Most people are familiar with the idea of human rights, at least in a vague sense. They know that, as humans, they are entitled to certain basic things: food and shelter, the ability to get work and to be paid for it, the right to have friends and family, the ability to express oneself freely. The idea behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948 and ratified by a large number of countries, is that all individuals are born free and equal. They are therefore entitled to the same set of human rights and must be treated in the same way by all governments.
In order to do this, the Declaration asserts that all human rights must be protected by law and government, and that governments must not violate these rights or treat them in a discriminatory manner. It also states that all nations have a duty to promote and protect these rights, even if they do not all accept them.
The UDHR outlines several human rights and freedoms, including the right to life, freedom of religion and belief, freedom of movement, the right to education and the right to join trade unions. It also includes a right to an impartial hearing if charged with a crime. This last right is probably the most widely understood, because it essentially says that, unless there is evidence that someone has committed a murder or some similar act of extreme violence, they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and should not be arbitrarily arrested or exiled from their home country.
Whether these rights and freedoms actually exist can be debated, and there are many theories about how human rights should be defined. Some have argued that they are more than just a legal concept and that they should be considered part of a person’s spiritual or ethical heritage. Others have argued that they can only be guaranteed by the enactment of legal laws.
For the most part, human rights have been defended by the fact that they have practical benefits and can help people get along better with one another. For example, if a person is denied the ability to make friends, they can argue that this limits their ability to take part in social life, which can lead to loneliness and depression. Similarly, if they are subject to constant sexual harassment at work they can argue that this interferes with their enjoyment of their rights to freedom of association.
This approach to human rights may be flawed, however, because it is difficult to persuade billions of people to adopt a specific theological view in which the creator god demands the protection of human rights. It would be much easier to rely on legal enactment at both the international and national levels. This, in turn, could create a far more secure basis for these rights than theologically based ones. However, it will be necessary to do a lot of education and advocacy for human rights in order to achieve long term progress.