Would the western canon of Kant-style universalized human rights principles be more effective in its argumentation against nations like China and Russia, if it used a different ethical model like, for example, virtue ethics?
It feels like nobody manages to explain why human rights are good, because the ethical model behind them is Kantian categorical imperatives that don't mean much to people whose philosophical traditions don't descend from that line of thinkers. Maybe if we used virtue ethics to explain a modified version of human rights, like "courage is a virtue, thusly free speech is virtuous because it's courageous to speak truth to power", it would have a stronger case to non-westerners.
I mean the current argument in favor of human rights has failed to convince even western leaders, surely the case made can only get better with a new ethical model, right?
hello?
>>76715917
It would be nice to apply Human Rights universally and not hypocritically in favor of one ethnic group over another ( for example, genocide of white South Africans ignored ).
Until we can reach this point, "Human Rights" can always be dismissed as hypocrisy.
>>76716552
I have a problem with the human rights being universal, though. They're not universal, and until anyone can argue why they should be with anything else than "m-muh categorical imperative!!!!~", people who don't buy into the Kant meme aren't gonna abide by them.
I think we'd have a lot more success with applying them to ourselves and others if we had a better model of ethics behind them. Utilitarianism or Virtue Ethics would both have a much stronger case when our diplomats start shitposting at China about treating their citizens more nicely.
>>76716810
I wish I could understand what you are saying, but I just Kant. Isn't utilitarianism and virtue ethnics already what Russia and China are doing?
>>76717048
They're a certain kind of utilitarians, which is why it would work better to use that kind of argumentation in regards to why they should treat their citizens better. Bentham and Mill both described utilitarian ethics as being about the most happiness for the most people - not a select few. If we based our human rights argumentation in Bentham-esque utilitarian ethics, our arguments would probably make a lot more sense to them, because as you say, they're already a kind of utilitarian. People outside the western canon aren't gonna give a rats ass about Kantian argumentation.
>>76717616
Look I'm lost dude but here's a bump in case some MENSA guys are on today to figure this out.
>>76717616
most /pol/acs doesnt know all the political thinkers. Anyways, i have been thinking lately that the west is actually in the wrong, when trying to spread political rights, instead of economic rights, as china and russia is doing.
>>76718138
christ, America, this is highschool philosophy.
>>76718333
There's a case to be made for that, sure. Political rights only last as long as the political class allows it. Economic rights gives economic power, something that's harder to take away again.
>>76718346
dont bash the dude for trying to understand what you said.
>>76718462
im not sure what it is you want with your thread.
>>76718609
Well, the intention was to discuss whether the current ethical model that serves as a foundation for our human rights principles is the best model we could be using.
Seems like different ethical models might cause a more efficient and stable spread of human rights than the one we're using, where we can't even convince our own leaders to abide.
