Lately, or more accurately as past as a few years ago, the term “human rights” has been bandied around as a “Western concept” that does not take into consideration the extent of “social responsibility” that is asked of in an individual or citizen. This is less of the Rousseauan “Social Contract” theory and more of an Eastern concept where the individual’s worth is his contribution (or in Filipino terms ambag) to Society, which has since been superseded by obligations to the Nation, by way of the State.

I have NOT read any of the citizen-to-government or citizen-to-Nation theories, or even Rousseau’s Social Contract, though I have little knowledge of its main points, but to say that “human rights” is a “privilege” or a “Western concept” belittles what the essence of human rights really is.

Yes, the concept of human rights may have originated from the Western philosophes of the 18th century, at least the modern equivalent. The right to property, the right to assembly, the right to free speech, etc., these were all evolved and finally formulated into ideology formed by French intellectuals at the time of the Absolutist Age in France. However, the concept of human rights go far deeper into just some eureka concept formulated by the likes of Voltaire.

Everyone values human life, that much we can attest to. It evolved as civilization began to form and laws were set. I will not dive deep into the religious or philosophical merits of human life, but we can all agree that human life is precious. That measure of how precious human life is is its value, at least in my understanding. If one values little of human life then human life is cheap, and murder becomes pastime.

It is not only Christianity that emphasizes the value of human life, as other cultures have talked of its value in relation to God, the Nation, and to himself. But how does one measure the value of human life? It is not enough to take the Christian belief that all life is precious and invaluable, as not everyone practices the Christian belief, or that life is intrinsically valuable (which it is, in my belief)

The whole point of human rights, I think, is to set parameters to the value of the individual separate from its relation to other entities, i.e., the State, the Community, to the Family. Human rights was created to essentially define how much valuable human rights is, barring the supposedly universal belief that all life is sacred and invaluable.

WITHOUT that measure of human rights, the value of human life is flexible and based only on HOW MUCH value is given in its relation to other entities, i.e., the State, the Community, to the Family, etc. Human life DOES NOT become intrinsically valuable, and if to a Society human life is cheap, then you were unfortunately born to a cruel world (which for some reason is considered badass because only the strongest survive).

Our concept of modern human rights were (probably, I’m guessing based on everyone’s claim) formulated by Western intellectuals ruminating in salons, eventually inspiring a few colonists to dump tea from their Colonial Government, but it’s a measure of the value of Human Life and a delimitation of borders of how much you control yourself before others do. All civilizations in all continents have consensus of this value, but there’s a measure, you can PROTECT yourself in this sense.

My two cents. People throw away human rights when it’s not convenient but it’s there as a sort of SOVEREIGN TERRITORY of your value as a human being. If you don’t value it, then you surrender your own worth to another entity that has more use of it than you were willing to give.