Indivisibility of human rights (1 Viewer)

[Azreil]

So I've been revising for Legal, and actually using the Excel book for the first time, and came across the question "Explain the universal and indivisible nature of human rights".

I answered it with the universal and inaleinable nature of human rights. I check the answers and it says "Human rights are indivisible--that is, one is not more important than any other."

This seems at odds with both logic and the idea of primary/secondary rights. I mean, if I had to choose between being tortured and giving up social security, I know which I'd choose.

So is this just a case of illogic which we have to memorise, or is Excel wrong?

 

[obimoshman1234]

ok it does seem illogical however its suppose to mean that all rights are
= therefore u should receive all of them not just some as technically no human right is more important than others

its suppose to make sure u recieve all and not just some due to a states discretion over which rights are more important but it is highly illogical

 

[obimoshman1234]

ok it seems illogical however
think about it this way if human rights were all = it means technically if a country puts say the fundemental HRs in they should not be able to then go we shall not give u say social security because it lesser than what we have given u. Its sorta like an ultimatium because u really cant give some human rights without giving the rest because there is no way to reason for doing so as all human rights are = .



hope that helped....

 

[Azreil]

Thanks for that :] I still find it kind of silly, but as long as we do have to remember it, that's fine. ;]