Is revolution important than Human Right?
Debate Rounds (2)
There can't be Human right without Revolution. If the Government are oppressing people, people have to show their force. For example, in American Revolution, England didn't care and they think Colonial people (American) are just human who do not have any power until American start Revolution. And England signed treaty which shows America is one of the nation which have people who have their own Human right. For these reasons, I believes that Revolutions are more important than Human right. Thank you.
I am here to state that I Believe that Human rights are more important than revolution - however I concede that sometimes Revolution becomes a necessity.
I will start by showing that there is a vast difference between the two, and my plan is to show you that Human rights actually are a fundamental base-point for every Revolution that has ever occurred.
Human Rights :
Human Rights is a human construct made to equalize all of Man. There is no unseeing force ensuring that our rights are preserved, and nothing at all stopping someone from stopping you from exercising your basic human rights.
Human rights, in my opinion - can be bottled down to this basic description : "Every human has the right to do as they believe, and to think and decide on their own, or together. People are Free. People may decide their own futures"
Now in the context of the French revolution, as you stated, this occurred due to a poor Monarch - Louis XVI - They took the peasants money, their food, their children, their men and anything else he could get his portly hands upon.
The peasants were faced with 2 avenues -
1. Continue as they currently are, and support their 'country'
2. Revolt - Throw down the current leader, and put up one of their choosing.
As history shows - they took option 2.
Revolution is very, very useful when a dictator or an incompetent leader refuses to stand down, however it does not only occur when Human Rights are completely gone - Revolution is usually the 'Ace in the pocket', their last defense.
Revolution will only ever occur when human rights are being violated to a deplorable standard, or one group has insurmountable odds with the current system, and try to change it themselves.
In the context of the French Revolution - Imagine if King Louis XVI had been over-feeding his subjects, his taxes were going back into the economy, or were improving/building foundations of commerce, and his laws, Safety standards and personality were all of socially acceptable terms at the time - Do you believe a Revolution would have occurred?
It only occurs when either a group of people try to take over of the current regime - Or when situations force a physical response from the peasantry (Either they fought for what was theirs, or they died).
At all times, Human Rights are prevalent as the cause for this - Revolution is more of a by product when Human Rights are oppressed.
Thank you for this Debate, I look forward to your response.
I wondered what if you are a person in China in period of Mao-Zedong. You don't have any human rights. and you want it. (You want to change government to Democracy) If you are in way of peaceful revolution, Government of China will kill you. ( I gonna be more violence ) How about diplomacy? No way! You can't change government by diplomacy. It is so slow to improve and government oppressing you! Therefore, the Revolutionary change is needed to you. and it is more important.
I believe that Human Rights are in both sides of the spectrum, however when things are bad, the ideal of Revolution overshadows Human Rights - however this does not nullify Human Rights importance, but in fact enhances them, it is simply pushed behind the shadows of the thought of Revolution.
People only think of Revolution because Human Rights are being restricted or violated - Without it, the thought of Revolution would not exist.
Now with regards to the China point you raised - This is true; When a large organisation, or government, restrict freedom (Freedom to choose, freedom to live peacefully, freedom to learn/know) - the fastest and easiest way to resolve the issue is to force-ably remove them from their position of power.
After removing the previous institution, that leaves a gap - The 'winners' of the fight instate their own ideals and beliefs to the position, and take it over, or facilitate another parties growth.
The entire act has been capitalized as revolution, but take away the veil of the word, "Revolution" - And it is basically people exerting their freedom - The freedom to believe something enough, to fight and destroy another for.
That freedom is every humans, Human Rights - We all agree that we ourselves must be free, we want to do what we want, whenever we want to do it, mostly to within reason. By extension it will mean other people are allowed to do this too (Why can you do it, but I can't?) - If someone tried to be the only one who was able to do that, everyone one else would rise up to stop it, so they can continue with their shared freedom (a.k.a Revolution). People seem to have forgotten that the word revolution stands for what will actually happen if you try to stop people from doing things, or keep taking things away for too long, we will continue to take the easy option and wipe you out - and the people have gotten very good at doing this, even to the point where it is not just killing the person, but the image and ideal of them too (Example Hitler, however I do feel that this vilification is justified). Revolution is what happens when Human Rights are restricted.
Of course the development of Human Rights were much more graceful than I just described, but it is easier to show from the selfish point of the human mind to explain why everyone universally has these rights - We are all pretty selfish fundamentally (Self Preservation), and we will understand this concept much easier than to describe the entire history, and the document that was written and so on and so forth.
The following is a new conjecture - not a topic to be addressed in this debate, however answer in the comments if you want to chat :) -
Now - you appear to be maintaining the position (Please post a comment if this is wrong, and we will all disregard this - but I am merely adding this in for Conjecture) - That the only response available to yourself is to organise a revolution and 'storm the castle' - however this not true. It is merely the easiest option (and humans are prone to taking the easy option).
There is a non-violent way of taking 'the fight into your hands' - if you were to commit and dedicate oneself to it - And that is to actually become under the employ of the institution (ie. Government or evil corporation) .
To do this, you will have to be committed to doing bad things, to get in the trusted seats of power - so that you can over time, cause the ideals to change.
Rarely is this option taken, and I will not find sources for this - as apart from some history lessons where I remember it being mentioned of this happening, but cannot remember what is was about (Nationality, time, reason, etc.) - Most of my references are shown in movies.
There are characters that have noticed the corruption of the institution and infiltrated it on their own - their sole purpose to slowly morph the views of it from the inside, without battle and hardship.
These people must force themselves to do vile things (Such as torture innocents or civilians, which they never enjoyed, but did), and I believe this signifies human rights - We are allowed to do some bad things, if the end purpose is good, and I do not mean that it justifies killing multiple people to destroy one outcome - But those things would have happened anyway (the Corp/Gov would have hired some goon, who probably would have enjoyed doing it), if you were not there - why blow your cover?
They are actively striding to improve the corporation and over time, they are usually the 'white knights' that save the day.
Now - Imagine if everyone chose this 'Harder Way' - Hundreds, Thousands, The entire government/corporation gets overrun by people that do not agree with the system, and connect anyway to get positions where they can modify what the institution they dislike, and all steer it to moral waters - Do you think that would be difficult, Maybe after 3 years the whole purpose of the institution would be changed, with no fighting - would that be so much better?
I don't think thousands would die on the streets just to change a chairman if people did this instead.
Thank you for this Debate, Pro. I have greatly enjoyed this topic and in the attempts at explaining my position, I have learned more on the subject - Thank you again for the opportunity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.