Critics of Human Rights from a Historical Perspective
Loading...
Date
2015
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Wydział Nauk Społecznych, Instytut Filozofii UAM
Title alternative
Abstract
Implementation of human rights is often criticized because
it is perceived as being imposed on the rest of the world. In this
case, human rights start to be seen as a sole abstraction, an empty
word. What are the theoretical arguments of these critics and
can we determine any historical grounds for them? In this paper,
I will try to point at similar critics after the French Revolution –
like that of the Historical School and Hegel – and try to show if
some of these critics are still relevant. And I will compare these
critics with contemporary arguments of cultural relativists. There
are different streams and categorizations of human rights theories
in today’s world. What differentiates them is basically the source
of the human rights. After the French Revolution, the historical
school had criticized the individuation and Hegel had criticized the
formal freedom which was, according to him, a consequence of the
Revolution. In this context Hegel drew a distinction between real
freedom and formal freedom. Besides the theory of sources, the theories
of implementation such as human rights as a model of learning,
human rights as a result of an historical process are worth
attention. The crucial point is about integrating human rights as an
inner process and not to use them as a tool for intervention in other
countries, which we observe in today’s world. And this is the exact
point why I find the discussion of the sources more important. This
discussion can help us to show how the inner evaluation of a society
makes the realization of human rights possible and how we can
avoid the above mentioned abstraction and misuse.
Description
Sponsor
Keywords
Historical law school, Hegel, cultural relativism
Citation
Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna, 2015, Tom 4, Nr 1, 2015, pp. 182-197.