Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

studiamoralia.org
from studiamoralia.org More from this publisher
05.11.2014 Views

108 MARTIN MCKEEVER In so far as one can talk of a subculture of “postmodernity”, it is a matter of some importance for human rights discourse. There is a strange irony in the fact that, philosophically speaking, postmodernism tends to deny all possibility of universals. 6 This has major consequences for a discourse such as that of human rights which makes claims for all human beings everywhere precisely because they are human beings! The irony of contemporary culture construed as postmodern is, therefore, that it notionally rejects the theoretical basis of the discourse it uses in order to promote in practice a wide range of emancipatory claims. One final introductory point on modern/postmodern culture. Both are generally considered “secular” forms of culture in which religion plays no constitutive role in the functioning of the State. The question arises as to where such a State is to find its ethical vision, which has been traditionally closely linked to, when not actually integrated into, a religious vision. 7 The main candidate for this role proposed by modernity was of course human reason itself, in the version conceived by Descartes and Kant. It is this very concept of reason which is charged with instrumental and totalitarian tendencies by the fathers of postmodernism such as Levinas and Lyotard. 8 In their zeal to refute such a conception these thinkers have, logically enough, felt the need to recreate ethics as such. This is not the place to evaluate their success or failure in this regard, but it is important to note that their theory deprives modernity of its primary source of ethical vision without providing an alternative of an accessible or popular kind. The listlessness and nihilism of contemporary culture has surely some of its roots here. 6 For a rather strident presentation of this position see Z. BAUMAN, Postmodern Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) 37-61; a more restrained line of argument is to be found in A. TOURAINE, Critique de la modernité, (Fayard, 1992). 7 An important area which requires more attention in academic studies is the relationship between protestantism and human rights discourse. For a recent overview of the protestant ethical tradition alert to these issues see D. MÜLLER, L’éthique protestante dans la crise de la modernité, Généalogie, critique, reconstruction. (Paris, CERF; Genève, Labor et Fides, 1999). 8 J-F. LYOTARD, La condition post-moderne, (Éd. de Minuit, 1979 ); E. LEVINAS, Etica come filosofia prima (Milano: Guerini, 1991).

THE USE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE 109 In the light of these comments it will be clear that the cultural milieu in which current discussions of human rights issues take place is by no means a neutral environment but is itself, in considerable measure, the product of historical processes in which human rights discourse has played a significant role. The task in hand is to study more closely some of the main issues which arise when this discourse is used as a category of ethical discourse in such a cultural context. A pragmatic perspective Human rights discourse is often used in situations of distress, oppression and conflict, sometimes of an extremely urgent and critical nature. Appeals for action in such circumstances are often pragmatic in nature, calling for an immediate response of a humanitarian, juridical, political or even military kind. Human rights discourse has shown itself to be charged with a particular political valency in a whole range of struggles and battles: the enforced abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the collapse of the Soviet system, the various Balkan catastrophes and Pinochet’s arrest in Britain are among the many cases in point. The precise role that human rights discourse has played in inspiring, supporting and effecting the political processes involved in such cases is well beyond the scope of this article, but there is no doubt that it has played its part. Both in situations of this kind, as well as in less dramatic circumstances, the pragmatic question arises as to how one should respond to an increasingly wide range of human rights claims. Let us consider, simply by way of illustrating the problem, the following list of claims: “It is a human right not be tortured” “It is a human right to end one’s own life if the pain caused by terminal illness becomes intolerable” “It is a human right to have the freedom to express one’s political opinion without being driven over by a tank” “It is a human right of homosexual couples to adopt children” “It is a human right of the embryo not to be aborted” “It is a human right to have sufficient food to sustain one’s life”

108 MARTIN MCKEEVER<br />

In so far as one can talk of a subculture of “postmodernity”, it<br />

is a matter of some importance for human rights discourse. There<br />

is a strange irony in the fact that, philosophically speaking,<br />

postmodernism tends to deny all possibility of universals. 6 This<br />

has major consequences for a discourse such as that of human<br />

rights which makes claims for all human beings everywhere<br />

precisely because they are human beings! The irony of<br />

contemporary culture construed as postmodern is, therefore, that<br />

it notionally rejects the theoretical basis of the discourse it uses in<br />

order to promote in practice a wide range of emancipatory claims.<br />

One final introductory point on modern/postmodern<br />

culture. Both are generally considered “secular” forms of culture<br />

in which religion plays no constitutive role in the functioning of<br />

the State. The question arises as to where such a State is to find<br />

its ethical vision, which has been traditionally closely linked to,<br />

when not actually integrated into, a religious vision. 7 The main<br />

candidate for this role proposed by modernity was of course<br />

human reason itself, in the version conceived by Descartes and<br />

Kant. It is this very concept of reason which is charged with<br />

instrumental and totalitarian tendencies by the fathers of<br />

postmodernism such as Levinas and Lyotard. 8 In their zeal to<br />

refute such a conception these thinkers have, logically enough,<br />

felt the need to recreate ethics as such. This is not the place to<br />

evaluate their success or failure in this regard, but it is<br />

important to note that their theory deprives modernity of its<br />

primary source of ethical vision without providing an alternative<br />

of an accessible or popular kind. The listlessness and nihilism of<br />

contemporary culture has surely some of its roots here.<br />

6<br />

For a rather strident presentation of this position see Z. BAUMAN,<br />

Postmodern Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) 37-61; a more restrained line of<br />

argument is to be found in A. TOURAINE, Critique de la modernité, (Fayard,<br />

1992).<br />

7<br />

An important area which requires more attention in academic studies<br />

is the relationship between protestantism and human rights discourse. For a<br />

recent overview of the protestant ethical tradition alert to these issues see D.<br />

MÜLLER, L’éthique protestante dans la crise de la modernité, Généalogie,<br />

critique, reconstruction. (Paris, CERF; Genève, Labor et Fides, 1999).<br />

8<br />

J-F. LYOTARD, La condition post-moderne, (Éd. de Minuit, 1979 ); E.<br />

LEVINAS, Etica come filosofia prima (Milano: Guerini, 1991).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!