The prospect of there being human rights that have to be enforced by governments has been discussed and elaborated by various scholars, researchers and opinion leaders for many years. Human rights have always remained to be quite important if not dominant instruments that have been used by the society members when it comes to attaining social justice. Leading thinkers like Karl Marx and Richard Ford have offered their views that portray both the contradictory and similar ideas concerning their perceptions regarding the role and place of human rights in the society. Views expressed by the two distinguished individuals only help to illustrate how the society is divided and opinionated regarding the issues pertaining human rights. There have merged various schools of thought where each is trying to either agreeing or faulting the arguments of the other one (Eagleton 13).
Karl Marx starts his line of argument by coming up with an essay entitled, ‘On the Jewish Question’ where is he responding to his former ally called Bruno Bauer. He argues that the prospect of there being human rights help to withdraw an individual from a society where private interests are given priority as opposed to pursuing the interests of the entire society (Moyn 16). His arguments are derived from the occurrences surrounding French Republican and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Marx points out that rights have the ability to abstract an individual out of the society that has to define his identity. That the personhood aspects of human rights lead to situations where there comes issues pertaining egoistic man who is eventually created by these rights (Marx 34).
Marx is portrayed in his line of argument as an individual who is targeting the France’s Declaration and he is suspicious of the description of rights that do not put the interests of man in front of those pursued by the society. He is adamant that rights are just but a means by which a certain group of civil society can be separated from politics. That modern human beings have come to be enslaved by civic society that has no purpose, goal or motivation to facilitate the pursuance of private interests. Richard Ford in his analysis of the concept of human rights appears to be determined to engage Karl Max in an argument (Quinney 58). He comes up with divergent views regarding the manner in which society members have to define rights before he manages to come up with additional views regarding his explanations. He is determined to offer an explanation as to why there has been a struggle of the human rights across the globe.
Ford reiterates that human rights depend on a comprehensive network of institutions as well as an underlying civil culture that facilitates enforcement. He observes that even the so called well-meaning reforms can lack the required level of effectiveness when the implementation organs are not keen and that can facilitate the exploitation of the people that they have to be protecting (Ford 61). His examples on the distribution of food to the Indian poor as well as the sex trafficking in Japan helps to illustrate how the institutions have over the years failed the society in the implementation of the human rights. His views are different from those of Marx who is determined to illustrate how the human rights are of no great value to society. In his view, Marx expects the society to be pursuing similar goals at any given moment and that society members have to be addressed as a group devoid of personhood and egoistic traits that help to facilitate divisions and misunderstandings (Marx 47).
The convergent aspect between the views of Marx and Ford revolves around the fact that human rights tend to be problematic since they exhibit what can be said to be peculiar logical features. That they are normally conceived as counterparts when it comes to the moral sphere to laws of nature. The human rights are always believed to share the universal application like the laws of nature. The two individuals believe that human rights tend to function not only at specific place and time, but at all places. A case in point is the law regarding bodies at rest where it can be said that they are never suspended. The same applies to the right to free speech where it is believed that such a right cannot be suspended and it is universal (Hunt 21). The comparison of the human rights to the laws of nature as depicted by the two scholars is meant to highlight the level of significance that is usually attached to them by the society.
Despite the agreement of the universal aspects of the human rights, Marx observes that they tend to collide with each other often times thus making them unrealistic in some aspect. The collisions can be outlined by the fact that individuals are out to ensure that they achieve their independent goals as opposed to those being pursued by the society (Huxley 59). This is also a source of divergence from the views expressed by Ford who is determined to state that the fact that the society is composed of many people provides a leeway to conflicts of interests and that such occurrences only help to improve the overall welfare of a community.
The discussion on human rights and the changes that have been witnessed therein cannot ignore the contributions of Lynn Hunt and Samuel Moyn. The two individuals are critical and analytical thinkers of human rights. Their arguments agree at some points while they differ in others thou each argument stands some relevance to the topic. Samuel Moyn is mainly known of his piece “The last Utopia: Human Rights in History” (Moyn 01). Lynn Hunt’s contribution in to the topic is mainly through “Inventing Human Rights: A History” (Hunt 01).
The core thesis for “The Last Utopia” aims to enlighten the individuals who view human rights as intrinsic in Graeco-Roman philosophy, Judeo-Christian religious as well as natural law traditions. The piece was significant to enlighten the people on the human rights at the wake of revolution in human rights in France and America. According to Moyn, the existing human rights advocacy originates in the failure of utopian provisions to state socialism that came up after 1968. In 1970s, human rights emerged as the sole survivor from the ideological struggle (Moyn 11).
Moyn equates human right with what is good and universal. The definition is supported by distinctive globalism as well as internationalism that exist in modern history. He further aims at protecting the rights of individuals beyond the nation-state. Different groups of people were advocating improved rights to citizenship. There was need for special representation of the people for the advocacy of human rights as the human rights discourse had been removed from the politics of the state to the moral discourse of intellectuals (Moyn 16).
The relevance for human rights was easily losing value in the face of history. There were no firm foundations for human rights after the World War II. Instead, the human rights were defined in terms of the state’s sovereignty as well as actors couched in utopian discourses. Human rights discourse was mainly evident among religious scholars as well as intellectuals (Moyn 21).The individuals had taken the responsibility to pursue for human rights at the time when the government and the representatives of the people in the government were less concerned of human rights.
Moyn further states that human rights had become a model for criminal adjudication. He gives the statement to show the significance of human rights in ensuring proper coexistence in the society. He cites the ethnic genocides in Rwanda and Yugoslavia as proper definition of how the take for human rights had changed to incorporate justice (Moyn 37).
Lynn Hunt’s arguments on human rights are expounded on her book “Inventing Human Rights: A history”. She has two critical ways in which she analyses the intellectual history of human rights. She argues that intellectual advances and revolutionary declarations could only be realized through fundamental change in the definition of the self (Hunt 22). In similarity to Moyn’s definition for human rights, individual experiences of empathy were properly defined in the eighteenth century, which brought forth the invention of human rights.
She further argues that the human rights were subject to change so as to involve the individuals who have been denied the rights for a long time. As the case in the book “The Last Utopia” by Moyn where non-governmental organizations and movements were seeking to improve human rights, nationalists, sexist, and racists movements are cited by Hunt as critical in the invention of human rights (Hunt 26). She further argues that there was exclusive discrimination in delivery for human rights in the movements as well as the government.
She further gives the issue on human rights a cultural approach that helps in understanding the new experiences as well as ideas of empathy. The invention for human rights that took place in the eighteenth century was enhanced through the improvement of individuality and autonomy. There were extensive changes that were required at the time following the sensitivity of the human rights. Lynn Hunt was highly responsible of the improvements that existed at the time as defined by various movements. The society was looking forward to a time when people will be treated on the basis of their rights (Hunt 33). At this point, the arguments agree with the thoughts and ideas of Moyn who believed that there was need for human beings to be treated with dignity and the respect that they deserve.
Further, the two authors have similarities in the argument that human rights were linked to political power and there was need for political intervention to ensure human rights were exercised in the most outstanding way. According to Hunt, self evidence and political power were elements of individual concern and it was the responsibility of every party to participate in the advocacy for human rights. At the time, individuals had bestowed the power to political systems to ensure they get the political influence for the significance of human rights. However, the human rights were supposed to be the responsibility of the masses (Hunt 39). The two authors agree on the need for the movements to advocate for human rights.
Works Cited
Ford, Richard Thompson. Universal Rights Down to Earth. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. Print.
Eagleton, Terry. Why Marx Was Right. New Haven [Conn.: Yale University Press, 2011. Print.
Hunt, Lyn. Inventing Human Rights: A History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Print.
Marx, Karl. On the Jewish Question (1844). , 2012. Print
Moyn, Samuel. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History: Harvard University Press, 2012. Print.
Quinney, Richard. Bearing Witness to Crime and Social Justice. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 2010. Print.
