To deny an individual’s humanity is universally understood as inhumane, for certainly dehumanizing if to so deny. Who would disagree of course with this sort of obvious characterization? Yet a discussion or debate on the definition of such denial would result to something less than universal understanding, for also less than universal the definition(s) of the words humane and/or humanitarian.
The
common scenarios representing inhumanity immediately come to the forefront;
slavery, genocide, mass shooting, murder, rape and other physically violent
activities. Even so among these examples, reactions differ per the events’
details and contexts, especially upon politicization and oddly upon heightened
awareness of particular issue(s) per currently popular film, documentary, exposé,
investigation, etc. Consequently, without the observable, logical, consistent
thus ethical definitions for words humane
versus inhumane, transgressions and
tragedies are incorrectly assessed, determinations and decisions incorrectly
concluded then legislations, laws, policies, programs incorrectly proposed,
popularly confirmed, disastrously implemented inducing further inhumanities.
And so for centuries even millenniums as ordinarily contrived then randomly compiled the lists, codes, bills, canons of moralities, ethicalities, rights, statutes, commandments, principles, ideals, standards, behaviors, causes, often governmentally imposed yet none universally contended nor usually conducted.
Specifically, the U.S. Bill of Rights originated as 17 amendments approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, 12 of the 17 approved by the U.S. Senate, and in 1791, 10 of 12 ratified by then 13 American states. The rejection of rights from the start was as arbitrary as the approving 17 then 12 as well the eventual ratifying the final 10 (see Proem & Poem Nos. 27, 28). Prior of course, Thomas Jefferson named 3 unalienable rights in 1776, John Locke in 1689 proposed 4 rights that “no one ought to harm”, then fast-forward to 1948, the newly formed United Nations declared human rights in a lengthy document of 30 articles, as defined by Eleanor Roosevelt and the commission she chaired. The lack of consensus worsens outside political, governmental sciences thus within social, academic, religious contexts exemplified by far more diversity of thoughts and conclusions on the matter.
Oddly,
the diverse opinions and various divisions over rights as well moralities,
decencies, probities, equalities, do not dissuade nor discourage the passionately
sentimental persistence even fanatically emotional insistence towards governmental
presumption therefore institutional compulsion (force) per the vote of the vaingloriously
monarchic one, the arrogantly oligarchic some, the riotously kratocratic many
else the covetously democratic most, however never respectfully, ethically
patient until the unanimously harmonic all upon each and every person’s consent.
To be plain, covetousness, presumption, arrogance cannot bear the thought of
constraint when confronted with one more dissenting soul.
The core, the root, fraught per rot, “All for not!” as
most lament
As though foot in cement, society hell-bent, no
ladies, nor gents
For dignity well spent, moral garments rent near
consuming fires
Liken funeral pyres, while gypsies dance to “fool’s
gold” lyres
And covetous desires fan to flames, panning polity’s fiat
games
Tho’ few to logically triage the false claims, placing
proper blame
While facing the slanderous aims, “Racists and Fascists
are All!”
Appalled by disagreements the pious cabal while
self-enthralled
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment