Conferring to one venerable explanation, the Naturalistic Conception of Human rights, human rights are the privileges and rights that we enjoy by the mere fact that we are humans. In addition, there is the Political Conception of Human rights which defines human rights as a limit of reasonable political action (Valentini 2012). This paper will discuss what explanations if any, the two conceptions offer in the event of differences among states on human rights protection.
The United Nations is a body that ensures that there is a global observance of human rights. However, there are still incidences across the world that report a violation of such rights. Therefore, human rights concepts remain highly contestable from the perspectives of political differences between countries and regions (Etinson 2012). The principle of human rights differs from the practice of the same in a number of issues.
Fundamentally, human rights are meant to safeguard what people feel is right for them by virtue of being human in the context that it does not infringe on the wellbeing of others (Goodhart 2009). Such a concept indicates the interrelationship between the two propositions. The Natural Conception Theory suggests that all humans have rights and there is nothing to debate while the Political Conception Model suggests that there is a limit concerning the action of political powers on an individual (Goodhart 2009).
In circumstances where there exist differences in perceptions concerning human rights, the two theories offer reasonable explanations. For instance, debates on the rights of gay people attracted different approaches from different parts of the world. There are those who are in support of people who are gay, while others have orthodox approaches. The naturalistic approach offers all humans a right to practice what they feel to suit them more, which could explain why some political powers support such rights. Under such circumstances, the model grants all gay people a right to express their sexuality and prevents people from interfering with them (Hardwick et al. 2012).
The same concept gets a justification from the religious perspective, which seeks to campaign for human rights observance through love. The theory requires that humans love their fellow humans regardless of whether they are their enemies or friends. In this way, it means that the religious theory would view anyone that denies another person what they are entitled to as an oppressor. However, the same theory is a source of controversies because it limits people on what they should do because it restricts rights to religious virtues (Barry & Southwood 2011). In this case, gay relationships are prohibited across a number of religions because religion considers it a vice.
The political approach to human rights is dependent on both the naturalistic and religious approaches. First, in cases where governments support gay rights as mentioned, the fundamental concept of such an idea is that people have rights by virtue of being human (Ackerly 2013). Politicians feel that they have no control over such stances that people take. Therefore, political effects on observation of human rights unknowingly respect the naturalistic propositions.
However, the main political influence on rights is limiting the extent to which people can exercise their rights. For instance, political institutions, which despise gay relationships act so because of the influence from religious perspectives. It is true that all states are founded on certain religious faiths which is the reason why they have varying views on such cases. Therefore, theories have little to offer concerning the concept of human rights because they relate and contradict one another.
Reference List
Ackerly, B 2013, ‘Feminist and Activist Approaches to Human Rights,’ in Smith, R. K, M, (eds), Textbook on international human rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, chapter 2.
Barry, C, & Southwood, N 2011, ‘What Is Special About Human Rights?’ Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 369-383.
Etinson, A 2012, Political and Naturalistic Conceptions of Human Rights: A False Polemic? Journal of Moral Philosophy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 327-352.
Goodhart, M, E 2009, ‘Politics and Practice,’ in Smith, R. K, M, (eds), Textbook on international human rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, chapter 18.
Valentini, L 2012, ‘Human Rights, Freedom, and Political Authority,’ Political Theory, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 573-601.