Join in and exchange blogs to ALT+SHIFT for a better world
Ideology: The Ideology of Human Rights
For my first contribution to this online publication I have deliberately chosen to avoid discussing a specific human rights issue. The term ‘human rights’ has become more than a legal concept, more than a field of study or practice, it has become an ideology. Despite all the political propaganda, which beckons the masses to choose one ideology over all others, all ideologies share two common characteristics; theoretically they are aimed at constructing a virtuous society, but their practical application leaves a wake of vices. It is therefore crucial for all to understand the concept of human rights to as high a degree as our intellectual capacity allows, to consider its philosophical foundations, and to scrutinise the consequences of its practical application.
Let’s begin from the beginning - what’s in a name? What is the meaning of ‘human’ and why are these rights limited to this category? What are they protecting, our individual autonomy, our abilities to exercise this autonomy or the cohesion and well being of our communities? Does this concept have the same meaning for all humans? When two rights clash, how do we decide which one is more important? Are we concealing ulterior motivations behind the banner of human rights? The pool of questions to consider is vast and none have a simple answer, but the more we question the nature of our ideology, the less likely we are to cause harm with our blinding ambition to do good. There is no denying it; we are living in an era of change. The concrete foundation of sovereignty, which has ruled our conception of statehood since 1648, is beginning to crack under pressure from a rising ideology aimed at protecting our individual integrity. If the Peace Treaty of Westphalia erected the walls of state sovereignty to protect communities from the harm caused by those who wage war in the name of good, are we not in danger of going around in a full circle? We may no longer judge the actions of communities and their leaders based on our interpretation of the word of God; instead we have created a refined code of universal morality for the modern man, based on philosophy and science. How can we guarantee that our new conception of the good does not become an ideological basis for causing harm? The interventions in Kosovo and Iraq come to mind. If the notion of human rights is indeed an ideology, this term yields great power.
Forgive the cliché phrase, but with great power comes great responsibility, and the first responsibility is to understand the extent and ramifications of this power. An ideology only functions when all members of society believe in it, hence it is the responsibility of all active members of our society to consider and question the meaning of this concept. Only then will we make progress towards a society of virtue, only then can we avoid the practical downfall of all other ideologies.
3 Comments:
Re ‘human’ rights, interesting that in the US, the term used is generally ‘civil’ rights. I wonder if there is anything in that? Not sure philosophically how other countries view the terminology. My guess is the Kantian tradition will follow the ‘human’ rights approach.
I think in the US, the terminology is moving swiftly towards the ‘human’ aspect of rights. Not least because of the stigmatization in the country’s vocabulary of the term ‘civil rights.’ That phrase is used domestically and places firm images of the 1960s in the minds of American citizens. And those organizations in the US, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, still use the term civil rights to refer to the rights of minority citizens in the US. But internationally, the country as a whole is moving with the global trend of ‘human’ rights and is thankfully beginning to put great weight on the necessity of using such terminology. I believe the recent political and social clashes over Mexican and Central American immigration may have had much to do with this as the US saw for really the first time in the age of human rights, a dilemma which called for a much more global understanding of what were previously only domestic issues.
Philosophically speaking, constructing anthropocentric rights is the application of logic to morality. And examples of this can be found in religion, hence why some argue that human rights are transcendental in nature. When Jeremy Bentham referred to human rights as nonsense upon stilts, I assume it was in reference to such arguments. There is no evidence to support a link between anthropocentric rights and transcendental principles, if the latter do in fact exist. Anthropocentric rights reflect the instinctive behaviour in man, an instinctive behaviour determined by the environment in which he lives.
Anthropocentric rights do as much destruction as they do good, and take the human species away from a more objective or universal concept of morality, one which entails the biological principles of life and not limited to the human animal.
Anthropocentric rights, generally, tend to exist during times of prosperity, and disappear during times of hardship; they even existed 2,500 years ago, during the reign of Cyrus the Great. [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus...]