Applied Ethics

Assignment

Topic : Give a philosophical account of

Human Rights in reference to
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

By : Aditya Jagdamba Tripathi

Roll Number : 442
 Overview

I. What is the philosophy of human rights?

How can the concept of human rights be
understood?
II. Justifying human rights; what follows from a
valid HR claim?
III. Complications: criticisms of human rights;
conflicts of rights
“A philosophical definition of ‘a right’, like those of
coercion, authority and many other terms, is not an
explanation of the ordinary meaning of a term. It
follows the usage of writers on law, politics and
morality who typically use the term to refer to a
subclass of all the cases to which it can be applied with
linguistic propriety. Philosophical definitions of rights
attempt to capture the way the term is used in legal,
political and moral writing and discourse. They both
explain the existing tradition of moral and political
debate and explain the author’s intention of carrying on
the debate within the boundaries of that tradition. At the
same time they further that debate by singling out
certain features of rights, as traditionally understood,
for special attention, on the grounds that they are the
features which best explain the role of rights in moral,
political and legal discourse.”
(Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, p. 165-6.)

We Humans have certain fundamental rights that ought

to be accepted in all the societies. Human rights, What
are Human rights?
Rights can be termed as those which is meant for every
person irrespective of their caste, religion, sex etc ,
Rights can be called as those which are morally or
socially acceptable .Rights can be known as those
which are accurate or correct to the manner that can tell
the difference to the people between right and wrong
and that can limit them too. Rights can be termed as
those which can be judged in accordance with truth or
fact and regarded as belonging fundamentals to all
persons. Human rights are fundamental to human
existence. Their violation is violation of a moral virtues
which in turn make human condition not merely
liveable but one where progress is possible .Moral
virtues being liberty, equality , justice and most
importantly human dignity.

Let us observe what philosophers on the law as

Aristotle and Immanuel Kant had to say in the area of
human rights. To be sure, the selection of these political
thinkers was not one of chance, for their writings on the
law have ever been drawn upon, directly and indirectly,
by the greatest of jurists. For example, legal ideas
expressed by publicists and constitutional lawyers on
natural law may be traced back to a common source in
the philosophy of the pagan Aristotle. Indeed, for
Aristotle and Kant alike, legal philosophy was a topic of
central import.
Particularly relative to the question here of human
rights, these philosophers would all agree that in
understanding oneself as a human person one sees what
he ought realize in order to actualize himself as a person
in his free acts, both those which are internal and those
which affect the world.

 Aristotle
Aristotle viewed justice as neither exclusively ethical
nor confined to morality; rather, it meant that which
was adequate, fitting exactly into relation with
something else. To be differentiated were the two
objects of justice: that which is naturally just and that
which is legally just. Although they were in constant
conflict, Aristotle was convinced that the latter wished
to realize the former. In his words, "Justice According
to Nature is... better than Justice According to Law."
In this famous distinction, natural justice, being one of
the constituent elements," by nature, transcended the
order of voluntary action.' Being the product of rational
order, this type of justice was in accord with nature and,
thus, universal with regard to laws and requirements of
society in general, including both public law and rights
of property and possession. It was fundamental law, a
higher law-unwritten, eternal and unchangeable.
  Immanuel Kant

Also influenced by Aristotle's analysis of law and

justice was Immanuel Kant. Declaring that "jurists still
seek a definition of their concept of the law, Kant was
bold enough to supply one himself. Behind this famous
reproach to jurists was the assumption of legal
absolutism-that there could be but one true or correct
definition of an object. To Kant, justice, which was
determined by some ideal, common equality, was a
synthesis of liberty and equality, the "discovery" of
which .provided the basis of law. This formula was later
adopted by Spencer in his law of equal freedom, which
was ascertained by observation in the same way as were
physical or chemical laws. Given such an approach to
liberty, freedom of the individual became the starting
point in Kant's sytem. Man was born free and equal.
Individual liberty or autonomy was the sole right
belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity."

All rights are qualified, and – again obviously –

variable over time. The founding document of today’s
human rights – the 1948 UN Declaration of Human
Rights - is sometimes an uncomfortable read if
considered against modern western views on marriage,
homosexuality, rights of women or against non-western
beliefs of Sharia law. Indeed the passage of a mere 66
years from the signing of that Declaration by the then
58 UN member states shows that it might never be
signed now by a much enlarged UN of 195 Nations
representing an international community more overtly
diverse and with powerful religions adopting positions
some consider extreme.
Nevertheless Human Rights are with us and are, until
abandoned, ‘universal’. That word is important. If
accurate it would mean there can be
nothing above universal law; how could there
be? Nothing to say it is wrong: no religion, no political
creed, no philosophy. To maintain its universality it
has to have precedence over other laws and states -
large and small - are not always prepared that it should.
If Human Rights are universal – because they are part
of the human’s very being or because they were
conferred on humans by a God – then they will always
have existed, even if unidentified, and will continue
forever to exist in roughly the same form. This concept
stimulates support for, and attack on, present Human
rights law.
Human rights theory and practice are stuck in a rut.
Although disagreement is normal in philosophy and
social-political practice, the depth and breadth of
disagreement about human rights in theory and practice
is unusual. As James Griffin and Charles Beitz point
out, respectively:
The term “human right” is nearly criterionless. There
are unusually few criteria for determining
when the term is used correctly and when incorrectly—
and not just among politicians, but among philosophers,
political theories, and jurisprudents as well.
1. Although the idea and language of human rights have
become increasingly prominent in public discourse, it
has not become any more clear what kinds of objects
human rights are supposed to be, why we should
believe that people have them, or what follows from
this belief for political practice.
This is a problem for anyone inclined to believe that our
political ideas should have some clear and distinct
significance in our thinking about how to act. This is
especially so when the ideas play such a central role in
framing public concerns of great importance.
2. Indeed, there is radical disagreement on just about
everything about human rights,
including:
• What they are (i.e., what their practical or
metaphysical nature is).
• How many of them there are.
• What they are for (what role they should play in
moral, social, and
political practice).
• What human interests or capacities they are supposed
to protect.
• What kinds of duties they impose.
• Who they impose those duties upon.

By 1948, the United Nations’ new Human Rights

Commission had captured the world’s attention. Under
the dynamic chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt—
President Franklin Roosevelt’s widow, a human rights
champion in her own right and the United States
delegate to the UN—the Commission set out to draft
the document that became the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Roosevelt, credited with its inspiration,
referred to the Declaration as the international Magna
Carta for all mankind. It was adopted by the United
Nations on December 10, 1948.

The preamble of the Universal Declaration for

Human Rights says :
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of
the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.
  Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and right.
 Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
 Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
of person.
 Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude;
slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.
 Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
 Conclusion

The topics discussed beautifully blends thoughts of

Ancient Philosophers like Aristotle and
Contemperory ones like Immanuel Kant on the
basic freedom of an individual. These have
moulded the framework on which the current
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based.

Bibliography

 Corradetti, C. (ed.), 2012. Philosophical Dimensions of

Human Rights, New York: Springer.
 Crisp, R. (ed.), 2014. Griffin on Human Rights, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Cruft. R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), forthcoming
2015. Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights>,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Essays on Human rights by Tom Campbell

 Political theory : An introduction (Rights )

 Sceptical Essays on Human Rights :Oxford

university press , Papia Sengupta Talukdar