What are "human values"?

Human values are the principles, standards, convictions and beliefs that people adopt as their
guidelines in daily activities. Principal human values are the foundation on which professional ethics
are built. They are a set of consistent measures and behaviors that individuals choose to practice in the
pursuit of doing what is right or what is expected of them by society. Most laws and legislation are
shaped by human values.

OR
Human values are the virtues that guide us to take into account the human element when one interacts
with other human beings. They are the many positive dispositions that create bonds of humanity
between people and thus have value for all of us as human beings. They are our strong positive
feelings for the human essence of the other. It’s both what we expect others to do to us and what we
aim to give to other human beings ("Do unto the other what you wish for yourself"). These human
values have the effect of bonding, comforting, reassuring and procuring serenity.

Human values are the foundation for any viable life within society: they build space for a drive, a
movement towards one another, which leads to peace.

Human values thus defined are universal: they are shared by all human beings, whatever their
religion, their nationality, their culture, their personal history. By nature, they induce consideration for
others.

1. Human values are, for example:

2. Civility, respect, consideration;
3. Honesty, fairness, loyalty, sharing, solidarity;
4. Openness, listening, welcoming, acceptance, recognition, appreciation;
5. Brotherhood, friendship, empathy, compassion, love.

Respect is one of the most important human value for establishing relations of peace - and yet it
remains elusive: its understanding varies according to age (child, teen,adult), to one's education and
surrounding culture. It is better understood when combined with other values: a disposition that is
deeper than civility, very close to consideration, and approaching appreciation. Indeed, to respect
someone, one must be able to appreciate some of his/her human qualities, even if one does not
appreciate his/her opinions or past behaviour.

What is the difference between “human” values, "ethical" values and "moral" values?

Values that are said to be "ethical" are those that command respectful behavior toward others, that is,
towards other human beings, without harming them. These can be applied to animal and plant life as
well.

"Moral" values are in fact the same, but today, "moralising" rhetoric is not well received. For this
reason, some people refer to "ethical values". However, most people seem more interested yet in
"human values". These are seen as much more positive, perhaps because we feel directly concerned:
we ourselves have a strong desire to have others be "human" to us
ETHICS AND ITS IMPORTANCE

When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and
wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of
professional conduct like the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the
Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius.
This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between
acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although
most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs
throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical
norms are so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the
other hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense, then why are there so many ethical
disputes and issues in our society?

Most of us would agree that it is ethics in practice that makes sense; just having it carefully drafted
and redrafted in books may not serve the purpose. Of course all of us want businesses to be fair, clean
and beneficial to the society. For that to happen, organizations need to abide by ethics or rule of law,
engage themselves in fair practices and competition; all of which will benefit the consumer, the
society and organization.

OR
Another way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as
philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone
who studies ethical standards in medicine. One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or
perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. For instance, in
considering a complex issue like global warming, one may take an economic, ecological, political, or
ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of
various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values
and principles at stake.

Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have norms for behavior that suit their
particular aims and goals. These norms also help members of the discipline to coordinate their actions
or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical norms govern
conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and business. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of
research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities.
There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms.
  PRIMARILY IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL, THE CONSUMER, THE EMPLOYEE OR
THE HUMAN SOCIAL UNIT OF THE SOCIETY WHO BENEFITS FROM ETHICS.
IN ADDITION ETHICS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. Satisfying Basic Human Needs: Being fair, honest and ethical is one the basic human needs.
Every employee desires to be such himself and to work for an organization that is fair and ethical in
its practices.

2. Creating Credibility: An organization that is believed to be driven by moral values is respected in

the society even by those who may have no information about the working and the businesses or an
organization. Infosys, for example is perceived as an organization for good corporate governance and
social responsibility initiatives. This perception is held far and wide even by those who do not even
know what business the organization is into.

3. Uniting People and Leadership: An organization driven by values is revered by its employees
also. They are the common thread that brings the employees and the decision makers on a common
platform. This goes a long way in aligning behaviors within the organization towards achievement of
one common goal or mission.

4. Improving Decision Making: A man’s destiny is the sum total of all the decisions that he/she
takes in course of his life. The same holds true for organizations. Decisions are driven by values. For
example an organization that does not value competition will be fierce in its operations aiming to
wipe out its competitors and establish a monopoly in the market.

5. Long Term Gains: Organizations guided by ethics and values are profitable in the long run,
though in the short run they may seem to lose money. Tata group, one of the largest business
conglomerates in India was seen on the verge of decline at the beginning of 1990’s, which soon
turned out to be otherwise. The same company’s Tata NANO car was predicted as a failure, and failed
to do well but the same is picking up fast now.

6. Securing the Society: Often ethics succeeds law in safeguarding the society. The law machinery is
often found acting as a mute spectator, unable to save the society and the environment. Technology,
for example is growing at such a fast pace that the by the time law comes up with a regulation we
have a newer technology with new threats replacing the older one. Lawyers and public interest
litigations may not help a great deal but ethics can.
Perishable (changing) Value and Durable Value
We had a recent (and interesting) discussion on the scm-patterns YahooGroup about the notion of
"value" and Frank Schophuizen got me thinking about what is the "value" associated with a
configuration or a codeline: how does value increase or decrease when a configuration is "promoted"
or when/if the codeline is branched/split?

Agile methods often talk about business value. They work on features in order of the most business-
value. They eschew activities and artifacts that don't directly contribute to delivery business value.
etc..

David Anderson, in several of his articles and blogs at agilemanagement.net, notes that the value of a
feature (or other "piece" of functionality) is not dependent upon the cost to produce it, but upon what
a customer is willing to pay for it. Therefore the value of a feature is perishable and depreciates over
time:

The longer it takes to receive delivery of a feature, the less a customer may begin to
value it.

If it doesn't get shipped in the appropriate market-window of opportunity, the value

may be significantly lost.
If the lead-time to market for the feature is too long, then competitive advantage may be
lost and your competitor may be able to offer it to them sooner than you can, resulting
in possible price competition, loss of sale or business So business value is depreciable;
and the value of a feature is a perishable commodity.

Might there be certain aspects to business value that are not perishable? Might there be certain aspects
that are of durable value? Is it only the functionality associated with the feature that is of perishable
value? Might the associated "quality" be of more durable value?

UNIVERSAL VALUE

Something is of universal value if it has the same value or worth for all, or almost all, people. This
claim could mean two importantly different things. First, it could be that something has a universal
value when everybody finds it valuable. This was Isaiah Berlin's understanding of the term.
According to Berlin, "...universal values....are values that a great many human beings in the vast
majority of places and situations, at almost all times, do in fact hold in common, whether consciously
and explicitly or as expressed in their behaviour Second, something could have universal value when
all people have reason to believe it has value. Amartya Sen. interprets the term in this way, pointing
out that when Mahatma Gandhi argued that non-violence is a universal value, he was arguing that all
people have reason to value non-violence, not that all people currently value non-violence. Many
different things have been claimed to be of universal value, for example, fertility, pleasure,
and democracy. The issue of whether anything is of universal value, and, if so, what that thing or
those things are, is relevant to psychology, political science, and philosophy, among other fields.

LOCAL VALUES:-
Local means existing in or belonging to the area where you live or to the area that you are talking
about. Local values are confined to a particular area or a region where only that values is respectable
otherwise nothing else.
Ex: - killing the animals is not prohibited in this locality or village
Abusing to the elders are not considered bad in this locality means whatever we do that is
acceptable only in that region outside of that it is finally going to be in vain.

Ethical Theories

Ethical theories are based on the previously explained ethical principles. They each emphasize
different aspects of an ethical dilemma and lead to the most ethically correct resolution according to
the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. People usually base their individual choice of ethical
theory upon their life experiences

Deontology
The deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when
analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another
individual or society because upholding one's duty is what is considered ethically correct (1,2). For
instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person
who follows this theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the
individual's set duties.

Deontology provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as those within
one's family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation to protect his little sister when
they cross a busy road together. This theory also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties
and obligations, which is called "supererogation

(1). For example, if a person hijacked a train full of students and stated that one person would have to
die in order for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to die is exceeding his or her duty to the
other students and performs an act of supererogation.

Although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number of flaws. One
weakness of this theory is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual's duties.
For instance, businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although
this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty. Perhaps
the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to sit in the same chair. A
similar scenario unearths two other faults of deontology including the fact that sometimes a person's
duties conflict, and that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of others. For instance, if the
deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how is he supposed to drive? Is the
deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to uphold the law, or is the deontologist
supposed to arrive at his meeting late, breaking his duty to be on time? This scenario of conflicting
obligations does not lead us to a clear ethically correct resolution nor does it protect the welfare of
others from the deontologist's decision. Since deontology is not based on the context of each situation,
it does not provide any guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting
obligations (1,2).

Utilitarianism
The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a
utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically
correct. One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can compare similar predicted solutions
and use a point system to determine which choice is more beneficial for more people. This point
system provides a logical and rationale argument for each decision and allows a person to use it on a
case-by-case context

There are two types of utilitarianism,

1. ACT UTILITARIANISM
2. RULE UTILITARIANISM.

(1) Act utilitarianism adheres exactly to the definition of utilitarianism as described in the
above section. In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless
of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws.

(2) Rule utilitarianism, however, takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness.
A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means
available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes
beneficence at the same time

As with all ethical theories, however, both act and rule utilitarianism contains numerous flaws.
Inherent in both are the flaws associated with predicting the future. Although people can use their life
experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will be
true. This uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian look unethical as time
passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as he predicted (1,2). For example, if a
person lights a fire in a fireplace in order to warm his friends, and then the fire burns down the house
because the soot in the chimney caught on fire, then the utilitarian now seems to have chosen an
unethical decision. The unexpected house fire is judged as unethical because it did not benefit his
friends.

Another assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to compare the various types
of consequences against each other on a similar scale. However, comparing material gains such as
money against intangible gains such as happiness is impossible since their qualities differ to such a
large extent (1).
A third failing found in utilitarianism is that it does not allow for the existence of supererogation or
heroes. In other words, people are obligated to constantly behave so that the most people benefit
regardless of the danger associated with an act (1). For instance, a utilitarian who sacrifices her life to
save a train full of people is actually fulfilling an obligation to society rather than performing a
selfless and laudable act. I9

As explained above, act utilitarianism is solely concerned with achieving the maximum good.
According to this theory an individual's rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater
population. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or
autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of
people. Another source of instability within act utilitarianism is apparent when a utilitarian faces one
set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences a change in those variables that causes her to
change her original decision. This means that an act utilitarian could be nice to you one moment and
then dislike you the next moment because the variables have changed, and you are no longer
beneficial to the most people (1).

Rule utilitarianism also contains a source of instability that inhibits its usefulness. In rule
utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules (1). Let us revisit the example of a person
running late for his meeting. While a rule utilitarian who just happens to be a state governor may
believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time because the members of the
state government will benefit from this decision, he may encounter conflicting ideas about what is
ethically correct if he is running late. As a rule utilitarian, he believes that he should follow the law
because this benefits an entire society, but at the same time, he believes that it is ethically correct to be
on time for his meeting because it is a state government meeting that also benefits the society. There
appears to be no ethically correct answer for this scenario (1).

Rights
In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest
priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling
population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they have the
ability and resources to do so (1). For example, a person may say that her friend may
borrow the car for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now
has a right to the car in the afternoon.

A major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must decipher what the
characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants to uphold
and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide
what the society's goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful,
it must be used in conjunction with another ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of
the society (1). For example in America people have the right to choose their religion because this
right is upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the founding fathers' of America was to uphold
this right to freedom of religion. However, under Hitler's reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted
for their religion because Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany's future success. The
American government upholds freedom of religion while the Nazi government did not uphold it and,
instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion and those who practiced it.
 Casuist

The casuist ethical theory is one that compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of similar
ethical dilemmas and their outcomes. This allows one to determine the severity of the situation and to
create the best possible solution according to others' experiences. Usually one will find paradigms that
represent the extremes of the situation so that a compromise can be reached that will hopefully
include the wisdom gained from the previous examples

One drawback to this ethical theory is that there may not be a set of similar examples for a given
ethical dilemma. Perhaps that which is controversial and ethically questionable is new and
unexpected. Along the same line of thinking, a casuistically theory also assumes that the results of the
current ethical dilemma will be similar to results in the examples. This may not be necessarily true
and would greatly hinder the effectiveness of applying this ethical theory.

Virtue

The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action that may deviate
from his normal behaviour. It takes the person's morals, reputation and motivation into account when
rating an unusual and irregular behaviour that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person
plagiarized a passage that was later detected by a peer, the peer who knows the person well will
understand the person's character and will be able to judge the friend. If the plagiarizer normally
follows the rules and has good standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the
plagiarized passage may be able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late
night and simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a
reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his
consistent past of unethical behaviour

One weakness of this ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person's change in
moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have
the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally
plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden
change from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence
mounts up against him or her

________________________________________

Ethical theories and principles bring significant characteristics to the decision-making process.
Although all of the ethical theories attempt to follow the ethical principles in order to be applicable
and valid by themselves, each theory falls short with complex flaws and failings. However, these
ethical theories can be used in combination in order to obtain the most ethically correct answer
possible for each scenario. For example, a utilitarian may use the casuistic theory and compare similar
situations to his real life situation in order to determine the choice that will benefit the most people.
The deontologist and the rule utilitarian governor who are running late for their meeting may use the
rights ethical theory when deciding whether or not to speed to make it to the meeting on time. Instead
of speeding, they would slow down because the law in the rights theory is given the highest priority,
even if it means that the most people may not benefit from the decision to drive the speed limit. By
using ethical theories in combination, one is able to use a variety of ways to analyze a situation in
order to reach the most ethically correct decision possible
We are fortunate to have a variety of ethical theories that provide a substantial framework when trying
to make ethically correct answers. Each ethical theory attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that
lead to success when trying to reach the best decision. When one understands each individual theory,
including its strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision when trying to
achieve an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.

VOLUNTARY UNETHICALITY:-

ONLY OF THEY NOT TELL THEM EVERYTHING IT WAS UNETHICAL:-

When the government experimented on military personal to perfect LSD. They did not tell them all
the side effects they would be experiencing. Of course, the scientists probably did not know either.
That is besides the point, once they found out, they should of stooped the program. I believe scientist
are not allowed to this anymore, unless they give full disclosure as to what their test subjects are in
for.

Example: - Employer baking and selling marijuana brownies out of their business with me present.
Also requires employees to pose as the owner/boss when making phone calls to gain information. I
notified employer I didn't agree with illegal acts and it was morally and ethically wrong. They stated it
wasn't going to change. I quit. Filed for Unemployment, was paid conditionally for 3 weeks, then I
was denied because I didn't continue working for my employer to give them time to fix problem.
(Even though they told me they weren't going to quit). I also did not report this to law enforcement. I
was scared to even stand up to my boss to tell them it was wrong and I didn't agree with it. I have
appealed. I now have a hearing. How do I prove my case?

INDUCED UNETHICALIY:-

In general, there are two ways a company can encourage ethical conduct among its employees: either
the promotion of good actions and outcomes or the prevention of bad ones.

Through several experiments, the professors found that inducing a prevention focus will lead to
ethical behavior more than inducing a promotion focus.

In encouraging ethical behavior among employees, it behooves firms to consider focusing on

preventing negative outcomes, not only in creating a code of ethics but also in setting goals and
framing task directives.
Ways to Prevent Unethical Behavior in the Workplace
Create a Code of Conduct

A written code of conduct provides employees and managers with an overview of the type of conduct
and behaviors the company expects. It outlines what behaviors are unacceptable and what measures
are taken if an employee violates the code of conduct.

Lead By Example

Employees look to business owners and managers for direction on how they should conduct
themselves. As a business owner, make ethics-based decisions and monitor the individuals you put
into leadership roles at your company for the same values.

Related Reading: Advantages in Using Behavior Modification in the Workplace

Reinforce Consequences

Business owners must hold their employees accountable when they act unethically. Start by informing
new employees of the rules during their orientation sessions. If an employee acts unethically, refer to
the code of conduct and take the necessary measures to warn or terminate.

Show Employees Appreciation

Loyal employees feel that a company values the hard work they put into accomplishing tasks on a
daily basis. A loyal employee is less likely to act unethically. Show appreciation to the employees for
work well done on a regular basis to encourage loyalty.

Welcome an Ethics Speaker

Schedule an ethics trainer to visit your work site to discuss ethical behavior and explain why it is
important in organizations, regardless of the size or industry. Ethics trainers use role-playing,
motivational speaking, videos and handouts to illustrate the importance of ethics in the workplace.

Create Checks and Balances

Rather than putting related responsibilities in the hands of one employee, create a system of checks
and balances to minimize the opportunities for unethical behavior. For example, a sales associate
rings up customer purchases, while an accountant balances the books to ensure that all payables are
received and documented.

Hire for Values

When business owners hire employees, many seek to bring on individuals who have the education and
experience that prove they are skilled workers, capable of handling the tasks at hand. Employers who
want to prevent unethical behavior also look at candidates' values to ensure they mesh with the
company's culture.
SECULAR VERSES SACRED CONCEPT:-

Many followers of Christ sort their universe into sacred things, Sinful things and Secular things. We
all know what sacred things are. They are those things that are holy -- the Holy Bible, Holy Spirit,
Holy Matrimony -- or, that belong to the Lord -- the Lord's Supper, the Lord's day, the Lord's Table -
or, that are otherwise associated in our minds with the spiritual. Missionary work may be spoken of as
a "sacred profession" or church related topics as "spiritual matters."

Likewise, we know what Sinful things are. They are those things that are not holy, that corrupt a
person spiritually. Sinful things are also called "worldly"... which stands opposed to "heavenly," of
course.

Most people recognize a third category: Secular things. Secular things are also called "worldly," but
not in an inherently evil sense. Secular things, being merely material and temporal in nature, are
valueless, neutral, and of no eternal significance. Being neither nourishment nor poison, Secular
things are a kind of spiritual junk food. But there is one important thing to note: if Secular things are
permitted to dominate the Sacred in an individual's life, the result is Sinful.

Although the sizes of the categories -- Sacred, Secular and Sinful -- are approximate, the Secular
category is by far the largest. Many religious groups like to expand the Sinful category to include
more of the Universe, shrinking the other two categories accordingly. The system is commonly
applied along these lines:

In professions: Preaching is Sacred, prostitution is Sinful, and computer programming is merely

Secular.

In money matters: The Sunday collection is Sacred, the Vegas jackpot is Sinful, and the money in
your pocket is merely secular.

In eating: Unleavened bread is Sacred, spiked rum cake is Sinful and a spreadable liverwurst is merely
secular.

In art: A tract cover illustration is Sacred, a nude is Sinful, and landscape life is merely Secular.

SACRED:- All things sacred remind us of God and religion. These are things that are not for
everyday use and, in fact, we keep these things aside for use in church or other religious purposes. If
we read bible, we come across preaching that some things are holy, and cannot be equated with other
things mundane or for everyday use. God intended the seventh day of the week to be HIS day and for
remembrance. This does not mean that the other 6 days of the week are Godless. In fact, human
limitations have forced us to have a special day for HIS remembrance so that, we do not mix the
sacred with the secular or worldly things.’
RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The word ‘duty’, like the word ‘right’, has more than one use both in common speech and in ethics.
One of the ways in which we sometimes describe a good action is by saying that it is our duty to do it.
The action, which it is our duty to do, differs from a right action in two ways.

It implies that only one action is right for us at the particular moment in question, because if it were
equally right to do two alternative actions, we would not be able to say of either of them that it is our
duty to do it.

It emphasizes that the action is not merely fitting but that it is obligatory. Dr Moore expands that
second difference by pointing out that duties have the following additional characteristics:

Duties are right actions which many people are tempted to avoid doing;

The most prominent good effects of duties are on people other than the doer of the action, hence our
temptation to avoid doing them;

They arouse sentiments of moral approval in a way that merely right actions do not

SECULAR:- All things that are not holy are called secular. This means that things not
specifically meant to be used in church or in connection with God are secular things. Governments all
over the world try to be as secular as possible and, this means that they do not favor any single
religion and treat all religions on an equal basis. When we are in the office or at a restaurant with
friends, we are not sacred or focused on sacred. Rather we are thinking of all things worldly and
hence not sacred.

Rights

A right is an expectation about something you deserve or a way to act that is justified through a legal
or moral foundation. Humans have all types of rights, including legal, moral, spiritual, natural and
fundamental rights. Examples of rights include the right to education provided by society or the right
to bear arms. Ethical behaviour must recognize and respect a series of rights that belong to each
person, animal or society.

Duties

Duties are a direct result of the acceptance of rights. Each person has a duty to uphold or respect
another person's rights, just as he has the duty to uphold your rights. Once a person accepts a right, or
is told as in legal rights, he must uphold that right for himself and others. For instance, you have the
right to free speech, but so does everyone around you. Even if someone is saying something you do
not agree with, you have a duty to respect his right to say it. You have a duty to respect, and
sometimes defend, the rights of others.