Human Rights

Fellow Public Reasoners,

I recently posted an essay, “The Ironic Tragedy of Human Rights,” on the Social Science Research Network (at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1330693). As you can see from the summary below, the argument amounts to a very radical critique of human rights. This has left me wondering: have I missed something obvious? Needless to say, I’d appreciate any thoughts you may have.

Charles

SUMMARY

With the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the idea of human rights came into its own on the world stage. More than anything, the Declaration was a response to the Holocaust, to both its perpetrators and the failure of the rest of the world adequately to come to the aid of its victims. Since that year, however, we have seen many more cases of mass murder. Think of China, Bali, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and now Darfur. Of course one could always claim that such horrors would have been even more frequent if not for the Declaration. But I want to argue otherwise. For I believe that human rights have contributed to making mass murder more, rather than less, likely.

To be clear, my concern is specifically with the language of human rights, not the values it expresses, values which I certainly endorse. The problem with this language is that it is abstract. And the problem with abstraction is that it demotivates, it ‘unplugs’ us from the ‘moral sources,’ as Charles Taylor would call them, which empower us to act ethically. After showing why, I then go on to describe how the rise of human rights has constituted an ironic tragedy of sorts for those philosophers who have attempted to lend it intellectual support. On the whole, they may be divided into two groups. One, led by cosmopolitans such as Martha Nussbaum and Thomas Pogge, tries to interlock rights within systematic theories of justice, thus fixing the priorities between them. The other, led by value pluralists such as Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire, and Bernard Williams, rejects such theories as infeasible and asserts that the best we can do when rights conflict is to negotiate. Yet both approaches, I argue, are counter-productive.

GJHR Group: 7-9 April 2009 | CFP: 10 September 2008

In addition to several other hats that I wear, one of these hats is co-convener of the Global Justice and Human Rights (GJHR) Group. This group is funded by the UK’s Political Studies Association (PSA).

Each year the GJHR Group is given sessions at the PSA annual conference: last year, we put on our first sessions since coming into existence a few months before. Each was very well attended and we have been awarded up to four sessions for the next annual conference.

The next PSA annual conference will take place at the Manchester Conference Centre from 7th-9th April 2009. The conference website is here.

If any reader would like to present a paper at this conference, then please send your expression of interest to me here no later than 10th September 2008. I would require a proposed title and brief abstract.

These conferences are well attended, regularly attracting over 500 delegates: the PSA annual conference is the second largest political science conference in the world, second only to APSA’s annual conference. Manchester is a fantastic city to travel to as well, if you have not visited the city before.