uman progression will not occur without the specialization and structure that can be provided only through civilization. However, while Freud’s point may be exaggerated, it is important to realize that he does have a point.“World War II and the exposure, during and after the war, of Nazi atrocities seem, from one perspective, like the culmination of trends calling faith in Enlightenment principles into question” (N-1). These events also brought a “renewed dedication” to the concept of human rights central to the Enlightenment. By examining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can see this struggle between Enlightenment ideals and contemporary thought that I consider to be caused by, what Mill called, “the tyranny of the majority.” While I believe that the motivations behind the UN Declaration are sincerely and genuinely good, I don’t believe that a declaration of human rights can be effectively standardized for the entire world. Countries are much too diverse in their religious, economic, political, and social beliefs to agree on a standard worldwide view. The UN is representative of an oligarchy in which a few rule over all. Article 3 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person,” (N-2). This article is very general and acceptable, but the UN continues to declare in Article 29, that “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” (N-5). This statement is oppressive in every sense. Articles 29 and 30 hold the values learned through the Enlightenment in disregard. The Enlightenment taught people of natural rights, government by the consent of the governed and majority rule, but these principles can all be thrown out the window if the UN has taken the initiative to state that THEIR laws take precedence over any other laws. Does this mean that the ...
