Dehumanization or the expulsion from humanity makes rights violations a lot easier – easier to justify, also to one’s own conscience – because there can be no human rights violations if the victim is not really human or less then human. A non-human does not have human rights.
If a person has rights because of his or her humanity, then it is important to recognize the right to belong to humanity. In the words of Hannah Arendt:
The right to have rights or the right of every individual to belong to humanity should be guaranteed by humanity itself. (source)
Hannah Arendt
(source)
Many cultures, ideologies and religions have, at some moment in time, excluded certain classes of humans from humanity. Some still do. Some of the major religions have considered or still consider non-believers to be an inferior species, outside of humanity, not real humans and therefore not entitled to the same rights. All racist ideologies, by definition, exclude large parts of humanity.
Examples of dehumanization are here. I’ll just pass along this one, in order to show that dehumanization can start very innocently:
(source)
Read more about dehumanization here.
Dr. Spagnoli, how do you feel about the dehumanization of the unborn? Do you see it as legitimate dehumanization within the context of abortion? Or do you see it as a likewise attempt to violate human rights in the way you describe?
You might want to check out this post.
But, Dr. Spagnoli, isn’t the right to one’s body also a human right? You said, “Physical security, bodily integrity, self-control, … prosperity” are human values that all people share and therefore constitute human rights. Why should we prioritize the well-being of the unborn higher than that of the living? Why should we strip the rights of the actual being? Does a woman’s body belong to the state or to herself? Whence does the fetus get the right to live inside a woman against her will, i.e. to enslave? Is there such a right to enslave? I believe these are important questions that the anti-abortionist crowd must answer to be taken seriously.
Benjamin, it’s only possible to speak about a fetus “enslaving” its host if the conception was a consequence of rape, in which case I would be tempted to agree with abortion.
Yes, but now then we must say one’s right to their own body is not inalienable. You are saying we can strip the rights of women if they choose to have sex. This is fundamentally wrong.
What’s more, you’re now also saying the fetus derives its right from the choices its host makes. So we are no longer saying rights derive from one’s ability to value, to reason, or from one’s nature, but from the choices others make.
In my opinion, it’s much simpler (and rational) to say one’s right to their body is inalienable. As far as I am concerned, there exists no right to live inside another against their will. We should be “pro-life” for the actual human being involved, and that means legalizing abortion.
Benjamin, there is a difference between inalienable and absolute. The former means that no one can take the right away, i.e. even if someone violates our rights we still have those rights. I believe that this is correct, that rights are inalienable in this sense. The latter means that the right cannot be limited under any circumstances. And this I believe is wrong, at least for the majority of rights. I talked about this here: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/limiting-free-speech-1-introduction/, as well as here: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/human-rights-quote-62-balancing-and-limiting-rights/
I agree that dehumanization can start very easily– as easily as believing that someone’s number identifies them more efficiently than their name. Primo Levi makes this unbearably clear.
On that note, the creation of an “Other” has long been a habit of statecraft. I can’t think of a single government that did not manufacture an enemy to galvanize patriotism and identity. Can you?
No I can’t, and you are right.
Do you believe the absolute right to life is also wrong?
Benjamin, I thought that it was you who wanted to limit this right? But perhaps you don’t believe a fetus is a living human. I which case abortion isn’t a limitation of its right to life. I, personally, hold the opposite point of view. When speaking about limiting rights, and about non-absolute rights in my other comment, I was initially thinking about the mother’s right to self-control and bodily integrity. But I want to add that the exercise of balancing conflicting rights is never an easy one and always tragic in a sense. But it is necessary in some cases.
The rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother are not in conflict. Even if we assume the fetus or embryo (or even the zygote) has rights, which we should not, there still exists no right to live inside another human being against their will. There is no right to enslave, for example.
Lets do a little thought experiment: Say with some advanced medical technologies we can connect terminally sick people to other people so that the sick people can survive. Now we are talking about saving another actual human being. Are you willing to sacrifice the rights of the healthy so that the sick may live? That is, does there exist a right to live off the efforts of others (against their will)? I think the answer is no.
Abortion should be allowed if the existence of a fetus/embryo/zygote is going to cause the death of the mother, or if she has been raped.
However, if it is not any of these, then both lives should be considered. It will generally be the woman’s choice to have unprotected sex. Again, abortion could possibly be an option if protection failed, but if she chose to have unprotected sex, she should go through with giving birth. Obviously, there will be cases where she was under the influence of certain drugs or alcohol, and that of course will need to be taken into account.
However, aborting simply because the mother does not want to give birth is wrong.
Essentially, a zygote is a human that is not yet fully grown. A baby is human that is not yet fully grown. What’s the difference, besides how much growing has happened? It is still a human life, and should not be taken away unless it is absolutely essential.
Pingback: The Lesser Evil Argument for Capital Punishment « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy
Pingback: Capital Punishment: The Stupidity of Deterrent Statistics, Ctd. « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy
Pingback: Richard Rorty on Human Rights and Sympathy « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.
Pingback: Dehumanization = Scary « Popcornkim's Blog
wow, you guys are so intelligent, your views globally shared yet original…i feel like such an idiot. Also you write do well.. I am not a very good writer but I love words.. you guys must have impressed your English teachers :D
Pingback: Female Objectification, A Collection of Images « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.
Pingback: Human Rights Quote (154): The Right to Have Power and the Power to Have Rights « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.
Pingback: Human Rights Facts (184): Blacks and Apes « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.
Pingback: Female Animalization, A Collection of Images | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.
Ben, you are saying (as Filip said) that rights are derived from the choices of others. That’s a very peculiar statement; we don’t think of any other rights as being derived from the choices of others. We don’t, for example, say that my right to free speech is dependent on whether some other persons chooses to do something or not; instead, I have my right to free speech regardless of what some other person chooses to do. We typically think of humans having rights due to one’s ability to value, to reason, or from one’s nature (that is, as a human being). Thus we have what we call human rights, e.g. my right to live.
But I think for one to have human rights, one must first be human. And fetuses (much less zygotes) are not humans. You are correct, Ben, that a fetus is a potential human being, but it is not yet one. And, yes, there is a difference between potential and actual. An acorn is a potential oak tree, but no one says an acorn is an oak tree. There are qualitative differences between the two.
Pingback: The “Human” Part of Human Rights | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.
Pingback: The Causes of Human Rights Violations (33): Nefarious Political Metaphors | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.