How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2010 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36156 https://doi.org/10.4000/eces.553 |
Resumo: | This paper addresses the question of how (not what) we should think about human rights and religious arguments. Thinking about this relationship is today particularly important, because conflicts over human rights in practice often turn around their theoretical problems. Should religious arguments be used to justify human rights? Or do we want human rights to be free from any partisan endorsement so as to avoid divisive interpretations of universal principles? Underlying these hard questions is the issue of justification in view of a plurality of cultural and religious traditions around the globe. If human rights can be transformed so as to defy the charge of Euro-centrism (of being parochially rooted in only one cultural and religious tradition), they need to creatively draw on, not pit themselves against, this plurality. This paper suggests a framework for such a positive and inclusive engagement with various cultures and religions that goes beyond the mainstream liberal model of “public reason”. |
id |
RCAP_35d0049d51308db63d665b9d06b7156f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/36156 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and BeyondHuman rightsJustificationModus vivendiPluralismPublic reasonSecularismThis paper addresses the question of how (not what) we should think about human rights and religious arguments. Thinking about this relationship is today particularly important, because conflicts over human rights in practice often turn around their theoretical problems. Should religious arguments be used to justify human rights? Or do we want human rights to be free from any partisan endorsement so as to avoid divisive interpretations of universal principles? Underlying these hard questions is the issue of justification in view of a plurality of cultural and religious traditions around the globe. If human rights can be transformed so as to defy the charge of Euro-centrism (of being parochially rooted in only one cultural and religious tradition), they need to creatively draw on, not pit themselves against, this plurality. This paper suggests a framework for such a positive and inclusive engagement with various cultures and religions that goes beyond the mainstream liberal model of “public reason”.Centro de Estudos Sociais2010info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/36156http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36156https://doi.org/10.4000/eces.553https://doi.org/10.4000/eces.553eng1647-0737http://eces.revues.org/553Thaler, Mathiasinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2021-06-29T10:03:43Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/36156Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:50:48.635080Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
title |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
spellingShingle |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond Thaler, Mathias Human rights Justification Modus vivendi Pluralism Public reason Secularism |
title_short |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
title_full |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
title_fullStr |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
title_full_unstemmed |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
title_sort |
How (not What) Shall We Think about Human Rights and Religious Arguments? Public Reasoning and Beyond |
author |
Thaler, Mathias |
author_facet |
Thaler, Mathias |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Thaler, Mathias |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Human rights Justification Modus vivendi Pluralism Public reason Secularism |
topic |
Human rights Justification Modus vivendi Pluralism Public reason Secularism |
description |
This paper addresses the question of how (not what) we should think about human rights and religious arguments. Thinking about this relationship is today particularly important, because conflicts over human rights in practice often turn around their theoretical problems. Should religious arguments be used to justify human rights? Or do we want human rights to be free from any partisan endorsement so as to avoid divisive interpretations of universal principles? Underlying these hard questions is the issue of justification in view of a plurality of cultural and religious traditions around the globe. If human rights can be transformed so as to defy the charge of Euro-centrism (of being parochially rooted in only one cultural and religious tradition), they need to creatively draw on, not pit themselves against, this plurality. This paper suggests a framework for such a positive and inclusive engagement with various cultures and religions that goes beyond the mainstream liberal model of “public reason”. |
publishDate |
2010 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2010 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36156 http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36156 https://doi.org/10.4000/eces.553 https://doi.org/10.4000/eces.553 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36156 https://doi.org/10.4000/eces.553 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
1647-0737 http://eces.revues.org/553 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centro de Estudos Sociais |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centro de Estudos Sociais |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799133788905668608 |