One significant new development in the debate on rights, going back as far back as the natural rights tradition of Grotius and Pufendorf down to John Rawls’s Theory of Justice , is the new approach and definition of what formerly-called ‘natural rights’ actually entail. Globalisation has highlighted the blatant social injustice prevailing between so-called ‘industrialised’ countries and ‘developing’ ones. The Lockean notion that ‘life, liberty and property’ summarise the legitimate aspirations of every human being, or possibly, every human being having access to property or already enjoying its benefits through farming or tenancy, is being questioned and challenged in the light of a third of the world population being reduced to scraping a living and hence effectively deprived of both ‘freedom’ and ‘property’. What Locke had in mind when he referred to the general concept of ‘life’ is the right for every individual not to be subjected to inhuman treatment in the name of political expediency. This is a politicisation of the originally Christian conception of ‘life’ as a gift from God to his creatures and the concomitant duty for everyone to protect and respect the life of others as equal members of the same species. Locke’s more mundane preoccupation was, in fact, to secure the rights of propertied white Englishmen, potentially threatened by a tyrannical regime.
The contemporary conception of rights has moved from a narrow European context to a far more universal concern for human welfare, applying equally to both genders and all ethnic groups. There is little point in claiming political rights when one’s fundamental needs are not even met on a daily basis. For this reason, political theorists such as Amartya Sen, Peter Singer or Martha Nussbaum have shifted their arguments for rights to the defence of fundamental needs such as access to water, shelter and adequate nourishment. In this new context, it is not up to the starving to claim their right to be fed but it is a duty incumbent on rich countries to take action and provide the necessary humanitarian aid, in the first instance. It is, indeed, a sad reflection of a deeply divided world when political theorists have to redefine the very concept of ‘rights’ and bring it down to the most basic conditions of human life, in the hope that the most privileged sections of the human race will be prompted to alleviate the poverty of their less fortunate fellow human beings.
Triple A Learning IB Blogs
April 21, 2011
From political rights to the right to basic human needs
November 14, 2010
Why Global Ethics Matters
Among the eight possible choices of the Philosophy optional themes, it seems that the one focusing on People, Nations and Cultures best encapsulates the very spirit of the IB Diploma. Since every Higher Level Philosophy candidate has to choose two themes from the eight on the syllabus, why not combine Theories and Problems of Ethics with topical issues such as the impact of globalization on traditional cultures or the future role of international institutions in an ever-changing world. Global ethics is, in my opinion, the best philosophical preparation for future responsible citizens, open to new ideas and prepared to face new challenges.
Teaching global ethics is an invitation to bring together different ethical traditions which can be applied to highly sensitive contemporary situations. Would, for instance, Bentham approve of the systematic use of torture on prisoners suspected of terrorist links, in the name of the Utility principle? How would contractualist theorists such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, approach the question of a peaceful international order or the delicate issue of transitional justice in a post-conflict situation? By contrasting and confronting established ethical theories with postmodern ethical perspectives, IB students can make their own value judgements on what characterizes ‘justice’, ‘citizenship’ or ‘democracy’. The study of John Rawls’ theory of justice may lead to impassioned debates and an overall reassessment of the concept of ‘the good society’, in the light of other political theorists such as Plato or Marx. In the same way, no one can remain indifferent to Peter Singer’s controversial plea for a new interpretation of distributive justice, not to mention his ardent defence of animal rights. Productive discussions can be triggered off by a critical study of carefully selected extracts from ‘Animal Liberation’ or the more recent ‘One World’.
