Evaluating Human Rights and Final Exam Skills
Human Rights: The Big Picture
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, established a global framework of rights to which every person is entitled regardless of nationality, faith or background. Article 18 of the UDHR guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion — including the freedom to change one’s religion and to manifest it in worship, observance, practice and teaching. This article is particularly important for religious studies because it sits at the intersection of rights and religion: it protects religious believers but also protects those who reject religion.
In this final lesson of the theme we bring together everything you have studied — religious and non-religious perspectives on human dignity, prejudice, discrimination and wealth — and focus on one specific skill: constructing the evaluated, balanced argument that your paper rewards most heavily.
Religious Views on Human Rights and Dignity
Each of the traditions you have studied grounds human rights in a different way, but all affirm the fundamental dignity of every person:
Christianity: Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that every person is made in the image of God (imago Dei). Christians express this in action through agapé — unconditional love in service of others. Christian Aid and church food banks are examples of this in action. Martin Luther King Jr taught that racial prejudice contradicted the Christian teaching that all people are equal before God.
Judaism: Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 teaches that every human soul is like a whole world — to save one is to save all, to destroy one is to destroy all. The principle of tzedakah (righteousness/justice) drives Jewish charitable action. On racial prejudice, Jewish charities such as HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) work with refugees worldwide. Maimonides’ Eight Levels of Charity provide a framework for how giving should be practised, with anonymous giving that preserves the recipient’s dignity at the highest levels.
Islam: The Qur’an (5:32) teaches the sacred value of every human life. Ummah — the worldwide community of Muslims — creates an obligation to support all members, regardless of nationality. The Qur’an (49:13) teaches that God created humanity in different nations and tribes so that they may know one another, and that the most honoured person is the most righteous — not the person of the ‘right’ ethnicity or nationality. Islamic Relief operates globally as an expression of this.
Hinduism: The relationship between Brahman (the ultimate reality underlying all existence) and atman (the individual soul) means that the same divine essence is present in every person. This grounds an understanding of human equality that, in theory, transcends caste. Mahatma Gandhi taught that caste discrimination (particularly towards Dalits) contradicted the unity of Brahman that all people share. Hindu charities such as Food for Life provide vegetarian meals globally as an expression of dharma in action.
Sikhism: The Guru Granth Sahib (verse 1) opens with the Mool Mantar, which declares God as one, without hate, without fear — and the consequence for human beings is that all are equal before God. Guru Gobind Singh’s formation of the Khalsa emphasised equality across caste and social boundaries. The Sikh principle of seva (selfless service) drives charities such as Khalsa Aid, which provides disaster relief worldwide without discrimination.
Buddhism: The five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path together promote right action and the avoidance of harm. The concept of dhamma in action means living the Buddha’s teachings in service of others. Dr Ambedkar, who led the mass conversion of Dalits to Buddhism in 1956, used Buddhist egalitarianism as the basis for challenging caste discrimination. The Karuna Trust supports the most marginalised in society as an expression of Buddhist compassion (karuṇā).
Non-Religious Views on Human Rights
Humanists UK takes a secular approach to human rights, grounding them in human reason and empathy rather than divine command. Humanists argue that rights do not depend on God — they are justified by our shared capacity for suffering and flourishing. Amnesty International campaigns for human rights from a non-religious standpoint, focusing on freedom from torture, political imprisonment, and the death penalty. Article 18 UDHR (freedom of religion or belief) is important to both organisations: they defend religious believers’ rights even while arguing that law and public policy should be made on secular grounds.
Humanists usually judge an action by the effect it has on real people, not by a rule taken from scripture. They still hold that human rights are universal and belong to everyone. This contrasts with religious ‘absolutist’ approaches (particularly in Catholic natural law or Islamic divine command) that hold certain acts to be always and everywhere wrong regardless of consequences.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to change religion. Two non-religious voices worth naming in this theme are Humanists UK (formerly the British Humanist Association) and Amnesty International.
Constructing the 15-Mark Evaluation Answer
The 15-mark evaluation question is worth more than any other question type in your paper. Three mistakes cost the most marks here: giving only one side; using bullet points, which leave no room for the evaluative language that higher marks need; and failing to reach a clear, justified conclusion.
Stage 1 — Agree: Write a paragraph arguing in favour of the statement. Use at least one named religious source of authority (scripture, a named scholar or a named religious document). Explain what the source says and why it supports the statement. Connect the source to the specific claim in the question.
Stage 2 — Disagree: Write a paragraph arguing against the statement. Use a contrasting source — either a different religious tradition or a non-religious perspective. Humanists UK, Amnesty International, and non-religious arguments (autonomy, quality of life, situationist ethics) are all valid here. Do not simply copy Stage 1 and add ‘not’. The opposing argument needs its own logic.
Stage 3 — Weighing: Write a sentence or short paragraph that weighs the two sides against each other. Language like ‘However, critics of this view argue…’, ‘This position is compelling because… but it fails to account for…’ or ‘Both sides agree that… but they differ on…’ signals that you are evaluating, not merely describing.
Stage 4 — Conclusion: State your personal view clearly. ‘On balance, I agree/disagree because…’ You must justify your conclusion by referring back to the argument. An unjustified conclusion (‘I think everyone has rights’) will not score Mastering.
A Mastering evaluation answer has: an agree paragraph with a named religious source and explanation, a disagree paragraph with a contrasting source (including a non-religious view), evaluative language that weighs the two sides, and a clear justified conclusion. Written in continuous prose — never bullet points.
Timing, SPaG and Final Exam Strategy
Your paper includes spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPaG) marks attached to the 15-mark evaluation question. This means accurate writing is assessed directly. Use full sentences. Check that each sentence ends with a full stop. Capital letters for proper nouns (God, Torah, Qur’an, Buddha). Be consistent with religious terms — decide before the exam whether you will use ‘Qur’an’ or ‘Quran’ and stick to it.
Manage your time carefully. The 15-mark question should receive the most time — aim for at least twelve minutes. Shorter questions (2 marks) should take no more than two minutes. Read the question carefully: ‘explain two beliefs’ requires two developed beliefs with sources, not four brief points. ‘Describe’ asks for recall with meaning; ‘explain’ asks for the religious significance behind a practice or belief.
A common error is to write at length on 5-mark questions and then run out of time for the 15-mark question. The marks per minute return is much higher on the 15-mark question — give it the time it deserves. If you run short, write your conclusion first before filling in the body of the argument — an answer with a conclusion but a thin body will score higher than one with a detailed first paragraph and no conclusion at all.