On the Role of Metaphysics in Justifying Human Rights

Vol.24,No.3(2016)

Marek Káčer

https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2016-3-2

PDF (Čeština)
Abstract
When justifying human rights we can essentially rely on two different types of reasons: facts and metaphysics. Against the first kind of justification Hume’s thesis is standardly raised. According to this thesis it is not possible to derive a normative conclusion from a set of purely descriptive premises. Against the second kind of justification it is usually objected that metaphysics is too speculative to secure a solid ground for a consensus in pluralistic societies. In the following text I will try to interchange the targets at which these objections are usually aimed: I will challenge the factual justification of human rights by the objection of speculation and at the same time I will raise Hume’s thesis against the metaphysical justification of human rights. My conclusion is that human rights, same as any other norms, can by justified only by normative premises regardless of their metaphysical nature.

Keywords:
Natural Law; Laws of Nature; Sociological Laws; Hume’s Thesis; Metaphysics

Pages:
339–350
References

ANSCOMBE, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. Intention. 2nd ed.London: Harvard University Press, 2000, s.56;ENG, Svein. Analysis of Dis/agreement withParticular Reference to Law and Legal Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer,2003, s.304.

ANTIFÓN. Pravda. In: SVOBODA, Karel (ed.).Zlomky předsokratovských myslitelů. Praha:Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1962, s.170.

AUGUSTÍN. De bono conjugali.In: SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Svět jako vůle a představa.sv. 2. Pelhřimov: Nová tiskárna Pelhřimov, 1998, s.457.

BENTHAM, Jeremy. Anarchical Fallacies:An Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued during theFrench Revolution. In: BOWRING, John (ed.). The Worksof Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1843, s.501.

DISMAN, Miroslav. Jak sa vyrábísociologická znalosti. Příručka pro uživatele. Praha: NakladateslstvíKarolinum, 2008, s. 56 a nasl.

GORGIAS. In: SVOBODA, Karel (ed.).Zlomky předsokratovských myslitelů. Praha:Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1962, s.163.

HAMILTON, Alexander, MADISON, James, JAY, John.Listy federalistov. Bratislava: Kalligram, 2002, s.630–631.

HAPLA, Martin. Lidská práva bezmetafyziky: Legitimita v (post)moderní době. Brno: Masarykovauniverzita, 2016, s.43–52.

HOLLÄNDER, Pavel. Pojmyv Sizyfovej krošni. Bratislava: Kalligram, 2015, s.97.

HUME, David. A Treatiseof Human Nature. 2nd vol. London:Dent & Sons, 1962, s.177–178.

KALDERON, Mark Eli. MoralFictionalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, s.108 a nasl.

KANT, Immanuel. Kritika čistehorozumu. Praha: Oikoymenh, 2001, s.19a nasl.

KELSEN, Hans. Foundations of Democracy.Ethics. 1955, Vol. 66, No. 1, s.66.

KELSEN, Hans. Society andNature: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press, 1943, s.83.

MACINTYRE, Alasdiar. AfterVirtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed., Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press, 2007, s.56 –57.

OSIATYŃSKI, Wiktor. Human Rightsand Their Limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, s.160.

PLATÓN. Gorgias. In PLATÓN.Dialógy. zv. 1. Bratislava: Tatran, 1990, s.433, (483c).

PLATÓN. Symposion. In: PLATÓN.Dialógy. zv. 1. Bratislava: Tatran, 1990, s.686–688, (189E–190D).

POPPER, Karl Raimund. Otevřenáspolečnost a její nepřátelé I: Uhranutí Platónem. Praha: Oikoymenh,1994, s.60a nasl.

PUTNAM, Hilary. Representationand Reality. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001, s.113.

SEARLE, John Robers. Classificationof Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society.1976, Vol. 5, 1, s.1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837, APA formát: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Svět jakovůle a představa. sv. 2. Pelhřimov: Nová tiskárna Pelhřimov,1998, s.117.

SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. The Twofundamental Problems of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2009, s.136.

Metrics

2

Crossref logo

0

552

Views

353

PDF (Čeština) views

Copyright © 2016 Marek Káčer

PDF (Čeština)