Generally speaking, rights and responsibilities seem to go hand-in-hand. Yet in the discourse of human rights, there is seldom talk of human responsibilities - although human rights are in a sense responsibilities of the State towards its citizens. On the one hand, this makes sense, because to establish a set of human responsibilities to be taken as seriously as human rights would mean essentially coercing certain behavior out of citizens, rather than merely providing them with a platform for self-realization, as human rights do. It seems, however, that the quality of a society is not dependent merely on the freedom of its members, but also on their involvement and consideration for one another. Given this consideration, I am curious as to whether any philosophers have elaborated on a theory of "human responsibilities", to complement our current human rights scheme. If so, what do these responsibilities look like?

One aspect of Muslim culture that runs against the grain of Americans is the lack of the acceptance of separation of church and state. Some (many?) Muslim sects, like the Taliban wish to institute a muslimocracy in which the religious leaders, i.e. imams and such, are also the state. Under Sharia law, it seems that religious texts determine justice in any kind of human disputes, with little regard to circumstances, and with broad interpretation by those who claim to be learned with respect to Koranic law; oh, and with rather crude sentences like stoning. This kind of society is quite different from one in which there is a civil code that can be invoked without bringing God into the equation explicitly. Certainly, some of the components of Western civil law have roots in parts of the bible, such as the ten commandments. But civil, i.e. governmental and commercial, interests pushed religion from the leading role in Western society and culture to a mostly minor footnote over the last several centuries. Individuals are not judged primarily on their morals or their religion, but rather on what they can accomplish, and how efficiently and quickly they can do it. This leaves many ethical questions to the religious folks to decide, if they don't impact business. The existence of a civil society fosters the use of logic and understanding, and promotes cooperation to minimize time wasted in disputes. On the negative side of the coin, no moral authority will speak out when the market-makers exploit human ignorance and man's covetous nature to create a dog-eat-dog world filled with meaningless pursuits. Without a civil society, justice must be haphazard due to the nature of the guidance provided by Holy Books. The Koran is likely no less self-contradicting nor more consistent than the Christian Bible or the Jewish Talmud. Muslim groups within America appear to be content with the separation of church and state; but, if their holy book says that the believers should make Sharia the law of the land, that is seditious! It speaks against democracy and the human freedoms for which the country stands. It would be useful if someone(s) familiar with the subject would address this conflict in an open forum. Perhaps there are whole books, or chapters thereof in the literature that have covered this. Does anyone know?

Should the freedoms of religion and speech be more strictly regulated if this freedom is used for such destructive purposes? If so, who has the power to decide what is acceptable?

If the Nazi government can be called evil for committing the Holocaust then shouldn't the American government during the time of slavery be regarded as evil also?

Bertrand Russell famously said "(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment." If I abide by these rules, what reason is there for me voting in elections, or even having a political opinion at all?

In political debate, I often feel that participants on both sides are "unprincipled" or "unscrupulous" - they deliberately downplay inconvenient facts and exaggerate other facts in order to promote their positions. I understand that politicians represent the interests of their constituents much as lawyers advocate for their clients. But are there any philosophical writings that at least encourage citizens to elevate their own level of political discourse so that it more resembles a search for truth as opposed to a clash of opposing interests?

I am from a developing country, a poor country, a very populated country. We live a hard life here. People often say westerners have a life while we only do the living, or according to one of my friends, we only do the breathing. I still remember a line from a popular song here: are we changing the world or changed by the world? And my friend gave me the answer: being an American means one is changing the world while being a non-American means one is changed by the world. So what is the meaning of life for a man living in a developing country anyway?

What is the purpose of Government? If the purpose of Government is to take care of its citizens? One would think that being well feed and sheltered is more important than being educated. So why is it that the government can provide free and mandatory education but not give free mandatory food, shelter, and health care to children?

I was politicized early thanks to growing up in a war zone, and such a childhood imposes certain questions on a child's mind. After growing older and nurturing an increasing infatuation with socialism and anarchism, I am now at a new crossroads - totalitarianism. The reason for this is simple: I have no faith in humanity, nor in the so called 'rationality' of Mankind. In my opinion, people are overwhelmingly ignorant of what is best for them. How can they decide what is best for them without proper education? Furthermore, people are overwhelmingly selfish and short-sighted, how can a society function correctly if the majority of people are unfit to decide for themselves, and when they do so, they do so poorly (see George Bush). Another problem is media. Reading Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" in my teens nourished in me a deep hatred of privately-owned media, and as we all know: propaganda is rife in all societies. Finally, we come to the financial crisis. If I have understood it correctly, economic policies of the past decades were hinged on the belief that the economic system would perpetually correct itself thanks to the rationality of the individual financiers and economists, and that now with this new collapse, economists are for the first time dawning to the fact that humans are irrational after all. So I say unto you, that the representational democratic system, in the US as an example, is in itself largely totalitarian, as the individuals who vote do so rarely and are not told about the changes their representatives enact during their tenures, and that Plato was right all along - that philosophers should be kings. So wouldn't the best method of government be to ask leading people in the society to run for election (ie. no career politicians), and then have them 'train' for this position for 1 year where they live as hobos for 2 months, farmers for 2 months, etc etc, all the time monitored by the society - and finally compete for election (if they accept the offer) through televised debates, each receiving an equal time on all topics. How can democracy be a better system than this? And how can we reconcile our belief in democracy with the overwhelming evidence of the decrepitude of the stolid majority of humanity?

Is there more to peace than the absence of war?