Re: Human Right and Critique?

Dear Seyed, 

the "Human Rights-discourse" is nothing less than "a
transcendentally-based spiritual ethic".

Francesco 

P.S. According to secularists themselves, more than
90% of the people in the U.S. strongly believe in God.


--- Seyed Javad <seyedjavad@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greetings,
 
I have been for some time thinking about the
relationship between the Human Rights-discourse and
the decline of morality (both in public square and
private sphere). I am thinking if Human
Rights-discourse is such a good idea and desired ideal
then why wherever this idea is codified into law and
endorsed by political and social forces of
institutional nature the morality (and sense of
goodness) is on decline? Isn't a right for human being
without a strong sense of duty and responsibility
wrong as well as undesirable?

If one argues that Human rights language is a secular
response to the decline of a religious ethic and an
attempt to construct a secular alternative that might
resist human greed, militarism, etc., since a
transcendentally-based spiritual ethic is no longer
compelling for most people in Europe and America. Then
there could arise a question, which is of no less
interest and that is if religious prism of morality is
accepted by many, who do not share the same desire to
construct a secular alternative why should they
transform their civilizational frame of reference in
complying to those of secular ideology? Are there
compelling intellectual reasons for such a
transformation or the change is politically related
and ideologically propagated? If there are
intellectual reasons of intelligible nature what are
there? And if the reasons are purely ideological and a
result of politicised propagations then why
international organizations such as United Nations do
not reflect the reality of ‘inter-nationalism’ that
underpins its very existence? In other words, why not
the question of Humanism be credited an international
significance and the discourse of Religionism be
banned from international reality while all of us know
that secular ideology is the worldview of less than
10% of world population? The problem becomes even more
cumbersome once one is recalled that the dominant
secular philosophical views on ‘meaning’ and
‘meaningfulness’ are currently endorsing plurality of
meanings and the impossibility of reaching Truth in
metaphysical sense. While this is the recent
achievement of philosophy of the ‘social’ the
political philosophy of modernity is still attached to
a view of monologicalism, i.e. there is only one truth
and that is the prism of secularism. What makes the
question of Human Right even more suspicious is the
absence of critique by intellectuals, who don’t
explicate the imperialism of ‘meaning’ by one
discourse over against any position that does not
share the ontology of secularism.  If this suspicion
is of any intellectual significance then how should
one view the importance of international discourses? 

 

 Kind Regards





---------------------------------
Reduce spam in your inbox with  MSN 8's  intelligent
junk e-mail filters.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/