Document Type : Research Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Sciences, Kharazmi University

Abstract

Universality is considered as one of the most important characteristics of human rights principles. The crucial problem is how the universal principles of human rights could be applied to the particular situations. This article aims to discuss on philosophical and hermeneutic basis of human rights, comparing two versions of universality, which are based on “deontological” and “teleological” conceptions. Although the distinction between these two trends is primarily current in moral philosophy, in the contemporary hermeneutics they have been accepted as two interpretative approaches. Kant’s deontological approach requires the universality of human rights interpreted within a formalistic and content-free framework, which has constituted the basis of mainstream conceptions of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Criticizing the deontological view, this article defends the teleological approach toward the universality of human rights, based on contemporary philosophical hermeneutics specially Paul Ricoeur’s outlook. I argue that this approach can provide the philosophical requirements for interaction between the universality of human rights on one hand and the cultural and local contents of various societies on the other hand and offers a “thick” conception of human rights principles. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1.  

    1. Aristotle (1958). Nicomachean Ethics, Trans. by Mohammad Hassan Lotfi, Tehran: Tarhee Noo. [In Persian]
    2. Rawls, John (1995). Facing the Right to Good, in: Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and Its Critics, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural publication. [In Persian]
    3. Ricoeur, Paul (1991B). Soi-Meme comme un autre, Paris: Seuil.
    4. Ricoeur, Paul (2001). “l’universel et l’historique” , in: Magzine Litteraire, p. 40.
    1. Aron, Raymond (1972). “pensée sociologique et droits de l’homme”, in: Etudes politiques, Paris ,Gallimard.
    2. Aubenque, Pierre (1962). La prudence chez Aristote, Paris: PUF.
    3. Bloch, Ernest (1976).  Droit naturel et dignité humaine: critique de la politique, Paris: Payot.
    4. Bourgeois, Bernard (1990). Philosophie et droit de l’homme de Kant à Marx, Paris: PUF.
    5. Chan, Joseph (1995). “The Asian Challenge to Universal Human Rights: A Philosophical Apparaisal”, in: J. T. H. Tang (Ed.) Human Rights and International Relations in the Asia-Pacific Region, London: Pinter.
    6. Gadamer, H. G. (1976). Verité et methode, Paris: Seuil.
    7. Hegel, G. W. F. (1939). Morceaux choisis, Paris: Gallimard.
    8. Hegel, G. W. F. (1975). Les Principes de la Philosophie du droit, Paris: Vrin.
    9. Kant, Emmanuel (1971). Métaphysique des moeurs: doctrine du droit, Paris: Vrin.
    10. Kant, Emmanuel (1979). Fondement de la métaphysique des mœurs, Tran. V. Delbos, Paris: Delgrave.
    11. Kant, Emmanuel (1985, Critique de la raison pratique, Paris: Gallimard.
    12. Lefebvre, Jean-Pierre & Pierre Macherey (1987). Hegel et lasocieté, Paris: PUF.
    13. Luther, Martin; (1960). “Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen”, in: Les grands ecrits reformateurs, Paris: Aubier.
    14. Marx, Karl (1971).  La question juive, Paris: Aubier.
    15. Morange, Jean (1995). Droits de l’homme et libertés publiques, Paris: PUF.
    1. Ricoeur, Paul (1986). Du texte a l’action, Paris: Seuil.
    2. Ricoeur, Paul (1991A).  Lectures 1, Paris: Seuil.
CAPTCHA Image