Amazon.com Widgets

Should people be allowed to use force to protect their human rights?

  • Yes, people should be allowed to use force to protect their human rights

    But only equal to the force being used against them. Shooting someone because they're prohibiting your freedom of expression, for example would be prohibited because you are using excessive force. Force is a legitimate tool to defend one's rights if no other means are possible, and if the force used is proportionate to the force used against you. Many people seem to think that government laws and police are enough to protect their human rights. This is a dangerous fallacy, there are many tyrannical governments in the world who use their laws and their police force to oppress the population. Even in the Democratic Western World, we have many instances of police brutality as well as laws stifling our human rights, Such as defamation laws against free speech. People should not depend on anyone but themselves to defend their rights. And if you take away the means to defend their rights, you also take away their ability to.

  • Everyone should be allowed to use force to defend their human rights

    But only equal to the force being used against them. Shooting someone because they're prohibiting your freedom of expression, for example would be prohibited because you are using excessive force. Force is a legitimate tool to defend one's rights if no other means are possible, and if the force used is proportionate to the force used against you.
    Many people seem to think that government laws and police are enough to protect their human rights. This is a dangerous fallacy, there are many tyrannical governments in the world who use their laws and their police force to oppress the population. Even in the Democratic Western World, we have many instances of police brutality as well as laws stifling our human rights, Such as defamation laws against free speech. People should not depend on anyone but themselves to defend their rights. And if you take away the means to defend their rights, you also take away their ability to.

    Posted by: dexb
  • The right of self-defense is crucial.

    All people should be able to defend themselves and their inherent human rights. In situations where a physical threat endangers a person's safety, they should have every right to do whatever is necessary to ensure that they can continue surviving and living under the basic rules of our civilized society.

    Posted by: LivingJimmy
  • Yes, people should be allowed to choose to defend themselves and their rights, by force, from those who would take their rights from them, by force.

    While the best decision may be to defend one's rights peacefully, no one can make this choice if they do not have another option. In order for non-violence to be a meaningful choice, violence must be an option. I wouldn't want people to run out of options, before they run out of rights.

    Posted by: B0rdKool
  • Self-defense is a right of anyone whose basic human rights of life, liberty, and property are violated.

    If someone's basic humans rights are under threat by force, then it is perfectly legitimate for that person to defend themselves using force, as well. An example would be a criminal attempting to kidnap, rape, or murder a person. That person most certainly may use force too, in order to defend themselves.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • Yes.

    Why should anyone allow a stranger who is intent on at least robbing you or possibly raping your children and killing everyone to walk around in your house and allow that person the ability to do you harm? It's ridiculous. I was robbed already and I confronted the idiot with a gun and he ran out of the house screaming obscenities and that he would be back. So am I supposed to sit here waiting for him to kill me? No way.

  • I agree that physical force should be able to used to ensure the safety of myself and others.

    I know that using violence can have its drawbacks and I know a lot of people that see that things should be handled in a civilized manner, but there won't always be a chance to be civil. You won't always have a chance to talk it through. There are many of people these days that are violent that won't even participate in a civil discussion. You can't risk the safety of your family or friends trying to talk to a maniac with a weapon that is tearing through your house. I will use physical force when the situation calls for it.

  • I agree that one should be allowed to use force to protect their human rights, because the U.S. Constitution grants it.

    If someone is going to try to enter my home and cause me or my family physical harm, I will use my guns to shoot that person. The Constitution protects Americans within their homes. I will use force to protect me, because I will not allow someone to harm me in my own home, if I can prevent it.

    Posted by: IntelligentLuis84
  • People should be allowed to use force to protect their human rights, because it is a fundamental right that should not be violated.

    Human rights are absolutely basic and should not ever be violated. If someone attempts to take away a basic human right from an individual, that individual should have the ability to use force to protect that right. It is important that any means necessary are used to protect human rights, even if that means force.

    Posted by: MannP4rk
  • yes without question

    if a grope of people are being denied basic human rights then another force shooed be able to stop them

  • No, I do not agree that people should be allowed to use force to protect their human rights.

    Take the case of the violence in Kashmir in India. The conflict has escalated to such an extent that a peaceful solution to the ethnic problem of a separate Kashmir is lost forever. The government of India had nearly succeeded in arriving at an amicable solution only to find fresh violence launched by separatists, all in the name of human rights violations.

    There are forums to voice protests for human rights violations everywhere. That is where the people affected should go.

    Posted by: NeIiN45c4r
  • While people should protect their human rights, the ability to do so must be within a limit that will not threaten the laws that hold society together.

    If humans do not protect their own rights, nobody else will. The powerful will take advantage over the weak, and many freedoms will disappear. There has to be a limit, however, because too much rebellion would lead to anarchy. For example, there's no justification for shooting people if a particular law you do not approve of is passed.

    Posted by: WordAdol
  • People should definitely not be able to use force to defend their human rights.

    Peaceful protest is always the best way to go. Stooping to the level of violence creates another violation of human rights. Two wrongs do not make a right, and violence leads to more violence. I believe a person should be able to protect their rights by handling it in a civilized manner without the use of force.

    Posted by: giladren
  • I do not agree to using force to protect one self as this may lead to lack of discipline and loss of faith in the judiciary setup.

    If the right to use force for protecting human rights is given to the people, it would become very difficult to maintain the decorum of the judicial system. This would promote the wrong usage of the power, under the name of human rights protection.

    Posted by: dankilberry
  • No, people should not be allowed to use force to protect their human rights, as this can just cause more problems.

    If we start allowing people to use force in certain situations, this could cause more problems, as people may feel the need to use force, even when they should not be allowed to. We have laws in place for a reason, and using force to protect our human rights should not be permitted.

    Posted by: SeriousNestor34
  • Without knowing more details or thinking of a clear example, using force against another can violate someone's human rights and then where are we?

    Iran is a hotbed of violence currently in regard to "human rights". The government is clearly violating human rights (killing, imprisoning people) to disallow citizen rights to vote for who they want. It's a real mess.

    Posted by: Ramon Griffith

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.