Lynn Hunt on Human Rights

Lynn Hunt lists several factors that need to be in place for "human rights" to become what they are and be part of the US Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. These rights are to be universal: applicable everywhere, equal: same for everyone, and
inalienable or natural: it is inherent at a humans birth. Humans must express certain qualities for these to be put in play. Four of the qualities are: the persons need be morally autonomous, must have a sense of empathy for others, must be able to think for one's self without outside guidance (ex. guidance from church, or state), and must have a widely shared idea of "interior feeling." When all factors are incorporated the conception of human rights is perfected. Throughout the evolution of human rights, it was governed domestically, and when tragedies were brought known to the world, it was known that it needs to be protected on a greater, universal scale.

In order for rights to obtain its natural state, we must not be intruded upon by outside forces. This is a branch of autonomy and one's ability to decide on their own. If say we are guided by government or a church, we are not truly autonomous. Natural rights are born from natural law which is summed up as follows:

"Natural law is the belief in the existence of a natural moral code based upon the identification of certain fundamental and objectively verifiable human goods. Our enjoyment of these basic goods is to be secured by our possession of equally fundamental and objectively verifiable natural rights."

Because natural law existed before real social and political systems, natural rights are those that are possessed independently from organizations and state. Natural rights are therefore unfounded if they attain acknowledgment from any assembly or political parties.

Locke is one of the well recognized speakers on following this position. He argued that natural rights come from natural law. Natural law come from God Looking at the will of God created an ultimate moral code. Every person owes the duty of self-preservation to God. To be capable to obtain this, we must have the basic natural rights to protect our life, liberty, as well as personal property. Locke went on to say the purpose of government in a sovereign state was only to provide and protect individuals' natural rights, but not to impair them. He found this to be the only justification for the creation of government. States were to serve as slaves to the people and protect their natural rights, instead of rule as a monarchy would.

Locke provided the basis for a legitimate political system that enforces human rights. It, however, still needed a philosophical close for the theory of moral reasoning which is consistent with the concept of rights, but did not need the permission of a higher authority, or a god, to claim certain, inalienable rights. One 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, from Germany has one such philosophy.

Kant's moral philosophy, which is well-known for the philosophical justification of human rights, follows "the ideal of a potentially universal community of rational individuals autonomously determining the moral principles for securing the conditions for equality and autonomy." A means for justifying human rights is that a basis of self-determination lives within the control of human reasoning. For Kent, moral reasoning rests up the condition that all individuals are bound to agree upon. Doing the "right thing" therefore is not based upon ones' personal interests, but in harmony of a truism which all individuals would accept. This, he argues, is a condition of universality in determining the morals of governing human interaction, and this expresses moral autonomy and the fundaments of equality of all individuals. Exercise of reason is a characteristic of humanity and a basis for justifying human dignity. Exercise of reason must satisfy universality; they must be acknowledged by all individuals. Human rights are rights we give ourselves as autonomous and equal beings. Any such rights should come from human reasoning, and not the will of a god.

For a person to be autonomous, means that one must be able to think for one's self. They are a self-sustaining, self-governing, independent person. "To have human rights, people had to be perceived as separate individuals who were capable of exercising independent moral judgment" states Lynn. One must essentially know how to judge good from bad. Individuals must autonomously establish the moral values for securing the conditions of equality and autonomy itself. Moral autonomy is tied in to universality with strong wires. However it is based on the theory of moral universalism: "the existence of rationally identifiable trans-cultural and trans-historical moral truths throughout the world." It is saying that in order to be morally universal, people must share the same feelings of what is right and what is wrong.

A problem within being morally autonomous, or knowing good from evil, is the shear amount of different perspectives of good and evil. The morals of people change with different cultures and societies. Moral beliefs are valid only within the cultures and societies that they originate. Throughout the world we see many different moral practices. Even in countries such as the United States, where the diversity of people is so great, morals of people do not follow one contingent. Some argue that human rights are prejudiced towards morally individual societies, while communally moral societies (such as in several Asian and African states) are left to follow what they may consider unnecessary. If fully implemented on these types of societies, a people's basic values may be replaced by another's. This carries out a form of cultural and moral imperialism.

Other arguments state that morality is based on an individuals' personal preference. This would deny that the base that moral rights is founded. Perhaps there is no preconceived, rational theory which a legitimate moral policy can be established upon. Human rights can be argued that it is not based upon the exercise of reasoning, but a sentimental view of humankind. Essentially, morality of human kind is felt from the heart, not from a thought within the head.

Throughout history from the 18th century through present day, not all people were considered to be equally capable of moral autonomy. To obtain complete moral autonomy, one must be able to reason and have the independence to decide for oneself. Children and the insane were unable to reason efficiently. However, it was argued that someday they could have the possibility of gaining that ability. Children, slaves, servants, people with no property, and women did not have the required independence status to be fully autonomous. All of those groups, save for women, were able to gain an independent status by growing up, leaving service or buying freedom, or by buying property. Women however, were written as inherently dependent on their fathers or husbands. If some people were excluded from obtaining natural human rights, it was because they were viewed as incapable of having moral autonomy. Empathy, however is a movement that worked against this.

Lynn argues that, "We are most certain that a human right is at issue when we feel horrified by its violation." Certainly, when the possibility for us, as humans, to have a feeling of horror swell within us we are becoming empathetic towards others in humanity. Empathy is dependent upon recognizing that other people think and feel as though ones' self does. Out inner feelings are alike in some basic form.

People began to sense growing shame about their bodily functions. Table manners were brought in using utensils to eat, and scraping food onto ones' floor was considered unacceptable. Influences from religion filled people with new thoughts and ideas. During the 18th century, authority of fathers over their children became an issue. People started using different forms of entertainment such as watching plays or listening to music. Academic painting became popular. Reading of books and newspapers, allowing access to read about others just as normal as the ones reading, multiplied. Torture and extreme forms of capital punishment became unrespectable. In France by the 1780's, the abolition of torture and brutal forms of capital punishment came around. Viewing pictures in public and reading novels about love, both new experiences in the time, helped spread empathy. All of these seemed to lead to a heightened sense of empathy with others.

"Imagined empathy" seems to serve as a foundation for human rights. It is imagined that because you must assume everyone else is someone just like you. New views of pain invoked sympathy for those who were tortured. We imagined what it would be like for ourselves to be tortured as so. Stories created empathy by stimulating new ideas of inner self in the human psyche. Each step reinforced the concept of autonomous, empathetic individuals that were able to look beyond themselves, families, church affiliations and even further into humanity. Empathy is in turn one part of what made these social and political concepts, human rights, possible.

Empathy has always been rooted in our brains biologically. The capacity for empathy depends on a biologically placed ability to comprehend the bias of others and be able to imagine that their inner experiences are like their own. While we all learn empathy at a very young age, we are taught differently on its expression depending on what type of culture we are raised in. In the 18th century, they learned by reading novels where people who normally wouldn't connect were able to. They were able to see that others too were just like them. Without the learning of empathy like this, equality would have no particular meaning.

Opposition formed when religious groups were reached. Contemporaries knew that reading these stories caused their bodies and minds to change. Protestants and Catholics censored the several of the books for they potentially held obscene, seductive, and morally degrading themes. Armand
Pierre Jacquin wrote 400 pages to show that reading weakened "morality, religion, and all the principles of social order." English Protestants such as Knox said that novels degenerate guilty pleasures that diverted young minds from more serious and educational reading. Moralists feared these certain novels propagated dissatisfaction in the heads of servants and younger girls.

Despite these views, several philosophers found what was a new feeling. With the growing of autonomy and empathy came the being of "interior feeling."

Lynn Hunt calls the "interior feeling:" "the soft power of humanity." Despite all things that divide us on this planet, an empathy based on a shared sense of our common humanity recognizes the essential dignity of everyone. The 18th century French encyclopedic, Diderot wrote that the recognition of human rights reflects a certain widely shared "interior feeling." This widely shared feeling was a combination of autonomous thinking as well as shows of empathy for other people. People were able to grasp onto the thought that other people were thinking just like them. As new forms of creating empathy came about, it became increasingly difficult to justify treating people unfairly or cruel because it was becoming easier to imagine the feelings and interior lives of others.

As of now, people are more empathetic for others than they ever have been. We have novels, newspapers, radio, film, television, and the internet which has made it easier to connect with people very far away in different circumstances than us. We have the ability to mobilize quickly now as well. Supplies may be sent to those in need, or people could be sent to care for the sick and unhealthy. However we, now more than ever are constantly informed of what are human rights violations. Neighbors in Rwanda killing each other, and more recently the military government in Burma killing its own citizens for peaceful protesting are just a few of the cases plastering our news.

While communication technology has allowed us to become more empathetic, there is nothing saying that we will act upon that feeling. Adam Smith, author of "Theory of Moral Sentiments," says if one man heard of a massive earthquake that killed millions in China, he would talk empathetically of it, but be off to business two minutes later. However, if he knew tomorrow he would lose his pinky finger, he would sleep a restless night. If he were offered to exchange the million lives to get his pinky back would he? Of course not, but not because this "soft power of humanity." He says, "It must be stronger than self-conscience or something that enables us to counteract self-interest. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct." Our heart.

What motivates a person to act upon their empathy they receive from these types of situations. Adam Smith places a finger on distance. Things closer will send much more motivation to act, but that doesn't mean we aren't just as empathetic if it happened on the other side of the world.

I myself have seen a lack of empathy in fellow Americans, however. Perhaps it is because we are not suffered by human rights violations like several other countries. The world is evolving as well, and we are not being taught like we used to. It almost seems like a step back to Manifest Destiny, and all anyone should be studying is the U.S.A. What needs to be done is to broaden some horizons a bit more. Expand upon human rights, and let people know how to become involved.

It took 170 years since the first declaration in the United States until the U.N put into movement the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Rights did not disappear, but the discussions were mostly moved into specific nationals. Talk of universally applicable rights subsided throughout the 19th and 20th century.

While the world had made progress in human rights on its own sections, with the passing of the Second World War in 30 years after the first, the idea of human rights in the advanced, cultured states we were was completely obliterated. Over six million Jews, over one million of them not even teenaged, had had their life taken in concentration camps, gas chambers, and extermination centers. Many were also the thrown out experiments by twisted Nazi doctors. The Nazis controlled laws on who could claim ownership, have jobs, which could go to school, but in the end they ended up tearing a civilization apart.

Nazis also annihilated and enslaves scores of other people: Poles, gypsies, Soviet POWs, homosexuals, mentally and physically handicapped, as well as political employees. This had shocked world leaders and all its citizens throughout the world.

Human rights were even betrayed in America. Thousands of people of Japanese decent living in America were forced to live in concentration camps, mostly settled on the west coast. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan was cause for concern as well.

The consideration of human rights was forever changed. Before World War II, protection of human rights was considered a task domestically, or a sovereign government's task. To defeat the Axis, human rights became part of the struggle. People wanted it to be a universal concern. The world united to beat over fascism and secure human rights for everyone and everywhere.

The Atlantic Charter helped propel the rights towards universal recognition. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech before Congress in 1941 saw a major push towards it as well. In it, he announced 4 freedoms could never be taken away: the freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Prime Minister Winston Churchill also announced an Allied victory would mark the "enthronement of human rights."

This was passed onto the people very explicitly with statements such as the "United Nations Declaration" and pamphlets like the "United Nations Fight for the Four Freedoms." When the war neared its end, the need to make human rights universal was on the minds of everyone. After Germany surrendered, their crimes toward humanity were revealed. With these in mind, it was now absolutely necessary to set these universal rights in stone. And they were On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with 8 abstentions.