Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSixty years after the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the UN, attitudes, at least, have changed dramatically
After a century that saw two world wars, the Holocaust, Stalin's gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia, and more recent atrocities in Rwanda and now Darfur, the belief that we are progressing morally has become difficult to defend. Yet there is more to the question than some extreme cases of moral breakdown.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the UN general assembly's adoption of the universal declaration of human rights. In response to the crimes committed during the second world war, the declaration sought to establish the principle that everyone is entitled to the same basic rights, irrespective of race, colour, sex, language, religion, or other status. So, perhaps we can judge moral progress by asking how well we have done in combating racism and sexism.
Assessing the extent to which racism and sexism have actually been reduced is a daunting task. Nevertheless, recent polls by WorldPublicOpinion.org shed some indirect light on this question.
The polls, involving nearly 15,000 respondents, were conducted in 16 countries, representing 58% of the world's population: Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Palestine, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, and the US. In 11 of these countries, most people believe that, over their lifetimes, people of different races and ethnicities have come to be treated more equally.
On average, 59% say this, with only 19% thinking that people are treated less equally, and 20% saying that there has been no change. People in the US, Indonesia, China, Iran, and the UK are particularly likely to perceive greater equality. Palestinians are the only people of whom a majority sees less equality for people of different racial or ethnic groups, although opinion is relatively evenly divided in Nigeria, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Russia.
An even stronger overall majority, 71%, regards women as having made progress towards equality, although once again, Palestine is an exception, this time joined by Nigeria. Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan again have significant minorities saying that women are now treated less equally than they once were. In India, although only 53% say that women have gained greater equality, an additional 14% say that women now have more rights than men! (Surprising in a country where foetuses are sometimes aborted because prenatal testing has shown them not to be male.)
Overall, it seems likely that these opinions reflect real changes, and thus are signs of moral progress toward a world in which people are not denied rights on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. That view is backed up by the polls' most striking results: very widespread rejection of inequality based on race, ethnicity, or sex. On average, 90% of those asked said that equal treatment for people of different races or ethnic origins is important, and in no country were more than 13% of respondents prepared to say that equal treatment is not important.
When asked about equal rights for women, support was almost as strong, with an average of 86% rating it important. Significantly, these majorities existed in Muslim countries as well. In Egypt, for example, 97% said that racial and ethnic equality is important, and 90% said that equality for women is important. In Iran, the figures were 82% and 78%, respectively.
Compared to just a decade before the universal declaration, this represents a significant change in people's views. Equal rights for women -- not simply suffrage, but also working outside the home or living independently -- was still a radical idea in many countries. Openly racist ideas prevailed in Germany and the southern US, and much of the world's population lived in colonies ruled by European powers. Today, despite what happened in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia -- and appeared to be on the verge of happening after the recent disputed election in Kenya -- no country openly accepts racist doctrines.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about equal rights for women. In Saudi Arabia, women are not even permitted to drive a car, let alone vote. In many other countries, too, whatever people may say about gender equality, the reality is that women are far from having equal rights.
This may mean that the surveys I have quoted indicate not widespread equality, but widespread hypocrisy. Nevertheless, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and the fact that racists and sexists must pay this tribute is an indication of some moral progress.
Words do have consequences, and what one generation says but does not really believe, the next generation may believe, and even act upon. Public acceptance of ideas is itself progress of a kind, but what really matters is that it provides leverage that can be used to bring about more concrete progress. For that reason, we should greet the poll results positively, and resolve to close the gaps that still exist between rhetoric and reality.
In cooperation with Project Syndicate, 2008.
Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton university. His 1975 book Animal Liberation was a touchstone for the animal rights movement.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
9 Comments so far
Show AllThank you mr. d.
You fully grasped my unhappiness about fixating on just one woman when the discussion is about all women and our friend keeps trying to tie all threads to support for Obama (or in this case his wife). When DD forgets about relating all threads to the fascist DLC hype, he has some really good ideas.
But, somehow, I don't believe our friend 'gets it'.
I have to ask. Why should being "beautiful" and "tall", (granted, she is both) make her more qualified to elevate the status of women. Aren't these expectations part of the problem?
davidsonjohn... I don't think I'm being too harsh at all. In fact I'm simply pointing out the fact that his proposals and beliefs are the exact same as those condemned at Nuremburg.
While I agree that the same logic that permits abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy (as Roe V Wade and the current law allows) also can be applied to infants (as pro-infanticide Obama has supported). It is quite another leap to say that there should be a parallel lifestyle choice in favor of vegitarianism. There is no connection at all but there is on add paradox in the pathology that permits people to accept abortion, infanticide etc. and yet rail for 'animal rights'. (p.s. animals can't have rights).
We see that NAZI germany passed animal rights laws and then passed laws decraring the jews 'untermensch' or sub-human. I'll have to think on this some more but there seems to be almost a reciprical type of pathology...accept the murder of children in the womb and then the conscience still pulls at the injustice...unable to shake it then it's directed 'oddly' toward another claim of injustice (though very much far removed from the original).
I think Brontoburger is being a little too harsh on Singer. I assign some of Singer's work in my courses, including the essay on infanticide, and the guy's not a complete monster. Singer's central point in the infanticide essay is a strong one: most of the arguments that can be made to justify abortion also justify limited infanticide.
Singer impresses me as an individual who's worked very hard for a long time, closely examining our society's ethical positions, asking hard questions, clarifying underlying assumptions and inconsistencies. Example (which I'm not attributing to Singer): if you oppose infanticide, you should probably oppose abortion. After all, the ethically relevant characteristics of the being aren't much different a few days, weeks, or months before birth than they are a few days, weeks, or months after. And if you oppose either or both of infanticide or abortion, you should probably oppose the killing and/or eating of most adult mammals. Again, the ethically relevant characteristics don't differ much. And yet, most pro-lifers aren't vegetarians, and most vegetarians aren't pro-lifers. What gives? It might be that most people don't look too closely at their values, and they tend to be most impassioned about the values that they've looked the least closely at.
Focusing on self-consciousness as a measure of full moral personhood, Singer concludes that the rights of parents to lead happy lives will sometimes outweigh the right to life of fetuses or infants. I'm not sure I agree with him. However, even when Singer supposes the non-self-conscious (including early infants, fetuses and animals) to lack full personhood, he still accords them more respect and protection than most people bother to. This includes his insistence that when any being is killed, including fetuses, that the least painful means possible should be employed. Somehow, this is a consideration that most pro-choice folks seem happier ignoring. His arguments on behalf of vegetarianism and against animal mistreatment have been hugely influential.
I strongly recommend Singer's first book, Democracy and Disobedience, which deals with the limits of legitimate governmental authority, if you can find a copy.
Yeah, and only a real curmudgeon would label other people's posts as from a "troll" when he/she has nothing else to say but that men treat women as inferiors. We already knew that. What we're trying to do is put women into powerful positions from where they can speak out to improve the lives of women worldwide. Michelle Obama is uniquely qualified to do exactly that. A curmudgeon wouldn't be expected to even "get it"--and certainly didn't.
Let me get this straight...
pro-infaticide Peter Singer is going to write an article on human rights? You have got to be kidding me. This guy's proposals make the war crimes at Nuremburg pale.
From "Should the Baby Live?": "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children."
Also in that book, Singer and his colleague, Helga Kuhse, suggested that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others."
In his book "Practical Ethics," Singer makes clear that the parents, together with their physicians, have the right to decide whether "the infant's life will be so miserable or so devoid of minimal satisfaction that it would be inhumane or futile to prolong life."
Yeah...this guy is the type that forwarded the NAZI crimes and he's the type who we had tohave the Hippocratic Oath for.
Only a troll would twist this topic to support a candidates wife.
Rebecca Solnit's piece recently pointed out the subtle male arrogance that is prevalent in our society.
In my lifetime, I have watched the women of the 'stay-at-home' generations turned into wage slaves because they will do the same jobs for less pay. Another of capitalism's finest moments (just before it created the H1-B visa, then offshoring jobs)
Around the world, women ARE culturally deprived. Religious tracts have had the intent of the writings interpreted and twisted by male practitioners to support their supremacy time and time again - no religion escapes this practice.
Because so much of the male domination is pervasive and subtle, men need to be aware of the perception of their words and actions. Men should 'Be in the present' when around women and keep an ear and an eye on the interaction. I guarantee that if this is done sincerely, every man will find that at some level, he is conditioned to treat women as inferiors no matter how 'enlightened' he believes himself to be.
Again, trolls demean women when they hijack this topic in their arrogance and discriminative action.
There is nothing (nothing) that American women could do right now more simply to absolutely elevate the debate about elevating the rights of women everywhere in the world than to see to it that Michelle Obama is the next first lady of the United States of America. She is tall, she is beautiful, she is very dark-skinned, she is urban rooted, she is a Mom, she is immutably bright, she is highly educated, and if she makes The White House, there is little doubt she will be the most (correctly) outspoken woman to ever reside there about things that matter.
Cindy McCain? Good grief.
Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice plays to virtue---nice one.
I dont think polls are very helpful. If you asked most Americans if they believe in equality, most would surely say yes. But if you asked them if they have a right to protect their oil interests by force, many would say yes--which means that while they say they believe in equality, some are more equal than others. It really comes down to practice. And in practice people discriminate on a variety of interests that are not shown to be fair or just.
Zionists will say they believe in equality-but they dont show it. Chinese nationalists will say the same, Japanese, German, Irish, you name it. The Quebec separatists will say they believe in equality and they are victims of english canada, but they will turn around and do the same to the tribes in their midst(and the tribes will do the same to other species--i.e. Manitoba whale hunters catching belugas for aquariums will defend it by saying they have the RIGHT to slaughter whales if they want to, that the Creator gave them than right--that's Manifest Destiny with an indigenous spin).
The issue is really a matter of supremacy--which is why Singer's Speciesism theory is not entirely helpful. The issue isnt discrimination on the basis of species, or race, or gender, but on the basis of regarding your group as better than others. Something that only humans do, as a matter of moral policy.
Another example in practice--the Nature Conservancy claims it is for the environment--yet it paid hunters to kill wild pigs on a California island because they say it was harming native species(the pigs were dumped there by humans).
But humans are also harming native species--supposedly you can reason with them-and yet they do far more damage. No calls for a mass cull of noxious humans.
That's an example of the supremacy problem. That's the root of inequality ideology.