He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people. He departs from non-realist theorists when he argues that morality has no place in measuring or comparing states with one another: “Here no other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.” Realists’ tenets, fundamentally, are that states should act in their self-interest and that states in the world have to focus on their survival. Realists hold that we live in an anarchic system, and as such... ... middle of paper ... ...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability.
To discuss the possibility of universal human rights, we must consider the conditions it requires and what defines human rights. This is particularly important for distinguishing human rights from other kinds of rights – as what one person considers a human right; another might not consider a right at all. In this essay I will critically interpret the notion of human rights universality in the contemporary realm of global politics. Observing the merits and downfalls of this interpretation, I open the concept of universal human rights to challenge by grappling with the definition of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ human rights. In diverse world system increasingly characterized by transnational cooperation I will address the fundamental question of there being a human ‘right to politics’, or more precisely, if human rights require democracy.
Martin Luther King stated “Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.” Conscience is the main sense of human being that helps to distinguish what is wrong and what is right. Thus, conscience has to be a main driving force when people encounter unjust laws of government.
(Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A) Communitarianism says that communities themselves define what rightful conduct is, and therefore should not be obliged to follow any universal moral code. Morality arises from the culture that makes up the community, and therefore determines what is right for that community, whether it is or not for anyone else. Communitarians say that there cannot be a universal moral standard because where would these standards come from? Who would decide what is right and wrong? However, the argument communitarianism can be turned against it if these communities are nation-states.
This paper will argue that even if human rights promote what is viewed as universal values they cannot be applicable to all of humanity, primarily because of issues with the concept of universalism. To argue this view firstly the topic of human rights will be introduced, so that there is an understanding of the use of the words human rights within this paper. Secondly, the development of the concept of human rights will be discussed, as a way to show the evolving nature of the social human groups around the world. Thirdly the connection between morality, values and human rights will be discussed. Then the concept of universal morals will be discussed, as this is the primary concept that applied to the idea of human rights being universal.
The job of the kind of theory I am after is to provide a general organizing idea or principle that makes sense of talk of rights and explains how and why certain attributions of rights can be declared valid and others cannot. Since propositions of rights are a pervasive and contested feature of our political practice, the question of what they should be taken to mean is a central problem for political theory. Whether we hold them to be self-evident truths, or nonsense, or fictions, or something else, we cannot avoid taking some view of their sense if we are to give an adequate account or critique of our political principles and institutions.
Rawls' Concept Of Justice As Political: A Defense Against Critics ABSTRACT: Rawls' theory of justice as fairness involves a central contention that principles of justice essential to the structure of a constitutional democracy must be viewed as political in contrast to more comprehensive moral, philosophical or religious doctrines. The concept of justice is not its being true to an antecedent moral order and given to us, but its being congruent with our self-understanding within the history of justice as political is not a mere modus vivendi, for it embodies an overlapping consensus that does have a moral basis. Critical reaction to Rawls has been that what is simply a consensus within a tradition of public discourse cannot afford an adequate criteria of moral justification, and that Rawls cannot define the moral basis for justice as fairness without some reference to a comprehensive theory of the good. But it will be argued that critics are missing what is central to Rawls' theory of moral justification as what he sees to be the outcome of a process of "wide reflective equilibrium" in which principles of justice initially given within a tradition are weighed against rival moral theories and in relation to scientific theories of human nature and society in order to establish what seems "most reasonable to us." It is the central contention of Rawls that the principles of justice essential to the structure of constitutional democracy must be characterized as political in contrast to more comprehensive moral, philosophical and religious doctrines on which agreement is not possible within the pluralism of modernity, and that the concept of justice is not its being true to an antecedent moral order, but its congruency with our self-understanding within history and traditions embedded in our public life.
According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral.
Morality is the distinction between behaviors of right and wrong. It pertains to conduct that can be of serious consequence to human well-being. Although morality takes priority over other competing standards, its soundness is contingent on the adequacy of supporting reasons. On the contrary, the law is a legislative system that underlies a body of rules and rights. While morality allows for personal choice, the law does not.
Bobbio offers the observation that politics is contradictory and paradoxical, since it often includes unavoidable broken promises. Postmodern political thinkers like Foucault put forth the idea that power among the hands of the state is both suspicious and dangerous. In discursive political theory, there must be an open communication of ideas and reason between citizens, but many critics, like Schumpeter and Sheldon Wolin, argue that open dialogue in modern democratic practices is vulnerable to fears and concerns of citizens. Inclusionary democracy prevents the tyranny of a few to withhold political rights to citizens and calls for acceptance of rights for various social and racial groups in order for equal representation in the political process. However, various groups have challenged the success of democracy to fully represent citizens’ rights because of its divisive nature.