In my post this week, I would like to continue our discussion about human rights, we had in class.
As you may remember, I posed a question about the origin of the human rights and the problems that might occur from it. In order to summarize that quickly, human rights are mostly based on western beliefs, especially shaped by the enlightenment movement, that is to say in the very base mainly by Immanuel Kant. Due to the fact that we all grew up with these very basic ideas of individualism, freedom of pain, dignity and so on, and we probably all experienced their advantages in our lives, it is very simple for us to accept Human Rights as a founding groundwork of a well-working domestic and international society.
Why do we accept Human Rights as such a important part of a good life for the greatest amount of people? In our western belief, human beings are distinguished from animals and other forms of living by the fact that we are able to execute Reason. This Reason tells us that the only way to achieve happiness (another western belief) for the whole humanity is, to create claims like the Human Rights. These two basic ideas, namely Reason and happiness (or a good life or however you might call it) are defined by western philosophers and their predecessors.
My question was, what might happen, if somebody from a completely different cultural background cannot accept Human Rights in a way that is very simple for us. Why could that happen? One possibility might be, because the very founding belief is not the distinction between humans and animals by Reason, but by any other difference, for example by the capability to recognize the divinity. A rational way to argue would be that humans are therefore only humans, if they act according to the divine laws, which can be totally different from our ideas of Human Rights. This argumentation is completely of equal value as the one mentioned above, based on Reason and happiness.
According to you, what makes the Human Rights then universal and worth to be applied by every human being?
Another question is, what we should do with people, who don‘t accept our ideas of Human Rights, e.g. like religious extremists. Of course, we have to try to argue in a reasonable way with them, but what if they still don‘t believe, what we based on our Reason? Is it possible to force somebody to follow these norms, to even believe in them? Kant would maybe say that it is contradictory to act irrationally (forcing to believe) in order to achieve a rational goal. Utilitarians would say that it is for the greater good and therefore right to force them to act according to the rules, even if they don‘t believe in them.
What do you think, what we could do with disbelievers of Human Rights?
It is actually very easy (and very satisfying) to discuss such things with, to use your example, religious extremists. It is not possible to use pure, secular logic. The only way to even hope to glimpse the possibility of a common ground is to use their own religious extremism to your advantage. When arguing with Christians, use the Bible, Muslims, the Qur'an, Jews, the Torah, etc. The idea that religious extremists, most commonly associated with Islamic extremists in the United States, are all hell bent on the destruction of all those who do not agree with them is simply a byproduct of misinterpretation of their own religions which can be rectified through logical argument from their own holy books. For instance, I have read much of the Bible and the Qur'an and can say with little doubt that neither advocates the genocide of those who do not believe the same as you. In the Qur'an, it uses a term "People of the Book" to refer to those who worship the god of Abraham and does not include them under the heading of "infidel". Islam is a very peaceful religion at its core and does not advocate the murder of anyone. Just like that, you have proved that they believe in the right of people to live. This is an example of how one could argue with a religious extremist to the end of hopefully reaching an understanding that their own beliefs are not mutually exclusive with human rights, but, rather, coincide quite nicely with the idea. One must always argue in terms that both parties identify with, using rationale that both hold to be true and not simply with arguments to some Natural Law as many westerners seem to enjoy doing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that using a religious group's own sacred text or belief system would be a feasible way to argue with them in an attempt to reach a reasonable common ground. However, I think religious extremism is a tricky example, because even if you try to argue with someone reasonably, religion often blinds people from reason. In other words, if I am absolutely convinced that God/some supernatural being wants me to kill you, then any argument you pose is unlikely to stop me. Religion blinds people to an extent where a conversation is no longer going to be effective. Does this mean that all religious extremists are then irrational? I would argue no. Yes, there is no solid evidence to prove that the extremist's plans/actions are reasonable or right. However, if s(he) believes a divine power has directed him/her to commit an action, then s(he) has some rational reasoning to commit that action. Does this mean the action is right or moral? No. But is the action inherently irrational? I would argue not, just like the math example Dr. J used in class. One can be wrong and still be rational. However, I realize calling a religious extremist who plans on killing in the supposed name of god RATIONAL might be troublesome, so what do you think?
ReplyDeleteI've been having a lot of trouble with the rational/irrational discussion just because it pains me to call a Holocaust denier or religious extremist rational even if we are also calling him unreasonable. Going with the math problem example, I think that Holocaust deniers or religious extremists have gone beyond an error in the calculations. It's like they're working with the wrong measurements altogether and doing it by choice. Despite all evidence to the contrary, these people continue to hold onto ideas about history, faith, whatever else. Is that rational? Especially in the case of questions of faith, this is troublesome. In discussing human rights, arguments can be made using history and human interaction. How do you present that argument, or any argument like it, to a person like the one in Leanne's example? I don't want to go too far from Flo's questions about disbelievers of human rights. I would answer anyone making an argument against human rights with a question about the value he puts, if not in the protection of the greater good, then in the protection of himself. My question would be, is there a point at which you abandon the conversation? Where do you draw the line with a person who is making completely unreasonable claims?
ReplyDelete