Monday, November 19, 2007
Universalism, utilitarianism in the context of Human Rights
-- I only ask questions, in hope that the truth may be revealed through the process of blowing away grains of sand from the surface. I do not 'seek' the truth, because that implies that I already know what I am looking for, and thus, what I dig up may not in fact be the truth. --
After a chat with Joana Abrisketa and Adriana today, I feel a little more convinced that I am NOT a universalist, even though Joana definitely is.
If we say that human rights are universal, it means that we are finding a zone where there are a priori principles that ALL cultures agree upon:
This excludes the logical possibility of there being a culture that wouldn't share this universal zone:
Before I continue - let me explain the distinction between a logical possibility and a physical possibility:
A physical possibility denotes the limits of a system: If I were to jump out the window right now, what would happen? I would fall to the ground.
A logical possibility denotes the limits of the imagination: Can you picture, in your mind, me jumping out the window and floating to the sky instead of falling to the ground? The answer should be "yes". However, if I ask you to imagine a triangle with 5 sides, or that 2 +2 = 18, you are unable to, because these are logical impossibilities.
But there you are - above you have a logical possibility of there being a culture that doesn't share that zone. You can visualize it - there it is. So, because it is not necessarily true, it is no longer universal in the classical sense.
Thus - the conclusion that we come to, is that Universalism is something relative. It only is true within the 'box' that is called "Universalism":
However, even if we are to accept the universality of humanitarian principles, within the physical boundaries of this world, surely we can't believe that they are applicable in every case? Thus, if the principles are universal, but their applicability in certain areas is almost impossible, this makes the argument for universal human rights very weak. This is not to say, of course, that we should be rejecting them all together - it is simply pointing out that what we call 'universal' is still, logically speaking, relative. And also, to pose the question of whether there is any utility for a right that cannot be applied?
Here, I have a quote by Socrates, from Republic 9:
"In heaven, I replied, there is laid up a pattern of it, methinks, which he who desires may behold, and beholding, may set his own house in order. But whether such an one exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter; for he will live after the manner of that city, having nothing to do with any other."
This poses a new question for the universalist: Do you want to live in that city? What does it mean, if you live according to those 'universal' principles?
So - on to relativism. For those of you who find universalism unsatisfying, we can examine the dichotomy.
Relativists accept that there are many points of view, and that each point of view is correct, and fully justifiable:
Which means that we have a big problem already, for the relativist:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Universalism must be correct and fully justifiable if relativism is correct!
So where does this leave us? We have logically rejected both extremes of the dichotomy. Perhaps, we should, instead, be questioning the rigid framework that working with dichotomies imposes upon us? Accepting dichotomies, and defining the world in terms of yes/no, good/evil, black/white delegitimizes everything in between as somehow watered down versions of the two 'pure' extremes. However, it is us that create dichotomies. They are not created in juxtaposition to each other! We have drawn the boundaries ourselves. Thus, there really are a lot of solutions that we don't have to view as 'compromises'. They can have a strength of their own.
If you ask me, I subscribe to a utilitarian school of thought. I don't think that human rights exist a priori (for those of you not of a philosophical background - 'a priori' means 'first' - in other words, if something exists 'a priori', it's existence is not dependent on anything else, and so there is no question of whether or not it is true), and we are simply in a process of discovering them.
I think there are no a priori truths, ie, in this case, a priori human rights. What we have is social contract. There are certain compromises that we should all come to in order to maximize the benefit for all. There are certain individuals who would choose to ignore these agreements that we come to, and therefore we exclude them from our society, or, having strength in numbers, we punish them for not accepting our point of view. But they are not universal, a priori rights. There are always people who think differently, and within their society, if they have one, they are not wrong.
The weakness here is that I would thus have to accept in a society where it maximised the overall benefit to abuse women, ignore environmental degradation and trample over labour rights, that we should still act to maximise benefits.
I don't believe that such a society ever existed. All it means is that a handful of more powerful persons claimed that such a society existed in order to maintain the status quo. That's what I believe.
But, otherwise - just a small thought to keep in mind: Most western nations did not sign many, if any at all, treaties or conventions affirming the inviolability of 'universal' rights for workers, women, children or humans until they had built up a strong capital base.
So, a couple more questions:
Is it fair to demand of developing nations certain standards that developed nations never themselves applied whilst they were themselves developing?
Or is it, in reality, a mechanism that developed nations have developed in order to maintain their status quo of global economic disparity?
fon @ 9:39 PM link to post * *