Pos368 Ethics And Human Rights Group Activity 2 Arizona Stat

Pos368 Ethics And Human Rights Group Activity 2arizona State Univ

Identify whether each group member considers themselves a communitarian or a liberal/cosmopolitan in their moral outlook, focusing on the ontological question of whether humans are individuals or socially constructed, or whether rights are universal or relative. Do this without considering specific issues, but based on your core or gut instinct.

Then, consider Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) regarding freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression. Determine whether you believe these rights are or should be universal (cosmopolitan/liberal) or determined by states (communitarian), considering this in the realm of negative freedom—freedom from interference.

Next, examine Article 25(1) of the UDHR on the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, housing, medical care, and social services. Decide whether these food security rights are or should be universal or determined by states, reflecting on the realm of positive freedom—access to necessities that involves a duty on governments or others.

Finally, analyze Article 17(1) of the UDHR regarding the right to own property. Reflect on whether property rights are or should be universal or determined by states, considering the same distinctions.

Discuss whether group members have differing views on cosmopolitanism and communitarianism regarding these rights, how justifications differ, and attempt to reach consensus on one of these issues—either adopting a communitarian or cosmopolitan stance. Reflect on the success of this consensus, barriers faced, and potential solutions acceptable to all group members.

Paper For Above instruction

The discussion of moral outlooks, particularly between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism, plays a central role in understanding how societies perceive human rights and moral obligations. The distinction begins with a fundamental ontological debate: whether humans are inherently individuals with rights independent of social contexts or whether humans are fundamentally socially constructed entities whose rights and identities are shaped by communities and cultural norms. This core dichotomy influences interpretations of universal rights and their applicability across diverse societies.

Individuals with a cosmopolitan outlook often advocate that rights, such as freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression, should be upheld universally, transcending state borders and cultural differences. This perspective aligns with the notion of negative freedom, emphasizing freedom from interference by restrictions or censorship. For example, Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR underscore that everyone has the right to manifest their beliefs and opinions freely, regardless of their location or cultural background. Cosmopolitans argue that protecting these rights globally fosters respect for human dignity and promotes international cooperation, aligning with the worldview of universal human rights principles grounded in moral cosmopolitanism (Appiah, 2006; Donnelly, 2013).

Conversely, communitarian approaches emphasize the significance of social, cultural, and religious contexts in shaping human rights and moral obligations. Communitarians contend that rights should be determined by particular communities or states, respecting local traditions, values, and social structures. From this viewpoint, an asserted universal right to free speech and religion may conflict with community norms or collective identities, requiring contextual negotiation rather than imposition of a global standard (Taylor, 1991). The debate here revolves around the tension between respecting cultural diversity and safeguarding individual freedoms, with communitarians highlighting that rights should not undermine social cohesion or cultural integrity.

The matter of access to basic needs, such as food and social services, further exemplifies the divergence. The right to an adequate standard of living, including food security (Article 25(1) of the UDHR), can be viewed through the lens of positive freedom—entailing obligations on governments to provide essential resources. Cosmopolitans often argue that food security is a universal human right, requiring global cooperation and assistance, especially in contexts of global inequalities and crises (Sen, 1999; Pogge, 2002). On the other hand, a communitarian perspective might advocate that food rights should be established and managed at the national or local level, with policies tailored to specific social and economic circumstances, emphasizing sovereignty and respecting diverse social contracts.

The right to property ownership encapsulates similar debates. A cosmopolitan stance tends to defend the universality of property rights as fundamental to individual autonomy and economic development. Philosophers like John Rawls (1999) suggest that fair and just property rights are integral to social justice and should be protected globally. Conversely, communitarians may argue that property rights are social constructs rooted in specific cultural, historical, and economic contexts, thus requiring regulation and recognition by individual states that best reflect their societal values (MacIntyre, 1981).

In evaluating group views, it is common for members to differ on whether rights should be universally or culturally determined. These differences often stem from underlying philosophical commitments—some favoring moral universalism, others prioritizing cultural relativism. These disagreements are justified by contrasting views—cosmopolitans emphasizing moral equality and human dignity irrespective of cultural differences, and communitarians emphasizing the importance of social cohesion, shared values, and local contexts.

Attempting to reach consensus on these issues is complex. Groups may sway towards one stance by weighing considerations such as the importance of respecting cultural diversity versus protecting fundamental human dignity. Success depends on open dialogue, recognition of the validity of different perspectives, and finding middle ground—such as promoting universal rights with room for cultural adaptations or emphasizing international frameworks that respect local contexts.

Overall, these discussions reveal that the core challenge lies in balancing respect for cultural diversity with the aspiration for universal human dignity. Achieving consensus requires understanding and accommodating differing values while upholding fundamental principles of human rights. This process underscores the importance of intercultural dialogue, global cooperation, and locally sensitive policies in advancing ethical principles in diverse societies.

References

• Appiah, Kwame Anthony. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Donnelly, Jack. (2013). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Pogge, Thomas. (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights. Polity Press.
• Rawls, John. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Sen, Amartya. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Taylor, Charles. (1991). The Politics of Recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press.
• United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN General Assembly.
• Williams, Bernard. (1973). Moral Luck and Moral Responsibility. In Moral Luck, Cambridge University Press.
• Waldron, Jeremy. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press.