enjoy rights equally or rather that what theemployer wants from you is precisely what you have in common witheveryone else? That is your willing to earn capital and to labor forit. It is a fine line that divides respecting and disconsidering, andthis line must be drawn by rights as well as by the values held bythis society. When the ultimate value isLiberty, it becomes very blurry what must be provided and what mustbe attained egocentrically. Rights discourse scholar MacDonald (5)makes a distinction on how things are vs. how things should be, sheclaims that the conditions of a good society are determined by humandecisions, and human decisions according to her are expressions ofvalues. In contrast Utilitarian theorist John Stuart Mill (6) haveclaimed that one conduct is legitimate as soon as there is no harm toothers, as well as claiming that evil means justify good ends, andthat the goal is to have more happiness in society as a overalladdition of individual units of pleasure. Both scholars argue forliberty, the fact that MacDonald claims that what drives a goodsociety are precisely expressions of value is very contrary to Mill's'unit of happiness' since the fact that no one was harmed doesn'tfollow from a general expression of value or justice. The utilitarianmoral theory try to simplify actions based on what is good and whatis bad, but not everything can be reduced to that, and this additionsof units can be very broad, for example, according to 21stcentury Utilitarian economists, pleasure is gathered throughconsumption, so the more a society consumes the happier the societyis, I think this isn't a legitimate claim, since other expressions ofvalue must play a role when happiness is to be achieved other thanpurchasing power. Like we saw when mentioning Marx, the happinessthat is derived from purchasing power only creates a greater controlfrom the ones in power over the workers, since the workers believethat they would be treated better if they own the same type ofcommodities as the higher class, but that doesn't follow preciselybecause of what they intrinsically are: unprivileged due tosocioeconomic situation. According to Moral theoristArendt (7) a new emancipated society, which I call market economy,have taken away the security of human and social rights fromindividuals that are considered of a lower status. The individualsthat are considered as a second class citizenship, which is a conceptthat can be seen in terms of national identity or economic classaren't persecuted for what they have done or taught but insteadbecause of what they unchangeably were born into the wrong kind.In a just International agreement on human rights there should be nodivision on kinds of people like the one claimed by Arendt, peopleshould be seen as equal, by the simple fact that they are embodiedrational individuals that share the same space and time and that areintrinsically interdependent from when they are born until theybecome of age. In the current interests of our time individuals areclaimed free but don't have the same capabilities of actions as theones that own capital and property, therefore their claims areinvalid due to lack of rights enjoyment and freedom of choice. In onefamily, two