In this write-up, I’m not going
to answer the question, “What is the philosophy of human rights?” As much as possible I will try to avoid this
question lest I will search in vain such thing as “philosophy of human
rights.” Perhaps, the right question to
answer is “What are the philosophical ideals underpinning human rights movement
and advocacy?” Thus, my choice of title
is not “philosophy of human rights” but “philosophy and human rights.” Philosophy is an oldest discipline, which can
be traced back from Thales in the 600 BC.
The concept of human rights is credited to the works of some
Enlightenment Philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and
Immanuel Kant in 17th and 18th centuries. It found its way to be embodied in laws in
the English Bill of Rights in 1689,
in Scottish Claim of Rights in the
same year, United States Declaration of
Independence in 1776[1],
and so on and on.
Enlightenment philosophers are
called to be such not because they were the “enlightened ones” like Gautama,
the founder of Buddhism, but because they were born in the Enlightenment period
–a period shortly right after the Dark Ages in Western History. There are significant themes why they are
considered as Enlightenment thinkers.
First, unlike Buddha who claimed that he was awakened by the four noble
truths in life, enlightenment thinkers made a radical claim that every human
person is an individual endowed with rational faculty. During Dark ages in Europe, the Catholic
Church had the influence and power. This
privilege of having influence and power was embedded in the belief that Christ
instituted the Church to be the vessel of the salvation of man. As an agency of man’s salvation, the Church
claimed to have sole authority in matters of personal, social, religious, and
political life of the people. Since she
is infallible in all these matters, the faithful have to conform to laws,
doctrines, and tenets of the Church. To
defy her power is like disobeying God’s will and commands. Second, because of the idea of conformity of
the faithful to Church’s power and influence, every faithful was denied of
individual initiatives and creativity –thus, that period of history is
considered Dark. Though it’s not
literally dark, but the idea is that no event was worth writing in history
books. When concept of individuality was
given emphasis, there were four significant consequences: (1) the idea of
conformity was challenged, (2) there was affirmation of man’s capacity to gain
individual salvation as propounded by Lutheran movement, (3) there was reaffirmation
of man’s ability to gain self-realization without the agency of the Church, and
(4) the reaffirmation of man’s rational faculty.
I’d like to focus my analysis on
the last theme, “reaffirmation of man’s rational faculty.” It was only a reaffirmation by the
Enlightenment thinkers in that in the classical Greece, Plato and Aristotle were
clear of their affirmation of it. Both
philosophers claimed “man is essentially rational.” This theme, however, faded and was clouded
over when the pendulum of authority and power swung to the side of the Church
during the Dark Ages. In the later part
of Dark Ages, there was a gradual revival of the classics –referring to the
remnants of ancient Greek civilization.
Then, Enlightenment period came.
Kant on Human Rights
I’d like to discuss the idea of
human rights in the Kantian and Lockean perspectives. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is not
specifically talking about human rights.
But his discussion on the question, “What is Enlightenment?” gives us a
clearer picture of a thread underpinning philosophical ideals and human
rights. Kant reaffirms that man is rational. His claim, however, is entirely different from
those of Plato and Aristotle because Kant adds some Cartesian[2]
elements of his claim. Cartesian
philosophy is characterized as anthropocentric –a philosophical belief
emphasizing the fact that man is the center in the scheme of things. Ancient philosophy like those of Plato and
Aristotle, on the other hand, is characterized as cosmocentric in that nature/cosmos
is at the center of the scheme of things.
The motto of the Enlightenment is “Have courage to use your own reason.”[3] Based on this, we can infer that the project
of enlightenment is for humanity to see once more the glitters of hope in man’s
thinking power, which was once subdued by the influence of the Church. I’m not going to dwell more on this
topic. I rather take Kant’s idea of
man’s rationality, which hopefully I’m able to connect it with the idea of
human rights.
In his two major works, Critiques of Pure Reason and Practical
Reason, Kant laid out the foundation of science and morality in man’s
faculty of reason. Man’s reason is the
source of any scientific and moral knowledge.
It’s like a fountain of “a priori” ideas –existing prior to experience,
which will readily arise once infringed upon by experience. Yet, for Kant, these a priori ideas are not
coming from experience; they arise with experience instead.
Let me zero in my analysis on
Kant’s morality. Kant notes that since
our moral knowledge is a priori, we always intend to do what is good in any
given situation. We “ought” to do good because
we are all persons of good will. “Good
will is the most equally distributed in the world and it’s the only thing which
is good without qualification,” he added.
On this basis, I find the logical connection between Kant’s claim of man’s
rationality and his claim of self-legislating subject. As rational beings, we legislate our own
laws. We formulate laws of what is true
and of what is good for us. If we’re
self-legislating subjects, then we’re all free individuals. As free individuals, we’re all beings
afforded with all forms of human rights.
Human rights are an embodiment of our freedom, which is somehow an
embodiment of our reason.
I oblige myself to write a second
part of this article, which will be devoted to Lockean perspective on human rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment