Analysing The Universality Of Human Rights Philosophy Essay

Analysing The Universality Of gentle Rights Philosophy EssayAbstractThis paper aims to critically study and assess the different perspectives on the oecumenicality of world rights,and grade the position of the perspectives harmonise to Dembours four schools of thoughts. The perspectives of benevolent race rights on cultural divesity and linguistic potpourri hurt also been emphasized upon here.Universality of gentleman race Rights its Different PespectivesHuman Rights be rights that unrivalled is entitled to be intimate simply because of thefact that he is a human be. These are equal and inalienable for all , and targetnot be denied to anyone human in nature and stock. Thus they are Universal in nature, and function as a legitimate standard for a governmental system. This ofcourse willlead to a discussion of being human and enjoying the human rights(Donelly 2003).Being Human beings, everyone deserves to enjoy certain rights after fulfilling certain obligations to the nine. These fulfillment of obligations are based on morality of the people as an individual and as a class, judged by the order at large and then being endowed with certain privileges to be enjoyed in the form of governmental rights.Rectitude and entitlement, the two aspects of a right, are directed towards a preset standard of conduct, which bings forth the duty and obligation that an individual is expected to perform, and calls for individual and worldwide attention towards righteousness . Performance of this duty entitles the individual to enjoy the et of privileges in the form of a right. To look at a right to something, makes one entltled to own the fix authority to enjoy it, denial or repression of which entitles one to have special claim for justice. Rights enjoyed by one burn downnot be reduced because it clashes with correlative duties of another, neither can it be reduced for enjoying a benefit. Hence, rights give authority to its holders , and not just benefits ( Donelly 2003).Rights are meant to be exercised, enjoyed, respected, and enforced.These are the four principle dimensions of a right. Respecting ones rights gives other the privelege of enjoying and affect a firm stand his own rights, otherwise it is liable to be questioned , threatened or denied. A encroachment of a right is an injustice doneto someone, and is subject to distinctive force and curative logic(Donelly 2003).Ludwig Wittgenstein, the analytical philosopher propagated that a concept should not be defined by what one thinks it means , but by its meaning and habituate in commonplace life. One should rather analyse facts on the basis of observation, rather than thinking. This led to the introduction of his concept of Family Resemblance The concept of Human rights when approached through the family resemblance matrix, high spot the following factorsMoralityTheir experienceence disregarding social recognitionPossessed by every human beingTheir arbitrarinessEmergence through political and social struggleTheir usage for political communicationServitude to bourgeoisBasis on human natureBear a socio- lawful concensusAbility toget transformed into legal rights( Dembour 2006).Dembour argues that , although most people moot in the combination of the first three factors as the essential element of the concept of Human Rights, or that human rights exist irrespective of bein having social recognition as every man is deemed to enjoy it being human beings as the rights are framed on the basis of human nature, it should not be assumed that it rests on a socio- legal consensus, or bears arbitrariness in its domain. He believes that Human Rights have come into existence as result of force of language use, and believes that they would cease to exist if conversation ordiscussions about them die down Different competingconcepts of Human rights exist inthe hostel,and people fight to strand their own opinions disregarding others. Donellys concept og Human Righ ts though is encouraging for many, but highlight some political or intellectual inadequacies in termsof moral honor in his book Universal Rights in Theory and Practice. Harshers Philosphy Of Human Rights points out that Human Rights demands that every single individuals dignity is considered in an existing political norm, where one individuals security of Human Rights leads to the security of another , mankifesting this security to an in decisive expanse and time in the society(Dembour 2006).Every individual craves for recognition in the personal and hint level where an identity is formed, as well as in the broader socio-politcal level. The uniform formation or malformation of an identity and recognition leads to infringement or violation of rights by one on the other. The politics of universalism emphasizes on equal dignity of all citizens, barring division in the society leading to classes of citizenship. However, from the politics of Universalism grows the politics of differen ces, when one shifts from the universally familiar and accepted practices in the society (Taylor 1994). This is the basis of differentiation amongst the fellow members of the society , which threatens the universality of theHuman Rights and practically leads to its violation.While enjoying their human rights,individuals tendto choke up that their forbearers had to fight to acquire them,and hence they need to be protected. Hence it is often found that Human Right issues are treated with a Machiavellean approach, with the sole intention of maintaining ones interests and dominion power( Dembour2006).A study of Dembours four schools of thought would further help to understand the different perspectives of Human Rights.Position of the PerspectivesDembours 4 schools of thought on Human RightsBased on the analysis of the thoughts of the scholars, Debmour has broadly categorised all discussions on human rights to be based on four schools, namely-The Natural Scholars These group of scholar s believe inthe existence ofthe Human Rights independent of social recognition, laying their basis on the Universe,God, Reason or any Transcendental source. Their basis of Human rights is much contrary according to Dembour, as they propagate that it is based on human nature as well as consensus. The Natural Scholars argue that human rights constitute a social choice of a particular moral vision of human potentiality, which is directly linked to the historical rise and consolidation of liberalism in the modern west. This according to Dembour is contradictory as human rights cannot have their existence always as well as historically. The Natural scholars according to him perceive Human Rights as universal even though they come to take on a single means of expression. They do not depend on an actual manifestation of it on the stage setting of t he international law, disregarding the metaphysical basis.Some natural scholars again, do not agree that consensus is the basis of Human Rig hts.In this regard , Michael Freeman disagrees with Donelly for considering consensus as a basis of Human Rights in order to avoid conflicting and contradictory philosophical theories on Human Rights. Scholars like Donelly consider Human rights to be promptly protected,and wantedthe most when they are not enjoyed. The Natural scholars on the aspect of embodiment of human rights by human laws opine that human beings can actually have human rights because they are humans.The Protest SchlarsThese scholars believe that, Human Rights is language to express a disagree, and is not an entitlement as thought by others. Harscher, one ofthe prominant scholars of this schol of thought argues that thebasis of human rights on God and reason should be should be absolutely discarded for the sole reason that god is non existent, and reason does not transcend as it is cogitate only on itself. The protest scholars depend more on things that are less specific and deal with social consciousness.Howev er, Harschers view of considering the existence of a society where human rights are efficiently protected naturally is very m,uch surprising as the protest scholars are naturally never satisfied with whatever they receive in this world but ask for more. They always visualize human rights injustice, and want tofight the abuses of the rights. On the aspect of embodiment of human rights by human laws, the protest scholars argue that ,human rights are always beyond reach, being the negative principle at the heart of social imaginery. Dembour points out, Rights therefore according to the Protest scholars are -moral claims or aspirations, which challenge the status- quo, and are chiefly concerned with the oppressed class of people. They evolve historically and are directed towards a more free and egalitarian human society.The Deliberative Scholars The most interesting part about this group ofscholars is that, they stay committed to human rights withou believingin them, though both the nat ural scholars as well as the protest scholars strongly believe inhuman rights. The Deliberative scholars consider human rights to be an essential string of procedural principles or legal and political determine that is necessary for running the government. They believe human rights should not dictate howthings should be substantively , but rather act as guiding principles of a process. Both Michael Ignatief f and Conor Gearty ,the two prominent representatives of this school are of this opinion.They believe that there cannot be any human rights beyond human rights law, and the sole objective of human rights should be about the process, and not attaining the right moral solutions. The Deliberative scholars are non-religious in their approach to human rights and get itassociated with the concept of liberalism.The Discourse Scholars The Discourse scholars are a bit cynical about the existence of human rights. Makau Mutua in his book Human RightsA A Political And CulturalCritique prese nts his scepticism saying that human rights cannot ineluctably present the best means to alleviate suffering. He further mentions that, to him the very concept of human rights seems dangerous as far as the human society is concerned, and Universality in terms of Human Rights is even more shocking. Wendy Browm has a different opinion than Mutua, but expresses her doubt pertaining to Human rights asking about the standstill of Human rights, in the perspective of International justice project, or should it be considered as a progressive international justice project. Thediscourse scholars not only importune on the non-naturalness of human rights, but also question the benefits of human rights on the individuals as well as the society.They point out at the inefectivity of the concept of the human rights , but fail to provide an appropriate standpoint on this discourse, and explain what their alternative would rather be. (Dembour2006)Human Rights Perspectives on DiversityCultural divers ity in any state calls for cultural recognition in the political governance of a state,and have been reflected by various ethno-national movements, language groups, indegenous people, migrant communities. Cultural diversity has become a major challenge for many nations, and affects their policy making. Globalization is one ofthe major factors responsible for cultural diversification. The intense capital flow in the market, the post-Fordist production methods, and the widespread western consumer culture globally has given rise to various social movements that lay emphasis on their own distinct ethnicity, linguism or religion. The common claim of all these movements is to be included equally in the mainstream society, and their particular identities be recognized publicly. Cultural diversity has become a major threat to the nation states,where claims of cultural recognition put forwarded by different social movement groups has started to be considered as a majotr threat to the stabi lity of the state and national unity.Theoretically,governing a culturally diversepolity has become a major challengingand controversial issue for the nation states, with the institutionalization of Human Rights in the cultural and social platform. The international human rights have far reaching contributions in the periphery of national citizenship. Its institutionalization in both goverment and non-governmental organizations has led to the establishment of a Universal Personhood,which go beyond the theater of classical modern political tradition. The Right of equality and non-discrimination have thus been specifically mentioned in articles peraining to individual rights to cultural identity andminority rights, obliging governments of the state to take up a pro-active approach in promoting the identity of all minorities within their territories(ICCPR Article 27 adopted by the UN in 1996)(Koenig Guchteneire 2007).Multi-Culturalism In GeneralMulticulturalism terminoligically refers to practice of sharing a set of positive evaluation of cultural traditions and ethnic identities of minorities. The literatures, arts and even politics cites evidences about it, acknowledging the intellectual and artiostic contributions of the minorities, though multiculturist thought is often accusedof promoting nihilism as they are considered to be influenced by Derrida.The basic challenge faced by multicultural societies is,on one hand they are entitled to enjoy the rights and opportunities of a liberal democracy, on the other hand they also have the right to maintain their identity and remain different. This directly contradictsthenationalistic view of a state which maintains that a state should have a homogeneous culture. This refers to necessity of cultural uniformity, shared territory and citizenship as the basis of nation integrity and political legitimacy. The immaculate Enlightenment thought highlights that a universal human civilization existed, which was accessible to a ll human beings. Propagators of German Romanticism emphasized that every nationality has their own linguistic and cultural character, which it had a right to defend. This concept developed as a defense against french Universalism restrained itself from interfering with individual human rights. Every society is a multicultural one irrespective of the fact of holding diverse ethnic groups, as it id full of individuals havinf different values and views peraining to the world. The practice of Multiculturalism in a society in thas respect can be a practice of instigating strong individualistic thinking, about personhood. If the core practices of multiculturalism is based on institutionalised diffrerences, it has the definite poossibility of regressing into apartheid, nihilism, or enforced ascription of cultural identities( Eriksen 1996,pgs 49-53).Linguistic DiversityLanguage is one ofthe three major dimensions of cultural diversity. Historically it is evident that Nation States have been formed on the basis of linguistic homogeneity,so as to ease the process of communicatrion in the governance. The most sensisite challenge that a government faces is blending a corporal identity with the territorially based national movement. Though Linguistic diversity does not lead to seccesionist movements, it sufficientently threatens a democracy. Language being the most essential form of communication, no state can maintain a state of neutrality as far as language is concerned. Apart from carrying out communicative and implemental function,language also performs symbolic functions and contributes to the cobnstruction of corporate identity. State building is often characterised by linguistic homogenization as found in the case of France. The standardization of scripts, grammar , semantics and cannonization of literatures are the most important policy tools involved in the process of state building. The Classical Democratic Theory is essentially develop on this linguistic char acteristics of a state, where language is considerd as the main public discourse. This modular concept is presently challenged by the defacto linguistic diversity that arises out of international migration abnd social networks which is basedon the new electronic media communication,and by dejure linguistic pluralism imposed on the nation states by the international human rights regimes.Ferdenand de Varennes argues that, language rights are generally considered as basic human rights of independence of expression and non-discrimination both in the global as well as various regional human rights regimes. Thet are inadequately captured by notions of unenforceable collective or minority rights. It is argued that claims to the privalkte and public use of minority language rights are more justified as individual human rights. However since minorities cannot be termed as bearers of collective rights, the transnational legal discourse on human rights de-legitinmizes strong policies of langu age homogenization and clearly obliges states to respect and fight linguistic diversity (Koenig Guchteneire 2007).ConlusionTo conclude, it can be said that governing cultural and linguistic diversity is a very important and controversial issue in contemporary politics whethe in the domestic politics or international politics. States in order to accomodate increased cultural diversity has to balance by recognition of the diferences. They also have to promote equal participation of the minorities, ethnic groups and indegenous groups publicly, and with a vision towardsthe future should frame policies accordingly. This task alls for framing suitable policy making pertaining to trhe issues of the ethnic, linguistic and religious claims for recognition, passing play beyond classical institutional contours and modern nation-state. They also highlight that while human rights provide some normative yardsticks for making policies pertaining to these issues there are no simple or easy soluti on for dealing with the burning challenge of cultural diversity. The dynamics of ethnic ,linguistic, and religious diversity follow their own logics which are varied depending on the historical trajectories of state formation and nation building. Therefore,to accomodate cultural diversity it is essential to find highly consideration-sensitive pluralistic policy designs. Having knowledge of socio-historical context are pre-conditions for framing successful pluralistic policies that would contribute successfully to the political governance of cultural diversity. (Koenig Guchteneire 2007).