Moreover, the word “everyone” is strictly employed in the whole articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1998), in which this is to emphasize that the rights is completely personal ownership.
This point of view is strengthened by Lyons (1984), in more specific terms, when he writes that the rights are many times could be called ‘natural’ or ‘human’, and even if more than that; natural or human rights are the rights for all people just by a realistic status as human beings. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that human rights have been defined as 'basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees "rights" suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than discretionary (). And thus, as a central basis of human rights it seems everyone could believe that nobody should be ignored in every pertaining of human rights, even if for a very reasonable premises.
- Utilitarian Approach to Human Rights
Utilitarianism is a philosophical thought which relies its fundamental teaching on the absolute result of any act. This notion teaches people that if any effort would lead us to the more happiness or convenient at the end, and thus it is right to do so. Goddin (1995) writes that getting a great happiness at the end is a fundamental foundation in utilitarian idea. It is established to be the primary mean standard in determining every attitude, behavior and action taken by whomever, not only as a personal but group of people as well, as a right or wrong treatment. He also underlines this oriented goodness of outcomes philosophy by pointing out utilitarianism as a doctrine, which appeared in nineteenth-century, that directs people to come up with ‘the great happiness’, and thus the rightness of actions insofar as the affect outcomes that usually being measured by the level to which they secure the greatest benefit to all involved. The implication of this principle is that utilitarianism insists people to gain happiness in order to get pleasure, and avoid unhappiness or pain. At the certain degree, it is very plausible make sense for all since it actually promotes something ‘good’ that could be seen as an effort to maintain and preserve human life.
Furthermore, related with this utilitarian principle, there should be clear some particular aspects surrounding such as things that include in the ideas of happiness and unhappiness. Many scholastic persons try to look at a view of the moral standard set up by the theory, like those things that inclusive in the terms of pain and pleasure, and also to what extent this is left an open question; even thought the supplementary explanations of those do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded – namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. (). To be more moderate arguing, those opponent of this thought could agree that by employment of rights, in some certain condition actually, it is done as an effort to deal with the pleasure and avoiding the pain, and in this sense they would like to accept such an opinion that getting happiness is equal with fulfilling human rights.
Nonetheless, in case of personal life, utilitarianism has a tendency to drag people to the hedonistic lifestyle because it tends to recommend or even to encourage people to do whatever they can do in order to come up with the greatest pleasure at the end. (www.thefreedictionary.com). This idea creates very egoistic and selfish person who allows every way, without right or wrong consideration, to get whatever they want to have that will preserve happiness to them. Narveson (1967) points out this issue by indicating that in ordinary life we could see and believe that hedonist person who is not likely to be responsible, carrying and concern to other, or even in many cases somewhat prudent. Even though, it is true that a state could make some rules to limit or to govern everyone in employing their attitude and behaviour concerning to the human rights of the others, but as a philosophical moral concept this thought actually has failed to provide such an equality of rights for all since the stronger will absolutely appear to occupy the weakness.
Moreover, Goodin (1995) urges that utilitarian thought is actually appropriate as a public philosophy because it always sees result at the end in terms of the needs of the communities, and in the contrary, it does not work well in the private or individual context. This is mainly because of it opens an unpredictable range of competition among all people in order to reach happiness which usually unlimited. It is quite easy to understand that when this happens, the result is the distraction among people in that community or among groups, and that only the law of jungle will exist since the winner, who enjoys happiness at the end, is the strongest person or group.
As an ethical theory with political consequences, Goodin states that utilitarianism is a normative theory that could be use as a good guidance for public affairs. A government of any nation has an obligation to provide more happiness for the biggest number of its people, and thus it should make such a decision or discretion that could ensure the greatest happiness at the end for the state. The implication of this obligation is the authority holder should make any decision that will helpful to come up with the greatest pleasure for the majority. In this sense, it seems to be better to take utilitarian notion as a moral theory for choosing any discretion among some options, or to construct an official decision.
Conversely, Goodin also expands his views by underlining that utilitarian idea is not appropriate to be such a practical guide to personal conduct. It is true if anyone can argue that in some circumstances utilitarianism could be arise ‘indirectly’ as guidance for personal conduct, for instance someone works hard due to end up with the great amount of money in which he or she can use for getting happiness, however it could be happened since this person has a responsibility to earn money for his or her family. In this sense, there are some else moral values that play significant roles upon the individual acts.
In addition, Rescher indicates that Jeremy Bentham and most of his followers are pointing out that utilitarianism is primarily a political thought, a guide to social policy in maintaining the existing communities’ institutions. (Rescher, N., 1966). In term of political doctrine, it seems to be more precise to put down utilitarianism on the proportion of public rights, in which it will engage with some community or state issues such as political discretion, social justice, general interest, and legal rights. To narrowing, it might be saying that utilitarianism plays a significant role to maintain community under the authority’s policy, legal actions, constitution and law. Thus, it could be stated that utilitarianism is more appropriate for the public institutions.
In the context of public affairs, it is also so important to make a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights. This distinguishing is impressive since it could allow us to understand more better the basis and potential application of human rights. According to Fagan, legal rights might be defined as follows:
“A legal right is a right that enjoys the recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to its existence can be resolved by simply locating the relevant legal instrument or piece of legislation. A legal right cannot be said to exist prior to its passing into law and the limits of its validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed the relevant legislation.” (www.iep.utm.edu).
Related to Fagan’s idea, when some acts are employed based on a legal right, and that is why those should be pointed out as something right even if these acts seems not morally rights from human rights point of view. In this sense, utilitarianism may seem to have the stable premises to claim that every effort and act, or even if any somewhat unpleasant behaviour, are morally rights when it is done merely by the law.
Basically, in relation with the rights of people in a community or state, Merrills and Robertson are arguing that the fundamental rights of all citizens are normally protected by some national constitutions. And yet, in an international treaty concerned with human rights the contracting parties might have chosen to guarantee those rights only to their own citizens and to the citizens of the other contracting parties. That, indeed, would have been consistent with the principle of reciprocity on which so many treaties are based. (Merrills and Robertson, 2001). Based on this concept, it could be assumed that human rights of the common people will not be undermined by others and also by a state. Everybody might assure that their existence as a human being are secure wherever they are since all people are prohibited under the law to take their rights up from them.
Nonetheless, livings together in a society usually elicit such clash among each other. This is always happened due to the passions of people, originally, to avail their rights and freedom for gaining with as most happiness as they can reach. Therefore, it needs some special treatment toward those members of the society in order to put down them in compatible and peace situation throughout their lives. In this circumstance, a state is equipped some certain rights and responsibilities to take any appropriate act to maintain its community, even if they have to cut their rights or freedom. Mountfield states that “rights and freedoms can compete, and states may limit citizens’ rights or curtail their freedoms for certain specified and legitimated purposes. (Mountfield, H., 2001; pp 5). Government, as a representative of the state, usually employs its rights under the utilitarian thought; end up with the most happiness for the biggest number of people, and in addition with the more effective cost.
In relation with this, Karen Reid even quite strongly emphasized by saying as follows:
“A state may interfere with citizens’ right or regulate their freedom to act for specified legitimate aim but if it does so, it must do so by law, and a norm cannot be classified as a law unless it is accessible and also foreseeable to reasonable degree in its application and consequences.” (Karen Reid in Mountfield, H., 2001; pp 6).
This view might true since in fact almost all discretions taken by the leader of a state or community, have any negative impact attributed to certain people rights concerned. However, this statement sounds rather wondering since it signals a space for such abusing of human rights, even though it should be done by law. To put in other words, Karen’s idea could be seen as a ground of the state’s acts upon its people that might open a wide opportunity to harm human rights of citizen.
State of emergency could be a very clear example for illustrating this decision toward human rights. Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia on the internet, describes that state of emergency is a kind of declaration established by a government that may suspend its certain normal functions, and also might work to alert citizens to fixing their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It could be functioned as a rationale for suspending as well. (). In running the state of emergeny, the authorities do very often tend to lay down their discretions on how they may deal with ‘the most beneficial’ or in utilitarian terminology ‘the greates happiness’ for the greates count of people. Thus, every strategy and step in applying those discretions gives a legitimacy to the state and its agencies to do some human rights abuse upon a minority or ignorant people – as a sacrifice, through speech banning, arrestment, or even if needed killing people.
- Conclusion
As a summary, we might make a clear distinction on utilitarian thought approach to human rights in terms of interest extended outcome scale namely public – or we could also say community or state – and private need of rights. As a member of a community, people more often rely their rights to live in a normal and peaceful life on a particular community, and therefore they tend to have a stable environment condition in all their life. Conversely, any distracting or disorder society, for instance because of something damaging that happen to it, could not preserve properly its member rights as the human being. To put in simpler words, it seems very impressive to make such an appropriate choice as a final decision every time needed in order to maintain the community, and thus through this way it enables society to keep the most people’ human rights.
However, when any discretion that is taken should deny a minority or even if just a person rights due to coming up with the most happiness at the end, it is actually a form of an ignorant act of the minority’s – or a person’s – human rights. At the certain extent, any employment of this end-result oriented prudence will harm and highly possible to destroy the determinate people. Still related on this, but slight different case, Goodin indicates very briefly by exemplifying that utilitarianism tends to recommend dissecting one person and distributing her/his body parts to many others who need of transplants, if it so happens that the utilities of the recipients exceed the disutility of the ‘donor’ (Goodin, 1995). Thus, I am sure to conclude that as the fundamental basis of ‘human rights’ are belongs to every human being personally, and therefore utilitarianism is not save as a theoretical basis of moral foundation that could support human rights protection.
References
Fagan, A., (2004) Human Rights. In Internet Encyclopedia of Human Rights. iep.utm.edu, [accessed on 18th November 2005].
Goodin, R. E., (1995) Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, New York, the U.S.A.
Lyons, D. (1984) ‘Utility and Rights’. In J. Waldron (ed). Theories of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 110 – 136.
Merrills, J. G. and Robertson, A. H. (2001) Human rights in Europe, A study of the European Convention on Human Rights. Manchester University Press; Manchester M13 9NR, The U.K. Fourth edition.
Mill, J. S., (1863) Utilitariansim. In BLTC Research homepage (ed), Utilitarian. bltc.com. [accessed on 10th November 2005].
Mountfield, H. (2001) The concept of a lawful interference with fundamental rights. In Jowell, J. QC and Cooper, J. (eds). Understanding Human Rights Principles. Hart Publishing: Oxford and Portland, The U.S.A.; 5 – 25.
Narveson, J., (1967) Morality and Utility. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, the U.S.A.
Rischer, N. (1966) Distributive Justice. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. Indianapolis, New York.
Scheinin, M., L.L.D. (1998) The Concept of Human Rights. ykliitto.fi. , [accessed on 10th November 2005].
The Free Dictionary (2005) Theory of Hedonism. thefreedictionary.com, , [accessed on 20th November 2005].
United Nations, (1998) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, un.org. , [accessed on 10th November 2005].
Wikipedia, (2005) State of emergency. wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency, [accessed on 20th November 2005].