A World Consensus on Human Rights?

Taylor, Charles

doi:10.4324/9781315236308-21

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These intermediaries could participate in what I have termed elsewhere 'modular translation', meaning the adaptation and transformation of elements from one world of meaning to another (Mizrachi 2014). They could also promote what Taylor (1999) describes as 'narrow agreements' between groups regarding norms of behavior and policies that do not necessitate agreement regarding their justification, but only their outcomes. It may be superfluous to note that these suggestions are only preliminary guidelines that exhaust neither theoretical possibilities nor concrete plans of actions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Asad (2003: 57-59) continues, this normative perspective rests on the ontological assumption that universal justice is more than a worthy state of being: it is a 'natural' state. As the philosopher Charles Taylor (1999) notes, belief in the 'naturalness' of universal justice, or of human rights, is imbedded in the Western belief that a person's rights are fundamental and pre-date her entry into society. The notion that all human beings have basic human rights is therefore rooted in the idea of the 'person' as a universal entity existing prior to the particular society in which she lives.…”

Section: Zooming In On the Israeli Casementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sociology in the Garden: Beyond the Liberal Grammar of Contemporary Sociology

Mizrachi¹

2016

Israel Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article poses a simple question: why do marginalized Mizrahim, a group most likely to benefit from liberal justice and human rights, so vehemently and repeatedly reject the liberal message? To address this question, we shift the direction of inquiry from problems in the message's transmission or reception to the message itself. By doing so, we seek to go beyond the 'liberal grammar' shared by most social activists and critical sociologists. The insight emerging from this theoretical turn is that the politics of universalism, rooted in the liberal grammar of human rights and viewed from the liberal standpoint as a key to social emancipation, is experienced by the target population as a heartless betrayal and a grave identity threat. This article offers the initial outline for a new interpretive space and seeks to surpass both the limits of the Israeli case and those of the liberal grammar of contemporary critical sociology.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Zooming In On the Israeli Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Sociology in the Garden: Beyond the Liberal Grammar of Contemporary Sociology

Mizrachi¹

2016

Israel Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The normative underpinnings of the rights are left unspecified as in the second account, but are now related to full inclusion and participation in the collective goods of a community. In contradistinction to both the first and second account, the third defines the content of human rights by way particular communal practices, and not through global intercultural interaction, nor through moral reflection on the normativity of right (Taylor 1999;Cohen 2004a). All accounts, however, have serious problems.…”

Section: Formal Duty Ii: Innate Rightmentioning

confidence: 94%

The legitimacy of the global order

Hazenberg

2015

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a framework within which to understand the legitimacy of the global order called ‘cosmopolitan sovereign equality’. It is Kant inspired and consists of three formal and three political duties. The formal duties are those of structural coherence, innate right and publicity, and the political duties those of legitimate enforcement within states, non-intervention between states, and free communication between entities within different states. These duties are constructed from a reading of Kant’s Doctrine of Right and are defended in current International political theory debates on human rights, the role of the state and international law. The framework enables conceptualization of legitimate international relations between a world state and a system of autarkic states, and places a premium on states as legitimators of force, while working from the premises of moral cosmopolitanism.

show abstract

“…The notion of an 'incompletely theorized agreement' in legal scholarship (Sunstein 1995), describes how it is often possible for people who disagree on fundamental or abstract matters to nonetheless agree on specific cases-and that this is central to the functioning of law as well as of a pluralistic society more broadly. Several authors in the literature on intercultural information ethics have promoted the related idea of aiming to arrive at an 'overlapping consensus' (Rawls 1993), where different groups and cultures may have different reasons for supporting the same norms and practical guidelines (Taylor 1996;Søraker 2006;Hongladarom 2016). For example, Taylor (1996) discusses how we have managed to ground internationally shared norms of human rights in different cultural traditions.…”

Section: Finding Ways To Cooperate Despite Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors in the literature on intercultural information ethics have promoted the related idea of aiming to arrive at an 'overlapping consensus' (Rawls 1993), where different groups and cultures may have different reasons for supporting the same norms and practical guidelines (Taylor 1996;Søraker 2006;Hongladarom 2016). For example, Taylor (1996) discusses how we have managed to ground internationally shared norms of human rights in different cultural traditions. While Western philosophies differ substantially from others such as Buddhism in how much importance they give to the human agent and its unique place in the cosmos, both seem to end up grounding the same norms of human rights.…”

Section: Finding Ways To Cooperate Despite Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming Barriers to Cross-cultural Cooperation in AI Ethics and Governance

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving the global benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) will require international cooperation on many areas of governance and ethical standards, while allowing for diverse cultural perspectives and priorities. There are many barriers to achieving this at present, including mistrust between cultures, and more practical challenges of coordinating across different locations. This paper focuses particularly on barriers to cooperation between Europe and North America on the one hand and East Asia on the other, as regions which currently have an outsized impact on the development of AI ethics and governance. We suggest that there is reason to be optimistic about achieving greater cross-cultural cooperation on AI ethics and governance. We argue that misunderstandings between cultures and regions play a more important role in undermining cross-cultural trust, relative to fundamental disagreements, than is often supposed. Even where fundamental differences exist, these may not necessarily prevent productive cross-cultural cooperation, for two reasons: (1) cooperation does not require achieving agreement on principles and standards for all areas of AI; and (2) it is sometimes possible to reach agreement on practical issues despite disagreement on more abstract values or principles. We believe that academia has a key role to play in promoting cross-cultural cooperation on AI ethics and governance, by building greater mutual understanding, and clarifying where different forms of agreement will be both necessary and possible. We make a number of recommendations for practical steps and initiatives, including translation and multilingual publication of key documents, researcher exchange programmes, and development of research agendas on cross-cultural topics.

show abstract

A World Consensus on Human Rights?

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Sociology in the Garden: Beyond the Liberal Grammar of Contemporary Sociology

Sociology in the Garden: Beyond the Liberal Grammar of Contemporary Sociology

The legitimacy of the global order

Overcoming Barriers to Cross-cultural Cooperation in AI Ethics and Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About