Metapolítica
articles
By Eduardo Hernando Nieto
Recently I was cordially invited by a young (and not so) of the NGO "Transparency" to intervene in a discussion: with Professor Alessandro Caviglia, concerning the validity of human rights.
Since I had nothing to substantiate or prove - as to why there are those who worship them - Alessandro Caviglia started her argument [1] ruling out two options for foundation level that have accompanied particularly the legal discourse of human rights, namely, the argument of nature (read Locke for example) or the positivist argument (Bobbio, or Ferrajoli). Obviously, as Berlin would appeal to nature would allow the imposition of a totalitarian regime justified precisely on the weight of the nature of things (sic). Certainly, as a good liberal Kantian Caviglia then flatly rejected the "nature" as the foundation of human rights and then also leaves questions about the viability of the positivist argument would also lead behind a authoritarian tendencies (just recall the thesis of Hobbes or Bentham)
Then the options before the teacher Caviglia in this case were reduced to two, the intuitive argument and historical argument. In the first case, saying any reasonable person would have to recognize the advantages and correction of human rights, that is, considering that a society is just if it defends human rights than one who does not. The historical argument on their part would say that since the religious wars, until the French Revolution, the establishment of representative democracy, granting women's suffrage, etc., Etc., The world has evolved and human rights have consolidation, ie, that human history leads inevitably to that destination.
Obviously, it was difficult to find reasons that could challenge such claims, first I remembered that Robert Nozick in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia "(1974) also appealed to the same intuitive argument here is not to justify or Liberal Welfare State but rather a Libertarian state, ie that only minimal state as sacred property rights and market but flatly ruled out any social or economic right (probably the most desired by my friends and Caviglia Gamio)
On the other hand, the historical argument always turns into a double-edged sword because although you could say that there is a tendency that leads to the consolidation of human rights to the story is nothing to prevent further take other paths, ultimately, appeal to history is to fall as Strauss would mark the second wave of modern, romantic as that represented by Rousseau and Hegel those trying to overcome positivism and its affirmation of a truth only gave us more of a myriad of truths that could lead us to relativism [2] .
At this point it would be feasible to define and some preliminary conclusions:
1. None of the arguments seem solid enough to justify the reason the doctrine of human rights
2. If this is so then we could say that these are not rational
3. If they are not rational then they are:
4. I argue that they are basically an emotional and sentimental
product precisely, we can see an exaggerated passion in their supporters and some say maybe this is the new religion that corresponds to the "'last man', ie a man twilight dying civilization to the spiritual emptiness that has been submitted. Even as a liberal academic Michael Ignatieff speaks of human rights as idolatry to this attitude exhibited by activists and their high priests (the scholars who defend them) to take them as ends in themselves [3] .
The identification of human rights with the advent of "last man", is associated specifically with the demonstrated inability to not endure the pain and suffering [4] . Contemporary men defend human rights because they do not tolerate human suffering [5] , and is not that bad to show compassion, but the devil is in the abuse of it and intend to bring this attitude to all areas of human life, then considering the punishment makes no sense and should always reign comfort. I think finally after this cult of decadence is hidden the old problem of the denial of good and evil, fans Human rights do not believe in the merits of Evil (or Good), although they say they fight (for example, when embodied in a "human rights violators), if they believed in it then they could truly be tolerant for pain and suffering and could accept punishments for terrorists for example.
Since then an explosion of emotion we are confident that at some point could be diluted to the extent that human passions are also extremely volatile, of course, would have to appear before a new cult to replace him, maybe things are whatever comes could be even worse.
[1] This is Incidentally, there is then said she really would not have to sustain it were self-evident truths. (Sic)
[2] Indeed, cultural critics and communitarians to human rights is based on the historicist assumptions.
[3] Cf Michael Ignatieff, Human rights as politics and idolatry. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2003. Ignatieff is a Liberal close to the thought of Isaiah Berlin and think that human rights activists have the problem than as the freedoms and more positive when they point out that should only be taken as negative liberties.
[4] Recommended reading for my fellow liberals: Ernst Jünger, On Pain.
[5] Although this is also relative because I imagine if you enjoy the suffering of a "human rights violator"
