Justifying Feasibility Constraints on Human Rights

It is a crucial question whether practicalities should have an impact in developing an applicable theory of human rights—and if, how (far) such constraints can be justified. In the course of the non-ideal turn of today's political philosophy, any entitlements (and social entitlements in particu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ethical theory and moral practice 2012-04, Vol.15 (2), p.143-157
Main Author: Hahn, Henning
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Civil rights
Cranston, Maurice William
Economic conditions
Education
Ethics
Feasibility
Focalism
Freedom
General philosophy. Metaphysics
Human rights
Liberalism
Minimalism
Morality
Normativity
Ontology
Philosophy
Philosophy of Medicine
Political debate
Political Philosophy
Political theory
Reason
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:It is a crucial question whether practicalities should have an impact in developing an applicable theory of human rights—and if, how (far) such constraints can be justified. In the course of the non-ideal turn of today's political philosophy, any entitlements (and social entitlements in particular) stand under the proviso of practical feasibility. It would, after all, be unreasonable to demand something which is, under the given political and economic circumstances, unachievable. Thus, many theorist—particularly those belonging to the liberal camp—begin to question the very idea of social human rights on grounds of practical infeasibility. This new minimalism about human rights motivates an immanent critique arguing that even if we were to proceed from a liberal framework, we would still wind up with a justification of the full list of social human rights. In the first part of this article, I will present the central positions of the debate presented by Amartya Sen, Maurice Cranston and Pablo Gilabert. Initially arguing that a minimalism of human rights on grounds of practical infeasibility alone proves unjustifiable, however, I shall open up two further perspectives, which allow practical infeasibilities to become normatively determinate. Discussing contributions by James Griffin and Charles Beitz, I will defend the thesis that certain feasibility constraints on (social) human rights can be justified on the condition that they are grounded either in a normative idea of the appropriate implementation of these rights or in reflection of the practical function of a theory of human rights.
ISSN:1386-2820
1572-8447
DOI:10.1007/s10677-011-9275-x