نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

پژوهشگر فلسفه سیاسی

چکیده

تار و پود جامعه جهانی از سنت های فلسفی، اخلاقی و دینی متفاوت، معقول و قیاس ناپذیر تنیده شده است. این «واقعیت تکثر معقول» در فهم ما از حقوق بشر چه نقشی ایفا می کند؟ آیا توجیه نظری حقوق بشر باید متکی و مبتنی بر آموزه های جامع سکولار یا دینی خاصی باشد؟ چه برداشتی (conception) از حقوق بشر می تواند از سوی سنت های اخلاقی و دینی گوناگون مورد تصدیق قرار گیرد؟ و آیا حقوق بشر مستلزم دموکراسی است؟ مقاله حاضر، با استناد و بهره جستن از تفسیر جان رالز از مفهوم حقوق بشر به بررسی پرسش های مذکور می پردازد. در کتاب قانون ملل، رالز کوشیده است تا مبانی لیبرالیسم سیاسی اش را بر نظام هنجاری جهانی اطلاق کند که مبتنی بر اصولی چند، از جمله تفسیر خاصی از حقوق بشر است. این قرائت از حقوق بشر بر مبنای معیار عضویت و همچنین مقبولیت decency)) و کنکاش درماهیت نظام سلسله مراتبی مقبول صورت گرفته است. هر جامعه ای که مطابق با اصول عدالت مبتنی بر منافع عمومی پی ریزی شده باشد - لیبرال یا غیر لیبرال - حقوق بشر را تضمین و تأمین خواهد کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Human Rights, Religion, and Decent Hierarchical Societies: A Rawlsian Analysis

نویسنده [English]

  • Hussein Houshmand

Political Philosophy Researcher

چکیده [English]

Global society is characterized by its philosophical, ethical and religious disagreements. What are the implications of the doctrinal conflict for the understanding of a conception of human rights? In this paper, I briefly explain John Rawls’ conception of human rights, which is distinct from and narrower than his conception of justice (i.e., justice as fairness). Rawls conceives human rights as minimal, but necessary requirements of justice – although not sufficient from a liberal point of view –that can be satisfied by various political systems. Rawls argues that human rights are common to all peoples, since they are compatible with all reasonable political morality, including those of both “liberal” and “decent hierarchical” peoples. The central idea of Rawls’ account is that, a conception of human rights suitable for a pluralistic world must be independent from controversial philosophical, ethical or religious doctrines. Such a conception must serve as the object of an overlapping consensus among different ethical and religious traditions; each may offer the different lines of argument.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • John Rawls
  • Freestanding Conception of Human Rights
  • Plural World
  • Overlapping Concensus
  • Islamic Doctrine
  • decent hierachical society

الف- فارسی

- فنائی، ابوالقاسم (1394)، اخلاق دین‌شناسی: پژوهشی در باب مبانی اخلاقی و معرفت‌شناسانه فقه، تهران: نگاه معاصر.

ب) لاتین

- Angle, Stephan (2005). “Decent Democratic Centralism,” Political Theory, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 518–46.
- An-Na’im, Abdullahi A. (2001). Human Rights, Religion and the Contingency of Universalist Projects, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
- Beitz, Charles (1999). Political Theory and International Relations, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Beitz, Charles(2001). Political Theory and International Relations, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Caney, Simon (2001). “Cosmopolitan justice and equalizing opportunities”, Metaphilosophy, Vol. 32, no. 1/2, pp.113-34.
- Cohen, J. and Sable, C. (2005). “Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 147 – 175.
- Cohen, Joshua (2006). “Is There a Human Right to Democracy?”, in: Sypnowich, C. ed., The Egalitarian Conscience: Essays in Honor of G.A. Cohen, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Dahl, Robert (2000). On Democracy, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
- El Fadl, Khaled Abou (2003). “The Human Rights Commitment in Modern Islam”, in: J. Runzo, N. Martin, and A. Sharma, eds., Human Rights and Responsibilities in the World Religion, Oxford: Oneworld.
- El Fadl, Khaled Abou (2004). Islam and Challenge of Democracy, New Jersey: Princeton
- Freeman, Michael (2002). Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 26-32.
- Freeman, Samuel (2007). Rawls, Landon: Routledge.
- Glendon, Mary Ann (2002). A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New York: Random House.
- Maritain, Jacques (1948). “Introduction”, in: Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations. A symposium, edited by UNESCO, Paris: UNESCO.
- Ignatieff, Michael (2003). Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Miller, David (2002). “Debate Caney’s ‘International Distributive Justice’: a Response,” Political Studies, Vol. 50, No. 6.
- Moellendorf, Darrell (2002). Cosmopolitan Justice, Colorado: Westview Press.
- Pogge, Thomas (2002). Realizing Rawls, New York: Cornell University press.
- Pogge, Thomas (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Rawls, John (1999). The Law of Peoples, New Jersey: Harvard University Press.
- Rawls, John (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, New Jersey: Harvard University Press.
- Risse, Mathias (2008). “Common Ownership of the Earth as a Non- Parochial Standpoint: A Contingent Derivation of Human Rights”, European Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1, No, 2, pp. 1–28.
- Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1987). On the Social Contract, in the Basic Political Writings, Trans. by D. A. Cress, Indianapolis: Hackett.
- Simmons, John (2001). Justification and legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Walzer, Michael (1977). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Arguments with Historical Illustrations, New York: Basic Books.
- Wenar, Leif (2006). “Why Rawls is Not a Cosmopolitan Egalitarian”, in: Martin and Reidy, eds., Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
 
CAPTCHA Image