Quotations from Paul Lauren, The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998.
"Indeed, visions of prophets, philosophers, religious and political leaders seen centuries ago in distant lands are still capable of capturing our imagination, inspiring our thoughts, and influencing our behavior today. Among all these visions, perhaps none have had impact across the globe more profound than those of international human rights advocates. Thoughtful and insightful visionaries in many different times and diverse locations have seen in their mind's eye a world in which all people might enjoy certain basic and inherent rights simply by virtue of being human." p. 1
"Visions of human rights are not only complex, they are often profound and disturbing. The reason for this is that they tend to strike at our very core and make us confront difficult and discomforting issues. They force us to examine critically the nature of men and women, consider what it means to be human, view both the best and the worst of human behavior, wrestle with how we ought to relate to one another, question the purposes of government and the exercise of power, and especially examine our own values and deeds in response to those who suffer." (p. 4)
"These visions rejected the practice of hierarchy whereby certain people were treated as superior due to their gender or the color of their skin, refused to accept the argument that how a state treats its own people is its own business...It is precisely for this reason that the visionaries discussed throughout this book invariably found themselves ridiculed as naive idealists in a world of Realpolitik, criticized as speculative and impractical dreamers, reviled and persecuted as traitors to their own exclusive group or nation, and sometimes even tortured or killed as dangerous and seditious revolutionaries. (p. 2)
(Opponents of human rights) "Instead of seeing the possibilities for the best in human nature, they often saw the worst and had much history to support them. Rather than the universal, they stressed the particular. In place of rights, they demanded duties. Instead of justice, they wanted privilege. Rather than change, they pressed for tradition and continuity. In place of equality, they insisted on hierarchies and distinctions based on caste or class, race, gender belief, ethnicity, or place of origin. Instead of of being a keeper of brothers and sisters, they frequently looked no further than themselves or their own immediate family or exclusive group or gender." (pp. 20-21)