EpicHistory360

I have been very interested with the value placed on both a human life and basic human rights throughout history--- particularly around the Medieval Ages.

I believe the primary reason that human life was regarded so poorly in the past was the lack of the science, technology, knowledge, and facilities today which provide people better chances of living longer. Of course, with the lack of these things, death would be quite common and more people would be used to it, making it more of a common occurrence than a spectacle.

Other factors seem to be the dominance of religion, superstition, and the ignorance of kings and emperors, who killed anyone who spoke out against them.

As for human rights, I think the Enlightenment was the primary cause. Social contract, the right to revolt, freedom of speech, etc--- philosophers such as John Locke and Voltaire made popular the radical ideas that we now come to automatically accept as universal truth today.

What other things do you think contributed to the different mindsets we have today regarding the value of human life and the truth of basic human rights? Since there isn't exactly a single factual response as this is more regarding mindset than dates in history, this can be a very arguable thing.

corrocamino

Human life to prehistoric man was the most valuable commodity...within his family or clan. As population has grown, human life has become an ever-cheaper commodity.

Pavel

Societies acquiesced to recognize value of particular life throughout history. It was impossible situation for the medieval, when a ruler expresses his condolences for the death of a humble man.

AlpinLuke

I don't see life span as a so fundamental factor [still in late 19th century mean life was around 40 not so longer than it was in the Middle Age].

The main difference is just in that adjective: "human".

Before that a lay attitude and a lay philosophy of life became dominant in our societies, human rights weren't, there were "divine concessions" and since God gives life ... God can take it back when He wants ...

A clue about this was the context of the lay municipalities in Northern Italy who challenged the power of the German Empire in the Middle Age. Citizens had rights [also against the power of the Emperor]. They weren't human rights, let's be clear, they were citizen rights.

Fourteen

If you haven't already, a fantastic work by Lynn Hunt covers this well, tying to the Revolution:

TormainOwl

People in the middle ages, including rulers and Royalty had considerably less education than people now and in many ways were probably psychologically closer to savages. However there must have been some people who totally rejected violence and cruelty but they were probably in a minority.

Winkpolve

Human Rights are a completely invented concept. It was made up by humans, therefore, it is an absurd to find natural "justifications" for it (for example, ceasing homosexual rights based on the lack of reproduction by this type of sexual relationship). The Human Rights are a completely game of guaranteeing a better life to the ruler (higher) cast. Throughout history, different societies gave their concepts of rights according to their ideas of Human Nature and Human Necessity. The most obvious — and common — desired goal is the "end of evil and injustice".

Human Rights are Social Rights, basically. It is so labile and utopic that it has shown some efficacy — for the happiness of the creators.

Giraffe

Yes - Human (or Citizen) Rights are a purely human invention.

A luxury of the rich, which last only as long as the ability of their inventors to enforce them with the sword. A Roman Citizen had certain 'rights', which ceased to exist with the end of the Roman Empire. A British or US citizen has certain 'rights', which will last only as long as those countries remain powerful enough to enforce them.

A human being is born with the same 'inalienable right' as every other living thing on the planet - the right to fight tooth and nail against every other life-form (including it's own) to survive long enough to reproduce. That's IT.

Anything more depends on how lucky you are to be born into a particular place, era, or civilization, and what position your parents may hold in that situation. Whether you are the child of a billionaire in New York, or the child of a Jew in 1940s Berlin, is just the luck of the draw.

Guaporense

Athens was a society that protected the human rights of it's citizens and even non-citizens that were not slaves.

In the Peloponnesian war, for instance, Athens paid 1/3 of a dracma per day to the citizens that had lost their rural properties because of the Spartan invasion of Attica. Clearly meaning that Athenian citizens had the right to be protected by the Athenian state.

spellbanisher

Interesting. Do you have sources for that?

Universal Human Rights as we think of them today really emerged after the horrors of World War II. An important aspect of what we consider modern human rights is that people have rights by virtue of being human, regardless of whether they are citizens, occupants in the state, etc. I don't think that notion really exists before the twentieth century. The Athenians may have provided some protections for those in their polis, but it is doubtful that they viewed Persians or Spartans as having the same rights. And as Guaporense even noted, the Athenians did not provide human rights for slaves. The early version of rights can be much better thought of as privileges by virtue of being a part of the "in-group" whether that is part of the state, a religion, a group, and so forth. Basically, most ancient notions of rights were exclusive in nature, whereas our modern notion of rights is universally inclusive.

You see precedents before, such as with the declaration of the rights of man and citizen and the Declaration of Independence.

I think the notion of human rights derives from the Natural Law philosophy of philosophers such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson. They in turn were inspired by Judeo-Christian text and philosophy, which was more inclusive than the Greek notion of citizenship. For instance, here are some passages from the bible

Clearly it is a reiterated them that the alien, poor, and disenfranchised should be treated the same as a member of the tribe. There are also these quotes on equality.

Finally, you clearly see the influence of Judeo-Christian text on Locke
in The Second Treatise on Civil Government

In that quote you can see clear references to the Bible, such as

Locke: "for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker."
Bible" "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Locke: "and about his business"

Bible: "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

Locke: "made to last during his, not one another's pleasure"

This is almost a direct quote from the bible, but I can't seem to find it. The closest I can find is this
" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

I think Eastern Religions such as Buddhism and Taoism had universal notions of rights. But I don't think those were very influential in the west.