Should The Fourth Generation Of Human Rights Exist?

Ihor Prus


Man constantly changes the world around, improves the creation of the past, adopts it for his existence. Often, this process is reminiscent of dangerous games. In support of this, one can recall when a man created atomic weapons, which could easily destroy the person himself. But despite this, it is impossible to stop the process of development. The desire to improve, to create something new, to ease the life is inherent to every human being.
As a result of scientific systematization of human rights in the historical review, the theory of three generations of human rights has emerged. The formation of the fourth generation of human rights is now taking place.
Gender change, organ transplantation, cloning, use of virtual reality, same-sex marriage, euthanasia is a list of basic rights of the fourth generation. The emergence of this generation of human rights is another confirmation of constant scientific and technological development of human society. These rights caused by scientific and technological progress arose in connection with the development of science and practical implementation of its developments. This generation of human rights is a legitimate stage in the development of society. What protection, and even more so, violations, of, for instance, the right to use virtual reality, could one talk 40-50 years ago? However, there is a lot of controversy about the need to fix these rights at the legislative level, giving the person the opportunity to take advantage of such ambiguous benefits as sex change. But as history shows, everything new was largely doomed to non-recognition and subjected to devastating criticism, which eventually declined. Recall at least that at one time the ideas of such a prominent philosopher as Arthur Schopenhauer were not recognized. How many copies of his book “The World as Will and Imagination” had been purchased during the life of an author? And how are his ideas perceived now? That’s how it goes sometimes.
No, I do not in any way call upon anyone to maintain or deny the idea of the need to enforce these rights. Unfortunately, it is not possible to clearly identify the necessity of some of them at all. Take, for example, the right to change sex. Two opposing positions exist here:

  1. If you look at this issue in terms of religion (and morals), then gender change should be prohibited. A person shall have no right to change what has been created and given by God.
  2. Under the influence of scientific and technological progress, the state is forced, with the help of the law, to consolidate, at the legislative level, the opportunity to change the gender.

Each position has the right to life. Both parties have their own evidence in support of their own position. Take into account, at least, that in some countries (the United States, Japan) gender change is seen as a way of treating transsexualism. And with such an illness as the ecstrophy of cloaka (this is a rare and complex congenital malformation, manifested in one of 250,000 newborns), sex change is simply a necessary procedure. This is another proof that any stick has two ends.
XXI century is a new era, a new epoch in the development of man as an individual, and all of mankind as a whole. This is not only the beginning of the third millennium, the breakthrough of centuries, it is a change of consciousness, the sphere of human existence, landmarks and views on everyday life. Homo Sapiens begin to dominate more and more the forces of nature, which means that one can go beyond its limits too. The cloning of people and human organs is evidence of this.
The general rule should be the prohibition of cloning a human being. But according to the laureates of the International Academy of Humanism, the prohibition of cloning would be contrary to the principle of freedom of scientific research. According to some scholars, “the moral and ethical problems generated by cloning are no more than those that people have already encountered with technologies such as nuclear energy, recombinant DNA or computer modeling. They are just new ones”.
The main pro is, first of all, the use of therapeutic cloning. It is the receiving of stem cells that forms its goal. These cells are valuable to medicine, because they are used to treat many severe ailments. The development of therapeutic cloning in the future could allow to grow whole organs from stem cells derived from the embryo. Such an opportunity could have practically unlimited possibilities for transplantology, since such organs will be genetically identical and will not be rejected by the recipient.
As we see, the problem of human cloning is also one of the most acute social, political and legal problems of the beginning of this century.
I am convinced that the indifference to the problems of cloning of both individual states and international organizations, not regulating them from the legal standpoint, can be a threat to humanity.
Thus, on the basis of the information provided, one can conclude that at the given stage of human civilization development a new generation of human rights is formed, which, in the existing conditions, is quite controversial in its essence. And this material is an attempt to start a discussion on issues that are very relevant. So there is something to think about. And we must think about it now…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.