HUMAN RIGHTS AS UNIVERSAL RIGHTS
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This research examines the concept of human rights as universal rights. The concept of universality in relation to human rights implies that such rights are self-evident and that they exist in one form across cultures, regardless of whether they are recognized and practiced by all cultures (Machan, 1989). This conception of human rights is foundationalist in character and represents a rationalist interpretation of human rights. All countries, however, do not recognize the validity of this conception of human rights; thus, what is self-evident to one person is not necessarily self-evident to another. Actually, almost all countries do acknowledge the existence of human rights. The devil, as the old adage goes, is in the details, and the disagreements between countries and cultures in regards to human rights tend to focus on the specifics of human rightsùwhat they are and what they guarantee an individual. Based on the nature of the cross cultural discourse on human rights, the thesis of this research into the topic of "human rights as universal rights" is that: "An Absence of Political Consensus Across Cultures on Interpretation of the Term 'Human Rights' Renders the Concept of 'Universal Rights' Virtually Meaningless in the Contemporary Period." This thesis, thus, rejects the rationalist conception of human rights which is based on the philosophy of foundationalism.While the principal focus of this examination is on the
. . .
t al., 1991).
Hobbes contributed the concept of a relationship between protection and obedience to political philosophy (Bellah, et al., 1991). According to Hobbes, the relationship required the absolute submission of the individual to the dictates of an arbitrary sovereign. Hobbes, however, did not equate sovereign with king or with any other kind of one-person rule. Rather, Hobbes viewed political law as the sovereign. Thus, the same political philosophy, according to Hobbes, should be applicable in democracies, aristocracies, and monarchies. Hobbes also thought, however, that a monarchical form of government was the most preferable, and that a democratic form of government was the least preferable. Hobbes, thus, could not reasonable be viewed as a strong advocate of human rights.
Hobbes based his theory of obligation to an arbitrary sovereign on his contention that the natural state of man was a so-called fighting anarchy, or war. Hobbes, thus, saw the only hope of collective cooperation in the absolute submission of the individual to a sovereign authority. Some later political philosophers have challenged the Hobbes relationship between his view of the natural state of man and his view of the state of society (absolu
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Schmid Wuketits, American Constitution, Hegel Marx, Livy Machiavelli's, American Madisonian, Conclusion Santos, Anthony Smith, According Hobbes, RIGHTS Introduction, Kant Hegel, political philosophy, human rights, bellah et al, et al 1991, bellah et, et al, al 1991, political system, political philosophers, macintyre 1984, political structure, contemporary political, american political system, human rights universal, rights universal rights,
Approximate Word count = 5106
Approximate Pages = 20 (250 words per page)
More Essays on HUMAN RIGHTS AS UNIVERSAL RIGHTS
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
