Human Rights

Clark Butler

Human right are unobservable abstractions of pure thought.

We should explore a rational basis for human rights.

All actual rights are social rights.

Any actual right, as the German philosopher Gottlieb Fichte (1762 -1814)
argued, is a socially recognized claim. Social rights are enforced by
public opinion within a community.

An argument for human rights follows from Rawls’ (American philosopher)

concept of fairness. It is the result of “ dropping a veil ignorance”

Different parties in negotiation stand to win or different possible outcomes.

.It is not - particular interest..

General interest.
Stand for fair and rational judge.
• American philosopher Alan Gewirth - human rights using
the idea of a ‘goal-directed rational agent.’
• right to certain freedoms, goods, and services which any
goal-directed rational agent must wish to claim.

• As a rational agent one may claim to recognition of his

freedoms by others. And one must admit that other rational
agent must also make such claim. This knowledge causes
a kind of universal “social contract” to arise. This creates
social rights and perhaps legal rights. But it does not show
that they are moral rights.

• Human rights become a way of maximizing the freedom

of all to do what they individually wish as justified by the
self interest of each rational agent.
According to Gewirth , human rights come into existence which
enable everybody to intelligently pursue as wide a range of goals
is possible.

A contemporary Belgian philosopher, Chaim Perelman argues

for human rights with the assumption of a rational interest in truth.
according to Aristotle reason was our highest interest which
defined animal nature as specially human.

For Kant reason was logically consistent action.

Gewirth treats reason as a means.

He shows that human rights can be justified what goals we
pursue.
He explain how certain universal rights come to be recognized. …
Argues for human rights with the assumption of rational interest in
truth.
 A contemporary Belgian philosopher Chaim Perelman

offers possible solution for human rights

.
he privileges the rational interest in truth i.e. one particular interest.*
*Numerous non-rational passions should be objected. *Interest in truth.
*moral education.
..According to Perelman
human right can be morally justified. He is superior to Gewirth because he
argues for the human rights from the standpoint of the Rational interest…

reconstruct of Preleman argument..

We must recognize that it is not idealistic to say that truth could become a
universal truth. Human beings have human rights. Every human beings is a
rational being potentially committed to the search for truth .

Each of us has Potential obligation to enter into dialogue with the universal
audience of all human beings. It is the responsibility of educational institution.

Potentiality seek truth for oneself. Potentiality judge the quest for truth made
• He makes universal human duties more fundamental than universal human rights.
• Human right is equivalent universal duty.
•
• He emphasis human rights on human duty.
• Duty to dialogue. The right of every human being to be treated as a partner in dialogue with all other
human beings in the pursuit of truth.

• Perelman ties traditional practical reason i.e. Morality, respect for persons ;
• back to theoretical reason i.e. disinterested search for truth.
• Perelman’s defense of human rights is recognized in the work of the contemporary German philosopher
Jurgen Habermas …

• The obligation to create universal audience of which Perelman speaks by implementing civil, democratic,
or basic welfare conditions may be necessary.
• Objection to Perelman’s view:
• 1. human beings who do not understand the issues in specialized inquiry legitimately claim of human
rights .
• may not understand the topics of inquiry.

• All individual have equal ; but they have no capability of inquiry in general. Specially lay man have no
capability such human right..
 Perelman’s distinction between limited audiences and the universal audiences .

•Philosophers address the universal audience of all rational enquires-

•But priests may address limited audiences.
•Five interrelated considerations may be considered.:

•1st, there is specialists and non-specialists fields. They are not separated.
•On many topics those who address a specialized audience consider themselves
members of a universal audience.

•2nd, rationality is a quest for truth such as important truth and philosophical truth.
•Interest in truth means interest in special as well as general truth.
•Rational and non rational specialists, member of the general public belong to the same
community of human inquiry.
•3rd, human being is a qualified active partner on some topics while others are passive
partner on the same topics. Both performs the essential dialogue in general.
• 4th , one can truly convince a special audience only by usung the
logical criteria and rules of evidence understood by universal
evidence.
• 5th,individual is qualified to be an active in dialogue depends on his
opportunities of dialogue . Opportunities can change.

• Perelman shows that the true result is respect for our human right to
experiment as self-governing individuals within the social context of
inquiry.
• Build philosophical case for individual human rights without
depending any religious tradition.