Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
com/792253/18-useful-research-resources-for-architects-online
Now, for sure, the difficulty with human rights is that, in the end, they are not
something that can be proven or demonstrated to be true. They do not even belong
merely to the ethical or political realm. Ultimately, they are based on our fundamental
conviction about what it means to be human. There is no proof or evidence that will
render Socrates famous dictum valid, namely, that an unexamined life is not worth
living. The Filipino Jesuit philosopher Roque Ferriols translated the passage into Filipino
as follows: Ang buhay na hindi kinikilatis ay hindi buhay-taoThe unexamined life is
not a human life, which, he said, was closer to the Greek original.
Thus, ultimately, human rights are derived from our conviction about what a human life
is, and what is not. Such a conviction is not merely intellectual. It involves our whole
being. We react not just with our minds, but with every bone and sinew in our bodies.
We say in Filipino, Bumabaliktad ang aking sikmura (My stomach turns), when we
witness a crime so heinous that we simply know it does not belong to being human, that
to do so is to be not human. In a word, inhuman.
Ferriols also used to say, May mga bagay na sadyang hindi ginagawa. There are
things that we simply do not, should not, do. Ancient thinkers understood as much. In
explaining the golden mean, Aristotle said murder is just wrong. One cannot tell a
murderer to moderate his murderous instinct, and suggest, Hey, youve been
murdering an average of 10 people a week. Could you kindly cut it down to five? No,
we simply do not, should not, murder anyone. Every murder, especially the murder of
an innocent and defenseless person, is a murder of one too many.
We have much to learn from Simone Weil, too, she whom TS Eliot considered to be a
rare combination of genius and saint. In The Need for Roots, which she wrote in her
final years (she died at age 34), Weil says:
The notion of obligation comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative
to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to
which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual
who possesses it, but from men who consider themselves as being under a certain
obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation
which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right
which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth much
A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have
obligations.
Ferriols claim about the things we simply ought not to do also therefore means there
are things that we are obliged to do. Am I obliged to be honest to others? Can I cheat
my way to getting a drivers license, for example? When I do so, it will be valid for me to
drive a car, even if in reality I can endanger other peoples lives with my lack of
competence as a driver. Am I obliged to keep other people free from harm while I drive
my car?
Presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, ensuring due process, respect for human
dignityare these matters of obligation, or are they merely optional? Does it belong to
being human to uphold these principles, and to feel obliged to defend such principles?
Our answers to such questions will tell us what acts are there that we simply do not or
should not do. Ultimately, they will reveal our convictions (or lack thereof) about what it
means to be human.
In confronting the drug menace in the Philippines, for example, we can go ahead with
our objectives with such stubbornness and determination, and get the results we want,
measurable in terms of numbers and quotas, without sufficient examination, analysis of
and reflection on the problem. But whether we like it or not, we are accountable for our
convictions about what belongs to being human, and what does not.
But do we still stop and ask such questions these days? Do we still consider it essential
to our being human to ask what is worth living and what is not, what is a human life and
what is not? Do we still feel something in our bones and sinews whenever we witness a
terrible harm being done to an innocent person? Or the way their bodies are being
treated, in life as in death?
And if we dont, if we no longer feel anything in our bones and sinews, if our stomach no
longer turns, will it even occur to us at all to ask if we are still human?
Remmon E. Barbaza is with the Department of Philosophy, Ateneo de Manila University.
digthat 6 days ago
People now may not fear the presence of vigilantes killers on their midst thinking they are not the target. But soon they will be. What goes around can
come their way. This administration puts 'new crime waiting to happen' in our
streets - AND THESE ARE NOT THE DRUG ADDICTS it is against with.
One can only imagine, therefore, if a true and honest technocrat is placed at the
helm of this vital GOCC and it is made to fulfil its original mandate and reach its
true income-generation potential. We can only imagine how far over Php 50
Billion a year would reach in terms of crucial charity and medical assistance to
the poorest of our poor. Why, thats an even Php 300 Billion for pro-poor
assistance in the new administrations six years. In fact, when we really look at
the optimum potential of this institution for generating revenue, various studies
have revealed that it actually runs into hundreds of billions annually if we
harness cutting-edge technology as other countries are doing in the gambling
and gaming entertainment industry.
It is therefore hoped that the Duterte Administration will discontinue the
hypocritical policies of the unlamented outgoing administration and proceed to
dismantle the syndicates that have lorded it over PCSO.
Our agricultural sector could have been rejuvenated and taken off with strong
growth if greater attention had been given to sound and out-of-the-box 21st
century policies instead of Alcalas distraction with import quotas for rice, sugar
and certain agricultural products that have all collectively been the moneymaking operations of cartels-cum-smugglers.
Now that we are bidding good riddance to insensitive Aquino, we can only
rejoice and embrace the promise of real and meaningful change brought in by
the Duterte Administration. Lets all pray and hope for the best.
o
Our poor folk are buoyant these days that change is finally coming to PCSO and
happy days are finally over for the cabal of forty thieves who have raided the
institutions coffers for the past six years. Our indigent sick who have always
looked up to government, specifically PCSO and DSWD for crucial medical and
charity assistance and have, instead, received crumbs from these agencies are
really hoping that President Rody will emplace an honest, diligent and
responsible leadership that will make PCSO realize it fullest potential of
generating the much-needed funds for charity and medical assistance.
The PCSO has been notable through the years of being treated as a crown
jewel of patronage politics and because if this, it has significantly
underperformed in its mandate of providing the crucial charity assistance and
medical help for our poor and disadvantaged masses. Worse, it has missed out
on its great income generation potential as it has repeatedly failed to supplant
the widespread addiction to popular illegal gambling systems like jueteng and
masiao. Combined, Jueteng and masaio are reputed to rake in well over Php 100
Billion annually and nothing of these revenues ever go to public charity and
medical assistance. Instead, substantive parts of these revenues are used as
protection money and line up the pockets of corrupt police officials and
politicians.
o
Do you know what you're doing? In one breath, you accuse and judge RD
without the benefit of a trial.
Can you name one suspect killed by the authorities simply because he
was a suspect?
o
o
Dead or alive sa paghahanap sa killer (Erap put 100,000.00 reward for it) --- CHR
pa anu yan may right yung killer na pumatay ng innocent people.
o
o
o
Wait til it happens to you. Wait til the drug menace touches your life then talk
about human rights again. It's so easy to romanticize things especially when
you've been living in your shell for life. Easy to shoot from the hips and never
take accountability for what is really happening out there in the streets. Wake up
and get out from whatever rock you've been living under.
o
o
You have a point, but the article is without empathy. That's what I
was saying.
For now, enjoy the world's freak show. It is going to get even worse.
It is sad that you believe we will never become mature by our own
efforts unless God plants it in us. There are many people who do
not believe in God but their decency and goodness can shame the
most devout Christian. On definition of maturity, I would rather
have you define it on your own by reading Lawrence Kohlberg's
Stages of Moral Development and James Fowler's Stages of Faith.
Their ideas might be God's seeds that you are referring to, except
that you seek it, today, because the ideas are already here, now.
Yes, the world is not perfect, and you do look at it with contempt.
Again, that's sad. Because there are many examples of heroism
out there, from the ancient to the present. Perhaps you haven't
heard of Louise Armstrong's song about this wonderful world? And
why focus on "what is" instead on "what could be"? And why look
outside and resent it, where there is not much you can do? Why
not look inside you, your thoughts and feelings and how both
shape you? Look inside you because that is where you have the
most control and can do the most good - for yourself, for others
and for the world. I wish you well.
Harold Wilson sums up it all - He who rejects change is the architect of decay.
The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.
o
o
o
Reply
Human rights violation does not only refer to extrajudicial killings of suspected
drug pushers/lords. The main and real violators of human rights are corrupt
government officials who are "killing" the poorest of the poor by pocketing govt
funds which should have been used to improve their lives.
Mr President, what is your plan for these corrupt govt officials? It is the hope of
the Filipino people that you can also get rid of these corrupt govt officials, fast,
who are the real menace of our society.
o
o
Wag na tayong maglokohan alam naman natin kung ano ang ibig sabihin ni
duterte sa sjnabi nya na wag magatago sa human rights ang mga criminal.
Example jan ay yung mga patuloy na gumagawa ng mga krimen dahil
inaasahan nila na pag nahuli sila ay ipagtatanggol sila ng human rights.
o
o
Please view Monson-Palma's interview with Heydarian and Cornelio a few days
ago. Duterte's viewpoint on human rights is based on the VICTIMS. The universal
view of human rights is based on the rights of the victims AND the criminals.
Heydarian, for instance, points out that for the past THIRTY years, the universal
view of human rights DID NOT WORK for Philippines. Since it doesn't work,
Duterte, in Heydarian's opinion, is trying A DIFFERENT way of thinking.
o
o
o
o
"And if we dont, if we no longer feel anything in our bones and sinews, if our
stomach no longer turns, will it even occur to us at all to ask if we are still
human?"
I had several decades of watching and hearing about victims of brutal crimes.
Now its a breath of fresh air hearing about criminals being subjected to their
own violent ways. So for me its just par for the course, its your turn now to
suffer and I am very much at peace with that.
o
o
This is about choosing the lesser evil. For Duterte, it is better to kill 10 to save a
100 although 3 or 4 of those 10 might be innocent. it 'justifies' the killing for the
greater good. I don't agree with it but it might be the best solution. Human
rights, animal rights, or whatever rights purports to protect against evil but the
world is mostly grey. Is it better to let a 100 die, so 10 can live? How does your
human rights justify that?
o
o
o
Not included in Ban Ki Moon's 360 languages is the language of the streets. That
is something criminals and Duterte know a lot about and that is why for the first
time criminals shudder in fear. This is also something you don't know about
growing up in privileged surroundings. You probably know that articles like this
fly above the heads of your kababayans. You just don't have street cred to write
on issues like this.
Fighting fire with fire? Put differently, fighting crime with crime. Thats it,
isnt it?
Exactly! Those who live by the gun shall die by the gun. Isn't that
just simply - you reap what you sow?
The ends justify the means, eh? And who then, will silence
the criminals who took out the criminals?
So how does an illegal act stop an illegal act? Its a neverending spiral. Note that opposition to an illegal act (extrajudicial killing) does not mean acquiescence to another
illegal act (illegal drugs). Its a strawman argument and is
not intellectually honest.
Words such as those may comfort you. But the reality is far
from this. Already you are hearing deaths inflicted by the
police for non-drug related cases. And its just been a month.
I sincerely hope I am proven wrong, but expect it to worsen.
And this ... "reaction" ... is composed of a series of crimes.
Yes, murder. Following your logic, these will be unresolved
and unredressed crimes. All in the name of you and I feeling
safer at night. Will we be proud of ourselves then?
So....
---""Presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, ensuring due process, respect
for human dignityare these matters of obligation, or are they merely optional?
Does it belong to being human to uphold these principles, and to feel obliged to
defend such principles?""
---What say you about Gloria? Truly innocent then? Why aren't people shutting
up??? if she was found NOT guilty? (selective human rights nanaman???) puro
OA lang...
---This rahrah about human rights only works in well organized systems.
unfortunately were not, the one thing about Duterte is he can be trusted not to
abuse it.
--Maybe by the time Duterte steps down he can leave a better justice system and
these "human rights" calls can be focused on... but now is not the time. The
system is too broken and is easy to manipulate if you have money.
Wag naman kasi silang lumagay sa mali. I watched the SONA and I appreciated
the totality of Digong's speech. Kung away mong mamatay, lumagay ka sa
tama.
according to weil, obligation comes before rights. suppose we start with the drug
pusher or drug lord and how he looks at the human rights of his/her victims. his
first obligation is to look at the right to decent life of those people and when he
desecrates those lives, his/her own human rights become subordinate to his
obligation to preserve the life of those people he/she violates. it is only out of
charity that we still observe his rights to live, but by choice, he/she knows deep
within that his right to become human has been lost or at best diminished.
now it is a different matter when we mere suspects of drug crimes are
summarily killed.
o
o
could takes years and years or it could be very quick depending upon the
connections. You get the impression that they act with dispatch as it suits them.
The loss of trust in the judiciary had people come to support this quick
resolution which the present government is trying to remedy the people's
frustration and distrust in the government as a whole. Either way the small fry
suffers. However, if there is a good respect for the law that is bolstered by trust
in the judiciary, the extent to which this problem has grown would not have
reached this magnitude and scope, and the killings would not have to take place
at this frequency. Even before Duterte assumed office, the killings had already
started. Which begs the question, what motivated these killings. People are
taking the law in their own hands instead of having them resolved in court.
o
Thank you to the Philippine Daily Inquirer for giving space for a free and sober
discussion of matters concerning all of us. If I may just point out one correction:
the adverb "not" is missing from the following sentence: "Now, for sure, the
difficulty with human rights is that, in the end, they are something that can be
proven or demonstrated to be true." It should read "...they are *not* something
that can be proven or demonstrated to be true." Best wishes to all.
5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty
This blog entry does not necessarily represent the position or opinion of Amnesty International Australia.
Anti-death penalty campaigners can rattle off 25 different reasons why we need to abolish the death penalty:
its cruel, degrading, inhumane, what about families, it's just wrong and world peace. Most of us can do this
so quickly that we cause a small whirlpool in the organic latte that we proudly paid $4.80 for at a garage in
the industrial estates of inner western Sydney.
On this World Day Against the Death Penalty I thought we should try and answer some of the tougher questions
addressing why it is fundamentally important to abolish the death penalty.
Whichever way you look at it, killing another human isn't humane, not
even close. And when you get to the details it is simply vengeful and
cruel.
Michael Hayworth
The point here is that preventing crime takes long-term research into the causes, effective police work and
rehabilitation. All of which can happen without the use of the death penalty.
5. But what about [insert horrible despot here]: surely they should be
executed?
There are a lot of people who have done horrific, unspeakable things, but modern societies should not join their ranks
by also carrying out a murder. People are judged by their actions, and killing another human being is about as
profound as actions come.
We can't take back death, we know that systems make mistakes and we are lucky enough to live in a country where
the majority of people oppose this cruel punishment.
This knowledge give us an opportunity, a chance to ask our neighbours in the region to end this practice. Today,
thousands of Australians will start a movement and light candles at vigils all across the country to end the backslide
towards execution in Asia.
It might sound simple but we shouldn't underestimate the capacity of a group of Australians to change the world.
JUNE 1, 2013
5B
For: It is the Ultimate Warning
4A
Against: It Does Not Dissuade
4B
For: It Provides Closure for Victims
3A
Against: It Is Hypocritical
3B
For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals Fear
If you read about Bundys life in prison, waiting nine years for his
execution, you will see that the man exhausted every single legal
point he and his lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to spare
him execution. He defended himself in prison interviews by
blaming pornography for causing his uncontrollable teenage libido,
and for causing him to think of women as objects and not humans.
He attempted to have his death sentence commuted to life without
parole by explaining that it was all pornographys fault, and that had
it never existed, he would have been a good person.
When that didnt work, he pretended to come clean and tell police
where the bodies of unfound victims were, so that their families
could have closure. He never once admitted that he was a bad
person, and just before his execution, he claimed that he hadnt
2A
Against: It Is Always Cruel
In the US, there are five legal methods of execution: lethal injection,
electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gassing. These are all
intended to be as painless as possible, but they all run the risk of
accidents. John Wayne Gacy, who was not afraid of death, was
executed via lethal injectionthe most efficient, risk-free method.
Yet his death did not go as planned.
The sodium thiopental entered his bloodstream successfully and put
him to sleep. The pancuronium bromide was then administered
successfully to paralyze his diaphragm. This would cause
asphyxiation if the next chemical, potassium chloride, were not
immediately administered to stop the heart. But the potassium
chloride had congealed in its tube before Gacy was brought into the
room. He was unconscious and unable to breathe for several
minutes while the last drugs tube was changed. His death took
eighteen minutes, instead of the usual seven. And whether or not
he was in great pain is impossible to determine.
2B
For: It Is Not Always Cruel
Its true that cruelty should not be legally toleratedand the five
methods listed above are very efficient in killing the condemned
before he or she is able to feel it. Granted, we are not able to ask
the dead whether or not they felt their necks snap, or the chemicals
burn inside thembut modern American executions very rarely go
awry. It does happen, but the reported accidents since 1976
number about ten nationwide, out of 1,328.
When the condemned is fastened into the electric chair, one of the
conductors is strapped securely around the head with the bare
metal flush against the shaved and wet scalp. This permits the
electricity to be conducted directly into the brain, shutting it off
more quickly than the brain can register pain.
Hanging causes death by snapping the neck of the condemned
around the second vertebraeinstantly shutting off the brains
ability to communicate with the rest of the body, and causing the
heart to stop within seconds.
The firing squad involves five men shooting the heart of the
condemned with high-powered rifles. The heart is completely
destroyed and unconsciousness follows within seconds.
The gas chamber is now no longer forced on the condemned,
because it frequently appeared to cause more pain than was
expected or acceptable. The gas is usually hydrogen cyanide, which
inhibits mitochondrial respiration in every cell of the entire body,
theoretically shutting off the brain like a light switch. But it requires
that the condemned breathe deeply.
1A
Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth
1B
For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder
response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the
victim.
I do not believe that the president should have the power to order extrajudicial killings. We
have division of power within our government for a reason, namely to prevent abuses of
power by any one branch. Enabling the president to order killings without judicial process is
a recipe for disaster, as it would essentially allow the president to kill anyone who disagrees.
Report Post
LikeReply
The president should not have the power to order murder outside the legal system.
American citizens are guaranteed a certain amount of rights that should never be taken
away. The only exception should be in an extreme case of national emergency. Even though,
that power should be carefully exercised and should be guarded against.