The debate "People are the judge of their own bodies even when society thinks they are silently enslaved" was started by
November 8, 2015, 10:22 am.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Kaleighltay, Tristanzee, mace10514, zoeclare7, Max, SueAnnMohr and 7 visitors agree.
2 visitors disagree.
I agree, but converse to that, history is actually full of stories of people forcing their own ideals, even if oftentimes it's not that clear. Just like how for example US forces countries to be democratic via the development aid pact- That in order for them to help these countries, these countries must first be democratic. And these countries are always pushed to the edge to seek these dev't aids becaiuse they are developing countries, which by reality, are being exploited by a number of countries to begin with. The structural barriers force them to do so. It would be good if US for example just give these countries dev't aid without requirements which force these country to change culturally, just as how China gives dev't aid. But having a prerequisite which is clearly thier ideal just goes to show how even at the international level, some people will always be successful in influencing others. I'm not saying democracy is bad and all, but for things like now, we're discovering that it's not effective for some eastern countries.
We have shaped the idea of our rights to be inalienable, even calling for an international court to handle it and to such lengths: the human rights watch. I do agree I can't interpret as much. I think this has something to do with your own ideals rather than the burden of proof. Like how for example the democrats and the republicans weigh different values, there isn't a person who's always right.
The problem as I see it is who decides who is enslaved and needs to be freed? If you feel that they are enslaved, but they do not, at what point do you have the right to impose your values on them for their own good?
A similar debate was recently had in Canadian federal politics regarding the niqab (face veil worn by some Muslim women). Some politicians felt that the niqab was oppressive to women and sought to ban it during citizenship ceremonies. The were not seeking to for security reasons since everyone agreed that the identity should be checked before the ceremony. One party suggested setting up a tip line for "barbaric cultural practices".
The problem is that, to the women who wear the niqab in Canada, it is a choice. Several were interviewed and all said that they were not pressured or forced to wear it but felt it was what they wanted to do.
At what point do we have the right to step in and say that their choice is wrong and they are being oppressed but have accepted it?
The context of this statement refers to those who are living in Africa. People there are commonly slaves without chains. Their parents were slaves and their granparents too, that's why they are also silently enslaved. What's worse is that they don't even consider themselves as slaves while working for their masters.
My question here then, is how far should human rights, more than just being observed, be forced to each individual? If we balieve so much in our inalienable human rights, is it safe for us to assume we should also defend the rights of others even if they don't know it themselves because of deprivation of exposition to our norm and deprivation of a holistically informed choice?