Constructivist and well-being based justifications of human rights. Rivals or allies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12609461 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Christian Baatz (0000-0003-4359-0226, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Pages | 1-21 |
| Publication date | 2023-11-20 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-8230 • E-ISSN: 1743-8772 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13698230.2023.2280867 |
| OpenAlex | W4388827925 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 26 |
Scholars disagree about the proper justification of human rights and which rights qualify as human rights.While some argue for a very limited set of human rights, others defend more comprehensive accounts.In this paper I suggest that a defence of a comprehensive set of human rights can be strengthened by combining constructivist deontological and well-being based teleological justifications.To this end, I discuss two prominent proponents of constructivism and the well-being approach: Rainer Forst and Simon Caney.Forst criticises teleological justifications for grounding human rights in non-universalizable conceptions of the good, such as autonomy, that can reasonably be rejected by others.Constructivism, in contrast, does not rest on any particular idea of the good life and thus allows for greater ethical plurality.I reject this specific criticism, arguing that Caney's approach ultimately allows for the same plurality.I also highlight that constructivism on its own cannot justify rights of people who are not (yet) able to reason.The well-being approach provides substantive arguments for the rights of these individuals.However, these arguments are made with the framework provided by constructivism.I hold, contra Caney, that Forst's right to justification is primary in that it is the unavoidable basis from which justice issues can be dealt with in a reasonable way and that the main function of human rights is to protect the equal moral status of persons.I conclude that Forst's constructivist and Caney's well-being approach are complementary rather than rivalrous: when combined they provide a more robust justification for a comprehensive set of human rights than considered separately
Autonomy · Constructivism (international relations · Criticism · Epistemology · Human rights · International relations · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Teleology · Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Political Theology and Sovereignty
Zeitstrukturen des Rechts
The Law of Peoples
Moral consciousness and communicative action
A Theory of Justice
Which Rights Should Be Universal?
The Justification of Basic Rights
Human Rights
On the Foundations of Human Rights
The Justification of Human Rights and the Basic Right to Justification
On Human Rights
Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification
Poverty and Famines
Frontiers of Justice
Human rights and moral cosmopolitanism
Defending a cosmopolitanism without illusions. Reply to my critics
Human rights and discourse theory
What comes first, democracy or human rights
Which practice? – Rescuing the practical conception of human rights
Minimalism About Human Rights
The Right to Justification by Rainer Forst
The dark side of human rights
| Highly cited | No |
|---|