The duty formula is a set of reasoning used to decide whether or not something can be considered a human right based on absolutism or consequentialism. Through the explanation of absolutism or consequentialism, it is possible to decide whether or not a particular question is a duty that all humans should comply with, and only when the answer to that question is positive can this issue can be considered a human right. In the case of the inflation of human rights, both sides of the argument can be supported by the formula of Duty. On the one hand, not all rights are absolute. It can be argued that, based on absolutism, rights officially documented by the United Nations, such as the right to seek protection from slavery, are absolute, meaning that they are far more important than, for example, the right to travel. Putting all rights at the same level would degrade those that are absolutely necessary. However, on the other hand, many reforms and policies are developed to meet human rights criteria because they bring about positive consequences. For example, some politicians have advocated for a woman's right to abortion and argue that it should be considered a human right because it gives women more opportunities to complete their education and pursue career paths than others. they have planned, which allows women to be more active. economically productive within society. Even though women's rights are not considered human rights by many, advocating for their inclusion in the human rights sphere would have good consequences and push for further development, thereby increasing the number of issues considered to be human rights. justified.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the UN was initially reluctant to become directly involved in the conflict between the Tutsis and the Hutus. They sent troops into the conflict zone under the name "Peacekeepers", whose main objective was to extract European personnel. Soldiers were not allowed to shoot or engage in violence in any form, nor were they allowed to actively protect the Tutsi people from the Hutus. The UN classified the conflict as a civil war with "genocidal actions involved" to justify its inaction because it was unclear whether intervention was permitted based on international law at the time, not to mention the possible political complications that accompany humanitarian intervention. But under public pressure, the UN finally gave in and intervened, effectively ending the genocide. Dignity is a very important element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Based on this concept, all humans deserve to be treated equally with honor and respect. Religion is an explanation of why all humans deserve dignity. In the Christian religion, because man and woman are created by God in his own image to live fruitful lives on earth and rule over other creatures, humans deserve dignity. By analogy, in Confucianism, it is implied that humans deserve dignity because of the intrinsic compassion and goodness of human nature that every person shares. Genocide dehumanizes certain groups of people, deems them unworthy of humane treatment and strips them of their dignity. Consequently, the majority believes that through absolutism,human dignity must be protected in all circumstances, which means that all agents, individuals and organizations, also have a duty to end genocide. Therefore, protection from genocide is a human right and the UN therefore has a duty and responsibility to actively engage in humanitarian intervention in the case of the Rwanda genocide. The issue of discrimination is common when it comes to the rights of sexual minorities. Generally, discrimination is considered unfair and unfavorable treatment towards a certain social group. But this is a widespread misunderstanding. The original definition of discrimination is treating a group of people differently from the average of others, which encompasses both positive and negative treatment. Denying someone a job because of their race is discrimination, but giving someone a better chance of passing a college entrance exam because they are a racial minority is also a type of discrimination . The controversy surrounding the discrimination of sexual minorities is mainly caused by the debate over whether or not they deserve certain special rights that others do not enjoy. Every day people hear or see things that they disagree with or offend them, and there is no protection against that for the average person. However, new legislation has been passed on racial vilification and against discrimination, which extends the protection of a person's right not to feel offended, particularly for minorities. According to James Spigelman, a former Australian judge, the freedom to offend is an integral part of freedom of expression; there is no right not to be offended, even for minority groups. A distinction should be made between protecting people's dignity against hate speech and protecting their feelings against offense. As a fundamental human right affirmed to be the right to dignity, the law is not obligated to protect people from hurt feelings. It is argued that while everything that offends should be removed, explicit content like pornography that offends many people, especially women, should also be banned. It is contradictory to make it illegal to offend others while allowing pornography to remain legal in the name of freedom. Furthermore, granting minorities the special right not to be offended would infringe on the majority's right to express themselves freely. Therefore, whether or not minorities should be subject to affirmative action is debatable. According to Michael Sandel, a society can limit marriage to only men and women, expand it to allow same-sex marriage, or remove the state's role in marriage and let it become a private activity. Each type of marriage naturally has its own advantages. Allowing only heterosexual marriage respects natural law and supports procreation. Children raised in a heterosexual family would be created naturally with a natural father and mother, which would foster a more beneficial environment for their growth. However, the government's constitution for same-sex marriage will allow same-sex couples to formalize their relationships with dignity. This will send the message that their relationships are of equivalent level and that they are not second-class citizens. Restricting marriage to couples of different sexes will not end committed relationships between members of the same sex, but will lead to social segregation. Furthermore, making marriage entirely private by abolishing its legal aspect isalso makes sense to end the protracted debate over what types of marriage should be legalized. By removing the role of the state in marriage, all marriages instantly become equal, with full respect for each person's decision and autonomy. Despite the benefits of legalizing unconventional types of marriage, many fear that labeling them as human rights could lead to an inflation of human rights. On official lists of human rights such as the UDHR and the European Convention on Human Rights, they specify that these rights constitute the minimum requirements and conditions of human dignity and a tolerable life (Donnelly, 2013 : 16). According to this definition, without these rights, life would no longer be bearable. It is unlikely that by prohibiting sexual minorities from marrying, their lives will become unbearable; many couples can still spend their lives together and live a good life. It is therefore very difficult to argue that their right to legally marry can be considered a human right. Additionally, people fear that in the event of a dispute, one party will defend their case by claiming that their human rights have been violated. For example, if a gay man applies for a job and is rejected, he may well claim he was discriminated against and sue the company for violating his human rights. But the truth is that many more heterosexual applicants could also have been rejected; they can't do anything in this situation because they are not a minority. If society provides more opportunities to minorities out of fear of being accused of violating human rights, then the majority will actually be discriminated against. In these cases, many would feel that the idea of ​​“human rights” has been exploited, thus devaluing and rendering the term hollow. I believe that the right against genocide should be considered a human right. Genocide has serious negative consequences. Not to mention the obvious fact that large numbers of people die, any country victim of genocide would descend into anarchy and suffer enormous economic and social losses, the recovery from which could take a long time. Consequentialism states that individuals and organizations have a duty to end these negative consequences by ending genocides. Therefore, since there is a duty, the right against genocide should undoubtedly be considered a human right. Many believe that the rights of sexual minorities should also be a human right. They claim that, based on consequentialism, it is society's collective duty to guarantee their rights, because granting sexual minorities certain rights, such as legal marriage, would have positive effects, such as allowing them to form more stable, to benefit from the advantages enjoyed by other normal families, and to add more diversity to society. However, I do not believe that the rights of sexual minorities should be considered human rights. Granting sexual minorities the right to marry can also have many negative consequences. First, a child born from a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of his or her natural mother or father, which could lead to problems in his or her growth and development. Second, the natural tendency of such a union is not to create families, as children often do not naturally end up in union, which defeats one of the main purposes of the union. marriage, which is about creating new lives. Furthermore, recognizing it as a right imposes its acceptance on all of society, which is very offensive towards those who.