Inserted into the polarized context of the debate is the war between Israel and Hamas terrorists

One cannot approach contemporary society without thinking about the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The economic, social and political relationships we live in today emerged in the world after World War II. The concept of modern democracy is intrinsically linked to the quest for universal representation.

Although the Universal Declaration has limited legal value and is not binding on nations, its symbolic value is immeasurable. His signature marks a great moment for humanity. On that occasion, the United Nations, still recovering from the horrors of war, recognized the importance of human rights as a means of promoting peace.

It is difficult to rationalize the significance of the Declaration. It is a debate between idealism and materialism in history. Without the material horrors of war, would we have had a broader debate about human rights? But how would we have thought of this without these ideas being incubated by intellectuals for centuries?

Continues after commercial
The recent escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hamas is re-igniting the importance of the current debate on human rights Photo: Lizzie Niesner/Reuters

The recent escalation of conflict between Israel and Hamas re-ignites the importance of the current debate on human rights. This is happening not only because we are witnessing the horrors of another conflict, but also because, in Brazil and around the world, social polarization has intensified in the context of the debate about war. War was inserted into the polarized environment of the debate. If universal representation is the bedrock of modern democracy, ideological polarization is its enemy.

On social media, everyone has a strong opinion on any topic. In every event in the world, thousands, perhaps millions, of opinions are born that debunk the idea of ​​experts. Not only do people have many opinions, but they also have many differences of opinion.

Continues after commercial

Often, one’s opinion of a song, an event, or a soap opera has little to do with the perceived quality of that thing, but rather how “their” group thinks about it. In a world where everyone gives a shit about everything, heuristics replace critical thinking. I like the music that “my” politician likes. I like food that “my” people like. And I hate everything.

In addition to the horrors of war, we see the contamination of political polarization in other ideological fields. This is the most harmful manifestation of polarization, in which only the lives of those who are perceived as the same are protected. How human rights-based values ​​need to be built and promoted through politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *