Abstract
This paper analyzes Robert Alexy's explicative-existential justification of human rights. According to the author, there are two problems connected with this concept. It cannot establish human rights universally and explain why we should accept them. In the paper, these questions are addressed in the context of the Is-Ought problem. Alexy's approach is compared with other theories that strive for human rights justification (basic needs approach, capability approach, and the foundationalism of Alan Gewirth). The author finds that in this respect all other theories have similar disadvantages. The inability to adequately elucidate the transition from Is to Ought is a general problem in moral philosophy, and therefore cannot diminish the position of Alexy's justification in this context. Although his approach does not really meet certain absolute requirements for good justification, if we evaluate it in relation to other available alternatives, we have to acknowledge its significant place in the philosophy of human rights. Even with Alexy's theory, however, the problem persists that it establishes rights of human persons rather than rights of human beings. It is therefore not able to fulfill some of its universalist aspirations.
Highlights
Human rights are an integral part of our moral, political, and legal thinking
Robert Alexy focuses on justification of human rights in several of his texts, in close connection with discourse theory
If we criticize Alexy’s approach to the Is-Ought problem, we should compare it to how other human rights justification theories address it
Summary
Robert Alexy focuses on justification of human rights in several of his texts, in close connection with discourse theory. Alexy had previously considered these problems in the context of discourse theory: Discourse rules lead us to treat others as equal partners in the discourse, from which it cannot yet be inferred that they are to be treated as persons in other spheres. For such a conclusion to be valid, further premises must be added to this argument. The key issue associated with the approach discussed is that it fails to sufficiently explain why the rights it establishes should be universally accepted. Here, we encounter problems of acceptance and universality
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have