Though, in the opening section of his book, he agrees that he ‘doesn’t present a precise theory of moral basis of individual rights’ but he still suggests various factors that such a theory might be inclusive of. Anarchy, state and Utopia starts with: “Individuals have rights, and there exist things that no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)” These rights, to him, are natural because of who we are not because they were given to us by someone else but just mentioning that we have rights isn’t the same as saying why we have them. For this, he draws on Immanuel Kant’s famous formulation: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” . Humans are beings possessed with the virtue of rationality and hold dignity which keeps one from being used by another, and hence we have rights against such use. The idea that forms the core of his argument is the conception of a human’s capacity to lead a life they want.
The conflict is that, while both believe in human equality, the natural rights philosophy stresses the fact that some men can excel, while the common good philosophy stresses that all men are equal in every way- socially, economically, etc. The natural rights philosophy also stresses behaviour with self-interest at heart, while the common good philosophy discourages such actions. I believe that the natural rights philosophy is far superior to the common good philosophy. I believe this because the natural rights philosophy allows people to move ahead in life and become successful, while the common good philosophy discourages that. It is necessary for people to excel, because without higher knowledge and higher achievements we would not have new inventions or new and better ways of
Rawls natural right theory privileges human rights over any other duty, whereas Mill’s utilitarian theory favors society over individual and natural rights. Rawls critic is mainly directed to utilitarianism values, which is based on measuring people according to their thoughts and status instead of caring about their
The feminist and cultural relativist have the same critique but different goal. Feminists do not refute the theory that the international human rights is universal, but feminism critique about the practice of international human right, while Cultural relativist critique both the theory and practical of International Human Rights. Feminists argue that the universality that been said in the International Human Rights have not been realized in daily life practices, Feminism assumed that the right only owned and protect the men. Feminism felt like women are not the part of “human” category that stated in the Human Rights. Feminism believes that if the international human rights are truly universal, then the rights is not only for men but also for women which means there must be the right guarantee for women and the rule for their protection.
HumanismIt is about methodology of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion. Humanism is a philosophy in a form of science and inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty, opportunity and responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture.
Simply put, rights must be given on the basis of what kind something is, not an individual basis. This also leads to the widely accepted concept of natural rights. Natural rights guarantee rights to everyone based on the kind of thing they are and protect every individual of the same kind equally. Based on this, because humans are the only kind in nature which can logically possess rights, all humans are guaranteed rights, regardless of if they can exercise them or not. They possess these rights simply by being human.
To prove this point, I shall present various theories of universal human rights, which have been explored by Ronald Dworkin, Kant and Jack Donnelly. In unison, I will highlight the intricate gaps in these theories. Ronald Dworkin presents a concept of "rights as trumps." In his book, he argues that "Rights are best understood as trumps over some background justification for political decisions that states a goal for the community as a whole." However, we are unable to simply categorise rights as trumps as there are certain common good for a community that takes precedence over rights in certain scenario.
Since the ancient times the research of a ‘Just’ society has always been linked with the Natural Law, a corpus of eternal, universal, and immutable rules, as the Nature, valid for everyone. The precursor of the Human Rights can be located in the Natural Rights theorized during the Renaissance humanism. Even if some rights had already been recognized, or affirmed in ancient and previous times, they were strongly connected to some divine power or religion. Nonetheless there are some precedent examples of interest. The Magna Charta signed in 1215 by that King John of England, who committed himself to respect, contained among others in its list , the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property, to be protected from excessive taxes,
This school of thought's concept is the human beings are not same as other species and human beings can possess different capacities that cannot be achieved by the animals. Therefore, humanism focuses on the study of human interest and needs. Humanism is a concept of self-actualization. Humanist thought might a chance to be followed over of the period from claiming Siddartha Gautama Buddha (563-483 b.c.) clinched alongside ancient administration India, What's more Confucius (551-479 b.c.)
Humanists emphasize free will and our ability to choose to have a more meaningful and peaceful life. They stresses upon human strengths over their weaknesses, and focuses that human beings are not victims of deterministic forces. The Humanists optimism reaches its peak in the theories of Carl Rogers. Taking a look at Waiting for Godot, this paper investigates the humanistic concerns expressed in the course of the play that is of human nature, suffering and relationship, and analyzes them so to reveal whether or not Beckett’s portrayal of these humanistic concerns is in concern with the basic premise of humanistic theories manifested in the work of Carl Rogers. Based on the optimistic view of Rogers, free will is an crucial part of human nature and man can himself determine the path of his life.