaining worldwide peace and security

Developing relations among nations

Fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems

The goals of the United Nations

Maintain International Peace and Security

Develop friendly relations among nations

Promoting social progress

Under the Chair of Eleanor Roosevelt, a committee was established with representatives from nine Countries (See page one for a list of participants) to compile a Document of Human Rights. It was adopted on 10th December 1948.

The Contemporary Challenges

The extraordinary challenges that have taken place through the ensuing century have challenged humanity as much as at any other time. The exponential growth in population, the information explosion, proliferation of nuclear weapons, global terrorism, the extreme divide between rich and poor, the global health threats, and the deterioration of the climate and the subsequent impact on the environment, have all challenged the delicate balance of a globalising humanity, transitioning to a new era of history. Each of the above issues in its own way not only threatens the well-being of humanity but raises the question of the planet’s survival and if not the planet as a whole, large sections of its population. The future requires guiding principles to successfully transition the change and establish a new era for a flourishing humanity.

At the heart of the transition is a mammoth evolutionary development in the mind’s consciousness, spoken of by numerous scholars as the broader awakening to integral perception. Integral consciousness is characterised by its capacity to perceive the interrelated, interdependent nature of all reality. Grounded upon the new world of Quantum theory such inter-connectedness has become apparent in all other domains of life, including politics and sociology, two fields that are particularly important in evaluating the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Speaking from the perspective of the theory of integral consciousness the UN declaration speaks to this divide between the individual and the masses.

The Declaration of Human Rights

In the light of the extraordinary destruction the world wars inflicted upon human beings as a result of racial prejudice and the disregard for the innate value and equality of all humans and the resulting injustice, pain, and suffering caused to thousands of humans, the United Nations set about creating its Declaration of Human Rights. It highlights the high status of individual life and subsequently explores the implication of such a status in countless situations, across its 30 articles, to ensure that the dignity of every human is maintained. A primary challenge for maintaining such dignity is the context of life. Its articles also emphasise the context for each individual as a member of a community, society, nation, race, and humanity. The individual and the masses are interdependent according to the integral perspective.

The UN declaration has not carried the status ‘of sacred’ that religious scriptures have for each different Faith’s members. It has been both criticised and loosely adhered to, for it is not a code of law. That is not the way its formative members saw it. Johannes Morsink, in his book, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Origins, Drafting and Intent, highlights various opinions of its founding members, most notably that of its chairperson, (Eleanor) Roosevelt had all along believed that “the declaration would not be legally binding upon governments,” which is one reason her government wanted a mere declaration. But she pleaded with the Third Committee that this lack of legal force “made it all the more necessary so to phrase the preamble that it would exercise upon them the greatest possible force of moral suasion. [1]

Morsink quotes, the contributions of Frede Castberg of Norway, Corominas of Argentina, C.H.Wu of China, and Juliusz Ketz-Suchy of Poland, reiterated this opinion. Morsink further concludes, ‘There is tremendous philosophical and moral power in this position and it explains why the Declaration has become a moral beacon in the affairs of individuals as well as of States’.[2]

Western Values

The formation of the Declaration has been criticised as promoting Western values. The United Nations began with 51 member nations, certainly with many nations avoiding participation. Hence its status rests with its identification as those nations which desired participation in such a body. The preamble emphasises its purpose as, ‘teaching and education to promote respect for, etc…’[3] Subsequently, through the years that followed, its membership has grown to include 193 member nations. It certainly would be hoped that nonparticipating nations would consider the importance of the formulation of their own documents that addressed similar issues within their own culture. The hope would be that should others endeavour to accomplish such a task the goal would be to emulate the United Nations' deep value for individuals and their place within their community, whereby all institutions, organisations, or governments would reflect an environment to fulfill the said goal of individual rights.

The Articles

Following the preamble, Articles one and two set the foundational values upon which the following articles (3 to 30) find the context for reflecting as closely as possible from a cultural stance on their universal nature.

Article one:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article two:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or another status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdiction, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing, or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Explanation

To evaluate the human life that the declaration is addressing, Article one specifies that it is purely by virtue of birth. All humans, purely by their birth, are to be treated equally with all other human beings. As such they are entitled to all the rights that this declaration is outlining. The reference to dignity implies that the rights as outlined reflect the imperative that all humans must be treated with the purpose of enabling them to experience the highest quality of life possible.

Article one continues by establishing the context in which each individual human finds meaning and flourishes with dignity. It is community. The primary characteristics that connect the individual and the community are reason and conscience. Humans are endowered with a mind displaying an array of connecting and organising capacities, from logic to emotion. Reference to conscience indicates the evaluative capacity of the human mind, most importantly the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. Humans are endowed with freedom of will and with responsibility for the way they live. Hence, they are moral beings. The importance of this characteristic is their relationship to their fellow humans, which the article implies is done in its highest form when done in a spirit of brotherhood.

The conclusion is that individual life is only understood in the context of community.

Article two extends this understanding by indicating that no apparent difference between one human and another impinges upon the equality inherent within, and dignity due, to all humans. Human status is prime. The article presents two lists of differences, one describing individual traits, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or another status. The other is by major groupings, such as the political, jurisdiction, or international status of the country or territory. Both lists are regarded as sub differentiations within the quality of being human.

Contemporary Challenges

As previously indicated Morsink reports on the intent of the United Nations committee that the declaration is a moral document, both challenging and inspiring nations to embrace the spirit of its tenets. Supporting Chairperson Roosevelt’s statement that the declaration would not be legally binding, Norwegian delegate, Frede Castberg stated, that the declaration was designed ‘to set moral standards rather than legal obligations.’ Chinese delegate Wu declared that its intent was to ‘serve as a moral standard toward which mankind should aspire.’ The Polish delegate, Katz-Suchy, before signing the declaration, stated it had moral force. As such, in the decades following it has become apparent that there is a strong need for such a document yet also how complex life can be. Membership of the United Nations has grown from the original 51 to 193, yet time and again membership responds arbitrarily when challenged. In Australia in recent years, a high-profile example is the treatment of refugees. It is very selective in the types of Asylum seekers it welcomes and the abhorrent way its treats boat arrivals. Similar examples can be found across the globe where the need for welcoming people from countries is resisted and often inhumane ways. Too often the motive for seeking asylum has arisen because the Western nations have contributed to the poor conditions in the countries being deserted. War or financial ravaging of the country’s wealth are typical examples.

The corresponding explosion of knowledge during the seventy years of the Declaration’s life has seen the emergence of the Integral perspective of life with a call for an understanding of the interrelated and interdependent nature of all reality. All nations and all individuals are members of the one grand community and must embrace its’ spirit. The Declaration’s ideals are fundamental for life on the globalising planet. Hence it is a document for the twenty-first century as humanity seeks a way to transition to a flourishing humanity. The more people treat the declaration as a collection of independent statements and arbitrarily accept or reject their relevance according to their own circumstantial convenience, the less chance of building a harmonious and peaceful world, the goal and purpose of the United Nations.

As outlined in Articles 1 and 2, the vision implies an integral perspective that sees the individual and the community as interrelated. The moral imperative in the Articles is the vision and spirit that the world needs. The balance of individual equality and dignity, and communal responsibility is a challenging one to live out as witnessed in the recent global pandemic. The complexity of community life; health, work, freedoms, and governance proved flash points of conflict for many. The balance between individual rights and communal governance was the main struggle. This was exacerbated because the issue was a pandemic of life-threatening social infection. The challenge of maintaining the balance was measured against death or severe long-term health implications and work and the loss of income with loss of purchasing power. The cry of the individual to do what they want as a human right did not seriously understand that the UN declaration does not grant this outside of the moral responsibility to the community.

[1] Morsink, Johannes. 1999, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : origins, drafting and intent / Johannes Morsink University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia p295

[2] ibid., p295

[3] ibid., p330