I'm writing a philosophy thesis on justice and rights. Focus is on the role and development of active rights (those are rights seen as held and upheld by individuals). In case you did not know, the history of active rights is a pretty dismal one. The major rights theoreticians until Locke were almost without exception absolutists and also often supporters of slavery, and formed their rights theories against those who opposed absolutism and slavery. Quite interesting stuff.
Right now I'm struggling with moral realism and the ontological status of the concept of justice. (If you have any idea what I'm talking about - congratulations.)
I am a big fan of Marx, but in in relationship to justice and rights, he has very little to say apart from rhetorics. I think Marx (and especially Engels) got a little relativist at times, and when talking about justice this is particularly obvious. While I find their politics repugnant, both Hayek and Nozick are interesting philosophers. Rawls is boring but unavoidable. I have a lot of sympathy with Kant, including his moral philosophy, but I am not sure his pure rationalism holds up. I suspect there is no way around looking at human nature to find a proper basis for moral philosophy.
Anyway, if you really read all the above, you deserve a medal. Or a life. So thrown in a comment while you're at it. Literature tips received with infinite gratitude.
Right now I'm struggling with moral realism and the ontological status of the concept of justice. (If you have any idea what I'm talking about - congratulations.)
I am a big fan of Marx, but in in relationship to justice and rights, he has very little to say apart from rhetorics. I think Marx (and especially Engels) got a little relativist at times, and when talking about justice this is particularly obvious. While I find their politics repugnant, both Hayek and Nozick are interesting philosophers. Rawls is boring but unavoidable. I have a lot of sympathy with Kant, including his moral philosophy, but I am not sure his pure rationalism holds up. I suspect there is no way around looking at human nature to find a proper basis for moral philosophy.
Anyway, if you really read all the above, you deserve a medal. Or a life. So thrown in a comment while you're at it. Literature tips received with infinite gratitude.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
Semi-quick answer: There's a problem called the 'chronlogical paradox' in customary law (basically, int'l common law, non-treay law) - the way the rules are written, it seems as if you need to believe that something already *is* the law for it to *become* the law, which is a problem. I'm throwing a whole bunch of philosophy of language at it and seeing what sticks - I think getting rid of the notion of belief (a bad idea here for other reasons, anyway) and focusing on the language, lets us use an inferentialist account of the language and clear up the apparent paradox.
I am trying to understand what are "rights" ? What is really natural law... Why do people have rights etc...
I think you may be the right person to help (but you've already seen my thread in the philo forum). Thank for your first answer.