State and Human Rights - Philosophy

State and Human Rights

Since the 18th century, philosophy has declared the "war" absolute state. French educators opposed the monarchy to civil society. Soon the incapacity of civil society forced Europe to intensively engage in "upbringing" nation, which is increasingly different from the totality of people associated with a social contract. Again, the feeling of patriotism was reanimated, and in the French textbook for schoolchildren the story of a simple soldier, Chauvin, was told, who sacrificed himself for the sake of his love for his mother country. To unite the nation, a community of territory, language, and culture and even religion was required. When this was added to the "blood and soil", i.e. common ancestors and earth from which occurred and on which the citizen grew up, something so dangerous happened that after World War II the criticism of the nation state began again.


Lawyers distinguish three aspects of human rights :

1) protection from the state;

2) promoting human rights;

3) legal, social and cultural conditions for the exercise of rights.

The fundamental right is based on natural, or congenital, human rights. It was on them that the American Bill of Rights of 1789 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 were based. Their first sections describe pre-state human rights and proclaim the power of the people, which legitimizes the state and limits the power of the government.

Priority is given to those rights that are applicable to people's relationships, and the state is secondarily and, so to speak, subsidized by human rights. The distinction between society and the state is important for the differentiation of political anthropology into two parts.

One section forms the anthropology of law. This part raises the question of what a person is and what rights it has.

Another section is the anthropology of the state, for man is a being that, according to Aristotle, is naturally forced to live together, i.e. in the state.

Today they speak about the priority of human rights. It's amazing that they do not see the reasons for their reassessment. In fact, they are nothing more than a civil religion of the modern era; moral and political basis of his project, based on the idea of ​​man. As such, this setup has an ideological origin, in relation to which there is a problem of legitimization. The difficulty lies in the fact that the very concept of human rights arises within the framework of a historically concrete form of a territorial state. Due to the historically defined New European context, it claims to be universal. The equality of people before the law is proclaimed irrespective of their origin, race, language, beliefs. Thus, we are talking about the cultural universality and transhistoricity of human rights: whatever epoch or culture it belongs to, it has natural rights. Critical objections to their universality are built on the grounds that human rights are nothing more than a form of ethnocentrism and even cultural Western imperialism (J.-F. Lyotard, P. Feyerabend). Critics raise the question of the legitimacy of applying the concept of human rights that has developed in the framework of Western culture in the Age of Enlightenment, to other epochs and cultures. Universal Human Rights Are the rights of a European and a Christian? How else to understand that it was in Virginia, where the first Bill of Human Rights was adopted, that slavery existed for so long? In fact, these horror stories are based on the blending of universality and uniformity. Equal rights do not erase cultural and social differences, therefore human rights should not be based on certain historically emerging cultures and states, but on > the idea of ​​man , which is developed in philosophical anthropology. But is it possible to talk about a person in general? If a person is a product of culture, then one can not talk about it from an out-of-historical point of view. This is back in the 1930s. pointed out the Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs (1885-1971) and one of the founders of the Frankfurt school Max Horkheimer (1895-1973).

According to Aristotle, human qualities are formed only in society. This proves the relevance, the applicability of human rights to the ancient polis or territorial state of the modern era. Anthropologists go further and point to the instrumental nature of the state. If G. Hegel argued that the state should embody a moral idea, today there are doubts about the ethical task of the state. According to the concept of human rights, the state sets only the most general conditions of a market economy, but humanity must be sought in a completely different place. This thought was not alien to Aristotle, who wrote in "Big Ethics" that happiness is not directly connected with the political system. The concept of human rights has little anthropological content. There are many forms and opportunities for the realization of a happy life: a priest, a doctor, an engineer, an artist - each in his own way sees the meaning of life. Human rights leave choices open and define only the general premises of humanity. The lack of education, knowledge and other advantages of civilization dooms, as Aristotle believed, to slavery. Today, radical pluralism is in vogue, according to which certainty is identified with dogmatism. Uncertainty of man in existential philosophy is understood as an opportunity to acquire a different essence, therefore, general human rights do not at all impede the realization of the right to a particular cultural and, the more so, individual existence.

However, the concept of human rights puts a limit to radical historicism and pluralism in anthropology. After all, the pluralism of cultures and subcultures, like nonconformist behavior, is possible only under certain conditions, which themselves must remain constant (constant). The idea of ​​human rights should be understood as the unity of the concrete and universal. It limits pluralism and non-conformism to the recognition of the general conditions that form the normative concept of humanity. For the correct unification of the universal and the concrete, a Copernican revolution in philosophical anthropology is necessary. To this end, it is necessary to abandon the idea of ​​a person centered on happiness and self-realization, which was already in Antiquity; to abandon the normative definition of human rights.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)