Human Rights Theory: Exploration and Understanding

When one hears or thinks about human rights, a mental image of abuse taking place in far away lands come to mind. Yet, human rights abuse occurs daily all around us in the form of discrimination and inequality. Issues such as proper distribution of social welfare, who should get such support, and who should provide such support, have been topics which bring emotion and confusion to the human soul. This paper will explore common human right theories and distribution of justice theories that continue to be debated by the world’s philosophers.

Rights, Obligations, and Duties

Before a discussion of distribution of rights can be conducted, it is important to gain an understanding of what constitutes a right, how they originate, and why we have them. The following section will discuss rights, differences between types of rights, and morality as a basis for human rights.

Rights

When someone states that they possess a human right, it means that one has a valid claim based on moral considerations. Rights have two characteristics: (1) they are justifiable claims to something, and (2) they are claims against someone (Martin, 1993). White (1984, p. 17) stated that rights are things that one “can have or be given, earn, enjoy, or exercise. It is something one can claim, demand, assert, insist on, fight for, or secure or what one can waive, surrender, relinquish, or forfeit. It can be recognized and protected or disregarded, changed, abridged, infringed, whittled away, violated, or trampled on.” Rights are intangible goods that individuals have by virtue of being human.

Machan (1989, p. 98) defines a right as a “principle defining a range of social reality within which a person ought to be treated by others as the sole judge, jury, and executioner. In short, rights specify the sole personal authority of someone to judge and the jurisdiction to act.” Locke thought that human rights arise from the laws of nature which were divinely based on the rational character of God, therefore on reason itself (Melden, 1988).

Rand claimed, “Rights are the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law” (Machan, 1989, p. 102). The foregoing has mentioned rights being based on moral code, which will be addressed in a future section of this paper.

Morality.

To justify a right, a chain of reasons must be traced back to something that was accepted without argument (Nickel, 1987). A justification must show that an acceptable proposition provides conclusive support for the right. A difficulty lies in how deep or far back to go to find the original incident that gave support to the proposition. The original source of support, or basic premise, should have two characteristics: (1) it should support the right, called “unproblematic derivation”, and (2) it should be widely accepted, called “unproblematic acceptance.”

Morality is concerned with interpersonal actions which affect individuals except those performing the action (Gewirth, 1978). The agent and recipient both participate in the interaction, the first being active and the former passive. When someone is a recipient in a transaction, he or she is also a prospective agent who has a purpose that needs to be fulfilled. This individual does not need to try to fulfill this purpose to be an agent, but may be a passive recipient. Being a passive recipient is an inherent attribute of humanity. The agent must recognize that everyone else is a potential agent with rights to freedom and well-being. Well-being will be discussed later. Let it be enough to say that the agent must acknowledge that he or she has generic obligations. These obligations include the negative right of refraining from coercion, and the positive action of helping others in maintaining their freedom and well-being when it does not cost the agent to do so. Gewirth (1978) calls this concept the Principle of Generic Consistency, which will be discussed in a later section of this paper.

Fulfillment of these obligations is needed for the agent to reach rational autonomy. Autonomy means being a law unto oneself (Gewirth, 1978). All human beings have the capacity to be rational, excluding those with mental disabilities. So, mankind is able to be rationally autonomous.

Moral codes of society may bear on institutional rules (Brandt, 1992). In cases where the institutional system is morally wrong, the institution should change. Moral codes may also imply that an individual has a moral duty to do something that is his occupational job.

Moral codes should be simple enough that all members of society understand them. If they are too complex to be learned or applied, they should be restructured to the understanding of society. Moral codes must be absorbed by human beings to take affect (Brandt, 1992). One way to decide if an act is right or wrong is to decide if the outcome would be better or worse for the relevant class of people to whom it applies. But, what is morally right in one society may not be morally right in another society. Each society must evaluate its morals within its own conceptual framework.

There is never a moral obligation to do that which is impossible to do (Werhane, Gini, & Ozar, 1986). It is not a moral obligation to oneself, nor can one transfer an impossible moral obligation to another.

Active and Passive Rights.

When a right is a claim to do something, it is referred to as an active right (White, 1984). An example would be a right to free speech or to worship as one may choose. Individuals have the right to physically do something. Active rights also encompass the right to a living wage, privacy, trial by one’s peers, education, and the right to have equal opportunity.

A right to have something done to oneself is considered a passive right. An example of a passive right is the assumption that a doctor will tell you the truth about your health condition when facing a serious medical condition. Other rights, such as the right to feel something or to have a certain attitude are also considered passive rights.

White (1984) asserts that much confusion about the distinction between active and passive rights exists in academic circles. He states, “a one-sided concentration on the so-called ‘passive rights’ has led some to suppose that only these are right and that the so-called ‘active’ rights are really only liberties, while a one-sided concentration on ‘active’ rights has led others to insist that every right must be exercisable, which ‘passive’ rights are not” (White, 1984, p. 15). There is much overlapping of theoretical issues and terminology when rights are concerned. This confusion is likely to continue, but it may have no substantial bearing on the true concern of rights from the individual perspective.

Conventional verses Moral Rights.

Conventional rights are verified by reference to a social rule or institutional framework (Werhane, Gini, & Ozar, 1986). Conventional rights exist because of the social rule from which they were derived. It is critical that the institution that established the social rule attain acceptability of the parties impacted by the rule.

Rights can become the basis for establishing other rights. For example, if an individual had the right to travel from point A to point B by the most direct route, and the most direct route is through individual X’s property, we may revise our right to exclude property that does not belong to us. So, we have the right to travel from point A to point B by the most direct route, as long as it does not trespass through private property. This suggests that conventional rights may have boundaries or limits placed on them.

Conventional rights are manmade, as compared to natural or moral rights. A moral right does not depend on acceptance by an involved party for existence. A moral right exists as part of nature and most believe that all human beings have such rights. One justification of moral rights is that they were endowed on man by his Creator. Thomas Jefferson identified in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (Werhane et al., 1986, p. 10). This leads one to support the existence of God, which will not be addressed in this paper. But, Jefferson assumes that the reality of God is self-evident or that it is obvious to everyone. This logic then leads us to assume that rights given by God are also self-evident.

Rights are a means of expressing respect for the decisions and purposes of people. People do not exist to be acted on, but people are knowledgeable and act on their environment and other people. Many claim that rights justification is based in human worth and dignity, which will be discussed.

To whom do rights apply? One prevailing thought is that individuals must be able to use their mental faculties to boost their pleasure or pain, or formulate rational decisions. If rights apply to this class of individuals, it excludes the mentally retarded, fetuses, infants, and those that can not rationalize. Some philosophers claim that all mankind has rights based on a sliding scale, depending on each individual’s ability to reason. As an individual can reason more than another, he or she is granted with more rights than someone who can not reason. Still others specify criteria to identify those individuals that should enjoy full rights.

Duties and Obligations

A duty is something which is due, usually from an institutional role (White, 1984). Duties can be assigned, prescribed, or arise out of one’s work position. Duties differ by society in that parents may be expected to fulfill different duties in varying cultures. A duty may be defined by law or industry code. The Latin for duty is “officium”, which is equivalent to the term “office” (White, 1984). Because duties are tightly aligned with jobs and positions, many duties are specific to those jobs. Duties may not extend beyond the scope of one’s position.

Because state and local authorities hold positions, they have duties to perform. For example, state and local authorities may not discriminate against individuals or foreign nations arbitrarily. State and local authorities also have duties to perform in maintaining the conventional rights of its citizens.

It has been suggested that moral duty may have entered ethics from religion, where an individual has a duty to his God (White, 1984). In this context, the role of one who serves is demonstrated. Because of religion, moral duty may have entered the sphere of one’s position as one who serves another through employment.

Reference to another individual or group is always made when the concept of duty is explored. There exists a dispute among philosophers about whether one has a duty to oneself. Kant viewed the negative duties “not to commit suicide or to indulge in drink, drugs, gluttony, unnatural sex, cruelty to animals, or wanton destruction of nature, and the positive duties to cultivate physical, intellectual, and moral perfection, as duties to oneself” (White, 1984, p. 27). Other philosophers have rejected this premise and have denied the possibility of a duty to oneself. Also, there are no duties to inanimate objects.

Obligations are similar to duties. Being under an obligation is usually held in the framework of rules and regulations where one is bound by circumstances rather than being forced by circumstances (White, 1984). A company may have obligations by the nature of its business, through industry regulations and rules. The concept of being bound is central to understanding the concept of obligation. When an individual is obliged or bound, he or she is bound to someone or to do something. If someone performs a kind deed to another, the receiver is bound to the individual who extended the kind act, but is not obliged to do anything. One can only be obliged to do something, but bound to do or feel something for oneself. White (1984, p. 52) stated, “One’s obligations are something one meets, as one meets requirements; one’s duties are something one performs, as one performs tasks.” Duties can be allocated, obligations can not. Obligations can be incurred, duties can not.

Rights have an advantage over duties in that rights may be based in morality. Mankind usually wants to possess rights, while duties become burdensome. We may be delighted when duties are imposed on others, but only because of the freedom, protection, and advantages that it provides for ourselves. For people to respond to their duty, they must perceive that they are required to act in a specific way by a moral principle or a moral reason that they accept.

Gewirth (1982a, p. 159) stated, “All rights are powers instrumental to making the best of human capacities, and can only be recognized or exercised upon this ground. In this sense, the duty is the purpose with a view to which the right is secured, and not merely a corresponding obligation equally derived from a common ground; and the right and duty are not distinguished as something claimed by self and something owed to others, but the duty as an imperative purpose, and the right as a power secured because instrumental to it.”

Distributive Justice

The distributive properties of justice have been discussed for the past century. The debate has centered on inequalities of distribution produced by carrying out different methodologies with varying objectives. Distributive justice involves equality in the treatment of all members of a group of people; whether it is absolute or proportional, equality of allocation or equality of opportunity, or equality of consideration (Feinberg, 1980). Equality also considers the characteristics of the class in which assignments and allocations take place.

Vlastos (1984, p. 44) has consolidated the major distribution proposals into five categories: “(1) to each according to his need, (2) to each according to his worth, (3) to each according to his merit, (4) to each according to his work, and (5) to each according to the agreement he has made.” Rights are only considered rights when their distribution is guaranteed to the individuals who are expected to be the recipients (Martin, 1985). Distribution concepts will be discussed in the following section.

Utilitarian Concepts

Utilitarianism defines morality as making the world a better place. The utilitarian principle of distribution is to maximize the benefit to society. Utilitarianism is concerned with consequences; therefore the end justifies the mean. Morality focuses on producing good or better consequences, not on good intentions (Hinman, 2001a). Utilitarian criteria of goods are aggregative in that it calls for the maximizing of utility (Gewirth, 1982a). But, it has been suggested that utilitarianism is too narrow in its understanding of good (Nozick, 1974). Social life is viewed as a good prospect when “social life makes possible the maximum engagement in self-determined rational conduct” (Machan, 1989, p. 96). For social life to maximize its benefit to mankind, it must be able to establish human rights and preserve those rights such that human interaction may take place. Utilitarianism asks us to put aside our self-interest for the betterment of society. If a proposed action does not raise moral questions, it is usually considered rational (Brandt, 1992). The agent is encouraged to pursue rational action to maximize utility. Brandt (1992, p. 114) states that “it can be argued that society’s choice of an institution of morality is rational and well advised, if and only if having it will maximize expectable social utility – raise the expectable level of the average ‘utility curve’ of the population.” This is similar to the economic concept of profit maximization based on a supply and demand curve. The utilitarian seeks to find those conditions that will maximize the expected outcome in lieu of just pursuing a course of action.

Some utilitarians claim that human nature is unstable, thus human interaction principles can not be derived. Utilitarianism usually provides the results we want, but carries a high degree of uncertainty. Utilitarianism has been compared to the free-market system in that it “makes success or failure totally dependent on competition within the process” (Nickel, 1987, p. 92). This leads to the notion that human rights must constantly be revised or they lose their applicability as a function of law and justice (Machan, 1989). This thought process leads to a form of relativism that promotes guidelines for social conduct and eliminating morality.

Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it does not properly take rights and their non-violation into account. Nozick (1974) gives the example of punishing an innocent man to save a neighborhood from a vengeful tyrant. This opposes Kantian principles which state that individuals are ends and not merely means, therefore they can not be punished to achieve the ends of the neighborhood without their consent (Nozick, 1974).

 Intrinsic Value.

It has been argued that society should be founded on what is right, not what is good (Taylor, 1989). The notion of “to each according to his merit” has difficulty in defining the concept of merit. If two individuals excel at specific tasks, but different tasks, who is to say which task bears the higher utility? Distribution based on merit brings subjectivity into the decision-making process. Vlastos (1984, p. 51) claims that speaking of one’s merit is “senseless.” This logic suggests that rights can not be justified by merit, but by their intrinsic value. In situations where all individuals can enjoy the same goods, it is assumed that the intrinsic value of the goods is the same to all individuals. This leads to the understanding that one individual’s well-being is the same as another individual’s well-being. Vlastos (1984, p. 58) states, “we feel that choosing for oneself what one will do, believe, approve, say, see, read, worship, has its own intrinsic value, the same for all persons, and quite independently of the value of the things they happen to choose.” So, the right to choose has an intrinsic value to the holder, regardless of value placed on the right itself.

Dignity and Well-Being.

It is held that all human beings have dignity. Dignity has been defined as the quality or state of being worth of esteem or respect ("Dignity," n.d.). Because every individual has dignity, fulfillment of the needs derived from freedom of choice is a worthy cause (Gewirth, 1998). Dignity provides a basis for human rights and the value of self-fulfillment. Kant wrote that man “is under obligation to acknowledge, in a practical way, the dignity of humanity in every other man. Hence he is subject to a duty based on the respect which he must show every other man” (Gewirth, 1998, p. 161). But, Kant does not define dignity. One proposed definition is that happiness or life satisfaction should be used as a measure of dignity and well-being (Marmot, 2004).

When an individual is in a position to claim a right against another person, his or her dignity is enhanced. It is the ability to make such a claim that provides grounds for human dignity (Gewirth, 1998). Dignity can not be replaced by anything else, and it is not qualified by anyone else’s wishes or perspectives. Joel Feinberg wrote, “It is claiming that gives rights their special moral significance … having rights enables us to ‘stand up like men,’ to look others in the eye, and to feel in some fundamental way the equal of anyone. To think of oneself as the holder of rights is not to be unduly but properly proud, to have that minimal self-respect that is necessary to be worthy of the love and esteem of others. Indeed, respect for persons may simply be respect for their rights, so that there cannot be the one without the other; and what is called ‘human dignity’ may simply be the recognizable capacity to assert claims. To respect a person then, or to think of him as possessed of human dignity simply is to think of him as a potential marker of claims. Not all of this can be packed into a definition of ‘rights’; but these are facts about the possession of rights that argue well their supreme moral importance” (Lomasky, 1987, pp. 11-12).

Melden (1970, p.99) commented about the morality of rights by saying “just because rights are those moral commodities which delineate the areas of entitlement, they have an additional important function: that of defining the respects in which one can reasonably entertain certain kinds of expectations.” So, we should expect respect from others because of our rights, thereby escalating our individual well-being and dignity.

Gewirth (1998) considered another form of dignity which he entitled as “intrinsic dignity.” Intrinsic dignity applies to all mankind and is permanent and non-transferable. Intrinsic dignity provides limits on how human beings may be treated. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls for intrinsic dignity when it states in the preamble that it recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” (Gewirth, 1998, p. 162). Because of intrinsic worth, dignity calls for protection as political, civil, social, and an economic right (Gewirth, 1998). One’s dignity may be violated, but that does not remove his or her dignity.

Because human dignity requires a standard of treatment between individuals, it starts to form the basis of a human right. The positive right implied by the receiver of the right requires a negative right by the agent to comply with the right. The dignity applied to an individual must be equally applied to all other prospective agents. This suggests that moral rights can have an equivalent right in the legal enforcement of specific rights (Gewirth, 1998).

Gewirth (1982a) maintained that there are two indispensable goods: freedom and well-being. Freedom consists of the ability to control one’s behavior by personal choice, given knowledge of the conditions and circumstances of one’s position. Well-being falls into a hierarchy of three basic goods: basic, non-subtractive, and additive. Basic goods include items such as life and liberty. Non-subtractive goods include the ability needed to maintain a level of purpose fulfillment. Additive goods include the abilities for raising the level of one’s purpose fulfillment.

One criticism of the utilitarian view of well-being is that one individual may be sacrificed for the well-being of others (Mackie, 1984). Utilitarianism responds to this criticism by guiding decisions through rules, principles, and guidelines which protect the welfare of each individual against the claim of greater pleasure by society, or rationalize that the misery of some is outweighed by the happiness of others (Mackie, 1984).

Another complication with dignity and well-being are that they are difficult, if not impossible to measure. Michael Marmot (2004, p.1019) said, “If we cannot define dignity precisely, we will have trouble measuring it. If we cannot measure it, how will we know if we are achieving it?”

Act and Rule Utilitarianism.

Some utilitarians find out whether an act is morally right or wrong based on its utility (Brandt, 1992). This view is called “act utilitarianism.” Utilitarians differ on their understanding of utility or happiness as a measure of maximization. Some view happiness as a state of mind, where each individual has varying degrees of happiness and satisfaction. Others state that fully informed or rational individuals have utility only if they are able to show a preference to any condition.

A second premise asserts that an act is morally right or wrong based on characteristics excluding utility. This form of utilitarianism is called “rule utilitarianism.” Rule utilitarianism holds that a moral code is desirable if there is no other moral code which would have greater expected utility. This assumes that the moral rightness of an individual is defined by whether the most desirable moral code for that society is permitted. “Rule utilitarianism” also permits an occasional lie or theft to benefit society (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.).

Libertarian Perspectives

Libertarianism claims that equals should get an equal distribution of goods. Income, wealth, and opportunities should be equally distributed to all members of society. Goods should be distributed to individuals, groups, and social classes of people.

The terms “positive” and “negative” in relation to rights has prevailed in philosophical discussions for years. Rights are not negative, but imply obligation. Libertarians claim that the only moral rights are negative rights, which include the right to not be interfered with or infringing on an individual’s liberty (Werhane et al., 1986; Hinman, 2001b). These negative rights consist of obligations to refrain and obligations to act. For example, the right to freedom of religion states that others can not prevent you from joining the church of your choice. But, this does not mean that others are obligated to show you where to find a church. A common criticism of this philosophy is whether a right exists if the conditions are not present to exercise the right. If freedom of religion is a right, is it a right if a church or its members are not available in your geographic location?

Werhane et al. (1986) has identified five obligations that most libertarians would approve of: (1) it is never moral to interfere with a rational adult to get better consequences, (2) it is moral to interfere with the actions of someone who is interfering with another, for ending the interference, (3) all other obligations between individuals will be voluntary, thereby becoming conventional rights and obligations, (4) the obligation to not interfere applies to the mental faculties of individuals and their property, and (5) when the exercise of liberty conflicts with another’s exercise of liberty, the action to be taken is that which produces the greatest benefit for everyone involved.

Radical libertarians argue that freedoms are not absolute. For example, we trade our rights of action to coexist in society. One may trade the right to drive recklessly for the value of safety. An important consideration when trading rights is to remember that one has the freedom to choose. As we have the opportunity to choose, we may not be free to choose the consequences of that choice. The libertarian issue is not the individual freedom as much as the right to that freedom. Also, to trade something away assumes that we have that good in the first place. This leads to the notion that we have a right to the right. Mainstream libertarians will argue that rights can not be traded. Rights are intrinsic in each individual and are part of the moral character of each individual.

The Fairness Principle.

The goal of distribution is fairness in allocation of goods. Equal distribution would be ideal in perfect conditions, but we know that the satisfaction experienced by each individual differs, thereby making fairness difficult goal, if not impossible. It is foreseeable that some individuals will be better off than others. Fairness requires that people put aside their prejudicial interests and assume that they are ignorant of those interests (Sterba, 1980). If we do not put aside our personal interests, we will try to maximize our own pleasure or benefit, thereby fulfilling the needs of utilitarianism. Mackie (1984) suggests that individualistic principles may be extended to groups. The fairness principle supports the hypothesis that inequality will exist between societies, cultures, and nations.

Utilitarianism suggests that inequalities may be justified, and that the right to equal opportunity should be protected in lieu of distribution satisfaction (Mackie, 1984). The right to opportunity provides the basis to be treated in a certain way. Libertarians understand that inequality is based on one’s own effort.

Individualism.

The individualist principle claims that for an individual, his or her own life, well-being, and happiness are the things of definitive value (Mack, 1974). The reason for an individual to decide to pursue a course of action is to maximize his or her well-being at least as much as any alternative course of action would produce. The individualist principle rejects sacrifice of something of higher value for something of lower value as communitarianism does or some forms of egalitarianism. 

Classical liberalism proposes that the pursuit of individual goals be legally protected (Machan, 1998). When individuals are able to pursue individual goals through self-interested behavior, the benefit to society is enhanced. Classical liberalism assumes that each person maximizes the benefit in the various roles in which he or she operates; home, school, work, social club, or other activity. This assumes that each person is self-sufficient and unique. This may be a motivating factor behind the theory of individualism, but it may also be the demise of it. We exist in an environment where each person is dependant on an exchange of goods and services from others for survival. So, the individual is not totally self-independent in today’s society.

If individuals are unique and self-sufficient, they have their own perspectives of what is right or wrong. This perspective is based on feelings and preferences, but not on social norms. According to the individualism concept, recognizing “good” and “bad” is subjective, based on a person’s humanity. If values are subjective, then there is no justification for anyone to coerce another to think or believe anything. Machan (1998, p. 11) claims that there is “no such thing as coerced morally right conduct.” Coercion takes the freedom to choose away from the individual. Freedom to choose, even if it results in negative outcomes, preserves natural rights and human dignity (Machan, 1998). Libertarianism suggests that freedom to choose is at the heart of moral value. Moral value is dependant on acting rightly based on one’s choosing the proper behavior. It is this freedom that provides diversity in mankind. As mankind is assumed to be rational, mankind has the freedom to act irrationally. Individuals may act reasonably on occasion, not at all, or apply action guidelines to specific situations. Freedom tends to promote diverse cultures and differentiation among individuals. Cultural differences should be respected, but human rights are sound principles of community life. Such rights should be respected in all cultures, based on variations based on the progress of each society.

When a right does not recognize intrinsic value to the whole of society, it is individualistic. Raz (1984, p. 186) states, “Right-based moral theories are usually individualistic moral theories.” All moral theories must be right-based to be acceptable to society. Morality includes those principles that restrict an individual’s pursuit of self-interest when violating the rights of others.” The individualist principle states that the only consequences that have moral value are the consequences of an action taken to improve the agent’s well-being (Mack, 1974).

Lockean Theories.

John Locke was a British philosopher, born in 1632, whose ideas resonate to this day (Uzgalis, 2005). Locke believed that rights exist in nature, including the right to life, liberty, and property. Deriving rights from nature implies that most human actions are aimed at raising pleasure or pain. Locke believed that ideas were the result of experience, sensations, and reflection (Griffith, 2003). These characteristics offer a basis for rational morality. Natural rights impose requirements on others to avoid invasion or violation of these rights. Also, there must be a framework to protect these rights or punish those that violate them. Because authority does not exist in nature to impose punishment, everyone has a right to punish any offender who is violating the rights of anyone (Melden, 1988). This is the law of the jungle. Locke believed that a right that may be afforded an individual is a result of natural rights.

Philosophy places great emphasis on semantics. The word “ought” does not always imply than an individual “can” do anything. Bentham believed that words such as “ought”, “right” or “wrong” only had meaning to utilitarians, and that such words implied the principle of utility (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). An individual is morally responsible to act if he or she has the power to choose to act or not to act. Locke said, “All mankind, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” ("John Locke Quotes," 2005). The emphasis on “ought” is the implication that one “can” do so if given the free choice to do so. Sterba claims that Lockean libertarianism violates most morality rights by the using “ought” in the absence of guaranteed welfare and equal opportunity rights (White, 1984). What ought to be done usually follow from the consequences of a proposed action. Perhaps I ought to act because it is an act of mercy or charity. But, what ought to be done is not a duty which is implied by legal or moral position (White, 1984).

One of John Locke’s focuses was the claim to private property. Locke argued that since an individual’s life is intertwined with nature, the right to property is equal to the right of life or liberty (Machan, 1998). The right to liberty is an extension of the right to life and property. The right to property prohibits others from seizing one’s personal belongings, theft, or robbery. Machan (1989, p. 100) said, “Utilitarian approaches to basic rights seem to rest on the widespread preference by people for not violating rights and on the frequent but changing social utility of assigning these rights.” Locke claimed that private property rights are justified because they are a requirement for defining a person’s jurisdiction and authority, where his or her own judgment is decisive (Machan, 1989). The right to property is assumed to be an extension of the right of self-preservation, as people need property to live or at least a place to be.

The right to life specifies that murder is unacceptable. The right to life imposes governmental restraint for military purposes except for the sacrifice of individuals for the well-being of the nation. The right to liberty suggests that kidnapping or assault is unacceptable. The right to liberty requires that the government refrain from imposing requirements on individuals that remove individual freedoms, such as the things people eat or do. The right to property suggests that theft, robbery, and vandalism are unacceptable.

An Egalitarian Perspective

Interpretations of the egalitarian perspective of distribution are many. Egalitarianism fits Vlastos (1984) scenario of distribution based on the needs of individuals. This may appear to be a perception of unequal distribution, but Vlastos (1984, p. 49) claims that it is “the most perfect form of equal distribution.” The concept, as understood by Vlastos, is that there is a balance in life. As individuals get according to their need, there is no want excluding the influence of greed. Excess is not distributed, therefore there is no waste. Removal of excess avoids the effects of power and greed that accumulate and create class differentiation.

Strict egalitarianism is based on the principle that everyone should have the same level of material goods and services (Hinman, 2004). Rawls (2004) suggests that liberty, opportunity, income, and wealth are the basis of self-respect. These goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution is to everyone’s benefit (Rawls, 2004). There are some obvious problems with this philosophy. This method may not allocate goods and services to those that deserve them. Some individuals may decide to be free-loaders and not contribute to the benefit of society. Yet, they expect an equal share of society’s goods. This promotes idleness and irresponsibility, not to mention an inefficient allocation of goods.

Some egalitarians prioritize criteria to carry out distribution. It can be argued that some rights should be fulfilled before other rights are fulfilled. Henry Shue has called these “basic rights” and asserts that they lay claim to the right to life, security, and freedom (Werhane et al., 1986). Prioritizing rights brings subjectivity into the distribution process, as each individual views the values of rights differently. So, subjectivity becomes the basis for dismantling a constructive theory or system.

The Principle of Generic Consistency.

The Principle of Generic Consistency’s doctrine is “act in accord with the generic rights of your recipients as well as of yourself” (Gewirth, 1982a, p. 148). It is this principle that justifies the basis of moral rights. Gewirth (1978, p. 145) claims that this principle is the “supreme principle of morality.”

Utilitarian rights are structured so that the hierarchy is (1) general utility of goods, (2) duties of individuals or government to maximize these utilities, and (3) the possible rights of individuals are consequential to the maximizing of these goods. Contrasted to this hierarchy, the Principle of Generic Consistency proposes the following: (1) necessary goods for individuals or needs of individuals, (2) rights are the moral property of individuals in fulfillment of these needs, and (3) duties of other individuals to secure these rights (Gewirth, 1982a). If we compare the two lists, it becomes clear that the aim of the Principle of Generic Consistency is to provide the minimum level of goods needed by individuals and preserve individual rights in fulfilling those needs. The principle places boundaries on the maximization principle of utilitarianism.

A basic difference between strict utilitarianism and the Principle of Generic Consistency is that the former derives duties from rights, while the first derives rights from duties. In utilitarianism, duties are derived from the moral requirement to maximize utility. Rights are established as ways to help fulfillment of the maximization principle. If the right conflicts with fulfillment of the maximization principle, it must be overridden.

When the Principle of Generic Consistency justifies overriding the right of another, it must by based on another right and not on consideration of goods or interests (Gewirth, 1982a). The rationale of overriding a right is to equalize or protect basic rights when someone lacks such rights.

The Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule, as stated in Matthew 7:12, can be found in most cultures: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (“Ethic of reciprocity,” 2005). But, philosophical difficulties exist with this generalization. First, the receiver may not wish to be treated the same as the agent. Second, the agent’s actions may be contrary to established norms, rules and laws (Gewirth, 1982b). For example, a recipient would not wish to have the same results as one who breaks the law. Gewirth (1982a, p. 129) states that we may avoid these difficulties if the rule is given a “general interpretation” rather than a “particular interpretation.” Gewirth (1982b, p. 133) rewrites the Golden Rule to say, “Do unto others as you would rationally want them to do unto you.” He calls this the “rationalized” Golden Rule. Written in such a way, the Golden Rule is logically equivalent to the Principle of Generic Consistency. The original Golden Rule allowed actions to go counter to justified social rules; the “rationalized” Golden Rule provides limits on the rule inside the bounds of social conduct. This stresses the egalitarian methodology of applying restrictions on a principle to narrow distributing goods to recipients.

The Difference Principle.

The difference principle, as proposed by John Rawls, is stated as follows: “(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all, (2) social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (2a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (2b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (Hinman, 2004, p. 19). The conditions of the principle are that (1) must be satisfied before (2), and (2a) before (2b). Rawls believes that this principle would be chosen when the maximum rule under uncertainty applies (Sterba, 1980). The maximization rule asserts that the best that one can do is to maximize the least advantaged individual, which is the same position that a rational person would choose for the “design of a society in which his enemy would assign him his position” (Sterba, 1980, p. 33).

Rawls defines the least advantaged as those that possess the least primary goods when their prospects are viewed over their entire life (Pogge, 1989). Social mobility is not considered a primary good. When someone is born into the least advantaged group, they have the opportunity to improve and climb out of the social class. But, the least advantaged are, by definition, those that are born into this group and remain in this group throughout their entire life (Pogge, 1989).

The Difference Principle proposes strict equality when it maximizes the absolute position of the least advantages person in society. If the condition of the least advantaged person in society can be raised to a condition of inequality, the Difference Principle advocates inequality to the level in which the least advantaged can no longer be raised. In reality, this elevates the position of all in society. When the position of the least advantaged in society is raised, that individual is no longer the least advantaged and a new individual becomes the least advantaged. The position of the least advantaged will continue to alternate to other individuals until the least advantaged position can no longer be raised.

Let us consider the situation where improved productivity facilitates distributing extra primary goods to society based on a person’s contribution. Martin (1985) defines primary goods as being either social or natural. Social primary goods include liberty, opportunity, income, and self-respect. Natural primary goods include health, intelligence and imagination. Another situation would distribute goods to those who improved their productivity at a minimum level to sustain their incentive to contribute to society. Excess goods would be used for the benefit of the least advantaged. Assume that the two situations result in the same productivity, yet the productivity of the least advantaged members of society remains constant. Which principle is best to apply to society? Those that believe in the maximum principle would choose the later situation, which allocates to the least advantaged. But, would it be rational to choose this course of action when the least advantaged already have their basic needs satisfied and the least advantaged have voluntarily chosen not to improve their productivity? The first situation allows some distribution to the least advantaged, although it does not call for it as the second situation demands. The second situation borders on providing too many goods to the least advantaged to where the productive members of society may choose to contribute less to society, thereby diminishing their productivity. Sterba (1980, p. 40) claims, “Moreover, the more advantaged the representative position, the stronger the argument for distributing primary social goods on the basis of a person’s contribution to society rather than according to the maximum strategy.” Strategies that allocate to unproductive members of society may encourage non-participation and the creation of a welfare society. All members of society should contribute to maintain their self-respect and dignity, which are essential human rights.

Most individuals would favor maintaining a minimum to each person in society, but would not favor maintaining the maximum, which could adversely affect the incentive for productivity. Those contributing members of society are adversely affected by “free loaders,” who fail to contribute to society’s productivity. They take the social goods earned by others without compensation to society for such goods. It falls to the members of society to agree on the quantity of primary social goods that will provide the minimum level for all society’s members. This is an important decision, as one may move from the position of a contributing member to a “free loader” at any point in time because of changing situations during one’s life. It is assumed that individuals would want more than fewer primary social goods, since they can give away unwanted excess. Once assured of an acceptable minimum, people would arrange the distribution of primary social goods on the assumption that they would want more rather than less.

In reality, primary social goods are scare in society. The highest possible minimum to be distributed can only be maintained by restricting many primary social goods to those that are productive in society (Sterba, 1980). It has been proposed that productivity should be a means of determining one’s need for primary social goods, excluding disabling conditions. If primary social goods are the payment for productivity, it is assumed that those that contribute more are signifying a wish for more goods. In addition, it can be assumed that the minimum level of social goods must guarantee that individual human rights are protected and afforded to all members of society.

Sterba (1980, p. 55) summaries the Difference Principle by identifying three reasons for siding with providing a person’s minimum needs: “(1) A basic needs minimum is generally lower than the minimum required by the maximum strategy yet high enough to require significant redistribution in most affluent societies, (2) a basic needs minimum allows for variation in the cost of satisfying a person’s basic needs over time and among societies, without making the minimum simply a function of the number of people who share a particular income or the wealth of a particular society, and (3) going beyond a basic needs minimum in more affluent societies is not an acceptable alternative, once the basic needs of future generations and distant people are taken into account.” Sterba (1980, p. 55) concludes with his “Principle of Need,” which states that “each person is guaranteed the primary social goods that are necessary to meet the normal costs of satisfying his basic needs in the society in which he lives.” This satisfies the way in which the Difference Principle may be applied to differing cultures and nations.

Utilitarian critics claim that the Difference Principle does not maximize utility, while libertarians claim that the Difference Principle infringes on individual liberty.

 The Potentiality Principle.

Some philosophers view moral rights as being universal because all mankind has the potential for rationality. Each person was given this potential at birth (Werhane et al., 1986). Some may argue that not all people are rational, whether because of illness or a disabling condition. But, one may also argue that such conditions have the potential for cure, thereby maintaining the potential of the individual. Potentiality maintains the rights of this individual. Some have argued that rights should be afforded based a sliding scale, where fully rational individuals get all rights and irrational individuals get few rights.

A radical objection to the principle of potentiality is that people can not possess potential. Potential is abstract and can not be defined. Werhane et al. (1986, p. 14) states, “When we talk of people’s potentialities, it is simply a more convenient way of saying that we have expectations and consider it probable that these people will act in a certain way in the future.”

 The Communitarian Perspective

Communitarians believe that community values are of primary concern, even at the expense of the individual. Forms of justice are only needed when community values have been degraded to the point that justice is required. Individuals have a right to challenge community values, but the community will not accept a value that is out of line with the central theme of community values. So, the rights and values of individuals may be overridden by the rights of society. The main focus of communitarianism is a move away from individual rights and toward community rights.

Communitarians are opposed to libertarianism, which focuses on the individual. Communitarians claim that most positions about issues and decisions exist in the public sphere. So, the thought process should be focused on the community sphere, not the individuality of each person. Communitarians favor a market where free exchange takes place, where goods are convertible into other goods through a common exchange of money (Walzer, 2004). In such an economy, monopolies do not exist. Money outside the narrow focus of the local market is considered unjust as it dominates the market. There is a fine line between politics and money and the two must be balanced. In an unbalanced society, politics will lead to tyranny or excess money will lead to power (Walzer, 2004). It must be stressed that the market, in the view of the communitarian, is limited to his or her local market. Globalization is not the most advantageous solution for communitarians.

The Entitlement Theory

The entitlement theory is based on historical ownership of goods. Feinberg states that the term “moral rights” may be applied to all rights that existed before legal or institutional rules (Martin, 1993). The justification of a distribution depends on how possession of the good came about (Nozick, 2004). Nozick (2004, p. 647) states that there are “structural principles of just distribution,” therefore possession has some limitations. The entitlement theory brings to mind the conquering of lands and people during the historical timeline. As one nation conquered another, possession of land changed hands. Possession may be traced back to many occupiers. The issue from a historical framework is to determine where to stop in the historical timeline to establish the true owner. The entitlement theory states that a person who justly gets an acquisition is entitled to have that good. Also, when a good is transferred from someone who had just entitlement to that good, the new owner is entitled to the good (Nozick, 2004).

Rights and Society

Society is a collective group of individuals, each bringing uniqueness and solidarity to the organization. As respect of individuals is vital in upholding human rights, respect is vital in upholding the rights of society and the nation. Society and the nation are worthy of respect because the connection between individuals makes available the collectivity of the populace (Vincent, 1986).

Government as a Protector of Rights

Locke suggests that government exists to protect basic negative individual rights: life, liberty, and property (Machan, 1998). Libertarian views propose that human rights are the basis for the establishment of law and government where public life exists. Locke believed that society needed educated elite to “promote government by consent” (Griffith, 2003, p. 231).

Libertarians usually object to government legal structure as it infringes on the right to liberty (Machan, 1989). The objection is not because of the trade-off between individual rights and limits placed on the individual to exist in society, but a result of taxing wealth, creating penalties for victimless crimes, and regulating individual conduct which harms no one except the individual performing the act. Gewirth (as cited in Machan, 1989, p. 120) claims that “rights are basic principles of political life and that making them inherently unstable deprives them of their essential character.”

It is in harmony with the libertarian view that one’s rights may be violated to correct a previous wrong, assuming mutual respect between the agent and the receiver is not possible. But, if the party that violated the rights is not to be found, violation of one’s rights to pay for a past violation is unacceptable. This reaffirms the libertarian position of affirmative action where those that violated rights are no longer alive.

Machan (1989) asserts that government is morally problematic. Machan poses several questions, such as where did the state derive its authority to restrain those who would violate our rights? Where does the state get its right to accumulate the resources to protect our individual rights? Machan (1989, p. 126) states that government is “a unique instrument in that its response to rights violations must itself be constrained by due-process considerations, whereas responses to other kinds of threats or injuries – from earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, for instance – does not morally require the exercise of due process.” So, the right to have one’s rights protected is not a basic right, but a political right. A political right may be enforced with the consent of the governed, just as voluntary contracts are enforced.

Rawls believes that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the constitution is one way to institutionalize rights in society (Martin, 1985). The constitution assigns rights to individuals while morality justifies assigning equal rights to all mankind. Constitutional rights are special rights that are claimed on moral grounds which apply to all people based on the virtue that people are human beings (Martin, 1989). The claims of constitutional rights are against government, which is considered a negative right from the government’s perspective. Morality is used to justify distributing social primary goods rationally and fairly to individuals. This principle is then used to justify constitutional rights that are built into the basic structure of society; and these rights are used to justify all subsidiary rights (Martin, 1985).

When individuals are in what Rawls terms the original position, or the position of maximizing the benefit to society, they are free, equal, rational and moral; they are individuals who are can exist without society (Martin, 1989). Rawls assumes that rights can prosper in the realm of individualism and collectivism. He assumes that rights can move between the two realms fluidly. One possible difficulty exists in a society that can not understand the right as being based on morality or the opportunity for a right does not exist. In such a condition, the right would not be legitimately expected in society and could not be claimed as a right. Opportunity must exist for a right to be considered a moral right.

Government provides the legal framework to protect and maintain individual and societal rights. Natural law shows that individuals take care of others. Locke proposed creating government to provide the means for individuals to take care of others (Griffith, 2003). Everything exists in a state of threat or war in the natural world. One animal hunts another for survival. The laws of nature are harsh and demanding. Government can reduce such threats.

When justifying specific rights which call for legal implementation, it is important to show that an interest in the right is present, and that is should be secured against a substantial or recurrent threat (Nickel, 1987). Specific rights may include laws against racial and ethnic discrimination. Nickel (1987, p. 119) notes that such discrimination most often “occurs in societies that have unpopular and economically exploited minorities.” Most countries are multiracial and multiethnic, where racial and ethnic protections are needed. It has been suggested that the costs of upholding these rights may be high, but the costs for violation avoidance are usually low (Nickel, 1987).

Utilitarians support democracy as a form of government for promoting the interest of the populace (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). Each individual has been deemed the best judge of his or her own welfare and the political process is the best peaceful way to realize the general welfare of all people. Bentham thought that legislation was a means to maximize the happiness of society by creating a relationship between individuals (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.).

The significance of the individual has previously been stressed. But, as the family unit has developed to single parent families, divorced parents, and so on, the courts have taken a new view of the individual. Glendon (1991, p. 67) states, “The individual is steadily substituted for the family as the unit of which civil laws take account. What distinguishes American law is not its individualism, but its view of what the individual is.” Courts have also extended this definition of the family to include privacy rights about property. A home has been considered a sacred edifice, symbolizing marriage by the courts (Glendon, 1991).

The Principle of Utility and Privacy.

The principle of utility states that the consequences of an action are determined by the welfare or happiness of those affected (Machan, 1995). Logically speaking, this infers that government or business action is needed if the consequences are more beneficial than by the absence of such action. Should business be regulated? A utilitarian would say that it should if the results place society in a better position than it would have been without regulation. A utilitarian would also agree that everything should be regulated if the results provide betterment for society.

But, many regulations pose a threat to privacy. Banking regulations require that banks disclose information about clients when checks clear for more than $10,000. This provides government the opportunity to do background checks for fraud and other criminal activity. As police require a search warrant to search the private property, building inspectors do not need such permits. OSHA also has the right to do on the spot inspections and issue punitive damages for code violations. Many argue that these scenarios violate privacy and property rights. Others argue that these are conditions of specific work environments and such privacy rights were exchanged for doing business in that industry.

Business

Business is included here, as it can be assumed that business is an extension of the individual. A business is composed of a group of individuals, each bringing his or her unique individualism to the business. Rawls (as cited in Pogge, 1989, p. 113) stipulated that parties to his theory included “nations, provinces, business firms, churches, teams, and so on.” As individuals may wish to raise their well-being, business objectives include maximization of stakeholder return.

Duties and Obligations.

When individuals hold jobs, they have obligations to their employers in exchange for wages and other rewards. Employees are held accountable for a performing at some determined level. It can be assumed that an employee has traded his right of self-interest for wages during work hours.

Human rights violations appear in the news, but it is rare to see rights violation cases brought forward by the company against individual employees. Just the same, individuals have obligations to their employers. By one’s position in a company, the role carries with it responsibilities. An individual is justified by his or her actions in a company because of the role they have.

A reciprocal relationship exists with the company where the company and the individual are accountable to each other. This reciprocal relationship implies that employees have the right to fair treatment and respect in the workplace. The employee is expected to extend fair treatment and respect to others in the workplace. So, we can see that individual rights are extended into the working environment. Werhane et al. (1986, p. 262) states, “If accountability in the workplace is a correlative relationship, the relationship holds only when the employer and the employee meets his responsibilities. Indeed, employer expectations must be accompanied by employer obligations to the employee in order for the correlatively expected employee accountability to be morally justified.”

Wages.

There have been many methodologies to calculate wage increases, including the “cost of living” based on indexes, company profit levels, and union agreements (Brozen, 1974). Three wage standards are identified by Maitland (2004): (1) It can be argued that firms should pay the same wage standard in domestic and international markets; (2) firms should pay a “living wage” as a minimum; and (3) pay the going rate in the region in which people work. The first proposition benefits foreign workers, but diminishes the incentive for U.S. firms to place work overseas. There is no cost benefit for hiring foreign employees. The second proposal offers employees wages that equal to or above those needed for a worker and his dependants to live with self-respect and dignity. The wages are in harmony with local wage standards and may offer incentives for U.S. firms to place work in foreign countries. The last proposal is an example of the libertarian theory of letting the market set its own price level through productivity. This proposal has the benefit of providing incentives for employees to be productive and for companies to invest in differing localities. The local market rate is paid for each differing location, taking benefit of national differences in wages and benefits.

It has been claimed that to pay more than what is called for is a philanthropic act. Brozen (1974, p. 396) promotes the free market system by stating, “The proper wage in any area or occupational category is the wage that will permit the maximum transfer of workers from less attractive, less remunerative, less productive employments. We imply that any wage is excessive if more qualified workers are attainable at that wage than are employed – provided only that the industry is reasonably competitive as among firms.” The key to this theory is the individual freedom to move between localities, industries, and occupations.

Legal Rights

Lomasky (1987, p. 101) states that legal rights are derived “from a community’s body of law and its institutional arrangements for promulgation, interpretation, and enforcement of law.” Legal rights are usually highly specific and imply the existence of a legal structure to enforce such rights. Legal rights are usually more deterministic than moral rights, while moral rights are more deterministic than basic rights (Lomasky, 1987). Legal rights are usually concrete, with a sound basis for their justification, being derived from other rights. Lomasky (1987, p. 104) said that “moral rights grow spontaneously from the warp and woof of a society; legal rights are manufactured to design.”

All businesses, from the perspective of the consumer and the company, have varying legal rights which are imposed by society. These rights will not be discussed here, but it is enough to say that human rights are upheld in the workplace and that more specific workplace and legal rights have been derived from human rights.

The Free Market

Locke believed that money, as the saying goes, was the root of all evil. Difficulties were present with the evolution from a barter system to a free market system. Griffith (2003, p. 239) said, “Money changes all human relationships. It is conventional and not natural. When economy functioned on an agricultural barter system, people could not accumulate more than they could use, because of spoilage. But money allows people to accumulate more than they need. Accumulation of wealth is the reason Locke believed that people moved from a state of nature to government, so that government could regulate the unbridled nature of the accumulation of money.”

Just as nations rarely interact with other nations that do not serve their best interest, so it is with society and business. Business must have a reciprocal relationship to benefit, thereby benefiting both parties.

Universality of Rights and International Justice

Aristotle admitted that not all human rights were universal, although basic virtues were universal (Machan, 1998). Aristotle was probably referring to the universality of human attributes from which human rights are based. Such rights must be protected so that different societies may have the freedom to choose for themselves.

When we look at rights from Rawls perspective, we may wish to extend the well-being of persons to all societies. Rawls claimed that once the basic structure of domestic society was derived, the interpretation may be extended to the international society (Hayden, 2002). One way to look at human rights is in light of humanity, a state that remains constant throughout time. Should human rights be constant as a reflection of their applicability or should they change based on environmental changes, institutional changes, and so on? These two converging ideas have drawn light to the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The list of rights in it is a mixture of situational rights and human rights. This mixture of rights has led to criticism by many world philosophers. Are the rights to proper housing, work conditions, educational opportunities, and the pursuit of one’s interests derived from natural or human rights? Or should our concept of basic rights be rewritten?

Rawls (as cited in Hayden, 2002) suggests that when applying rights to the international market, principles of justice must be narrowed to include those principles that are consistent with the institutional and individual principles of justice that are in the domestic society. Rawls (as cited in Hayden, 2002, p. 86) lists three basic principles as applying to international relationships: “(1) independent peoples organized as states have basic equal rights, (2) the right of a people to settle its own affairs without the intervention of foreign powers,” and (3) nations must carry out their treaty obligations in good faith. These principles provide the structure needed for international relationships to succeed. Hayden (2002) criticizes Rawls for placing domestic affairs higher than international affairs in the hierarchy, and uses domestic affairs and the interests of individuals interchangeably. It is proposed that individual interests are at the heart of human rights, and that states are created by collective grouping of individuals, just as the world is a collective grouping of nations.

Globalization has increased interdependencies between nations. As relationships emerge, nations have the potential to greatly benefit. But, the present condition tends to widen the inequality gap between those that have and those that have not (Hayden, 2002). This places the burden of equal distribution on each individual nation or state.

Conflict Zones

International human rights laws state that nations have an obligation to respect human rights in their territorial jurisdiction. Difficulties arise when business operates in conflict zones or repressive governments violate human rights without reprisal (Simons, 2004). International law or international human rights law does not impose well defined legal obligations on business to respect human rights. Conflict zones include hostile regime and business treatment of individuals and businesses operating outside legal jurisdiction.

Simons (2004, p. 104) stated, “To date, no state has enacted specific legislation to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals that may have a detrimental effect on the human rights of individuals in host states.” Vincent (1986) has said that the notion of human rights has not moved much beyond the verbal stage of development. Only the United Nations document “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights” presents a detailed list of principles that include labor, environment, consumer protection, and potential human rights violations by multinational companies (Simons, 2004). Multinational companies are required to secure the fulfillment of self-respect, respect human rights and protect the rights of indigenous people, where they conduct business activity.

The United Nations norms are a first step toward the respect for human rights on a global scale. But, as with most international activity, the United Nations does not have the means to monitor and enforce its requirements. So, human rights will continue to be an issue of conflict where human repression is allowed to occur.

The Concept of Non-Intervention

It has been suggested that individuals only have access to the international world through their own nation or state (Vincent, 1986). It is the state that is the bearer of rights and duties in the international arena.

Non-intervention prevents groups and individuals from interfering in the relationship between nations. Non-intervention is essential for a nation to retain its sovereignty. It is only through sovereignty that nations acknowledge and respect the rights to rule of other nations. If one nation were to interfere with another nation, say to enforce human rights, the international order would be disrupted. Other nations would fear infringement of their right to govern, thereby creating panic and possible reprisal. This may be detrimental to human rights in the long-run. Vincent (1986, p. 114) said, “So anything that threatens order threatens also the possibility of achieving justice.”

It is a violation of human rights to interfere with the freedom of others. Vincent (1986, p. 115) claimed, “Since all men were naturally equal, so also were nations.” From this precept arose the obligation to not interfere with other nations and the right to help in preventing such interference violations. This concept of non-intervention and sovereignty is the basis for grounding it in natural law.

Non-intervention allows variety in nations and tries to prevent the decline of pluralism, where cultural differences may be morally justified. This is not to state that moral values are not without boundaries. Boundaries should be universally applied, as they know no national border. But, the search for these boundaries continues to this day.

Nongovernmental Organizations

Since World War II, the quantity of international nongovernmental groups has exponentially grown. As governments have diminished their efforts toward human rights, nongovernmental organizations have become the thrust behind the human rights movement.

Governments tend toward maintaining an unbiased position on human rights because they do not want to threaten the sovereignty of a nation (Tsutui & Wotipka, 2004). Nongovernmental organizations are less concerned with national boundaries and therefore take a more active approach to human rights issues.

Globalization is a marvel of the modern world, yet human rights violations are still practiced. Globalization has brought communications technology to the doorstep of the individual and society. People worldwide are aware of activities in remote areas of the globe because of technological advances in communications. It is difficult to violate human rights in an environment where communications make knowledge available worldwide. By uncovering human rights violations, economic and political pressure may be applied to governments to stop such action. It has fallen to the nongovernmental organizations to lead this worthwhile undertaking.

Business in the Global Environment

Business has an obligation to those with whom they interact, whether it is the consumer, a supplier, or an employee. Business has obligations to its stakeholders and a fiduciary obligation to shareholders. Stakeholder claims are usually based on a “mutual beneficial scheme of cooperation”, thereby impacting only the stakeholder’s involved (Van de Ven, 2005, p. 55). Human rights take precedence over, and may override, a stakeholder-based claim. Van de Ven (2005, p. 56) has formulated the following two principles for business in the global market: (1) “A firm should try to create value for its stakeholders under the condition that no human rights are violated, and (2) a firm should take active responsibility in enhancing human rights under the condition that it does not endanger the continuation of the firm.”

Many individuals have come to recognize brand names in the market. Such brands may represent a hope for a better life, or restoring the past for another means of living (Van de Ven, 2005). So, product information and reliability is critical for the well-being of the corporation and is directly linked to human rights issues.

Additional Research

Rights are primarily afforded to the individual, who is the basic unit of society. Human rights form the basis of respect and dignity in society. So, human rights are appropriate in society and international relationships. Yet, many human rights oriented issues remain for the researcher. Research has yet to determine if human rights are universal based on the humanity of mankind. Should human rights be extended to all cultures and nations? This issue requires additional insight into the philosophical basis of morality and its application to humanity.

As cultures and countries view human rights in their own context, each has a tendency to apply their own standards to those with whom they interact on a global basis. Should countries enforce human rights issues against foreign countries through economic and legal action? If so, what are the global ramifications of such action? There has been little research to date that links the economic ramifications of trade sanctions and political power to universal human rights issues. Such research could establish a baseline for global interaction where values and norms come into conflict between differing countries.

Finally, are companies socially responsible to uphold human rights in all countries in which they operate? This has been an emotionally debated topic in recent years. What if national norms violate human rights based on home country values? Such questions center on human rights in an economy where national interdependencies are increasing. Globalization has entwined the economies of trading nations, thereby creating dependencies. As globalization continues to spread over national boundaries, human rights will continue to remain a prevailing topic for business.

Conclusion

Human rights have been discussed during the past four hundred years by the world’s major philosophers. The same paradigms that existed in the 1600s continue to perplex researchers. Most philosophers suggest that human rights are based in the belief of God or human morality. Others argue that human rights are an extension of mankind’s potential for greater accomplishments and that to hinder one’s rights diminishes such potential. Human rights have been grounded in the moral values of society. Also, human rights have provided the basis for establishing civil and legal rights.

Distribution of rights has claimed the attention of academia, business, and governmental organizations. Major theories of distribution include equal goods to all citizens, goods distributed based on productivity and merit, and goods distributed based on prioritizing criteria established by society. Philosophers have formulated numerous principles that differentiate their perspectives of the major theoretical propositions. There is no one correct manner in which to distribute rights, just as there is no one correct manner in which to define rights. Each definition must be based and grounded in the moral convictions of a society’s culture and belief system. Yet, as the world continues to progress down the path of globalization, we are all becoming members of a world society. As we enter what has been called the New Economy, commonality and consistency will become critical to successful interaction between society’s members. Human rights will be one such issue that will require consistency and fair treatment of all human beings.

References

Brandt, R. B. (1992). Morality, utilitarianism, and rights. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Brozen, Y. (1974). Wage rates, minimum wage laws, and unemployment. In T.R. Machan (Ed.), The libertarian alternative: Essays in social and political philosophy (pp. 386-399). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Company.

Dignity. (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2005, from Dictionary.com Web Site: https://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dignity

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Utilitarianism. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html

Ethic of reciprocity. (2005). Retrieved November 8, 2005, from Wikipedia Web Site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Feinberg, J. (1980). Rights, justice, and the bounds of liberty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gewirth, A. (1978). Reason and morality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gewirth, A. (1982a). Can utilitarianism justify any moral rights? In A. Gewirth (Ed.), Human rights: Essays on justification and applications (pp. 143-161). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gewirth, A. (1982b). The golden rule rationalized. In A. Gewirth (Ed.), Human rights: Essays on justification and applications (pp. 128-141). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gewirth, A. (1998). Self-Fulfillment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Glendon, M. A. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The Free Press.

Griffith, M. F. (2003). John Locke's continuing influence on organization theory and behavior entering the 21st century. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(2), 227-243.

Hayden, P. (2002). John Rawls: Towards a just world order. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press.

Hinman, L. M. (2001a, October 8). Utilitarianism. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from University of San Diego Web Site: https://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Utilitarianism/index.asp

Hinman, L. M. (2001b, November 5). Rights theory. Retrieved November 8, 2005, from University of San Diego Web Site: https://ethics.sandiego.edu/presentations/theory/rights/web/index_files/frame.html

Hinman, L. M. (2004). Justice, I: Plato and Rawls. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from University of San Diego Web Site: https://ethics.sandiego.edu/presentations/theory/justice/index.html

John Locke Quotes. (2005). Retrieved November 7, 2005, from Brainy Quote Web Site: https://www.brainyquote.com/qoutes/authors/j/john_locke.html

Lomasky, L. E. (1987). Persons, rights, and the moral community. New York: Oxford University Press.

Machan, T. (1995). Private rights and public illusions. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Machan, T. R. (1989). Individuals and their rights. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.

Machan, T. R. (1998). Classical individualism. London: Routledge.

Mack, E. (1974). Individualism, rights, and the open society. In T.R. Machan (Ed.), The libertarian alternative: Essays in social and political philosophy (pp. 21-37). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Company.

Mackie, J. L. (1984). Can there be a right-based moral theory? In J.Waldron (Ed.), Theories of rights (pp. 168-181). Oxfordshire, UK: Oxford University Press.

Maitland, I. (2004). The great non-debate over international sweatshops. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (7th ed., pp. 579-590). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Marmot, M. (2004). Dignity and inequality. The Lancet, 364(9439), 1019-1021.

Martin, R. (1985). Rawls and rights. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Martin, R. (1993). A System of rights. Oxfordshire, UK: Clarendon Press.

Melden, A. I. (1970). Human rights. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Melden, A. I. (1988). Rights in moral lives: A historical-philosophical essay. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nickel, J. W. (1987). Making sense of human rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Nozick, R. (2004). The entitlement theory. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (7th ed., pp. 646-650). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pogge, T. W. (1989). Realizing Rawls. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rawls, J. (2004). An egalitarian theory of justice. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (7th ed., pp. 638-646). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Raz, J. (1984). Right-based moralities. In J. Waldron (Ed.), Theories of rights (pp. 182-200). Oxfordshire, UK: Oxford University Press.

Simons, P. (2004). Corporate voluntarism and human rights: The adequacy and effectiveness of voluntary self-regulation regimes. Relations Industrielles, 59(1), 101-139.

Sterba, J. P. (1980). The demands of justice. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Taylor, C. (1989). Cross-purposes: The liberal-communitarian debate. In N.L. Rosenblum (Ed.), Liberalism and the moral life (pp. 159-180). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tsutui, K., & Wotipka, C. M. (2004). Global civil society and the international human rights movement: Citizen participation in human rights international nongovernmental organizations. Social Forces, 83(2), 587-620.

Uzgalis, W. (2005). John Locke. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from Stanford University Web Site: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/locke/

Van De Ven, B. (2005). Human rights as a normative basis for stakeholder legitimacy. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 48-59.

Vincent, R. J. (1986). Human rights and international relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press in association with The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Vlastos, G. (1984). Justice and equality. In J. Waldron (Ed.), Theories of rights (pp. 41-76). Oxfordshire, UK: Oxford University Press.

Walzer, M. (2004). Spheres of justice. In T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (7th ed., pp. 656-663). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Werhane, P. H., Gini, A. R., & Ozar, D. T. (1986). Philosophical issues in human rights: Theories and applications. New York: Random House.

White, A. R. (1984). Rights. Oxfordshire, UK: Clarendon Press.