CED

For this week's readings, our group mostly discussed Franck's "Are Human Rights Universal?" This piece gave us many ethical questions to ask. Sometimes indigenous groups are seen as a hinderance to general development; therefore they are removed. With that in mind, is it ethical to take over one's country if you feel you are bettering their quality of life, even though you are altering and/or destroying their traditions?

Countries seen as more influential use their power and "help" countries in distress. These countries in need are helped depending on what they have to offer. The Carter administration gave "aid" to Iran by invading them. Oil was the goal in this case. The US's prevalence in Iran is exponentially larger than our current involvement in Africa, the second-largest continent in the world. One might think that because Nigeria is one of the largest oil reserves that the US would too want a share of that, but Nigeria's lack of immunizations is not something the US wants to be associated with.

The declaration of human rights neglects culture and indigenous peoples. It was written for "modern" societies, which still contain indigenous minorities. While these indigenous groups are generally more advanced than how they once were, as society also is today, most traditions reign supreme. Should one have indigenous/tribal rights and there are religious rights?