scholarly journals Right to Dignity and Human Rights: Tracing the Values from Indian Perspective

The present paper intends to focus on correlation of human dignity with human rights in Indian philosophical perceptive. The philosophy of India as a nation and Hinduism as a major religion sets a platform for the origin of human dignity and human rights and their correlation. In Hinduism, the importance of human dignity is evident from the fact that human beings are introduced as Amritasya Putrah Vayam – meaning thereby, we are all begotten of the immortal. The understanding of human identity and dignity is more ethical-spiritual than material. Right from the Vedic times, an invisible Atman - the Soul; Paramaatman - the Divine whole and ‘Chetna’ - Universal oneness always find mention in Hindu classical thought. Lastly the ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – the whole world as One Family – also becomes unique in this age of Globalizations. In present age what we are actually achieving is not Globalization, but Mc Donaldization. The paper is purely conceptual and only available literatures have been taken in updating the paper following the doctrinal method of study

Author(s):  
Pablo Gilabert

This chapter offers a justification of labour rights based on an interpretation of the idea of human dignity. According to the dignitarian approach, we have reason to organise social life so that we respond appropriately to the valuable capacities of human beings that give rise to their dignity. That dignity is a deontic status in accordance with which people are owed certain forms of respect and concern. Dignity at work involves treatment of people that enacts the ideal of solidaristic empowerment as it pertains to their life as workers. This requires that we generate feasible and reasonable social schemes to support each other in the development and exercise of our valuable capacities to produce in personally and socially beneficial ways. The spectrum of dignitarian justice goes from basic rights to decent working conditions to maximal rights to flourish in working practices that are free from domination, alienation, and exploitation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-126
Author(s):  
André Luiz Olivier da Silva

Resumo: Neste trabalho analisam-se as exigências por direitos humanos enunciados a partir de uma perspectiva universal, segundo a qual esses direitos se constituem dentro de obrigações gerais e são válidos para todas as pessoas do mundo. Mas podemos falar em direitos humanos considerados gerais e absolutos mesmo quando não se consegue especificar o detentor e o destinatário dos direitos em uma relação obrigacional específica? Com base em um procedimento de observação e na explicitação de algumas exigências por direitos humanos no mundo contemporâneo, aborda-se a natureza dos direitos a partir da correlação obrigacional entre direitos e deveres, bem como a distinção entre direitos especiais e direitos gerais, destacando que os direitos humanos são reivindicados como direitos gerais e universais, embora não se possa afirmar que sejam universais em si mesmos. A hipótese  neste artigo é a de que os direitos humanos são reivindicados “como se” fossem “gerais” dentro de obrigações específicas, seja em um conflito entre cidadãos e o Estado, seja a partir das relações dos países na comunidade internacional. Quando não estão especificados em obrigações concretas, esses direitos apresentam dificuldades quanto à sua efetividade justamente porque não se consegue identificar e especificar sujeitos e destinatários – que não são exatamente o Estado ou o cidadão deste ou daquele país, mas, sim, a pessoa humana. Nesse sentido, ainda estamos longe do ideal de universalização dos direitos humanos na comunidade internacional, e esses direitos só podem ser exercidos quando incorporados a um ordenamento jurídico ou, ao menos, inseridos em práticas morais e sociais.Palavras-chave: Direitos humanos. Direitos gerais. Universalidade. Obrigações específicas. Abstract: This paper discusses the claims by human rights from a universal perspective, according to which human rights constitute general obligations and are valid for all people of the world. Can we talk about human rights considered general and valid for all human beings even when we can not specify the holder and the addressee of rights in a specific obligational relationship? Based on a procedure of observation and explanation of some claims for human rights in the contemporary world, this article aims to approach the nature of these rights from the obligational correlation between rights and duties, as well as the distinction between special rights and general rights, highlighting that human rights are claimed as general rights, emphasizing its “universal” character, although we can’t ensure that these rights are universal in themselves. Our hypothesis is that human rights are claimed “as if” they were “general” within specific obligations, whether in a conflict between citizens and the state, as based on the relations of countries in the international community. When not specified in concrete obligations, human rights have doubts as to its effectiveness precisely because it is not easy to identify and specify recipients and subject of rights – which are not exactly state or country, but rather the human person. In this sense, we are still far from the ideal of universal human rights in the international community, and these rights may be exercised only when incorporated into a law, or at least, embedded in moral and social practices.Keywords: Human Rights. General rights. Universality. Specific obligations.


Author(s):  
Stephen Darwall

The contemporary notion of human dignity is taken to ground the idea of human rights. This chapter investigates how dignity must be understood if it is to be capable of doing that. Beginning with earlier conceptions of dignity, both hierarchical conceptions of status and the Ciceronian idea of human beings in the “great chain of being,” the chapter argues that to be capable of grounding rights, dignity must include a fundamental second-personal authority for human beings to make claims and demands of one another. More specifically, it contests the idea, advanced by Jeremy Waldron and Anthony Appiah, that human dignity is best theorized within a conception of honor and status as elevating all persons to the same high status. Any such honored status fails to ground the fundamental authority to hold one another accountable that is necessary for a conception of human dignity that is capable of grounding human rights.


Author(s):  
Sonja C. Grover

The notion of human dignity has in recent years come under attack from sectors of the interdisciplinary and legal academic community as vacuous and of little or no utility in judicial reasoning. This author holds instead that human dignity is the sine qua non of all human life and correlated with certain inviolable human rights that speak to human beings as other than property, as having legal personality and the right to be heard. The notion of human dignity then serves, it is argued here, as essential guidance in judicial reasoning on issues of individual and group fundamental human rights. Neglect in honouring the principle of respect for human dignity in judicial decision-making serves to erode the democratic rule of law and the interests of justice as will be illustrated through examination in particular of the U.S. Supreme Court case of J.C. Hernandez et al v. J. Mesa Jr.


Author(s):  
Pablo Gilabert

This chapter outlines the main conceptual and substantive contributions of this book, and provides an overview of the three parts composing it. A characterization of the concept of human rights is offered. The eight components of the dignitarian approach to human rights developed in the rest of the book are outlined. They comprise: (C1) an account of human dignity; (C2) the ideal of solidaristic empowerment; (C3) a distinction between abstract and specific human rights and a division of three dimensions of a conception of human rights; (C4) an account of feasibility; (C5) general and dignitarian schemas for justifying rights; (C6) a contractualist framework of reasoning for justifying rights; (C7) the method of deliberative reflective equilibrium; and (C8) the idea of a deliberative interpretive proposal. Finally, the practical significance of the idea of putting humanity first—which follows naturally from the dignitarian approach—is identified.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 569-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah al-Ahsan

Human dignity is the recognition and respect of human need, desire and expectation one individual by another. This recognition is indispensable because no human being survives alone: Human dignity creates the foundation of society and civilization. Our knowledge of history suggests that religious ideas have provided this basic foundation of civilization. Describing the first recognized civilization in history one historian says, “Religion permeated Sumerian civic life.” According to another historian, “Religion dominated, suffused, and inspired all features of Near Eastern society—law, kingship, art, and science.” Based on these observations while defining civilization Samuel Huntington asserts, “Religion is a central defining characteristic of civilizations.”In Islam, the Qur’an declares that: “We have bestowed dignity on the progeny of Adam.” The verse then continues to remind the whole of mankind of God's special favor unto them with physical and intellectual abilities, natural resources and with superiority over most other creatures in the world. This dignity is bestowed through God's act of creating Adam and breathing into him His Own Spirit. Since all human beings originated from Adam and his spouse, every single human being possesses this dignity regardless of color, race, religion and tribe. The whole of mankind, as khalīfah (vice-resenf) is responsible for establishing peace on earth through divinely ordained values such as amānah (trust), ‘adālah (justice) and shūra (consultation).


1999 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Wolfrum

The discussion on the relationship of democracy and development has only become meaningful after being freed from a purely dogmatic approach. International law, in particular international human rights instruments, commit States' Parties to establish and sustain a government based upon democratic elections and which is politically accountable. Development requires a policy towards achieving conditions where human beings can enjoy freedom from want and fear. Both policies, on democratization and development, are meant to achieve conditions in which human dignity is fully respected and they are therefore mutually reinforcing.


Author(s):  
Peter G. Kirchschlaeger

Abstract Human rights and their universality can lead to restrictions for individuals resulting from duties, which correspond to human rights of all human beings. This characteristic of human rights emphasizes the need for an ethical justification. Addressing the question of how human rights can be justified represents, therefore, an expression of respect for pluralism and particularity. Beyond that, human dignity and human rights lay the foundation for pluralism and particularity as they see all human beings as individuals that are all different and unique, and not as members of a collective. Only human rights protection of the autonomy of each individual allows all human beings to be particular and fosters pluralism. Finally, the concept of “adaptation” contributes to an understanding of the interaction between pluralism and particularity and human dignity and human rights as their foundation by capturing the relationship between human dignity and human rights and religious and worldview-based communities.


2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Sunday Adeniyi Fasoro

This paper explores the new frontier within Kantian scholarship which suggests that Kant places so much special importance on the value of rational nature that the supreme principle of morality and the concept of human dignity are both grounded on it. Advocates of this reading argue that the notion of autonomy and dignity should now be considered as the central claim of Kant’s ethics, rather than the universalisation of maxims. Kant’s ethics are termed as repugnant for they place a high demand on the universalisation of maxims as a universal moral principle. As a result, they argue that there is an urgent need to rescue Kant’s ethics from the controversies surrounding maxims and universalisability, and the best way to rescue his ethics is by “leaving deontology behind”. It must be left behind because the categorical imperative is not needed in order to rescue Kant’s ethics, as deontology is often overrated. Consequently, the highest duties of the human being are to ensure that his fellow human beings enjoy unhindered autonomy and receive the honour that their dignity duly deserves, as well as to look after their welfare and treat them with respect, regardless of their dispositions. I review recent literature to appraise this new frontier within Kantian scholarship. I also explore the works of philosophers, such as Herman, Korsgaard, Wood, Höffe, and, specifically, Hill, on Kant’s conception of human dignity in relation to its conception as autonomy, humanity, and the source of human rights.


Author(s):  
Abdullah Haqyar

The phenomenon of human rights, in its contemporary sense, is not even ancient in Western thought, and it came from the context of a social and political movement in France, and the most important of the fundamental rights that collected under this title is the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to equality, the right to asylum, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of opinion and religion, women's rights, the right to participate in social and political life, and the right to personal property. It is an established principle that the first condition for the exercise of these rights is their incompatibility with the rights of other human beings and their human rights. The philosophical basis of human rights in the West consists of three important principles: the principle of human dignity, equality and justice. But the difference between human rights in the West and Islam is that "God" is at the center of the Islamic worldview, while in the Western world the "man" is the central one, and man is the measure of all rights. A clearer interpretation of the two types of "God-centered" or "human-centered" ideas in the West is the predominance of human-centeredness and in Islam the predominance of God-centeredness. The philosophical foundations of human rights in Islam are the principle of human dignity, the principle of God-seeking, the principle of human immortality, and the principle of its developmental relation to the set of being.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document