Human Rights

Philosophical Foundations

Human rights are rights enjoyed by humans not because we are members of the species Homo sapiens but because fully functional members of our species are persons. Personhood is a metaphysical category that may or may not be unique to Homo sapiens. To be a person one must be capable of reflecting on one's desires at a second-order level, and one must be capable of acting in a manner consistent with one's considered preferences. The capacity to reflect on one's competing preferences and to act in a manner consistent with one's second-order preferences is a key feature of personhood and one that distinguishes persons from mere animals. It is in this sense that the idea of personhood is properly understood as metaphysical rather than biological.

Rights theorists with a wide range of commitments readily agree that persons enjoy a basic right to individual freedom and that other persons have a duty not to restrict or constrain the freedom of others without strong justification. Sometimes, as in the case of John Locke, this right is merely assumed or asserted. Modern rights theorists such as Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky, and Onora O'Neill typically ground this claim in Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative, which holds that one must treat other persons always as an end and never as a means only. Kant provides a sustained defense of the doctrine of respect for persons, and he and his interpreters specify in detail its practical implications. Respecting other persons requires that one refrain from interfering with their decisions and actions. Typically, one person is justified in limiting the freedom of another only when her own freedom is unjustly restricted by that person. One traditional way of capturing this sense of a liberty right is that individuals should be free to as much liberty or freedom as is compatible with like liberty or freedom for all.

There is little controversy among rights theorists regarding the plausibility of a negative right to liberty or freedom. However, there is significant controversy over whether or not there are positive rights to certain economic and social goods. Positive rights entail not merely negative obligations on the part of others to refrain from certain actions, but a positive obligation to fulfill the right of the rights holder. One positive basic right that is often defended is the right to physical well-being. For example, if individuals have a right to economic aid or health care to ensure their physical well-being, then others have a duty to provide them with such assistance. The state may be called on to fulfill these duties, but in weak or corrupt states such duties may be neglected. And in states where market values trump consideration for positive human rights, such rights may also be neglected. Under such conditions the burden of fulfilling such obligations seems to fall on individuals, but most individuals are not well positioned to meet such obligations. Furthermore, even in cases where the state does meet such alleged obligations, traditional libertarians would argue that it is illegitimate to tax some citizens in order to ensure the well-being of others. Have we then reached an impasse?

...