Anti-humanism of the human rights ideology

Abstract

How can we say that the ideology of human rights is not human? Yes, we can say that, because the human rights of one person usually stay in confrontation with the human rights of some other person. There is no social conflict and the law deals with social conflicts, which could be arranged by respecting the human rights of both sides. Someone's human right always has to be refused in some way. The author talks about that in this article. He talks about criminal law for example and that the human rights of an accused and convicted offender stay in confrontation with the human rights of a victim. If we respect the human rights of the accused and the convicted person it does mean that we do not respect enough the human rights of the victim. Because of that, the human rights are not a good concept to build-up the law system. Something that is more objective then 'my' or 'his', (individual) understanding of what is the human right, what is the justice has to exist. Today's concept of human rights is based on reducing the state regulation, but it does mean that there is no criteria which is above our individual points of view. In that situation of total individualism no one's human right could be respected well. That is the second name for the anarchy, where we can not speak about the law and the human rights. On the other side, the problem of human rights is very much connected with the problem of understanding what is normal, what is moral, what is justice and the answer to those questions is very different in different societies and different cultures. If we are trying to build one global law system, in fact we are reducing the human right of people from different civilizations to have their own different answer on what is moral. That is also one very interesting paradox of the ideology of human rights which we can express in a very strange sentence: 'there is no human rights for those who are against human rights!'