Jewish and Buddhism Approaches to Human Rights
Human rights are specific privileges that human beings enjoy. Everyone should respect these rights. Some human rights happen to be more fundamental than others, but this does not mean that other rights should not be protected. Some rights are recognized universally, while others are recognized regionally. More importantly, it is worth noting that the significance of human rights differs from one religion to another. Some religions consider certain rights as more important than others. This affects the degree of respect that the people have on some rights. The Jewish and Buddhist perspectives on human rights are different. Each religion bases its approach of human rights on its religious teachings and beliefs. However, there are also certain similarities between their conceptions of human rights. For instance, both religions embrace the fact that human rights are fundamental as well as inalienable rights which are greatly essential for life as human beings.
According to the Jewish religion, human rights are universal. Thus, human rights should be applied universally. By virtue of being humans, all people deserve to enjoy human rights. This is regardless of their race, nationality, creed, sex, and social rank. Jewish political and social activists argue that humanity is the main basis of human rights. Fundamentally, “God created all humans in his own image” (Dorff 211). For this reason, human rights should apply equally to every human. This implies that no one is less human. Additionally, nobody should limit the rights enjoyed by a person. God is the original giver of human rights. After creation, God entered into a covenant with human beings. He promised them various rights. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. Jews consider these three rights to be very important. In their perspective, nobody has the right to kill another person. They believe that God forbids individuals from either killing or committing suicide. As Elliot Dorff states, ‘killing oneself and murdering others have always been technically possible but forbidden in Jewish law.’ Those who do so are liable to God’s punishment. All humans are allowed to do everything that they want as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of other people or cause harm to others.
People have the right to equality. No one should be treated specially. This is because humanity came from God. All humans are in the likeliness of God. In this regard, discrimination is essentially like challenging God’s creation. “All humans have the right to privacy “(Dorff 218). They should live the way they want. In respect to this, the intrusion is illegal, and at all times, humans ought to get remuneration after work. In addition, it becomes proper to remember that humans have freedom of conscience and speech.
Buddhism has, in the past, considered the concept of human rights as part of western culture. It viewed human rights as too individualistic and contrary to the Asian culture. Essentially, Buddhist teachings are, to a great extent, shaped by Asian cultures. However, with time, the concept of human rights has been becoming more important in Buddhism. Today, human rights are included in many Buddhist teachings and sermons. The most important human rights include our rights to life, the right to equality, and the right to self-determination or freedom (King 105). According to Buddhists, life is sacred. Thus, nobody is supposed to take away the life of another person. In respect to the right of self-determination, freedom is very important to humans.
The Buddhist approach to human rights is mainly based on the doctrines of human enlightenment, the preciousness of human birth and the five lay precepts (King 107). These doctrines show the importance of respecting the rights to life, property, equality and justice.
It is worth noting that there are a couple of noticeable differences between Jewish and Buddhism. For instance, the Jewish approach to human rights is mainly based on account of divinity. “When God created humans, he gave them certain rights” (Dorff, 209). They are supposed to enjoy these rights without any restraint. As Elliot Dorff states, the Jewish tradition sees human rights as something inalienable. This is in line with the Jewish approach to human rights, especially when it comes to human liberty. On the other hand, the Buddhist approach to human rights, specifically “the right to life, is based on the preciousness of human birth” (King 107). According to this doctrine, “the most important births of all other births are the birth of humans. It is more important even than the birth of the gods” (King 107). This is because it is only humans who have the ability to be enlightened. Therefore, it is always proper to realize that as per the Jews, God granted certain rights to human beings during the creation. On the other hand, Buddhists firmly believe that having an opportunity to be born guarantees one of being treated right.
As Dorff observes, the Jewish tradition uses concepts inherent in privacy to justify human rights. According to this concept, “humans have a high dignity” (Dorff 217). Furthermore, the worth of life is very high. Essentially, the right to privacy promotes human dignity. This is primarily because the right to privacy plays a tremendous role in helping people establish boundaries as the means to limit who has access to their bodies, things, including communication. So, when the privacy of an individual is interfered with, the dignity of life declines. On the other hand, Buddhism uses the five lay precepts to justify the importance of human life. These precepts forbid humans from killing, lying, stealing, conducting sexual misconducts as well as ingesting toxic substances.
In regard to the right to equality, the Jewish approach perceives all humans as equal. As far as the Jews are concerned, all human beings were created equally in the image of God, and as such, they should be subjected to equal treatment (Dorff 207). However, the Buddhism approach to the right of equality is different. According to Buddhism, even though all humans are equal, human rights should be extended to a person according to the class or category of the caste system that the person is in (King 108).
Both Buddhist and Jewish approaches recognize that human life is very important. Hence, it should be respected. The two religions forbid killing. The two acknowledge the existence of human rights that ought to be respected. Additionally, both approaches emphasize the importance of human freedom.
Human rights are critical to the development of humans. Thus, the government should protect them under all costs. The Buddhist and Jewish approaches to human rights are based on their religious teachings. Certainly, this is what makes them different. In my opinion, the Jewish approach to human rights is more progressive than that of Buddhism. It incorporates many non-religious aspects in justifying the place of human rights. The Buddhist approach is strictly based on its religious texts. Therefore, there are many aspects of human rights that it does not cover.
The idea of human dignity is the main basis of the human rights debate. In essence, humans are special beings. They deserve to be treated better. In this regard, human rights should be protected. All religions acknowledge the importance of human rights. Buddhist and Jewish religions approach religion from different perspectives. However, the two religions acknowledge that human life is precious, and no one should take it away.