Talk:Philosophy of human rights

Untitled
Change made to highlight Alasdair MacIntyre as a leading, indeed perhaps the leading, contemporary critic of human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald11 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Marxist critique
1) Many of Marx's works are sub-titled 'critique' -- but this means more than simply criticism (expression of disapproval). Kritik is a form of judgment, assessment, or measurement of an existing phenomenon in light of its essence.

2) NPOV = include multiple points of view (Marx does not count and Zizek is only one POV)

3) NOR = these views cannot be our own, that is, they cannot be our own interpretation of Marx. Given this, the paragraph on Marx thought this needs to be deleted. If it is a notable understanding of what Marx thought about HR then you must be able to provide reliable sources that say so.

4) Jewish Question, does not merely express disapproval of bourgeois HR -- this is too simplistic. The JQ also praises rights. For example, Marx notes how compared to previous eras, bourgeois rights are a ‘great  step  forward’ (although they fall short of complete human emancipation). He makes the point that in the Declaration, the private right to be religious or not (freedom of religion) is the necessary first step toward freedom from religion.

Robert Fine writes:

The key to Marx’s argument was to rebut the radicalism Bauer espoused: a radicalism that not only denied the rights of Jews but at once trashed the rights of man and citizen as such. What Marx stood for in the Jewish Question as in his earlier writings more generally was a philosophy of right. What he stood against was a spiritless radicalism that revealed its inhumanity not only through its hostility to Jews but also through its hostility to the idea of right.

And elsewhere Fine writes:

Marx argued that the society that gives rise to the idea of rights is the same as that which gives rise to the commodity form. They are two sides of the same medal. It is a society based on production by independent producers whose contact with each other is mediated through the exchange of products on the market. These producers are formally free to produce what and how much they wish. They are formally equal in that no producer can force others to produce against their will or expropriate their products against their will. They are self‐interested in that they are all entitled to pursue their own private interests regardless of what others think or do. Their contact with other producers takes the form of free and equal exchanges in which individuals exchange their property in return for the property of another and this exchange of unneeded things in return for useful things appears to be done for the mutual benefit of each party.

Exchange relations appear to be formed among free and equal property owners who enter a voluntary contract in pursuit of their own self‐interest. Marx maintains that in exchange lies the clue to all modern conceptions of freedom and equal right. Although individual A feels a need for the commodity of individual B, he does not appropriate it by force, nor vice versa, but rather recognise one another reciprocally as proprietors, as persons whose will penetrates their commodities. Accordingly, the juridical moment of the Person enters here… all inherent contradictions of bourgeois society appear extinguished ... and bourgeois democracy even more than the bourgeois economists takes refuge in this aspect. (Gr:243, 251) The parties to the exchange must place themselves in relation to one another as persons whose will resides in those objects and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other and alienate his own, except through an act to which both parties consent. Marx characterised this sphere of commodity exchange as ‘a very Eden of the innate rights of man’ – the realm of Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham: ‘Freedom because both buyer and seller of a commodity ... are determined only by their own free will.... Equality because each enters into relations with the other as with a simple owner of commodities and they exchange equivalent with equivalent. Property because each disposes only what is his own. And Bentham because each looks only to his own advantage. The only force bringing them together is the selfishness, the gain and the private interest of each. (Capital 1: 280)

(http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/emeritus/robertfine/home/teachingmaterial/humanrights/lecturepodcast/marxs_critique_of_rights.pdf_) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)