The Adulthood of Mankind: Human Rights + Human Duties = Human Responsibilities?

[bkadoctaj]

I KNOW THIS IS REALLY LONG, BUT I TYPED IT OUT MYSELF OVER 7 HOURS SO PLEASE GIVE IT A SKIMMING AT LEAST. I GUARANTEE THAT IT IS THOUGHT-PROVOKING.

I'm taking a course at the university entitled "Human Rights in International Politics" and we have read about and discussed some fascinating aspects of the current state of humanity. The course is taught in a very philosophical, yet conceptual and orderly way. The article that has fascinated me most is a piece called "Towards an Ethic of Global Responsibility" by British philosopher Mary Midgley, published in 1999.

It highlighted the general dialectic that has occurred in human rights between relativism and universalism, which can actually be generalized to the traditional dichotomy between rationalism and idealism. Truly, it represents the struggle between fear/denial of essential change and the reaction to the weaknesses within the conservative status quo. Only by transcending this struggle [that is, seeing it for what it really is, and conceiving of its necessary (subjectively implied) purpose] and finding the commonalities between the human beings on both sides, can human beings expect to avoid painful destruction that results from myopia (short-sightedness).

With that, I'd like to outline the essential argument (or bridge, if I may) she stresses:

Introduction

• "It is the sense of our times that... there are some things that should not be done to anybody anywhere." Thus, it is felt, that everyone can and should protest when they are done.
• This concept of universal (inter-human) "rights" or justice surprises academics because general acceptance has happened so quickly, in relative terms, giving rise to uncertainties about its true meanings and its practical applications now and for the future. Like all moral insights, it must be critically explored for inconsistencies and imprecision. This sort of rational checking helps make the ideal of human rights more realistic.
• This checking should be careful to avoid being "predeterminedly destructive". In other words, "[t]he kind of reductive approach that rejects a new moral insight simply by pointing out that it cannot be expressed in the terms of its predecssors is guaranteed to miss the point."
• While individual duty may be denied by some, human "civilization as a whole" is in some sense responsible for the situation it is currently in. Human rights have evolved to help us focus on the most essential issues, important to all people.

The problem of incredulity

• The reason why we might doubt the power of the human rights concept (at times disparaging it as being entirely universalist, and unwilling to consider the "distinct" differences in cultures, traditions, and societies) to make a true impact is its rapid rise to acceptance worldwide.
• Further, the all-embracing nature of its essentiality connects it to all aspects of human (co)existence.
• We may view the following two implications as implausible because they are so huge and truly revolutionary: 1) "Can it really be true (we ask) that we have duties to people so distant from us, people belonging to quite other communities?" and 2) "Can we, still more strangely, have duties that concern the non-human world?" [How do you like them apples? ]
• However, human rights are indeed now generally accepted, at least in some form. This means a general moral adaptation is required to deal with this fundamentally revolutionary, and potentially equalizing, force. "We cannot go on acting as if we were still in that simpler world [before we recognized all humans as our kind]."
• Throughout the past, civilizations have "reshape[d] their moral horizons" to fit drastic changes of the times. Who can deny we are finding more global connections every day? Although these periods of getting used to the drastic changes can be rough and bewildering, but surely we must respond maturely (with a new, evolved morality). [This is the essential idea behind all dialectic thought, including that of Kant, Hegel, Marx, and many Buddhists: Thesis (old reality) + Antithesis (new reality) = Synthesis = New Thesis...]

The flight to moral minimalism

• Two options for meeting the dilemma are: 1) widening the scope of reality [the idea of human rights], or 2) narrowing the scope [moral minimalism a.k.a. relativism].
• Rational Enlightenment thinkers "systematically shrank morality by making it essentially a civic affair - a matter of mutual bargaining between prudent citizens within a limited society." This "contract thinking" attempted to ignore the concept of "duties" to anything external. Thus they talked in terms of self-interest and individualist protections of property, life, and way of life.
• The aim of this conscious limitation was suitable to the issues of its time (and thus it became popular and revolutionary), which for the Enlightenment thinkers, was to target "a distorted notion of duties towards God, and towards earthly rulers who claimed to be God's regents."
• There was a side-effect of the acceptance of this view and its practical application: it became hard to say what duties people really had to those outside of the groups they associated themselves with, much less those entities left outside of the bracket of humanity. [As you may recall, even Hitler had to first dehumanize his victims.]

The wider horizon

• Rationalist thinking (combined with Utilitarianism) left little room for imaginative concepts, especially in terms of language directly applicable to all humans. It was always resisted, in some slight form at least, by "an expansive, hospitable, universalizing, humanitarian movement".
• In the eighteenth century, this humanist movement brought forth a recognition of "the rights of man". The accusation against the status quo was that rationalist thinking was limiting "the idea of 'society' to certain privileged political units." They desired an expansion of duties to encompass foreigners and slaves, at a time when opposition to this was the norm.
• To talk about a world-city (as Kant tried with his Kingdom of Ends, much as St. Augustine tried with the City of God and the Stoics tried with their Cosmopolis) was belittled and restricted to the religious context.
• Essentially, the rationalist school served to perpetuate a status quo based on a reductivist principle, insisting "on pointing out that all states have limits and that all obligations must lie inside what is practical."

The Enlightenment's dialectic

• Enlightenment thinking still exists, and in fact is largely the normative construction. Postmodern insights are a part of this reality, as well, attempting to resolve clashes between such ideas as: "order and freedom[,] feeling and reason[,] humanitarianism and the rule of law."
• These clashes are not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, they provide a more open atmosphere for constructive dialectic. This dialectic paves the way to an evolution in moral development.
• Rationalism has helped idealists by pointing to the "nitty-gritty problems of detail" to help them refine their goals to be more suitable to the issues at hand.
• Those who treat practical thinking as a tool for moving in the direction of the vacuum the ideals cause do not waste their effort picking sides in the argument, but rather transcend it and strive to reform moral thinking with their creative ability.
• There is a tendency to view both the idealism (representing feeling) and rationalism (representing reason) as competing dogmas, but they are actually complementary parts of moral development and growth.
• Because strict rationalists claim "that only rational beings of a strictly human kind can have the kind of value or importance that would bring them within the scope of morality at all." Thus, their view can be simplified to the maxim: if it does not provide a clear advantage to humanity, it is not humanity's reponsibility to invest in manifesting it.

The point of exclusive humanism

• The limitations of rationalist thinking could be excused in the past (before the World Wars) because 1) "it simply reflected a political campaign against the use of religion to justify oppression" and 2) it was invented at a time when understanding of existence was just different from now.
• However, it has generally evolved into support for "a tendentious, reductive notion of rationality itself as essentially the caluclation of self-interest."

Is it just a verbal question?

• The basic problem with using the term rights is that it stems from a legal tradition. Law was its originating context. Thus rights imply one person holding them [defensively] against another.
• Unfortunately, this means that babies, "incapacitated" humans, rainforests, the ozone layer, and Antarctica cannot really stand up for themselves. Thus, people stand up to represent them. This limiting fact shows that rationalism is not reality, but rather a construct.
• Rephrasing "right" as "responsibility" might make the concept more acceptable to all people. All people can claim interest in such an idea, as it incorporates the idea of duty.

Words are not just air

• However, the concept of "rights" is an implacable force, which makes it truly formidable and necessarily improvable.
• Rights "[aim] to lay a burden publicly on anyone who stands in the way of relieving [oppressed people] - a burden which cannot be dodged by passing the can."
• Therefore, the concept of rights creates a strong pull in a certain direction, which is labeled by semanticians as linguistically inappropriate as "empty rhetoric". These people "dismiss one's whole claim without even asking themselves about the substantial moral issue behind it - as if the mistakenness of the wording settled the matter."
• A good strategy to use to expand consensus is "to assume that people are trying to say something genuinely important, however faulty their language may be, and to work to improve that language."

What lies behind the law?

• Because legalist language has been used (including terms like "rights"), there has often been an appeal to some form of higher law as a moral authority. Some names: natural law, law of God, moral law.

The problem of humbug

• Virtually every human has at least a few gripes with the current law and has some ideas for how to change it. Who really believes that "everything currently allowed" is truly just as moral/immoral? Thus we should transcend the details and search for a "consensus about deeper principles... to correct existing laws and customs."
• Merely because finding a consensus is difficult does not mean humanity should not strive for it. The real difficulty seems to be accepting the [moral] "demands" inherent in the new principles arrived at.
• There is a "moral accusation" against principles such as "love your neighbor as yourself" or "treat other people always as ends and not as means only" which is that these ideas are unreal or fantasies.
• But ideals exist for the exact purpose of "criticizing current practice". How many societies are so perfect that they are static? And if there are static societies, do they not treat their status quo-ism idealistically? [The case of the imperial family being considered divine in Japan springs to mind.]
• Ideals exist to give human moral development a direction/angle/trajectory . To ignore the essential point of ideals as forces shaping the direction of societal reality is fantasy in and of itself.
• "[S]uspicion of unreality" is a hint that perhaps further consideration is necessary to decide on the reality/unreality of a specific duty.

The difficulty of real realism

• People are naturally attracted to reductivist thinking and the principle of debunking because they speak in terms of tangible, relative concepts.
• "[A] realistic attitude in morals commonly means little more than an addiction to current habits. That addiction is just as resistant to long-term prudence as it is to altruism."
• Egoism cannot be the basis of morality because it is rare that self-interest is truly enlightened.
• Realists view long-term goals as "Utopian", causing a sense of incredulity to generally changing morality.

What is a realist?

• Two connotations or "realism": 1) moral realism, meaning "honesty about unpleasant facts" and 2) scientific realism, meaning "the belief that certain entities (such as quarks or electrons) are actual things in the world rather than merely convenient concepts which... is handy to use in calculation."
• In international relations, these two connotations are combined into a view that "honesty calls on us to recognize the nation-state as a specially real entity, a peculiarly hard fact in the world, a unit so uniquely solid and objective that it can fix the limits of our moral obligations." This is an arbitrary view. For realists to call those who seek a broader view believers of fantasy , is merely for them to use an "all-purpose psychological weapon available against unwelcome demands of every kind."
• Nation-states are a relatively recent human invention, and if they are important enough that the realists consider them to be an institution, they must see them as able to (like all things in nature) evolve to suit the times - in this case, the current moral climate of responsibility and duty.
• The institution of the nation-state is weakened by the following: 1) economic/financial policies and more rapid communication/transportation have undermined some of the state's traditional sovereign authority, 2) nationalist movements around the world are working to change borders that currently exist, 3) nation-states are inherently unequal based on their varied sizes, but are often classified as equal units.
• In fact, the above shows that the moral "burden of proof" lies in the rationalists' court.
• Realists focus on the limits to our power, but those who focus on creative, new, and transcendent means to the idealistic goals and ends we desire/need in the new climate of global responsibility.
• The real question is how far our powers really extend. But, "[a]stonishing feats have often been performed by people who simply decided to view something as possible which others were saying was not so".
• "[W]hen we belong to powerful nations, our public opinion can unoubtedly sometimes influence the behaviour of foreign governments."

So, what do you S&Pers think? This really stresses the basic point I've been trying to make to the rationalists who dominate this forum. We're all right, but we just need to "come to terms" (pun intended).

[Floydian]

This looks pretty damn good; I'll read/respond after I finally get some sleep (Even with drugs, I havn't been able to sleep for like 3 days...)

[Zylark]

First off, I'd say that was a very well written argument.

But realism isn't restricted to only human affairs as you seem to imply. It is only restricted to what is naturalistic. True, the perspective is from a human point of view, but really now, what else could it be? We are humans afterall.

As such you'll find realists at the forefront supporting responsible enviromentalism, curbing non restricted capitalism, criticising those seeking to discriminate based on arbitrary definitions of in and out groups.

But do so in a pragmatic manner. Your example of nation states is a good one, though with the wrong premise and conclusion. Realists recognize nation states as the current most viable solution to organization of mankind. That said, realists also recognize the universality of human rights and experience. As such, you will find realists everywhere championing the idea of a world government, a united humanity. But that cannot happen until all, or at least a substancial majority, see all humans as equal in principle. And rather slowly, I think we will get there eventually.

Realists differ from idealists in the sense that whilst both may have all the best intentions, realism is based upon what is possible through a pragmatic lens, not merely what is wanted and bypassing how to get there.

As such, utopian ideas are instinctivly rejected by realists. Not because a utopia wouldn't be nice and all, but because getting there would have a very real cost in human lives. A price a realist is not willing to pay. Better to live with differences, though always trying to minimize them, than attempt to forge everyone into the same mold by coercion.

[pavlakos]

well said zylark. but it will happen and it will happen by force unless the people do something about it. THE PEOPLE HOLD THE POWER.

now if global unity was being designed in the right way by the right people itd be much better off. and legally the people have the right to "veto" the pres/govt.

[Androgenicx]

no duties. fictional, societal inventions, that unfortunately many people never realize to be just another breath in the air.

Morality, etc, are all man made laws. Nothing wrong or right with them per se, but these laws cannot be applied to laws of nature and be linked with man's primordial system of survival and intrinsic code for living.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

no duties. fictional, societal inventions, that unfortunately many people never realize to be just another breath in the air.

Morality, etc, are all man made laws. Nothing wrong or right with them per se, but these laws cannot be applied to laws of nature and be linked with man's primordial system of survival and intrinsic code for living.

Try to take them away. Would most people feel safe with their sudden disappearance? The point is, they have been accepted as real, and we all feel some sort of duty to something (although some have claimed that something can be ourselves) because otherwise our demand for rights and freedoms knows no bounds. But hey, these concepts are TOOLS, just like all other human constructions. Better to have words be tools than people in my opinion. Just me maybe.

Originally Posted by Zylark

First off, I'd say that was a very well written argument.

But realism isn't restricted to only human affairs as you seem to imply. It is only restricted to what is naturalistic. True, the perspective is from a human point of view, but really now, what else could it be? We are humans afterall.

As such you'll find realists at the forefront supporting responsible enviromentalism, curbing non restricted capitalism, criticising those seeking to discriminate based on arbitrary definitions of in and out groups.

But do so in a pragmatic manner. Your example of nation states is a good one, though with the wrong premise and conclusion. Realists recognize nation states as the current most viable solution to organization of mankind. That said, realists also recognize the universality of human rights and experience. As such, you will find realists everywhere championing the idea of a world government, a united humanity. But that cannot happen until all, or at least a substancial majority, see all humans as equal in principle. And rather slowly, I think we will get there eventually.

Realists differ from idealists in the sense that whilst both may have all the best intentions, realism is based upon what is possible through a pragmatic lens, not merely what is wanted and bypassing how to get there.

As such, utopian ideas are instinctivly rejected by realists. Not because a utopia wouldn't be nice and all, but because getting there would have a very real cost in human lives. A price a realist is not willing to pay. Better to live with differences, though always trying to minimize them, than attempt to forge everyone into the same mold by coercion.

Coercion results when trying to maintain a status quo (China, North Korea, Serbia, etc... I could list off examples for anywhere in the world. Coercion need not be the fruit of conscientious, all-embracing desire for change. Like the author said, ideals may not be there to be reached by those who have them in their lifetimes, but they rather create a vacuum, or force, that pulls society in a certain direction. This direction reflects the generalized idealism of everyone. Pragmatic realism is good for "bringing it down to earth", but ideals are necessary. And -ism is idealistic, and any subscriber to and -ism views it as the most ideal. The double standard comes when realists accuse idealists of only being "ideal". Idealists are rational if you look at it from the perspective that idealists know they are creating a force (that necessitates/demands creativity, intuition, insight, and conscious striving) that will eventually effect their goals. Time is on their sides, not their life spans.

[Zylark]

Sorry to arrest you a bit here. You contradict yourself, and get a few facts wrong, or at least, not thought all the way through.

Though I'll agree a certain amount of coercion is used to keep up a level of status quo, you'll find that the examples you used all have a rather violent path to power and also must use violence both to grab power and keep it. Why, because they are all governed by dogmatic ideals, in an attempt to create some sick utopia. A small elite trying to press all into the same mold.

China is communist today due to a civil war after WW2. Ditto with North Korea, that have transgressed material communism, and moved onto being ruled by worship of their deceased leader. It might sound like a paradox, but communist theocracy fits the bill.

Serbia is a bit more complex, but it basically boils down to Serbia wishing to keep up the ideal of it being the hub of a larger conglomerate of nations. As it was under Tito, that managed to keep nationalistic strife in Yugoslavia under control.

What they all have in common, is a minority forcing their beliefs onto all, especially those that don't want it. Through violence. Born by violence, kept up by violence. Whether or not they die by violence, depends entirely on the powerstructure getting pragmatic rather than remaining idealist.

The fall of communism was surprisingly non-violent. Why? Because one of the greater men alive today, Gorbachev, had both feet firmly planted on the ground. Rather than keep up flogging a dead horse, he let the populace choose their own future. and that doomed the communist experiment in Europe at least. Almost 80 years of suppression, state violence and lagging behind, was overturned without hardly a shot fired. And now former communist Europe, have joined the fold of free nations.

All due to realist policy, worked at through decades. Rather than idealistic hot-headedness. All the west had to do, was draw up a demarcation line, and keep their own business in order. Prosper and show the world how it should be done.

[pavlakos]

lol, i wouldnt say 'free' nations. sure thats the guise they go by, but the same people fund all fronts of war and instigate the beef for the elites to profit. with globalization slowly unfolding, communism is inevitable unless action is taken. and how convenient is north korea? start a war there, and a 'holy war' in the middle east, EU jumps in, youve got yourself a world war 3.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Sorry to arrest you a bit here. You contradict yourself, and get a few facts wrong, or at least, not thought all the way through.

Though I'll agree a certain amount of coercion is used to keep up a level of status quo, you'll find that the examples you used all have a rather violent path to power and also must use violence both to grab power and keep it. Why, because they are all governed by dogmatic ideals, in an attempt to create some sick utopia. A small elite trying to press all into the same mold.

Actually, it's not all dogma. The Chinese were fairly rational and scientific. I don't know what could be wrong about my "facts" (which I would just say are opinions). Coercion is quite a broad topic. For you to even suggest it was not used in those locations (not to mention virtually everywhere in the entire world in all ages) is to neglect a large swath of reality.

China is communist today due to a civil war after WW2. Ditto with North Korea, that have transgressed material communism, and moved onto being ruled by worship of their deceased leader. It might sound like a paradox, but communist theocracy fits the bill.

Theo = God, right? Not authority or law. And invoking "theocracy" to defend "rational" power-seeking is the rationalist suspicion of political actors whom they declare must be "rational". These political actors are, as you put it so eloquently: "[a] small elite trying to press all into the same mold."

Serbia is a bit more complex, but it basically boils down to Serbia wishing to keep up the ideal of it being the hub of a larger conglomerate of nations. As it was under Tito, that managed to keep nationalistic strife in Yugoslavia under control.

Stressing those unreal ideals there? Surely you aren't a rationalist, are you? Could it be possible that those ideals are actually based on a rational(ized) view of reality by Milosevic and Co.? Tito certainly used coercion: called the Communist Party. Rational and law-based, with a few unconstitutional exceptions. But what's a constitution to you when you're the rational leader of a country knowing you have coercive instruments at hand and thus far a fearful people?

What they all have in common, is a minority forcing their beliefs onto all, especially those that don't want it. Through violence. Born by violence, kept up by violence. Whether or not they die by violence, depends entirely on the powerstructure getting pragmatic rather than remaining idealist.

Beliefs or ideals are being forced? Why do the people tolerate this elite? Could it be that they lack the moral protection/rights with which to prevent these power-hungry and militarily-supported (Egomaniacs, we might say? Or could they actually be truly "deluded" communitarians?) leaders? lol Pragmatic instead of idealist. Well, ideals are quite real. So I guess rationalism is merely a decrepit ideal of the past. Can we truly be rational? Rationally we'd come to the conclusion: no.

The fall of communism was surprisingly non-violent. Why? Because one of the greater men alive today, Gorbachev, had both feet firmly planted on the ground. Rather than keep up flogging a dead horse, he let the populace choose their own future. and that doomed the communist experiment in Europe at least. Almost 80 years of suppression, state violence and lagging behind, was overturned without hardly a shot fired. And now former communist Europe, have joined the fold of free nations.

Free nations? Yep, definitely some progress. Economic freedom and equality? Not so much, but hey: EU membership. Free nations? Well, what is your rational, limited definition of "free" nations?

All due to realist policy, worked at through decades. Rather than idealistic hot-headedness. All the west had to do, was draw up a demarcation line, and keep their own business in order. Prosper and show the world how it should be done.

Hot-headedness? What does that mean, precisely? No need to be vague with our defamations. Let us be "prudent citizens within a limited society" and discuss in non-subjective terminology. Or shall we not? What inspires fear other than Machiavellian anger (apparent hot-headedness)? Is it subtly corrupting idealism? Or do you blame extremists that expand the more essential ideals?

[Zylark]

Let me put this somewhat simpler then. There are political systems that are realist, in the sense that they do not deny human nature. As such the rules are set by the people for the people, and based on two simple principles. First to ensure as much freedom as possible since free people are generally happy people. Second to ensure safety, even if that entails curbing behaviour that may have a negative effect on others.

Within that framework there are many pragmatic and realist political directions. Liberal, conservative, social-democratic for example.

Then you have political systems that are idealist. That deny human nature. Try to subdue it. Communism is one. Theocracy another, and fascism a third. they all seek utopia defined by a small elite, rather than let people decide for themselves what makes them happy.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Let me put this somewhat simpler then. There are political systems that are realist, in the sense that they do not deny human nature. As such the rules are set by the people for the people, and based on two simple principles. First to ensure as much freedom as possible since free people are generally happy people. Second to ensure safety, even if that entails curbing behaviour that may have a negative effect on others.

Within that framework there are many pragmatic and realist political directions. Liberal, conservative, social-democratic for example.

Then you have political systems that are idealist. That deny human nature. Try to subdue it. Communism is one. Theocracy another, and fascism a third. they all seek utopia defined by a small elite, rather than let people decide for themselves what makes them happy.

First, are you willing to answer any of my questions in, say, a quote format? If not, I'll try to respond to all I was given here shortly.

On second thought, since you don't really ask any questions but rather merely make claims, all I can really do is ask you if you really believe that "theocracy", "fascism", and "communism" (not to mention "leader-cults") aren't just human-constructed terms that oversimplify things. So do you?

And if so, do you believe that everyone should believe that? And if so, why, in a hopefully more lengthy answer? If not, then why try to make blanket statements about "realistic" and "pragmatic" leaders/systems, as if irrationality, idealism, and views of unreality (as in things that aren't recognized as inherent yet) are not also inherent? If you don't believe communism is realistic and rational, I have video for you to watch and respond to. It allowed me to see just how much the Enlightened thinking of Europe permeated the Soviet society. Sure, we might view what they did as idealistic rationalism, but isn't any "ism" idealistic? Or is it a perfect, all-encompassing concept? [Perfect's idealistic, as well.]

[Zylark]

Your previous post was basically nitpicking. Just assume we agree on most of it. Or I agree to disagree. Take your pick.

The essense of how I see it, I summed up in my last post. That way we avoid the fishing technique of debating, and that is a good thing, no? Then we can discuss concepts, not technical and often semantical details.

But ofcourse, if I've been unclear on something, do ask. But try to keep to one or two concepts at a time.