Sam Moyne has a rare talent: to take dense theory and intellectual history and make it digestible for the non- specialist without losing a single degree of its rigor.
Professor Moyn argues that the political relevance of the Human Rights ideology, which he defines 'the last utopia', is quite recent, going back to the 1970s. Before then, he claims, there are only sporadic references both in the academic and in the political fields.It was only with the twilight of previous ideologies, that a sincere interest and movement in Human Rights appeared. Consequently, he defines HR histories, like Lynn Hunt's 'Inventing HR as 'teleological' narratives, comparing them to the 'providential' history of the Church, telling the inevitabal emergence of a self-evident truth. He argues instead that HR had always been, incorporated, interpreted and functional to a wider, more collective reality. In the XVIII century they were part of the creation of the liberal State. Later, with the Atlantic Chart (1942) it was the fundamenta focus was the welfare state (FD Delano 'second bill of Rights' and Beveridge's plan) and later the political self-determination leading to decolonization. Ths is witnessed by the silence following the 1948 Universal Declaration, when it was the United nations and the balance of powers which mattered. It was only in the 1970s, due to the sunset of the other utopias, that Jimmy Carter rised the Human Rights to the role of main normative standard for international politics.
Once alive, life must have freedom to pursue survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life; hence, life’s Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive feedback (Happiness for us humans)”. When governments interfere with our Rights causes distress, wars, death, etc.
Thanks for the talk. Who provides human rights? If human rights are given by humans then it seems circular and convenient. If they were given by God why all the mixed signals (example: holy war)? Maybe human rights were given to us by technology but wouldn’t that be similar to us giving ourselves rights? If human rights were given by nature then how does social Darwinism fit in? It makes sense that it is an international legal matter since rights would need to be provided by nations.
it is now become well known that if you use the Foucault-card on a subject, showing it as a social construction you either want to change or reform the existing social order. When using it you can have a good-will as fighting human suffering as Lynn Hunt and Richard falk have done, or you can be like moyn finding excusses why we shouldnt take human rights seriously
You're right. I'm a normal people and I'd like to care, but it's too long and too complicated ! It's easier to look a resume of his book. But the point is he didn't talk to normal people ^^ So I'm not really concerned...
There are manmade-rights and unalienable-Rights. A deeper understanding of unalienable-Rights materializes through the prism of science (see my channel video).
My passport,naturalization certificate and educational transcripts are stolen and taken away from me by the united states government employees,does this mean violating my human rights,the rights or citizenship or to deny my universal,fundamental or basic rights.? such as to own or have a cellphone or electronic devices.
This is to long for ppl to care, it has to be sort and sweat if the everyday man is to care. I listened to the whole thing and I do care but the average person will lose interest in 3 minutes.
