Why the West Is Perceived as Being Unworthy of Cooperation

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (3):594-613 (2010)
Abstract
Natural selection generated a natural sense of justice. This natural sense of justice created a set of natural rights; rights humans accorded to each other in virtue of being members of the same tribe. Sharing the responsibility for natural rights between all members of the same tribe allowed humans to take advantage of all opportunities for cooperation. Human rights are the present day political emanation of natural rights. Theoretically, human rights are accorded by all humans to all humans in virtue of being humans; however, the idea that the corresponding responsibility is now shared among all humans is not broadly accepted. The natural sense of justice creates an ambiguity: on the one hand humans consider the nation they belong to as the social system that should guarantee their human rights (and likewise they do not consider themselves as having responsibility for the human rights of inhabitants of other nations); on the other hand, as cooperation between nations intensifies, expectations of global mutual responsibility increase as well. As the West does not feel responsible for the human rights of humans in the rest of the world, not even for their most basic survival needs, the West is perceived as unworthy of cooperation. If human rights are understood as conditions for the well-functioning communities, lifting the responsibility for the human rights of all humans to the global level can be understood as a condition to take full advantage of all opportunities globalization presents, or as a condition to adequately address all challenges globalization presents. However, this would have to happen without disregarding the particular feelings of mutual responsibility nations embody; we need a sliding scale of responsibility. The first step would be an acknowledgement that all humans are responsible for meeting the very basis survival needs of all humans, which could be achieved through a Framework Convention on Global Health and a Global Health Fund
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,337
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

View all 10 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Lisa Bortolotti (2006). Moral Rights and Human Culture. Ethical Perspectives 13 (4):603-620.
Gene Wunderlich (1990). Agricultural Technology, Wealth, and Responsibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (1):21-35.
Dale Dorsey (2005). Global Justice and the Limits of Human Rights. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (221):562–581.
Leslie Sklair (2009). The Globalization of Human Rights. Journal of Global Ethics 5 (2):81-96.
Evelyn Pluhar (1992). Who Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):189-215.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-09-30

Total downloads

6 ( #196,681 of 1,096,606 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #265,701 of 1,096,606 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.