The duty formula is a set of reasoning used to decide whether or not something can be considered a human right based on absolutism or consequentialism. Through the explanation of Absolutism or Consequentialism, one can decide whether or not a particular issue is a duty that all human beings should abide by, and only when the answer to this question is positive can this issue qualify as a human right. In the case of human rights inflation, both theses can be supported by the tariff formula. On the one hand, not all rights are absolute. It can be argued that, on the basis of absolutism, rights officially documented by the United Nations, such as the right to seek protection against slavery, are absolute, meaning that they are much more important than, for example, the right to travel. Putting all rights on the same level would degrade those that are absolutely necessary. However, on the other hand, many reforms and policies are developed to meet human rights criteria because they bring positive consequences. For example, some politicians have supported the right to abortion for women and argue that it should be considered a human right because it offers women more opportunities to complete their education and continue their intended career path, which in turn allows women to be more economically productive within society. Although women's rights are not considered by many to be human rights, advocating for their inclusion in the sphere of human rights would bring good consequences and push for greater development, thus increasing the amount of issues considered as human rights that can be addressed. justified. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the United Nations was initially reluctant to become directly involved in the Tutsi-Hutu conflict. They sent troops into the conflict zone as so-called “peacekeepers”, whose main aim was to extract European personnel. The soldiers were not allowed to shoot or carry out acts of violence of any form, nor could they actively protect the Tutsi population from the Hutu. The United Nations classified the conflict as a civil war with “genocidal actions involved” to justify their inaction because it was unclear whether intervention was permitted under international law at the time, in addition to the possible political complications that arise from a humanitarian intervention. But due to public pressure, the UN finally gave in and intervened, thus ending the genocide. Dignity is a very important component in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Based on this concept, all human beings deserve to be treated equally, with honor and respect. One explanation for why all human beings deserve dignity is religion. In the Christian religion, since man and woman are created by God in His image to live a fruitful life on earth and rule over other creatures, human beings deserve dignity. Similarly, in Confucianism, it is implied that human beings deserve dignity because of the compassion and goodness inherent in human nature that each person shares. Genocide dehumanizes certain groups of people, deems them unworthy of humane treatment, and deprives them of dignity. Therefore, the majority believes that, due to absolutism, human dignity must be protected in all circumstances, which means that all agents, individuals and organizations alike, have a duty to stop thegenocide. Accordingly, protection against genocide is a human right and the United Nations therefore has the duty and responsibility to actively engage in humanitarian intervention in the case of the Rwandan genocide. The problem of discrimination is common when it comes to the rights of sexual minorities. Typically, discrimination is seen as unfair and unfavorable treatment towards a particular social group. But this is a very common misconception. THE original definition of discrimination is treating a group of people differently than the average of others, and includes both positive and negative treatment. Denying a person a job because of their race is discrimination, but giving someone a better chance at passing a college entrance exam because they are a racial minority is also a type of discrimination. The controversy over discrimination against sexual minorities is mainly caused by the discussion of whether or not they deserve some special rights that others do not enjoy. Every day, people hear or see things that they don't agree with or that offend them, and there is no protection against this for the average person. However, new laws on racial vilification and anti-discrimination have been enacted that extend the protection of a person's right not to feel offended, particularly for minorities. According to James Spigelman, a former Australian judge, the freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech; there is no right not to be offended even for minority groups. There should be a distinction between protecting people's dignity against hate speech and protecting people's feelings against insults. As a fundamental human right claimed to be the right to dignity, the law is not obligated to protect people from hurt feelings. It is argued that if everything offensive were to be removed, explicit content such as pornography which offends many people, especially women, should also be banned. It is contradictory to make it illegal to offend others and at the same time allow pornography to remain legal in the name of freedom. Furthermore, granting minorities the special right not to be offended would damage the majority's right to express themselves freely. Therefore, it is debatable whether minorities should be positively discriminated against or not. According to Michael Sandel, a society can limit marriage to only between men and women, it can expand it to allow same-sex marriage, or it can remove the state's role in marriage and let it become a private activity. Each type of marriage would naturally have its advantages. Only allowing heterosexual marriage respects Natural Law and supports procreation. Children raised in a heterosexual family would be naturally created with a natural father and mother, which fosters a more beneficial environment for their growth. However, the government's same-sex marriage constitution will allow same-sex couples to formalize their relationships with dignity. This will send the message that their relationships are of equivalent standard and that they are not second class citizens. Restricting marriage to different-sex couples will not stop committed relationships between members of the same sex, but it will cause social segregation. Furthermore, making marriage entirely private by abolishing its legal aspect also makes sense in terms of ending the long debate over which types of marriage should be legalized. By eliminating the role of the state in marriage, all marriages are immediately made equal, with full respect for each individual's decision and autonomy. Despite the advantagesresulting from making unconventional types of marriage legal, many fear that marking them as human rights could cause human rights inflation. In official lists of human rights such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, it is specified that these rights are the minimum requirements and conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life (Donnelly, 2013: 16). According to this definition, without these rights life will no longer be bearable. It is doubtful that by not allowing sexual minorities to marry their lives will become unbearable; many couples can still spend their lives together and live a pleasant life. Therefore it is very difficult to argue that their right to legally marry can be considered a human right. Furthermore, people fear that whenever disputes arise, one party will argue their cases by claiming that their human rights have been violated. For example, if a gay man applies for a job and is rejected, he could very well claim that he has been discriminated against and sue the company for violating his human rights. But the truth is that many other heterosexual applicants may have been rejected as well; they can't do anything in this situation because they are not the minority. If society offered more opportunities to minorities who fear being accused of human rights violations, then the majority would effectively be discriminated against. In these cases, many would feel that the idea of ​​“human rights” has been exploited, devaluing and making the term hollow. I am convinced that rights against genocide should qualify as human rights. Genocide has serious negative consequences. Not to mention the obvious fact that large numbers of people die, any country that suffered genocide would fall into anarchy and suffer huge economic and social losses, which could take a long time to recover. By consequentialism, individuals and organizations have a duty to stop these negative consequences by stopping genocides. Therefore, since there is a duty, anti-genocide rights should unquestionably be marked as human rights. Many believe that the rights of sexual minorities should also be a human right. They argue that, on the basis of consequentialism, it is society's collective duty to guarantee their rights because granting sexual minorities some rights such as legal marriage would bring positive effects such as allowing them to form more stable relationships, enjoy the benefits that other normal families enjoy, and add more diversity to society. However, I do not believe that the rights of sexual minorities should be considered human rights. Even granting sexual minorities the right to marry can lead to many negative consequences. First, a child born to a same-sex marriage will always be bereft of a natural mother or father, which could cause problems in the child's growth and development. Secondly, the natural tendency of such a union is not to create families, since children often do not arise naturally from their union, defeating one of the main purposes of marriage which is to create new lives. Furthermore, recognizing it as a right imposes its acceptance on the whole of society, which is very offensive towards those who consider it wrong, especially for those with religious reasons; many religious institutions in the United States, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the National Baptist Convention, still deem homosexuality unacceptable (Masci and Lipka, 2015). Therefore, when there are also various negative effects, by consequentialism it is no one's duty to guarantee the rights of sexual minorities..