نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار دانشکده علوم انسانی و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه نظربایف قزاقستان

چکیده

بسیاری از نویسندگان معاصر از این مسئله هراس دارند که رشد و شکوفایی دعوی حقوق ممکن است موجب شود تا حقوق بشر قربانی محبوبیت خود شود. اگر خواسته‌های هر یک از گروه‌های مردمی، تحت حمایت حقوق بشر قرار گیرد و راهی برای تشخیص حقوق بشر واقعی از غیرواقعی وجود نداشته باشد، این مسئله ممکن است به کلی منجر به بدبینی دربارة مفهوم حقوق بشر شود. هر چند که ممکن است این موقعیت ناامیدکننده باشد، اما به نظر می‌رسد برای فلاسفة اخلاق فرصتی برای تاکید مجدد بر اهمیّت اصولشان را در بر داشته باشد. در نهایت، به جز از طریق ایجاد یک نظریه در مورد این مسئله، چگونه می‌توانیم حقوق بشر اصل را از تقلبی تشخیص دهیم؟ هدف مقاله ما نشان دادن اشتباه بودن این ایده است که رشد دعوی‌های حقوق بشری را نمی‌توان حتی با ایجاد فرضیات جدید متوقف کرد. این اشتباه است که فکر کنیم رشد دعوی‌های حقوق بشر از عدم آگاهی پیرامون اساس فرضیه‌ای حقوق بشر ناشی می‌شود. در مقابل، من ادعا می‌کنم که شکوفایی این حقوق نشان‌دهندة مشکل عمیقی در فرضیات سکولار حقوق بشر است؛ و این فرضیات، منابع ذهنی لازم برای محدود کردن دعوی‌های حقوقی بزرگ‌تر را ندارد. در این مقاله من پیشنهاد می‌کنم که به منظور درک بهتر وضعیت کنونی لازم است که در ابتدا پیش فرض‌های مذهبی موجود در فرهنگ را که در آن برای اولین بار بهره‌مندی از حقوق طبیعی مطرح شده است، بررسی شوند. به طور خاص، من استدلال خواهم کرد که نظریه‌های معاصر حقوق بشر نسخه‌هایی سکولار با پیشینیة دینی از حقوق بشر است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Can Human Rights to Welfare Survive Without Religion?

نویسنده [English]

  • Siegfried Van Duffel

Associate Professor at School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nazarbayev University.

چکیده [English]

Many contemporary authors fear that the proliferation of rights-claims may cause human rights to fall victim to their own popularity. If every good that is desired by one or another group of people is cloaked in the venerable garbs of a human right, and there is no way to tell ‘real’ from ‘supposed’ human rights, this may generate scepticism towards the concept of human rights in general. However deplorable this situation may be, for moral philosophers it may be thought to involve an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of their discipline. After all, how else could we distinguish genuine from imaginary human rights than by building a theory about the subject? The aim of my paper is to show that this idea is exactly wrong — that the proliferation of human rights claims cannot be stopped even in theory. It is a mistake to think that the proliferation of rights claims results from a lack of awareness of the proper theoretical foundation of human rights. On the contrary, I will argue that the proliferation of rights mirrors a deep problem in secular theories of human rights, that these theories do not have the conceptual resources to limit ever larger rights claims. I will suggest that to understand the present situation, we need to look into the religious presuppositions of the culture in which natural rights to subsistence were first proclaimed. Specifically, I will argue that contemporary theories of human rights are secularized versions of a religious precursor.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Relationship between Human Rights and Religion
  • Traditional and Secular Views
  • the Nature of Human Rights
  • Religious Background

A) Books & Journals
1. Avilla, Charles (1983). Ownership: Early Christian Teachings, Maryknoll: New York:
Orbis books.
2. Barrera, Albino, O.P. (2005). God and the Evil of Scarcity: Moral Foundations of
Economic Agency, Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
3. Berman, Harold J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal
Tradition, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
4. Beyer, Gerard B. (2005). “Beyond ‘Nonsense Upon Stilts’: Conceptual Clarity and
Resolution of Conflicting Economic Rights.” Human Rights Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, PP. 5-31.
5. Bonaventura, S. (1966). Defense of the Mendicants, Translated by Jose de Vinck.
Paterson: St. Anthony Guild Press.
6. Brudner, Alan (1987). “A Theory of Necessity”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.
7, No. 3, PP. 339-368.
7. Buckle, Stephen (1991). Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Couvreur, Gilles (1961). Les pauvres ont-ils des droits? Recherches sur le vol en cas
d’extrême nécessité depuis la Concordia de Gratien (1140) jusqu’à Guillaume d’Auxerre
(1231), (Analecta Gregoriana, vol. 111. Series Facultatis eologicae. Sectio B, n. 34)
Rome: Editrice Università Gregoriana.
9. Fleischacker, Samuel (2004). A Short History of Distributive Justice, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
10. Gewirth, Alan (1978). Reason and Morality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Gewirth, Alan (1982). “The Basis and Content of Human Rights”, in: Alan Gewirth,
Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Application. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
12. Gra, Donald (1997). “Against Strong Speciesism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy,
Vol. 14, No. 2, PP. 107-118.
13. Griffin, James (1984). “Towards a Substantive Theory of Rights”, in: R. G. Frey (ed.)
(1985). Utility and Rights, PP. 137-160. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,.
14. Griffin, James (2000). “Welfare Rights”, The Journal of Ethics, No. 4, PP. 27-43.
15. Griffin, James (2001a). “First Steps in an Account of Human Rights”, European
Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 9, No. 3, PP. 306-327.
16. Griffin, James (2001b). “Discrepancies between the Best Philosophical Account of
Human Rights and the International Law of Human Rights”, Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, No. 101, PP. 1-28.
17. Gutiérrez, Gustavo (1977). A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation,
Translated and edited by Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, London : SCM press.
18. Hollenbach, David (1979). Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic
Human Rights Tradition, New York: Paulist Press.
19. Horne, Thomas A. (1990). Property Rights and Poverty: Political Argument in Britain,
1605-1834, Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press.
20. Kasper, Jasper (1991). “e eological Foundations of Human Rights”, Catholic
Lawyer, No. 34, PP. 253-69.
21. Kilcullen, John (2000). “e Origin of Property: Ockham, Grotius, Pufendorf, and
Some Others”, Appendix 2 in William of Ockham, The Work of Ninety Days, 883-932.
Can Human Rights to Welfare Survive Without Religion?/ Van Duffel 99
22. Korkman, Petter (2006). “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Human Rights
in Barbeyrac and Burlamaqui”, in: Virpi Mäkinen & Petter Korkman (eds.),
Transformations in Medieval and Early-Modern Rights Discourse, PP. 257-283.
Dordrecht: Springer.
23. Mäkinen, Virpi (2006). “Rights and Duties in Late Scholastic Discussion on Extreme
Necessity”, in: Virpi Mäkinen & Petter Korkman (eds.), Transformations in Medieval
and Early-Modern Rights Discourse, PP. 37-62. Dordrecht: Springer.
24. Mäkinen, Virpi (2003). “The Franciscan Background of Early Modern Rights
Discussion: Rights of Property and Subsistence”, in: Jill Kraye and Risto Saarinen
(eds.), Late Medieval and Early Modern Ethics and Politics. (Synthese Historical
Library) Kluwer Academic Publisher.
25. Mäkinen, Virpi (2001). Property Rights in the Late Medieval Discussion on Franciscan
Poverty, (Recherches de éologie et Philosophie médiévales, Bibliotheca 3) Leuven:
Peeters.
26. Mäkinen, Virpi (2000). “Godfrey of Fontaines’s Criticism Concerning Franciscan Poverty
and the Birth of Individual Natural Rights”, Picenum Seraphicum, No. 19, PP. 159-175.
27. Mäkinen, Virpi (1999a). “Individual Natural Rights in the Discussion on Franciscan
Poverty”, Studia Theologica: Scandinavian Journal of Theology, Vol. 53, No.1, PP. 50-57.
28. Mäkinen, Virpi (1999b). “e Rights of the Poor: An Argument Against Franciscans”,
in: Mia Korpiola (ed.), Nordic Perspectives on Medieval Canon Law, 41-49,
(Publications of Matthias Calonius Society 2) Saarijärvi: Gummerus.
29. Mayr, Ernst (1996). “What Is a Species, and What Is It Not?”, Philosophy of Science,
No. 63, PP. 262-277.
30. Meyers, Diana T. (1986). Inalienable Rights: A Defense, New York: Columbia
University Press.
31. Moltmann, Jürgen (1984). On Human Dignity: Political Theology and Ethics, Translated
and with an introduction by M. Douglas Meeks. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
32. Nickel, James W. (1982). “Are Human Rights Utopian?”, Philosophy and Public
Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 3, PP. 246-264.
33. Nussbaum, Martha (1992). “Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of
Aristotelian Essentialism”, Political Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2, PP. 202-246.
34. Ockham, William of (2000). The Work of Ninety Days, Translated by John Kilcullen &
John Scott. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.
35. Perrett, Ron W. (2000). “Taking Life and the Argument from Potentiality”, Midwest
Studies in Philosophy, No. 24, PP. 186-197.
36. Plant, Raymond (1980). “The Moral Basis of Welfare Provision.” In: Raymond Plant,
Harry Lesser & Peter Taylor-Gooby, Political Philosophy and Social Welfare: Essays on
the Normative Basis of Welfare Provision. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
37. Plant, Raymond (1988). “Needs, Agency, and Welfare Rights”, in: J. Donald Moon
(ed.), Responsibility, Rights, and Welfare: The Theory of the Welfare State, Boulder,
Co.: Westview Press.
38. Plant, Raymond (2001). Politics, Theology and History, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
39. Plant, Raymond (2003). “Social and Economic Rights Revisited”, King’s College Law
Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1.
40. Pogge, omas (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights, Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Polity press.
100 The Journal of Human Rights Issue 24 pp. 73-100
41. Ruston, Roger (2004). Human Rights and the Image of God, London: SCM Press.
42. Salter, John (2005). “Grotius and Pufendorf on the Right of Necessity”, History of
Political Thought, Vol. 26, No. 2, PP. 284-302.
43. Singer, Peter (1994). Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional
Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Swanson, Scott G. (1997). “e Medieval Foundations of John Locke’s eory of
Natural Rights: Rights of Subsistence and the Principle of Extreme Necessity”, History
of Political Thought, Vol. 18, No. 1, PP. 399-459.
45. Tierney, Brian (1959). Medieval Poor Law: A Sketch of Canonical Theory and Its
Application in England, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
46. Tierney, Brian (1997). The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural
Law and Church Law 1150-1625, (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion, 5)
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
47. Trimiew, Darryl M. (1997). God Bless The Child That’s Got Its Own: The Economic
Rights Debate, Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.
48. Tully, James (1980). A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Wellman, Carl (1982). Welfare Rights. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.
50. Williams, omas D. (2005). Who Is My Neighbor: Personalism and the Foundations
of Human Rights, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
51. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1987). Until Justice and Peace Embrace, Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans.
B) Websites
52. JOHN XXII, Pope (1996). Quia vir reprobus. Translated by R. John Kilcullen & John R.
Scott. http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqvr.html.

CAPTCHA Image