To the Righthouse

Are human rights an unrealistic luxury?

Pragmatically-oriented expressions of human rights scepticism do not take issue with the concept of human rights as such. Rather, they question the relevance and efficacy of human rights in particular settings. They may acknowledge that human rights express a noble ideal to which one can aspire, but in current circumstances it is a luxury that society cannot afford.

This argument is based on the implicit premise that compliance with human rights inevitably happens at the expense of other societal objectives, notably economic progress and national security and stability, and conversely, that the prioritisation of such objectives sometimes necessitates a disregard for human rights.

An obvious response is to seek to demonstrate that the given societal objectives can be realised in a human rights compliant fashion. However, in order to be convincing, this needs to be demonstrated in concrete terms in the actual situations that people inhabit. The devil here lies in the detail: How to constructively negotiate such tensions?

Whose values? Whose experience? Are human rights inclusive?

Value-based objections to human rights are commonly stated with reference to culture and/or religion. They may further be linked with a claim that human rights are shaped by and express distinctly Western values.

The perception of a certain degree of incompatibility between human rights standards and prevailing cultural norms is widespread and not adequately answered by arguments at the theoretical level. While cultural traditions indeed are dynamic and shaped both by external influences and internal contestations, it must by the same token be acknowledged that value transformations happen slowly and that points of friction between local values and international human rights norms cannot be overcome all at once.

It therefore makes sense for human rights advocates to ask themselves how to react in practical terms to such concerns and focus on preventing the most egregious abuses while seeking to find points of compatibility that bring human rights close to home.

Human Rights under pressure: when, why and how to engage with sceptics?
In the current era of rising illiberalism and backlash against hard won human rights standards, there is a pressing need to stand firm, hold governments to their agreed international obligations and adopt a confrontational 'naming and shaming' approach to abuses and critics of Human Rights.
If this is a pertinent reaction in many situations, it should also be recognised that voices of scepticism may express valid concerns. There may be something important to be learnt from carefully listening to critical voices. This said, there are clearly also voices of opposition to human rights and patterns of neglect and abuse that call for resolute resistance.
As it is not clear how best to calibrate and balance the different available approaches, our series starts with the following question: is it possible to determine when to adopt an adversarial 'naming and shaming' approach towards detractors and when to engage in constructive good faith interaction with exponents of scepticism towards human rights?

Are human rights real? How do they exist?

Ontological scepticism questions the very being of universal human rights. In its most explicit form, it asserts that human rights do not exist. As famously stated by the British moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre in response to the proclamation of rights belonging to all human beings merely on account of being human: ‘there are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.’

Contemporary critics have, on a variety of related counts, expressed doubt about the concept of universal human rights for example questioning whether the abstract idea of humanity can ground a comprehensive and inclusive normative framework committed to social justice.

What such expressions of ontological scepticism confront human rights advocates with, above all, is the need to seriously reflect on the concept of human rights. The issue is not in a trivial sense whether human rights exist but rather how they exist, where they derive from, and what renders them normatively compelling.

A picture of the world we want to see

In conversation with Thomas Coombes

We conclude the series with a conversation about embracing hope. As a final reflection, we want to hope for the future and draw a picture of the world we want to see. We do this together with Thomas Coombes* who talks about why it helps to focus more on the human in order to achieve change and what a checklist of hope-based human rights communication would look like.

Thomas Coombes is a global communications strategist who developed hope-based communications to help the human rights and other progressive movements develop new narratives for social change. He has spent 15 years working in political communications for Amnesty International, Transparency International, the European Commission and global PR firm Hill & Knowlton. Thomas is an Alumnus of GC Europe. Take your hope-based pledge here.