Class Notes (810,413)
Canada (494,121)
Philosophy (608)
PHL 400 (20)

PHL400: Week 10 - (NOV 12th) Donnelly, Goodhart.docx

3 Pages
Unlock Document

Ryerson University
PHL 400
Mark Clamen

Week 10: PHL400 th November 12 , 2013 Rachels: not about human rights per say, but about more general things Philosopher Jacques Maritian (at one time professor at U of T and later one of the drafters of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) once said; “We all agree on the rights, as long as no one asks us why” [pacificity; our collective inability to provide reasons as to why they are important] - Once you start defining what it means to be human, we will end up bringing out the worst and exclude people by definition – disability, characteristics, etc. - Where are these rights that we define, what makes the substance of their reality? How do they exist, where do they exist? - Problem: authority and legitimacy of these rights (Donnelly points out most current governments enshrine these rights one way or another, such as the Decalaration, which implies a very strange truth to the reality of human rights – they are generally enforced by the only people capable of violating them) - Simpsons Couch Gag (Banksy)  Exploitation of South Korea workers for American entertainment  Is this right, is this the best we can do, are we asking the right questions?  Universal power and appeal of framing the question by invoking norms and images and juxtaposing them with images, to the point where something is communicated to us  Who is responsible for changing these issues? Who is responsible for these issues?  “Slippery slope”? The most basic bottom rights are being ignored, but for what reason?  Neither Relative nor Universal: AResponse to Donnelly - “all this talk, but very little action” - [] - Donnelly struggles with the “relative universality of human rights” practical and empirical - By definition human rights are universal - “a form of universalism that also allows substantial space for important (second order) claims of relativism” (p. 282) What are second order claims of relativism? How does it become relative, where is it universalized? - Example: rights are profoundly liberal – so broad to be useless, it is precisely how they live on through time and space - Don nelly wants to defend a “functional, legal universalism, and overlapping consensus universality” (p.281) - As opposed to “anthropological, historical, or ontological universality - Most straightforward: why is universality such an important issue to human rights conversation? If you want to believe that human rights are intrinsic to people, then you must believe they can be applied universally, they are unmodified, unconditional, and not historical or cultural -> not something we make, but something found there Ways of being universal - Conceptual, functional, legal international, overlapping consensus, anthropological/historical and ontological  Why does this work in so many parts of the world now?  Near globalization of the norm -> modernity has reached almost every corner of the world - Human rights are not univers
More Less

Related notes for PHL 400

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.