On February 22, the death toll of the new coronavirus in the United States surpassed 500,000. Chinese official media said this proves the bankruptcy of American-style human rights. Xinhua News Agency published an article saying that the right to live is the most basic human right, but the United States, the most technologically advanced country in the world, has become the country with the most deaths, and the persona of “human rights champion” has collapsed. The Global Times published an editorial saying, “What a rotten face of human rights!”
There are many reasons why the U.S. is not responding well to the New Guinea Epidemic, and many people are reflecting on the review. So, is the lack of U.S. response to the new crown epidemic evidence of the bankruptcy of American-style human rights? This is an important question about what is and what is not a human right. We must be clear.
From the perspective of human rights, the U.S. failure to respond to the epidemic is certainly a serious issue, but that is not the same thing as human rights. Yes, the right to live, or the right to Life, is the most basic human right. But in this case, the right to live or the right to life means that human existence or life is not to be harmed. It is also called the “do no harm” principle, in which the government prevents people from harming each other while not causing harm to human existence or life. This is also called the “do no harm” principle. When this is done, the right to live or the right to life is guaranteed. If someone is in difficulty due to natural disasters or diseases, and the government does not do a good job in providing positive services, that is certainly a problem, but that is a different kind of problem, and it is not a human right. Human rights are meant to mean things that are inherent in life, not things that need to be provided by others or by the government in order to be there.
The meaning of human rights was originally clear, but it was only later that many people added a number of new elements that instead diluted or even changed the original meaning of human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, as we know, lists thirty human rights, which can be clearly divided into two categories. Rights such as the right to speech, the right to assembly, and the right to movement are “primordial” rights that can be realized if governments recognize their legitimacy and do not obstruct them. The other rights, such as the right to Education and the right to basic social welfare, are “extended” rights, the realization of which requires active government intervention.
For example, Article 25 of the Declaration: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his Family, including Food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. ” The question is, who will provide these guarantees? Article 22 of the Declaration makes it clear that this is to be done “through national efforts and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State.” It follows that this type of right is not inherent to the individual, but depends on others, on the government, to provide it. However, the word right originally means something inherent to the individual, something that exists without the interference of others. When speaking about the meaning of freedom, the meaning of rights, Einstein repeatedly quoted Schopenhauer: “Man is able to do what he wants to do, but he may not get what he wants.” Therefore, only the first type of rights, i.e., primitive rights, are true rights; the second type of rights (i.e., extended rights) are, strictly speaking, not really rights but benefits.
We are not generally opposed to the government providing necessary welfare, but we are not in favor of conflating welfare with rights. To expand, dilute, and generalize the idea of human rights is not to increase its power, but to weaken it. For according to this expanded, diluted, and generalized concept of human rights, no country in the world has ever fully realized human rights, nor is it likely to do so in the future. Different systems and different governments seem to differ only in degree, but the essential distinction cannot be revealed anymore.
The above reasoning is not complicated and was understood by the ancient Chinese more than two thousand years ago. In the popular article “Cao Đài Discusses War”, Cao Đài asks Duke Lu Zhuang, on what basis he can resist Qi’s invasion. Duke Lu Zhuang said that he provided the people with food, clothing and warmth. Cao Jun said, “Not everyone has received this favor, so the people still do not necessarily support you. The Duke of Lu said, “Although I can’t say that I can see the small and big cases clearly, but I really do my best to seek the truth, or no wrongdoing in prison. Cao Jun immediately replied, “That’s good, you have done your part. This shows that the primary duty of the government is to prevent people from harming each other while preventing the government itself from causing harm to the people, which is called safeguarding human rights.
Returning to our topic, the ineffective response to the epidemic in the United States reflects a lack of government, and indeed institutions, in actively providing services to the people that need to be improved. But this does not mean the bankruptcy of American-style human rights, which remain the same. In contrast, China, for all its achievements in responding to the epidemic, has been quite egregious in its suppression of human rights. For example, the suppression of freedom of speech and the suppression of Dr. Li Wenliang. If the Chinese Communist authorities had not suppressed freedom of speech at the beginning of the epidemic, China would have activated its emergency mechanism at least 20 days in advance, and then the epidemic could have been nipped in the bud. The Chinese Communist authorities are responsible for this global catastrophe, but how can they boast about it to the world?
Recent Comments