Moral Universality and Justification of Human Rights

Abstract

The paper analyses four theoretical approaches to the justification of the universal status of human rights (intuitionism, constructivism, communicativism and communitarianism). The analysis is focused on their differences with regard the role of constructivist procedures and dialogue. In the intuitionist model, these elements are unnecessary because the fundamental moral principles are considered by intuitionists as self-evident. However, due to the significant divergence of moral intuitions among different actors, the potential of the intuitionist model for justifying the universal status of human rights is rather limited. The constructivist approach takes into account weak points of intuitionism and appeals to the ability of every human being to choose his/her actions on the basis of practical reasoning. According to their opinion, any reasonable individual cannot but recognize the rules arising from practical reasoning in conditions optimal for practical reasoning. One of the most influential versions of constructivism identifies the constructivist procedure with the search for the hypothetical general agreement. Though, the hypothetical agreement of imaginary actors does not guarantee the agreement of real actors. This is a serious obstacle to the justification of the universality of human rights on the constructivist basis. The proponents of the other two approaches try to overcome it. Supporters of the communicative ethics believe that only those norms that have been approved by the participants of the real discourse are morally justified. Communitarians try to build a global consensus of different cultural communities on human rights. The foundations of this consensus are 1) common normative features of major cultural traditions, 2) a capacity of cultural communities to a partial redefinition of their identities. Despite the fact that both models remove some difficulties of constructivism, the key issue, how can representatives of different cultures recognize "others" with their special values and norms not in theory but in reality, remains unresolved. The paper concludes that the all four approaches are insufficient for justifying the universal status of human rights.