Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2009
Publication Title
Ethics & Global Politics
Volume
2
Issue
3
Abstract
In this paper I argue that the discourse theoretic account of human rights defended by Jürgen Habermas contains a fruitful tension that is obscured by its dominant tendency to identify rights with legal claims. This weakness in Habermas’s account becomes manifest when we examine how sweatshops diminish the secure enjoyment of subsistence, which Habermas himself (in recognition of the UDHR) recognizes as a human right. Discourse theories of human rights are unique in tying the legitimacy of human rights to democratic deliberation and consensus. So construed, their specific meaning and force is the outcome of historical political struggle. However, unlike other legal rights, they possess universal moral validity. In this paper I argue that this tension between the legal and moral aspects of human rights can be resolved if and only if human rights are conceived as moral aspirations and not simply as legal claims. In particular, I shall argue that there are two reasons why human rights must be understood as moral aspirations that function non-juridically: First, the basic human goods to which human rights provide secure access are determinable only in relation to basic human capabilities that are progressively revealed in the course of an indefinite (fully inclusive and universal) process of collective learning; second, the institutional impediments to enjoying human rights are cultural in nature and cannot be remedied by means of legal coercion.
Recommended Citation
Ingram, David. "Of sweatshops and subsistence: Habermas on human rights." Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2009, p. 193217. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v2i3.2045.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright Statement
© 2009 David Ingram.
Included in
Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, Inequality and Stratification Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Legal Theory Commons, Political Theory Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, Transnational Law Commons, Work, Economy and Organizations Commons
Comments
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2009, p. 193217. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v2i3.2045.