1 / 38

Bentham and Marx on Human Rights

Explore Jeremy Bentham's critique of human rights, focusing on his opposition to natural law theory and the French Declaration of 1789. Learn about his ideas on law, utility, and criticisms of foundational rights. Study the implications of his views on social governance and individual liberties.

driskell
Download Presentation

Bentham and Marx on Human Rights

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. Bentham and Marx on Human Rights Master in Theory and Practiceof Human Rights, Universityof Oslo – Dr.Claudio Corradetti 7 October 2014

  2. J.Bentham, AnarchicalFallacies (written in 1796 published in 1816) J.Bentham «A Fragment onGovernment» 1776 Target ofthecriticisms W.Blackstone’sCommentariesonthe Laws of England -hedid not justifiedlaw in accordance to theprincipleofutility (maxof total happiness) • heconfusedtheroleofthe «censor» withthatofthe «expositor» whenheclaimedthat «everything is as it should be» withreference to englishlaw

  3. «To theprovinceoftheExpositor it belongs to explain to uswhat, as hesupposes, the Law is: to thatoftheCensor, to observe to uswhathethinks it ought to be. The former, therefore, is principallyoccupied in stating, or in enquiringafterfacts: the latter, in discussingreasons» This is againHume’s «is-ought» problem!!

  4. Bentham’ssolution: thetaskoftheexpositoris to show whatjudges and legislators have done The taskofthecensor, instead, is to show whattheought to do in thefuture Blackstone has confoundedthetwofunctions!

  5. Bentham’sideaof legal improvement «…a system that is never to be censured, will never be improved…» Thus NOT by resorting to externalmorality BUT throughcensor’s legal improvementswith «securitiesagainstmisrule»!

  6. Onlypracticalsecurities grant themaximizationof total happinessas according to theprincipleofutility Negative form: nolawought to be madewhichwoulddiminish general happiness

  7. Utilitarianism: Principleof (Total or Average) Happiness as Principleof Law (and Justice): Total Happiness/Utility: maximizationofthe total utility by addingindividualutilities Case 1 x2, y6,z4 = tot. 12 preferable to x4, y, 4, z3 = tot.11 AverageHappiness/Utility: maximizationofaverageutility x4,y4,z4 = tot. 12preferable to x10,y2, z1= tot.13

  8. This is the same criticismofthe «anarchist» naturallaw defender as criticised in: J.Bentham’s «Nonsenseupon Stilts» hithertoknown as «Anarchicalfallacies» 1795 Main target: criticismof «naturallawtheory» throughthecriticismofparticularlythe French Declarationof 1789 (as alsoreplicated in 1791)

  9. Bentham’spreliminary charge to naturallawbaseddeclarations: anynaturallawbaseddeclaration shows «theoldappetiteofrulingposterity» (J.Bentham, Rights, Representation, and Reform pp. 181) «What I mean to attack is…alla ante-legal and anti-legal rightsof man…not theexecutionofsuch design..butthe design itself…the French had not failed in theexecutionoftheir design…butratherthe design could not be executed…» Ibid.38

  10. In ‘Anarchicalfallacies’ Bentham sees 4 problems in the French Declaration: 1)Tendency to produceanarchy: revolutionaryinsurrectionhad to be justifiedbutthisencouragefutureinsurrection «theysawtheseedsofanarchybroadcast: in justifyingthedemolitionofexistingauthorities, theyundermine all futureones …»

  11. 2) Incorporationoffallacious arguments: theabstractnessoflanguage and substanceofnaturallawrightsproduce a fallaciousresult «theabuseofmakingtheabstractpropositionresorted to for proff, a cover for introducing,…theverypropositionwhich is admitted to stand in needofproof»

  12. 3) Encouragement to violent feelings: ratherthanrestraining «theselfish and thehostilepassions», theDeclarationadded «as much force as possible to thesepassions» etc.

  13. Major Problem 4)Ontological problem: inappropriateuseoflanguage. The languageoftheDeclarationwhould have suited«an oriental tale…but not a body oflaws, especiallyoflaws given as constitutional and fundamental ones»

  14. Analysis of 4: The Declaration makes propositionsoffactwhichareobviously false! SaysBentham: Art.1 states «in respectoftheirrights men areborn and remainfree and equal» YET ALL MEN «wereborn in subjection»! It is irrelevant ifthiswere valid beforetheinstitutionalizationof a governmentafterthat a government has beencreated!

  15. The Declaration is ambiguous in theuseof «CAN» • As signifying: «what is established» • As signifying «whatought to be established» This is becausenatural right pretend to existindependentlyof a government and prior to this! To saythatnaturalrightscannot be abrogated is nonsensical!

  16. «Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptiblerights, rethoricalnonsense, nonsenseupon stilts» Bentham, AnarchicalFallaciesTHE WORKS OF JEREMY BENTHAM 489 (John Bowring ed., 1843), p.501.

  17. Whythenif it is nonsense, Benthambelievesheshould spend time on his criticisms? Because it is «nonsensewithgreatpretensions, withthepretensionsofgoverningtheworld»!

  18. Twoexamples: • CriticismoftheRight to Liberty as imprescriptible right, butsaysBentham «all rightsaremade at theexpenceofliberty», liberty is in his view «absence ofconstraint» but still a duty!! Not to talk about «positive duties» connected to this! • Criticimsofthe Right to Property «ifevery man had a right to everything…would be tantamount to destroying all property»! (Bentham, Rights etc.p.334)

  19. Benthamwas not againstdeclarations as suchbutthefunctionsthey serve: as advice to the legislator and not as law! He wrotehimself a constitutional charter fothePashaof Tripoli in 1822: In the first address- thePasha has to claim a vision for the Prophet Mohammed In thesecondaddress – thePashawas to acknowledgethegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber.

  20. MARX’S «On theJewishQuestion» 1844 Deutsche-französischeJahrbücher

  21. Questions: what sort ofemancipation do GermanJewsseek? (civil and political) B.Bauersays: Jewscannot ask egoistically for theirownemancipationthey have rather to contribute to the general Germanemancipatoryprocess and for theemancipationofthemankind

  22. Marx: theJewishquestion in Germany (wherethere is nostate) is rather a theologicalone. Jewsare in opposition to thestatewhichrecognizesonlyChristianity as itsfoundation In France, is a constitutionalquestion for theincompletenessofpoliticalemancipationoftheJews Only in America is a reallysecularquestion

  23. Therefore: «what is therelationshipofcompletepoliticalemancipation to religion?» Sinceeven in America theperfectionofthestatedoes not impedetheexistenceof religion… Thus, politicalemancipationcannot be reduced to theologicalemancipation and this latter is notthe most advanced form for human emancipationbutonly: «…the final form of human emancipationinsidethe present world order»

  24. Replyof Marx to B.Bauer «So we do not say to theJews, as Bauer does: youcannot be emancipatedpoliticallywithoutemancipatingyourselvesradically from Judaism. Ratherwesay to them: becauseyoucan be politicallyemancipatedwithoutcompletely and consistentlyabandoningJudaism, thismeansthatpoliticalemancipationitself is not human emancipation» For Marx, then, human emancipationrequires a newconceptionofstate and society!

  25. An emancipatedstatedoes not implyemancipatedcitizens! «The limitationsofpoliticalemancipationareimmediately evident in thefactthat a statecanliberateitself from a limitationwithout man himselfbeingtrulyfreeof it and thestatecan be a freestatewithout man himselfbeinga free man» ….Thenthequestionbecomesthatofsecular and thusofhumanemancipation!

  26. …yetthe problem is thatthe liberal/bourgeois society it pretends to nullifydifferencesthroughrights (rightsof man) as in theCivilSociety… …butthentheyareeven more heavilyreintroduced at thesocial/politicallevel: rightsofcitizens (census)

  27. Marx’sreference is to Hegel’snotionofcivilsociety in thePhilosophyof Right (1820) What is it? -emergent pro-capitalistsociety -domainof «negation» in therelationsamongpeople -loss ofthe «ethicalunity» ofthefamily -advancementof personal interests

  28. First levelinterpretationofMarx’scriticismof human rights(«vulgarinterpretatio» as for Waldron, 1987, p.127): The egoistic bourgeois Doctrinesofrights present preoccupation for the bourgeois capitalist as iftheywereuniversal interests

  29. This is particularly evident withthe right to private property: «the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and disposeofthe same arbitrarilywithoutregard for other men, independentofsociety, the right ofselfishness» (Marx JewishQuestion, in Waldron ed., p.146)

  30. Equality and Security for Marx make theegoisticpictureevenworstsince: • Equality: protects anti-socialfreedom to each • Security: guarantees and reinforcestheserights as «theassuranceofegoism»

  31. In a paradoxicalwayalsothefreedomofcoscience or religiousfreedomfavorsegoism and privacyofthe bourgeois: «It (religiousfreedom) has becometheexpressionoftheseparationof man from his commonessence, from himself and from other men, as it wasoriginally. It is still onlytheabstractrecognitionof a particularperversion, private whim, and arbitrariness…»

  32. Marx does not want to defendtheideaof a civic religion buthewants to show how religion conceived in the bourgeois wayproduced a privatizedconscience. This is alsothecriticism to «capitalistsociety» as an illusionofself-sufficientatomism

  33. Towards a more subtleinterpretationof Marx….(Waldron, 1987)

  34. Marx’sseriousevaluationof The French Declarationofthe Rights ofthe Man and the Citizens 1789/91 separationbetweenthetwospheresofrights: Man’srights: rightsoftheegoistic man Citizens’srights : can be enjoyedonly in community. Thosearetherightsfavoring for Marx human emancipationtowardsthecreationof a community.

  35. Marx: religion and private propertyarebothalienated forms oflife BUT theirremoval from thepublic/politicalspherewith human rightsdoes not diminishbutenhancealienation in the private sphere! ExampleoftheUSA’sseparationbetweenchurch and statebut «theoverwhelmingmajorityofpeople is still religious»

  36. Politicalemancipation, for Marx, requires more! It requiresinvolvementofthatcommunity in thedemocraticorganization and productionofeconomiclife Recallthenotionofpositive liberty as in I.Berlin’s essay!

  37. Marx’sCriticismbecomes a criticism to capitalist/atomized and egoistic material life! In the bourgeois viewofthestatethepoliticalcommunity is seen as protectinglife, liberty and property so that «thepoliticalcommunity is degraded by thepoliticalemancipators to a mere means for thepreservationofthese so-calledrightsof man»

  38. TAKK!!

More Related