1 / 20

The Human Responsibility Movement

Sue L. T. McGregor PhD Professor Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax NS Canada 2010 International Cultural Research Network Conference Halifax NS. The Human Responsibility Movement. Finding a moral ground for a globalized world. Four different philosophical positions within movement:.

chas
Télécharger la présentation

The Human Responsibility Movement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sue L. T. McGregor PhD Professor Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax NS Canada 2010 International Cultural Research Network Conference Halifax NS The Human Responsibility Movement

  2. Finding a moral ground for a globalized world

  3. Four different philosophical positions within movement: • Responsibilities complement rights • Responsibilities infringe on rights • Responsibilities take precedence over rights • World is so different that new norms are needed

  4. Powerful support and opposition • Bills or declarations of responsible humans have powerful support of luminary world leaders (emeritus politicians, faith leaders, scientists, artists, philosophers and Nobel Laureates) • BUT – also strong opposition from Western capitalistic nation states, some “developing- country” states, lawyers, and some non-government organizations (especially Amnesty International)

  5. Global movement, with many initiatives (1993-2003) • 1993 The Carta of Human Duties (International Council of Human Duties • 1993 Declaration Toward a Global Ethic (Council of the Parliament of the World’s Religions) • 1995 Our Global Neighbourhood (Commission on Global Governance) • 1997 Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities (The InterAction Council)

  6. Responsibility initiatives continued: • 1998 The Universal Declaration of Global Ethic (Temple University) • 1998 The Charter of Human Responsibilities (the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World) • 1998 Universal Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities (UNESCO Valencia) • 1999 A Common Framework for the Ethics of the 21st Century (UNESCO)

  7. Responsibility initiatives continued: • 2000 Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities (former Hart Center UK) • 2000 Earth Charter (The Earth Charter Initiative) • 2003 Declaration on Human Social Responsibilities (UN Human Rights Commission (now the Human Rights Council)

  8. Four initiatives in this paper • 1993 Parliament of the World’s Churches • 1997 InterAction Council • 1998 UNESCO Valencia Initiative • 2003 UN Human Rights Commission

  9. Conceptual framework

  10. Details of conceptual framework Communitarian versus faith-based Converse versus correlative duties Responsibilities owed by individuals to society Vertical duties that run upwards towards society Responsibility of individual to respect the rights of other individuals Horizontal duties that run between (across) actors • Western notions of individualism (rights) neglected responsibilities • Failure to give duties equal footing with rights caused today’s problems • Western notion of rights is not the only right’s perspective • Need a global ethical standard that reflects principles entrenched in world’s religions

  11. Details of conceptual framework continued: ‘An ethic’ versus ethics Ethical versus legal responsibilities Ethical responsibilities are personally felt by a person who is internally motivated to accept the duty out of a sense of conscience, love and the dignity of humanity (duty towards others and the community) Legal responsibilities are duties that are imposed by an external body or authority • A global ethic represents shared ethical values, attitudes and criteria to which all nations and interest groups commit themselves – a universal ethical manifesto • Ethics refers to uniform ethical system (codes of ethics of which some are legally enforceable, norms)

  12. Details of conceptual framework concluded • Transculturalundertandings and interpretations of core concepts – the conundrum created when people of different languages and cultures try to agree on how to define and translate: • Duty • Obligation • Responsibility NOTE – Küng (2005) observed most initiatives tend to use responsibility because it emphasizes inner responsibility (‘an ethic’) rather than external law (ethics); the term responsibility exerts a moral pressure but does not legally compel

  13. Conceptual framework Duties to Society Responsibility

  14. Main intellectual architects • 1993 - Council of the Parliament of the World’s Religions (CPWR) Hans Küng • 1997 - InterAction Council Hans Küng • 1998 - UNESCO/Valencia Richard Goldstone • 2003 - UNHRCMiguel Algonso Martinez

  15. Basic Models • CPWR contains four irrevocable directives (commitments or affirmations – ancient guidelines or ethical principles of humanity that underpin all religions) • IAC contains 19 articles organized into six main topics/themes • Valencia declaration contains 41 articles organized into 12 chapters (akin to major rights housed in UNDHR) • UNHRC contains 29 articles, with 17 of them pertaining to “every person” (no themes or chapters)

  16. Exercise ...

  17. Insights from analysis • 31 duties in total across four initiatives • Common Duties/Themes (7 appeared in all four (22%), 13 appeared in three (42%), 5 appeared in two declarations (16%) and 6 appeared once (19%) • 65% (n=20)appeared three times or more – evidence of fairly strong correlation • 35% (n=11) appeared twice or less, and mostly in the communitarian approach • Relatively unique sets of duties in each initiative, with overlap • Different duties for faith-based versus communitarian

  18. Insights continued • Titles included the concepts of universal and global (to ensure the future of humanity and the planet) • Universal means worldwide in scope, global means involving the whole earth – both terms refer to not being limited to local concerns • Meet basic human needs and security of humankind through reciprocal responsibilities

  19. Insights continued • Three aspire for eventual adoption by the United Nations • Two of these are receiving a lot of pushback (UNHRC and InterAction Council) • The third, the Valencia one, is under the radar • The one on global ethics has not had any pushback and was not intended for the UN • Pushback – duties will morph into legal responsibilities that will weaken rights

  20. Insights final • Whether it is faith-based or communitarian does not seem to matter (one of each is getting push back – respectively, InterAction Council and the UNHRC • Main focus is to strive to reconcile ideologies, beliefs, political views and cultural differences for the good of humanity and the earth – become grounded in ethical principals, values and aspirations as fellow humans

More Related