On the Historical and Ideal Nature of Human Rights: Reading “Human Rights and Human Diversity” by A. J.M. Milne

 By Han Zhen   Beijing Normal University

   

The foundation of human rights is social history, which is reflected as a kind of moral ideal. The ideal is produced on the historical base, it is thus has the real meaning, meanwhile the ideal is the ideal of the development of history; therefore, the history has a style of progress. I am suggesting the following points:

 

1. Individual rights is the products of social development

 

As abstract concepts of human rights have been neglecting the social contents, which should be the foundation of individual personality, any imaginations of abstract natural human rights are unreal. In fact, just like personal identity, individual rights cannot be culturally and socially neutral, they must be the social and environmental products. The certain historical civilizations and cultural traditions, to a great extent, have been exerting a tremendous influence on the contents and forms of human rights. Abiding by the abstract standards of human rights, some western governments and organizations are valuating the development of human rights in the developing countries and interfering with the internal affairs of those countries. The so-called human rights are actually reflecting the western social ideas and ideas of value, which are rooting in western system of history and culture. However, western social tradition is only an element of multi-culture, it is not proper to assert that the western standard of human rights can be applied to all the human beings. The so-called abstract theory of human rights not only has been criticized by the developing countries, but also rejected by some western academic schools such as “Communtarianism” in North America.

The “Communtarianists” such as Charles Taylor, Alasdair Maclntyre, Michael Sandel and Michael Walzer realize that rights are not something self-sufficient, it should be regarded as something formed in the social and legal practices and accepted by the public traditions. For them, it is the need from moral practice and choice, instead of the discovery of the universal reason a prior to pose a problem the existence and nature of human rights. So it follows that resorting to the concept of abstract human rights will entail the arbitrary and wrong imaginations. It is very difficulty to reach a consensus concerning the foundation and content of rights, which are leading to conflicts among the various assumptions about rights. [1]   More and more people are now realizing that human rights are the historical products instead of the eternal substance a prior, and no one has any privilege to impose his own standard of human rights on others.

To save the ideas of abstract human rights, A. J.M. Milne, the British political philosopher, modifies the original universal standards of human rights in his works titled “Human Rights and Human Diversity” ( the Macmillan Press Ltd, 1986). He admits that the prerequisites for western human rights are the economic and cultural condition of the western industrial society, which is not suitable for most developing countries, since the people in developing countries are experiencing the different developing stages and are in the specific economic and cultural conditions. A. J.M. Milne also affirms that the original ideas of human rights are relating to an ideal criterion. He points out: the ideal criterion reflects the ideas and systems of the liberal and industrial society, since the rights, which are reflecting the social ideas and social systems, constitute it. But it is a pity that most people are not living in and may never have a chance to experience such a society. It is possible that some of them can enjoy such a society in the near future, but the present economic and cultural condition eliminates the possibility. Consequently, the criterion has to become a Utopian ideal in most developing countries. [2] To attempt to maintain the universal validity of human rights, A. J.M. Milne elucidates that human rights is indeed a minimum or lowest standard rather an ideal one. And it is this concept of minimum standard that is verifying the universal human rights rationally. In other words, according to the universal and minimum moral standard, there are some human rights that must be respected and realized. A minimum moral standard applicable to all cultures and societies does not deny that, to a great extent, it is one's particular cultural and social experience that makes one in the real and present situation. Its precondition is the culture and the cultural difference rather than the people separated from the society and culture. It determines also the minimum moral demands that must be satisfied by any society and culture. This demand sets up a moral limit for the scope of the difference; meanwhile, it admits the existence of the difference. The universal applicability of the minimum moral standard requires respecting all the granted rights universally. To make it more clearly, the rights are the moral rights for all the ages and all the areas, namely, universal moral rights. [3] Obviously, according to A. J.M. Milne, as soon as we lower the standard of human rights from the higher ideal state to the lowest, we can hold the universal validity of human rights, and make it the universal moral standard beyond the cultural space.

At first glance, it appears that A. J.M. Milne's claim is both persuasive and conformity to the common sense. But I insist that his concept of human rights is still the abstract one, and must be problematic. My judgments are on the following analyses:

Firstly, A. J.M. Milne's concept of human rights is a two-way abstracting. On the one hand, he regards the western standard of human rights as the ideal; and this way is making a mistake as confusing a tree with a forest. On the other hand, he is attempting to get a “minimum standard” beyond all the special cultural forms, it is returning inevitably to the natural rights. Actually, western ideas of human rights can only be applied to western society, as Karl Marx once said, “rights will never be beyond the economic structure of the society and the cultural development of the society which has been limited by the economic structure.” [4] In this sense, western ideas of human rights is not the ideal applicable to the whole human beings, it is something worthy pursuing by western people. The minimum standard of human rights is still an abstract one; in fact, there will never be any unchanged human rights, no matter whether it is “ideal or “minimum”. Any certain rights are the products of certain society and historical stage; thus, there is no minimum rights which reflects nothing about the cultural traits. Since the minimum must be embodied in the special cultural and historical forms, people in different times and cultures have got different understandings about the minimum rights. We are still not reached any consensus on the issue of the basic characters of the rights of life. For example, the beginning and ending of life has been a controversial issue among scholars. With regard to the issues such as abortion and euthanasia, there are different ideas, too. Some people think not only fetus but also newborns do not necessarily possess the rights of life. As fetus is a part of mother's body, she is enjoying the right to control her body on his own will, therefore, she has the right to chose having a baby or having it aborted. Some people believe in the doctrine that all the life, regardless to his traits, must be seen as having the inalienable rights. Some religion are even going further, it insists that since the purpose of the sexual life is making new life, all the contraception which may impose the negative affects on the forming of the new life are immoral. Some scholars think, with the sufficient evidences, normal people have the rights to control his body, he is therefore has the rights to accept euthanasia. The authority should respect his choice if his choice is not harming other people's interests. Some scholars regarding the right of life as sacred and inviolable, however, oppose the mentioned-above opinions; and thinking any killing or committing suicide is immoral. Even in the United States of America, there have been reports about the doctors who carried out the abortive operation shot to death. It is a ridiculous that although the opposite sides are intending to defend the rights, it is the defending itself that causes the mutually exclusive consequences.

Secondly, with a motivation seeking for a minimum standard for the developing countries, A. J.M. Milne regards the western ideas of human rights as the ideal standards inconsistent with the reality, it seems that the standard of human rights is not a ideal measure, it can become a key link without ideal. We think A. J.M. Milne is misunderstanding the relation between the real foundations and the ideal functions of human rights. It is true that human rights are certainly depending on the real social and historical basis and are within the real applicable scopes, but the main reason people are talking about human rights is that the characteristic of “deficiency” and “unreliability” in human rights are driving people to seek for the full realization in the ideal. The ideal can never go beyond the forms determined by the reality, just like the bourgeois ideal of “freedom, equality and brotherhood” is only “ the idealized kingdom of bourgeois.” [5] , the narratives about our human rights is the idealization of what contemporary Chinese people are pursuing. It is the seeking for the ideal that stimulates the social development and the historical progress. So how can we say that the western standard of human rights is ideal and the standards in the developing countries are lack of the traits of ideals? The correct understanding should be: the western ideas of human rights are the idealization of the real western consciousness, in this sense, other nationalities' ideas of human rights are also the idealization of those nationalities' real consciousness. If we do not recognize the ideal nature of the concept of human rights, we need not discuss the issue of human rights any more, because the reality itself is reality, recognizing the reality without any precondition means that the present is rational, when we demand something from the reality with a higher standard, such a demand is implying that it is attempting to let the reality going beyond itself and realize itself in a higher goal.

Thirdly, from A. J.M. Milne's recognizing the western ideas of human rights as the ideal standards, it follows naturally that he is conforming to the logic of west-center, namely, West is superior to East, and the western civilization is superior to that of east, and regarding the non-western civilization as something lacking the subjectivity, the ideal, the agent and the free will. According to his theory, since the people in the third countries are lack of personal will, namely, without realizing his own rights, it is necessary for the westerns to specify the rights for them. In that case, even the people in the third world cannot acquire the ideal rights; they at least enjoy the minimum rights. In fact, rights can only appear with certain historical and cultural forms, hence, any rights in any times or countries are both minimum and ideal. People are anxious to realize their own rights; the rights are minimum for them. The unemployed in the western countries aspire for their own rights to work; ordinary citizens over there are caring about their personal safety, how we can say those are not the minimum rights? Meanwhile, for some reason, the scope and depth of some “basic” rights cannot be realized fully right now, so the concept of rights is also ideal. Moreover, since there are neither permanent rights nor right without cultural characteristic, and there are no common measures or standards among the different cultures, there are no superiority or inferiority among the different cultures. For the people in most countries it is hard to imagine how the citizens in America have the rights to posses and use guns legally. The Chinese people are enjoying the rights to control the birth, which are now a goal for which many females in the western countries are striving. Again, we cannot assert that the standards in the western countries are ideal, whereas ours are the lowest.

I am not denying absolutely the possibility of the existence of the comparable common factors among various ideas of rights in the different parts of the world. Although there are no universal rationality a prior, there are still practical reasoning that are produced in the practice and accepted by all the member of human beings. Practical reasoning is not only the physical activities, but also the social behavior, we therefore regard it as the foundations on which our mutual understands are depending. People should communicate each other on the basis of common activities. People all over the world should learn from each other by means of the equal dialogue.

 

   2. The human rights is the ideal force guiding the social development  

   The fact that human rights cannot be beyond the social and historical foundations is not rejecting the ideal function of the concept of human rights. Personal rights, no doubt, have been the social and historical products, but the process of social and historical development has been shown as a result from man's continuous efforts by which he is striving for, protecting and developing his own rights. Social and historical factors have been determining human being's existence, but human being is also guiding the progress of social development. If we consider the concept of human rights historically and factually, we will find that the rights following the direction of the historical development may become the forces guiding the historical progress. Consequently, just like realizing the real social foundation of the literature and arts cannot reject their own value, explaining the historical and social sources of human rights, fixing the position of social interest and exploding the myth of natural rights cannot lead to the rejection of the true value of personal human rights. The non-essence does not mean it is worthless. The produced things themselves express their desirability.  Human rights are also established by social activities, which mean they are what people are anxious to get and are worthy acquiring. 

However, the desirability does not entail naturally its positive value. For some people, privilege is a kind of desirability, but it is not positive for most people. For people addicted to drugs, heroin is desirability, but it is also lethal. So, it is hard to draw a clear line between positive desirability and negative desirability, but it is possible to get a criterion gradually within the historical progress. Not all the rights are positive, and the only judging standard is the standard of historical progress. Feudal privilege in today is abominable, but it has some progressive traits against the slavery background. What the capitalists are depending is the power of capital and although it is with some “immoral” characteristics with regard to a higher standard, but after all it is superior to the feudal privilege. In this sense, capitalist rights have their own historical significance that must disappear as the further development of history and replaced by something confirming to the higher historical standard. Human rights are originating from social and historical developments, whereas historical progress entrusts to rights the real meaning. We believe that human rights can never go beyond the limit of the social and economic structure and the level of cultural development. From a point of historical development, the rights' development is showing the tendencies as follows:

Firstly, the scope of human rights will be widened with the social development. Historically, the serves in the feudal system enjoyed much more rights than the slaves in the slavery system did. The conscious development is supporting the points, too. With the negative forms, the first concepts of human rights in 18^th century were expressing the requirement for the rights in some fields free of the interference from the government or others. The second generation of the concepts of human rights developed in later 19^th century contained more positive intention. Besides the human rights mentioned above, it proposed also the rights to work, rights to rest,  the rights to medical care, the rights to being educated, the rights to suffrage and the rights to being elected, and etc.

Secondly, although there are no abstract and universal “natural rights”, the rights will be given to more people as the history advances forward. That is, it is a tendency that rights tend to be equalized and universalized. Historically, the rights without natural universality may tend towards universality. Karl Marx once said, nobody is opposing freedom; he is at most opposing other's freedom. Thus, various freedoms have existed, which are shown either as privilege or as the universal rights. [6]   The right of personal freedom that were enjoyed only by few slave owners, serf owners and free men in the slavery and feudal societies have comes to be enjoyed by almost everyone in modern society. After a long and arduous struggle, working people, minorities and females have now enjoyed the political rights such as the rights to suffrage that enjoyed only by few wealthy people centuries ago. In addition, the third generation of the concepts of human rights is giving priority to the national equality, which provides with international legal supporting for the just struggles against the political oppression and the anti-colonization movements occurred in most developing countries. It also makes much more people enjoying the right of freedom in the world. From an aspect of fact, there is a long way to go before the realization of the ideal of full equality, but it is a historical trend that with the historical development., the right will become more equal and universal.

Thirdly, human rights will change from respecting for forms to searching for the depth of substance. If, as we have seen, what working people at the early stage of the bourgeois revolution can only be given the freedom and equality in words, working people would be destined to look for the practical interests, namely, the political and economic rights, which must be related to the doctrines in the process of social development. Although it is a fact that many rights have not been realized fully yet, from the point of tendency, the deepening of the substance of the rights is an irresistible historical trend. The form itself is not necessarily negative, it must ask for the substance filled by history.

Obviously, human rights are not sheer fabrications. They do not depend on the natural law, universal human nature or a prior reason, they are, on the contrary, relying on the sound moral foundations, because the grounds on which human rights have been produced is social history, and human rights are also the ideal standard guiding the progress of history. The admitted relativity of culture and the fragility of history cannot become an excuse refuting rights. History itself may realize the ideal of rights and enrich the forms of rights. It is a fact that there are more and more protections for human rights, although there have been various reports about the events of the violations of human rights. Although slave owners' torturing or even killing slaves were legal in ancient times, the similar behavior would be punished and rebuked today. History has given entity to rights; anyone who violates it openly would be contemned as anti-human. Certainly, there are not any abstract and universal human rights, but there are related human rights produced in history. People form their rules and human rights in practice, thus, the concepts of human rights with different cultural and historical backgrounds are interrelated.

It is the fact that both human nature and human rights have been produced in practice and idealized in man's minds explains rationally the relations between individual rights and social interests, expounds the foundations on which the inner links among various cultures and rights are depending.

 

3. The relation between human rights and social interest should be adjusted continuously in the interaction between history and ideal

Human rights have been produced in social practice. As a kind of social activity, social practice needs the social corporation. Without the social corporation, we are confident, without any rights. One has to recognize other people's rights in order to guarantee his own rights, because it is an issue of moral trust and social institution: once most people abandon this principle, the society is falling into the natural state in which individuals with the infinite rights had no real rights. If all the members in a society are indifferent to the common interests, they can hardly promote individual rights and interest. Anybody, however talented he may be, must give full play to his wisdom and creativeness in the system of the social corporation, and thus gain his own interests. For example, a promising entrepreneur tends to know how to mobilize the enthusiasm of all his employees. Therefore, the individual's welfare is depending on some social corporation, every member is committing himself working to promote the interests of the social community, he is undertaking the obligation not to impair the social interests, he should even give a priority to the common interests rather than individual rights frequently. It is the citizen's duties to devote their own lives to the national interests when the country is under the threats from foreign enemies. .

However, when we realize the unity between individual rights and social interests, we should realize the difference, too: there is a difference or even a conflict between one's social interests as a member of the society and one's self-interests as an individual. A owner's production may be harmful to the social interests, although it is beneficial for the owner himself. To avoid this conflict, there must be an agency on behalf of the common interests. As A. J.M. Milne once said, according to the principle of social responsibility, every member in a society is bearing a duty to give a priority to the interests of the community. This, consequently, makes the community a power to impose its obligation upon the individuals just for its own interests. [7] But the positive solution to this problem is relying on the historical progress. People, for example, have neglected the problem of pollution for decades; even the governments did not pay much attention to it for the sake of revenue and finance. It is the deteriorated situation and the deepening consciousness that urges people to realize the seriousness of the issue, and require the protection on environment by means of media and administration.

 Following this train of thought, it is in the process of the development of practical reason that the contractions between the conflicting ideas of rights and the tendency towards universality come to be coordinated. The lacking of the communication among nationalities in ancient times caused the understandable and immeasurable differences. Even if there have been increased communications, but for the special interests every nationality is concerning with, it's been hard to reach a consensus since the modern times. But as the quick development of modern science and technology, the great threats of nuclear weapons and the serious destruction on ecological environment are concerned, people in the contemporary world are aware of the stern prospects challenging to human being's rights of life. People have to admit that people's blind actions are not only harmful to man's life, but also lethal to the earth's existence without the settled international rules and moral rules abided by all the people in the world. Thus, the United Union and other international organizations have been promulgated a series of laws, conventions and announcements related to the issue of human rights, such as the convention on prohibition of the expansion of nuclear weapons, the convention on the prohibition of air pollution and the convention on protection of the rare animals. Obviously, today's development is making human enjoying the closer connection. The common activities and communications lay a foundation on which people can conduct the dialogue on the issue of human rights. The differences have not been and will never been ended up, but people can succeed in finding the subjects of dialogue by the means of practical reason, from which the human being are benefiting.

   The society is the form of life; the essential aim of a society is to promote its member's welfare. So the combination of the individual and social interests can push the society forward. The public interests indifferent to the individual rights are empty, whereas the individual rights excluding the social interests are blind.

   History is determining the forms and the substance of the human rights, the ideal is leading history to satisfy man's much more advanced demands on human rights. It is within the tension between history and ideal that people realizes the identity between the social interests and the individual rights.