Explicative-Existencial Justificacion of Human Rights Analysis of Robert Alexy's Argument in Context of Is-Ought Problem

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.

Justifikace lidských práv a is-ought problém

Objasnění přechodu od faktů k normám patří mezi klíčové problémy právní filosofie i etiky. Autor v článku zkoumá, jakým způsobem se jej pokouší vyřešit různé justifikační teorie lidských práv. Nejprve charakterizuje lidská práva jako kritická morální práva a objasňuje, v jakém smyslu o nich můžeme říci, že existují. Následně popisuje samotný is-ought problém a analyzuje, proč se s ním některé přístupy nedokáží adekvátně vypořádat. Nejdříve se soustředí na justifikaci lidských práv prostřednictvím konceptu základních potřeb a schopností, posléze na explikativně-existenciální zdůvodnění Roberta Alexyho. Největší pozornost však věnuje justifikační teorii, kterou zkonstruoval jeden z hlavních reprezentantů etického racionalismu Alan Gewirth. Podle autora se totiž jedná o zatím nejvíce promyšlený pokus, jak se s uvedeným problémem na poli lidských práv vyrovnat. V poslední části článku autor formuluje své vlastní stanovisko k němu. Východiskem podle něj je přestat klást na zdůvodnění těchto práv absolutní požadavky, ale začít posuzovat jeho silné a slabé stránky ve vztahu ke koncepcím, které mu konkurují.

Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules

This paper addresses problems that emerge when draft laws are created without due regard for the calculus of probability. Although the latter should be sine qua non for future legislation, legislators usually do not use it despite the legislation’s pro future orientation. The paper, based on Hume’s old “is-ought” problem (the impossibility to move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones) and with the awareness that probability will not be used soon, offers a solution for the future legislation in the multiplication of (negative) scenarios, applied to different life questions. Despite the more and more “popular use” of regulatory impact assessments, smart regulation, probability and risk, public administrations as the major drafters of general legal rules usually do not even use the (much simpler) negative approach to gain better insight into problems, although it is per se the natural way of our thinking. A new view on probability through signs that fit into (unwanted, but known in advance) scenarios can also provide new answers regarding causality. The latter is based on signs, which is what evidence per se really means.

A popperian approach to rational argumentation in applied ethics

As a consequence of Hume’s famous is-ought problem, it may seem that no rational justification of a moral statement can ever be inferentially provided, and no argument typically used in applied ethics would ever deserve the title of rational justification. This paper aims to propose a fallibilist, non-foundationalist account of rational justification of a moral standpoint based on rational argumentation. This account will be developed within a noncognitivist theory of morality — a framework that seems to constitute the most challenging context for a similar attempt. First, the paper shows how we can have a good rational justification of a moral claim also if its (necessary) moral premises are neither indubitable nor properly inferentially justified, as long as we adopt what is called a Popperian solution to the “problem of prescriptive basic statements”. Second, it argues that a good rational justification of a moral claim does not need to be deductively valid. Using the idea that implicit presumptions introduced by invalid inferences can be monitored by a number of related critical questions, the article distinguishes between fallacious and non-fallacious invalid arguments, and examines how a use of an invalid non-fallacious argument can count as a rational justification of a moral position in applied ethics. However, applied ethics must do its part, and must be explicitly based on rational argumentation.