This recent BBC article on human rights starts off very well and then becomes confused. I think he would have been better to simply say :
Inherent conception of human rights requires an objective moral standard i.e. moral law giver (God).
Since the moral law giver is under dispute then we can't universally speak of human rights. This is a well understood position among many moral theorists anyway.
The issue therefore is not whether human rights exist or not, but whether those who hold onto them do so consistently. And of course, it follows that unless you believe in God, you can't believe inherent human rights. Precisely for the reasons he has stated.
The notion of progressively evolving your way to an agreed objective "rights" standard fails because the conception of rights demands not just appropriate objective comparisons at time "t" but also "t + 1". In other words, moral comparisons must be consistent across time periods. We are not just interested in human rights today, but we also want to say something meaningful about the rights of those living tomorrow.
Inherent conception of human rights requires an objective moral standard i.e. moral law giver (God).
Since the moral law giver is under dispute then we can't universally speak of human rights. This is a well understood position among many moral theorists anyway.
The issue therefore is not whether human rights exist or not, but whether those who hold onto them do so consistently. And of course, it follows that unless you believe in God, you can't believe inherent human rights. Precisely for the reasons he has stated.
The notion of progressively evolving your way to an agreed objective "rights" standard fails because the conception of rights demands not just appropriate objective comparisons at time "t" but also "t + 1". In other words, moral comparisons must be consistent across time periods. We are not just interested in human rights today, but we also want to say something meaningful about the rights of those living tomorrow.
Comments
Post a Comment