Theory of human rights

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY

Normative/normatively: does not mean law, but ethics, morality.

In moral terms, the statement according to which it is just for

human beings to enjoy certain basic rights it’s just.

We can reformulate it. The topic is not a descriptive stateman, it’s a

normative one and it can be measured, there is a gap between what

it is and what it’s ought to be.

The French Revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity

If it’s possible to argue that theories of social justice rely on these 3

concepts, we can also argue that the focus are liberty and equality.

Fraternity is regarded as sth very demanding/committing it’s like a

surplus. If it’s not there we should not give up moving on the line of

theory of justice and the contrary is equally true. There’s a

complication at the conception level: liberty and equality are not so

much confused terms but contested in the anthropological sense as

to what they mean, but within the framework of the western

tradition a double distinction is nail. Liberty understood as negative

and positive:

1) negative liberty is immunity from undesired external

interference which puts in danger physical integrity and

psychological integrity.

Every individual is autonomous, free from external

interference. But what is external interference? Government?

We can determine it through intersubjectivity, as Honneth

suggests; interference is not automatically negative; the law

determines which interferences are not allowed, so everything

belongs to interaction. From the social point of view, it

produces consequences. Distinguish between socially

desirable and law interference.

2) Positive liberty is a power which we don’t enjoy when we

concentrate on our own sphere of autonomy, but when the

legal sphere acts. For example, holiday trips paid by

Government that is a positive liberty.

Equality, like liberty, changes depending on the meaning: in

the case of freedom in fact we have 2 different meanings

(positive and negative).

Practical consequences: in a system where everything turns

around positive freedom, we don’t have much space for

autonomy (so negative freedom) and vice versa. In soviet

constitution of 1956? There was too much freedom.

Equality: equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes

1) All citizens (not everybody in the country) have equal

chances to access to services. For example, looking for a

job: a system based on equality of opportunities should

remove all the obstacles which limit us from applying to that

job.

2) Equality of outcomes: a society which allows guarantees to

everybody in order to get the same at the end of the day,

bringing everybody to the same result. For example, getting

a roof over head for everybody. A communist system gives

what people need, so the outcome is based on people’s

necessities.

Liberty comes first: theory of social justice and theory of

human rights claims that without freedom there is no equality.

But we can claim the other way around. Rousseau -> without

freedom there is no equality.

There is a degree of inequality which is acceptable,

justified by the theory of social justice; then reducing

inequality and find the ethical justification for the existing gap.

Fraternity indication of the fact that some human beings are



more “evil” than others but fraternity would be the rescue for

evil human beings.

People doing wrong things that’s the product of selfishness.

Are we supposed to consider selfishness as entirely wrong od

distinguish between good and bad selfishness? This latter is

not a solution, but an addition to see nuances. The way to deal

with the problem is the faith to distinguish between the good

and bad selfishness.

Equality of outcomes does not deny the existence of empirical

differences, what matters is what we make out of inequality,

what are the consequences. For instance, we are moving in an

unequal socio-political system, its’ all about consequences:

how we use such differences.

Definition: Theories of social justice are models of……

which justify the distribution of “basic goods”/basic

models

values. Income, freedom, health, property which are

empirically wanted by a large number of people. The access to

those benefits is not equal and smooth so for some people it’s

easier and others not. Problem of coordination! Matter of

survival. If there is no coordinate access to the sources there

will be the risk of conflict. Theory of social justice wants to

minimize the possibility of a conflict.

We are free to get what we want but it depends on the way we

want to get it: civil or harsh way. The idea of justice as “rule of

the stronger” can be damaging for the others. Hobbes, the

capacity to desire something is virtually unlimited, the

resources are limited. In economic theory this is one of the

basis. The fact that there is plenty of sth does not diminish the

risk of conflict. People have to think to all the possible ways to

reach that objective.

We want Values, commodities, goods. However, at the end of the

day these goods are measurable in economic terms and others

which are not. The word “value” itself reminds the possibility of

measure.

Measurable values (court) vs. Non measurable values

70s David Miller wrote a book in which summarized the basic

theories of social justices in 3 main spaces:

- Each person should achieve what he needs

- Each according to his rights

- Each according to his/her virtues

1) Needs based theories this theory presupposes that human

needs are always the same everywhere at any time. For

instance, sleep it’s a common need. Distinction with wants

which are a matter of preference. Progressive

In principle, the legitimate authority can establish the needs

and wants, when the public authority is the manifestation of

public will he can establish them.

2) Rights-based theories retirement is not a need, it’s an

option, a preference. It’s impossible to distinguish between

preferences, needs and interests. You do sth in order to get

what you want. This category is based on meritocracy, you get

what you deserve based on what you did. Liberalism

3) Deserts-theories: intrinsic quality which derive from nature.

On account of your position you can deserve sth. People

should be appreciated for what they are, it’s a conservative

appeal. We are arguing that there is sth in us which prevents

certain things to be performed. Conservatism

02/04/19

Theory of recognition

It combines theory of human rights (reference to the social sphere)

+ the methodological character (how he developed his theory) so

also “ABOUT human rights” (theories of citizenship). This latter is

definitionally exclusive citizen lead to limitations (who can be



citizen of a country?).

In his theory of recognition, Honneth does not focus much on the

“language”: it’s not required for identity information, but of course

it can make life easier.

Assumption If we don’t speak the language of a country, we can’t



fully understand what it’s going on (the ethical code of the country);

Debate:

Actually, we can understand what it’s going on even if we

 don’t know the language, maybe after a bit of time and just

the simple things [Reference: C.P.];

Every country is the key to access the language;



In conclusion, Honneth does not want people to believe that

language is the key that opens the key to sort of cultural paradise,

this speech is almost about romanticism.

Book “pathologies of legal freedom” what happens if we sort



problems going to a lawyer

Social environment provides each other recognition, in which



language is absent;

“Who gets What”:

WHO everybody;



WHAT it is that something to which human rights are about; there



things, items, commodities

are which can be either material or

the right of speech

immaterial. For example, in Freedom of Speech

freedom of speech

is something you feel you own, whereas is part

of myself. Are they material or immaterial?

Freedom of speech*;

- Material: the right of speech

- Immaterial: is sth you own, an intimate

thing, but it can be destroyed at any time, consequently very

vulnerable.

*Is Freedom of speech a property? If we mean ownership, then we

say no. However, some fundamental rights are not convertible in

economic terms and the word “property” has to be understood in

the conventional terms. Property means

quality/characteristic/feature, not “ownership”->Example: my

property as a football supporter is to get angry anytime we lose.

Theory of self-ownership: Are we owner of ourselves?

The “self” is not something physical but metaphysical, even in the

most advanced legal system.

Statement: Human being is the owner of his body;

Implication: we can do whatever we want with our body;

Euthanasia, abortion, prostitution etc. are all concerned with self-

ownership. There is a different perception of such things on the

social sphere and the legal one: on the social sphere these things

are individualistic, on the legal sphere no. We need to classify for

example gender differences just on the social level.

To sum it up:

- the what is determinable, quantifiable;

- I own my body;

- The determination of my properties is a private matter;

What we possess it’s taken for granted that it’s our own.

Is ownership the most appropriate category to define such a

complicated element like our body? We think we control ourselves,

but we are in a situation with split feelings (as regards a theory).

Ownership is just a metaphor: we borrow this term from law and

economics and use it in a psychological and metaphorical sense, in

a much more complicated way. Non-Sartrians would say: this is the

natural condition of human life.

Relation between ownership and human rights, commodities: as

long as certain conditions are justified in a society there is such a

relation. Similar to the approach developed by the American R.N.

Anarchy and Utopia) libertarian

(Book who outlines the concept of

network everybody is entitled to look for the group of people



which shares similar values.

The idea that we own our body, self, language etc. it’s the idea we

assume in the absence of anything better. However, this does not

mean it’s easy to get it because we have to find it. Last, do I own

the language I speak or the one I would like to speak? Language it’s

not structured on the basis of individual contribution, but millions of

people contribute it.

Human rights cannot be reduced to ownership.

quality

Property as is used in the conserv