Balancing Human Rights with Duties and Responsibilities

Some InterAction Council Members

By Dr Laksiri Fernando

Under the present international and national circumstances of each and every country, balancing human rights with human duties and responsibilities is of paramount importance. Although this has been a theme from the beginning of human civilization, humans have always had a tendency to undermine duties and responsibilities. The reason perhaps being that they gave priority to material needs and personal interests instead of overall moral values and ethical principles.

Now, we have reached a crisis point with the coronavirus pandemic, global warming, natural disasters and environmental pollution. Even before, these moral issues existed with respect to universal poverty, malnutrition and class discrimination. No international leader however appeared to care much for these issues when they were in power.

The InterAction Council (IAC) consisting of a group of former statemen and leaders however came up with a Universal Declaration of Human Duties in 1997 which has much relevance today. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this would be followed up by the IAC and others under the present circumstances.

Past Religious Discourses

Almost all religious leaders and most (ancient) philosophers emphasised the importance of human duties and responsibilities along with or separate from rights. Those were mainly times of feudalism or similar social settings. Therefore, one could cynically argue that those pronouncements were mainly aimed at justifying feudal societies, if not feudal exploitation.

However, a closer look at those teachings shows that whether it was Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Greek philosophy, Judaism or Islam, the purpose was to advocate rightful or spiritual individuals and cohesive societies. Almost all of those leaders found something wrong with the existing societies. Different leaders, of course, offered different reasons and explanations. The teachings also differed depending on the times and circumstances. For example, Sigalovada Sutta of the Buddha differed from the Laws of Manu of Hinduism. Sermon of the Mount of Jesus differed from the Ten Commandments that Moses advocated. These differences also were in respect of duties and responsibilities.

It is difficult to discuss or compare all religious and premodern philosophical doctrines, in this short space, justifying the importance of duties and responsibilities. However, the importance or the similarity between the Sigalovada Sutta (Buddhist) and the Sermon on the Mount (Christian) cannot be overlooked.

Both discourses started with general moral principles whether we fully agree with them or not. The Buddha talked about four vices in conduct, evil action in four ways, and six channels for dissipating wealth as preface to his main discourse. Altogether 14 evil things were emphasised, that people have an obligation to refrain from. (See Narada Thera on Sigalovada Sutta).

Christ talked about eight beatitudes before the main sermon. These were put forward as positive attributes. Blessed are (1) the poor in spirit, (2) who are meek in behaviour, (3) the mourners, (4) who suffer from hunger, (5) who are the merciful, (6) those who are pure in heart, (7) the peacemakers, and (8) those who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake. When he said ‘blessed are those who suffer from hunger,’ the purpose was not to justify poverty, but to sympathise with the poor in unreasonable society. (See Charles Gore for the Sermon on the Mount).

In most of these moral principles, which have now been abandoned by many disciples, both leaders came closer in principle and heart. In the Veludvara Sutta, Buddha said “one should not do anything to others that one does not like done to oneself.” Likewise, near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” This common principle is now identified as the ‘Golden Rule.’

Sigalovada Sutta

The Sigalovada Sutta is undoubtedly much pertinent to today’s debates on rights and duties, emphasising the reciprocity between different duties of duty holders. In advising Sigala about the real meaning of worshiping the ‘six quarters,’ the Buddha explained the mutuality of duties between: children and parents; students and teachers; husbands and wives; friends and associates; employees and employers; religious leaders and their followers.

Interpreted by Narada Thera, the most interesting today might be the following.

‘There are five ways a husband should minister duties to a wife: (i) by being courteous to her, (ii) by not despising her, (iii) by being faithful to her, (iv) by handing over authority to her, and (v) by providing her with adornments.’

On the other hand, ‘There are five ways a wife must minister duties to a husband: (i) by performing her duties well, (ii) being hospitable to relations and attendants, (iii) being faithful, (iv) by protecting what he brings, and (v) being skillful and industrious in discharging her duties.’

Of course the duties were formulated based on the circumstances of the times. However, it is important to note that the duties of the husband came before the duties of the wife.

During the modern era

It was towards the end of the medieval period in Europe that the rights of individuals or groups (with some status) started to emerge. Magna Carta of 1215 was one example. It was by the rebellious Barons against an authoritarian King/s that these rights were first articulated.

However, it is a mistake to consider that modern philosophers and intellectuals were not concerned about people’s duties. In 1673, Samuel Pufendorf wrote his treatise, ‘On the Duty of Man and Citizen.’ He based his arguments on what was meant as natural law and said ‘more inhumanity to man has been done by man himself than any other causes of the nature.’ According to him, the first duty of man is to God, and then to the ‘natural laws’ governing society. As a consequence, man has duties to himself, fellow citizens and the society.

When we normally refer to the modern origins of human rights philosophy, we refer only to the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen’ of the French Revolution (1789) or revised versions thereafter. However, in 1795 there was a ‘Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and Citizen.’ “The maintenance of society requires that those who compose it should both know and fulfill their duties,” the document declared.

This second declaration which became the basis of a new French constitution after Robespierre’s terror and anarchy (before Napoleon’s reign), declared both rights and duties. ‘Liberty, equality, security and property’ were declared as rights. On the duties side, first came the duties of the legislators (like our parliamentarians), and the government. To mention only two of the other duty propositions, it said (1) “the obligations of each person to society consist in defending it, serving it, living in submission to the laws, and respecting those who are the agents of them,” and (2) “no one is a good citizen unless he is a good son, good father, good brother, good friend, and good husband.”

I can go on and on, referring to other declarations (of that time and after) and to philosophers like Emmanuel Kant, Emile Durkheim or Mahatma Gandhi. However the pertinent question is why did the drafter’s of the UN ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)’ in 1948 overlook this side of human nature or necessity? I have previously mentioned that I asked this question from one of the UDHR drafters, John Humphrey, in 1988 at a UNESCO conference held in Malta. Unfortunately, he did not have a good answer except referring to Article 29 of the UDHR!

InterAction Council

In 1983, a former Prime Minister of Japan, Takeo Fukuda, initiated the InterAction Council (IAC). The other leaders who were in the forefront then and thereafter were Helmut Schmidt (Germany), Pierre Trudeau (Canada), Bill Clinton (US), and Malcolm Frazer (Australia). There were many others as members. As the IAC pronounced, “The idea was that former world leaders would be free to reflect on their experiences, and look beyond the immediacy of current issues and the limitation of national interests, to focus on the long term structural factors driving the global agenda.”

It was in 1987 that the Council convened an important meeting, in Rome, of religious leaders for a dialogue of religious kind (interreligious dialogue) to emphasize ethical principles necessary in the circumstances of cold war, ideological and religious animosities, globalization of extreme profit making efforts and the neglect of moral and ethical principles.

Conclusion

More pertinent to our discussion here is the InterAction Council’s initiative, during 1996 and 1997, to bring a ‘Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities’ which in fact was a great achievement.

During this era of globalisation, the Council declared that “Globalisation also applies to the necessity for global ethical standards, since without ethics and self-restraint, humankind would revert to the Jungle.” It identified the ‘Golden Rule’ as an ethical standard common to all major religions that makes a collective life possible.

Although the Declaration (another UDHR) was a great achievement, it was not properly followed up for reasons clearly not known. The InterAction Council is planning to have its (previously postponed) 37th Plenary Meeting on December 1 and 2, 2021, in Malta, in association with the One Young World organization.

Considering the validity of human duties and responsibilities along with human rights, under the present circumstances of coronavirus pandemic, global warming, environmental disasters, and increasing global poverty, it is hoped and suggested that the InterAction Council would lay much emphasis on promoting those ethical principles in its forthcoming meeting.