Insufficient Evidence for FGM in Islam

Throughout our discussions in class, some support for FGM has come from religion and the need for a woman to be chaste. I would like to focus on Islam and the evidence, or lack there of for FGM.
I have studied the Qur'an and found no concrete evidence supporting such practices. The practice of FGM pre-dates Islam and was integrated into the religion in the Hadith, or traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. In Islam there is not hierarchy of leadership, so there is no final word on topics such as this, a Muslim may consult many leaders and find many different interpretations on such subjects. Some subjects like "how many times of day should I pray?" are easily answered and supported by evidence in the Qur'an or the Words of God, but when there is not clear answer to a question found in the Qur'an, the second place to consult is the Hadith, which is a collection of traditions of the Prophet Muhammad.
It is found in the Hadith that the Prophet Muhammad told a woman who performed circumcisions in Medina "Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." This Hadith could be interpreted on both sides, first that the Prophet supported FGM, but was cautious as to how severely it was done and second could be understood as the Prophet allowing such an act if it must be done, but including information that it is better for a woman if less is cut but eluding that i would be best if none is cut at all, and in turn better for husbands.
I believe using religion as a justification for FGM is would make a person a hypocrite. In the Qur'an it is stated "It is Allah Who has made for you the earth as a resting place and the sky as a canopy, and has given you shape - and made your shape beautiful"(40:64) as well as acknowledging that Allah "...Who makes excellent everything He creates." (32:6-7) So this would suggest that God has created humans including women in a form that is how we are intended to be and any changes made to our bodies are going against what God intended us to be.

The Death Penalty and the Human Right to Life

Generally, when we think about human rights, the first rights which come to mind are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, compliments of the Declaration of Independence. We have these rights by the very fact we are human and seeing as how we remain human the entire time we walk this earth, we should theoretically have these rights until the day we die. However, as we all know, this is not always the case. The New York Times ran an article today titled, “China Said to Execute Thousands in ’09.” The article stated that in 2008, China was responsible for at least 1,718 executions, approximately three-fourths of the 2,390 executions performed worldwide in that year. What this amounted to was the stripping away of all basic human rights, most notably the right to life, from 2,390 different people in the year 2008 alone. And why? Because they broke the law in such a way that they lost all their human-like qualities and therefore the execution of these people were not violations against human rights because they in fact lost their status as a human and no longer held the human right to life? Or is it rather that the right to life is not actually a human right but instead a conditional right we retain so long as we all abide by the rules and regulations set forth by our government?

At first, this may seem like an easy question to answer: no matter what you do on this planet you are still a human and as a human you should be granted the human right to life, the death penalty should therefore be abolished. However, when presented with certain cases, such as John Wayne Gacy, this question can become much harder to answer for some people. Gacy lured young men into his home under the pretense of hiring them for a job and then proceeded to rape, torture, and murder these young men, bury them under his house, all the while throwing neighborhood block parties dressed up as Pogo the Clown, and he did this to at least 33 young men. Many people find it hard to look at Gacy as a human, for how could any human do that to 33 young men? There was something fundamentally off about this person and the court found his actions and presence on this earth to be such a threat that the removal of his existence was a necessity.

However, almost all of us know very rarely are the people sentenced to death people like Gacy. As The New York Times argues, the death penalty is generally employed as political maneuvers, “often after unfair trials, and were used ‘disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities.’” Is this then the problem with the death penalty as it currently stands today? Is it the practice of the death penalty which is causing society harm? Or is the theory behind the death penalty causing harm as well? What is your opinion? Not only how it is used in practice, but the theory itself that the practice is based upon. Are both troublesome, or can they be justified?

Reconsidering Initial Objections to FGM

    Near the end of class today, we started to touch on an issue that I've been pondering during our entire discussion of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), namely that of what is our true reason for being opposed to the practice. At first, most of the disgust at FGM seemed to stem from the unsafe reality of the procedure. It is often performed with rudimentary tools in a decidedly non-medical manner, at least when compared against standard Western medical procedures. Yet this does not seem strong enough to fully condemn the practice, only providing enough foundation to denounce the current methods. As we considered suggested alternatives to the procedure, namely "Circumcision with Words," we more strongly considered the possibility (which was a smaller afterthought in previous discussions) that the goals of female circumcision, that of enhancing male power and diminishing female sexuality, is a problem in itself. For this blog, I want us to consider the true reasons we aim to reduce or eliminate the procedure in an effort to discover the bounds of cultural relativism.

    First, we should understand what we're dealing with. Female genital mutilation can take a few different forms. The least disfiguring type of mutilation is that of circumcision, or cutting of the prepuce (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). This procedure is somewhat akin to male circumcision, though without the same health benefits. A more extreme procedure is excision, in which all or part of the labia minora is taken as well (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). Finally, there is infibulation, a procedure which removes the labia minora and most or all of the labia majora (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). These three procedures, or various mixtures, constitute the methods of female genital mutilation.

    Next, an examination into the reasons for FGM is illuminating. Dorkenoo and Elsworthy give four main reasons that FGM is practiced. First, there is a psycho-sexual element, in which the procedure is deemed useful on two dubious claims: either to make the woman whole by exorcising the male portion or to prevent a situation in which the female genitals "dangle between the legs like a man's" (p. 11). A more salient reason within this sub-group is to limit the sexual desire of a female, an important factor in a society which places heavy importance on the virginity of a bride. This claim has a genesis in male power and is a different variation of a theme we see in many societies, that of preserving the chastity of young women. The second category of defense for the practice is religious in nature, though this defense is faulty as many religious scholars claim there is no reference to FGM in Islamic texts (p. 11-12). The third category is sociological and claims that female circumcision is part of the process from childhood to womanhood, similar to a Bar Mitzvah in the Jewish faith. The fourth and final defense is aesthetic in nature as societies claim that FGM makes women appear cleaner and more physically appealing. While none of these explanations are very convincing, the practice is long-standing tradition in some cultures, so arguments against FGM must be solid and universal.

    Having set the foundation, we should consider the reasons we shudder at the thought of FGM. In the beginning, it was easy to be against FGM. We read numerous horror stories about the procedure which was typically done by an unskilled (by Western standards) practitioner. The female in question may be held down by a number of adults as the "expert" shaves away at the girl's genitals with a razor (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). The reality of the procedure as currently practiced can result in a number of terrible consequences in the short, medium, and long term. There can be an accidental severing of a crucial artery during the procedure, or the poor handiwork of the operator can leave females prone to frequent infections or increased susceptibility to disease. It should be noted that most or all of the health problems that result appear to come due to the procedure being done in a haphazard manner by a relative amateur.

    Because most of the problems come not because the procedure itself is dangerous but rather from the manner in which it is typically performed, it raises an important question about our objection to the practice. Fundamentally, do our qualms stem from the abstract idea or from the practice in reality? Put another way, would we allow the procedure in Western countries if it was done in a hospital by a trained surgeon, assuming the aforementioned health risks disappeared (note: if significant health risks still occur, this is a moot point)? What about if the more extreme procedures, such as excision or infibulation, were outlawed, but circumcision was allowed if done in a medical setting by a specialist? If we find our objection to the procedure to remain persistent in the face of these new considerations, it indicates that our problem is deeper than the health risks that result from a dirty razor held by an untrained hand.

    One objection to FGM that can withstand the previous thought experiment is that which is based on removing unnecessary forms of male domination. Through this lens, one could say even if the procedure was safe, even if it was minimal, it is still not acceptable because the main purpose of FGM is to make women subordinate to the desires of men. Yet if this is true, doesn't this kick the legs out from underneath the reformers who are advocating "Circumcision through Words" as described in the articles by Reaves and Mwuara? This alternative method has, at its heart, the same goals of FGM: to mold girls into chaste women who will be good wives. What makes this different? Is it because it is not permanent, in that women can disregard the lessons if they choose? Is it because this is realized as a practical step in a difficult world?

    For what it's worth, I'll give my two cents on the questions raised above. First, I think we can oppose FGM in African nations on health grounds because it is the reality of the situation and is inseparable from the issue as it currently stands. These villages are unlikely to get sanitary medical facilities with skilled doctors any time soon, so we must be concerned with the array of health problems that arise, especially in light of the limited benefits of the procedure. In response to the question of whether a limited circumcision can be performed in optimal medical conditions, I suppose it can, but I would argue that the society that has the resources to make that happen is a society that is advanced enough to examine this procedure and recognize it for what it is (and isn't). Finally, regarding "Circumcision through Words," I think this is a step in the right direction, even though it carries some of the same problems of FGM at heart. Ideally, we would be able to rid mankind of this notion of female submission, but we don't live in an ideal world. We should recognize "Circumcision through Words" for what it is, and we should avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    But enough of what I think, why do YOU oppose FGM? Did the theoretical questions raised make you reconsider any of your reasons?

Sexuality Rights in Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates presented new rules regarding the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy to top military officials. The new rules mean that it will be easier for gay and lesbian service members to serve. It does not mean, however, that homosexuals can serve openly in the military. There is a measure in congress, however, to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), would repeal DADT.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has been a strong activist for the repealing of DADT. They say that the policy is an infringement on their human rights and freedoms, specifically freedoms of choice and speech.

Marine General James Conway stated this week that repealing DADT would be detrimental to the cohesion of the Marine Corps. The corps is the only military branch that shares barracks. Gen. Conway argued that repeal DADT would require the Marines to build new, one-man, barracks in order to accommodate the new policy. Conway said that openly gay service members would cause other Marine members to be uncomfortable.

Is DADT an infringement on the rights of gay military members, because they are not forced into any situation? Or, would repealing DADT be infringement on the rights of straight service members, it what Gen. Conway says is true, and they would feel uncomfortable in their living situation?

Saudi Arabia Stepping forward?

Hissa Hilal, a Saudi mother of 4 speaks out publicly against Muslim clerics. On the popular Arabic T.V. show “Millions Poet Contest” where poets compete for prize money judged by both a panel and their peers Hilal is surprisingly the favorite to win next weeks finals. Speaking to a gender separated audience cloaked in black she criticizes religious leaders. It is surprising that she has gotten this far without and repercussions from the government or religious hard liners. Although she receives death threats and hate mail. Many people, especially women are empowered by her openness and determination to speak out against what she believes a perversion of her faith and abuse of religious power.

It is rare to see a Saudi woman on television or photos, and much less rare that she would be the main subject of such an event, voicing her opinion through poetry and speaking out against male elites. It will be interesting to see if she wins the finals, and if her voice and message will be heard in the Saudi government.

Her recent poem against the “ad-hoc extreamists” read in English:

“I have seen evil from the eyes of the subversive fatwas in a time when what is lawful is confused with what is not lawful;

When I unveil the truth, a monster appears from his hiding place; barbaric in thinking and action, angry and blind; wearing death as a dress and covering it with a belt [referring to suicide bombing];

He speaks from an official, powerful platform, terrorising people and preying on everyone seeking peace; the voice of courage ran away and the truth is cornered and silent, when self-interest prevented one from speaking the truth.”

Google v. China

Touching on something recent, I'd like to point out Google's race in China to secure a foothold in the country where it dominates 30 percent of the country's search engine market.

China is known for censoring its media and its citizen's access to internet. With mainly Chinese owned search engines like Sina.com and Ganji.com, the country seems to be self sustaining without the Californian company's help. China's recent attempt in hacking into the search engine to monitor some searches by activist group has left Google baffled. Google then threatened to lift its censorship of its censorship in protest but in doing so has left China accusing the company of violating their agreed contract.

Mighty and powerful in America, the 11-year-old search engine has penetrated the lives of people around the world but is having difficulty handling China because the country can block access to Google's service at any time. And that would mean Google losing its 30 percent market dominance and all the advertising revenues that comes with it.

Clearly the battle is for economical reasons. However, Google's founder Sergey Brin, apparently a vocal advocate of freedom of speech, said no to a self-censoring Google search engine in China to uphold the right to free speech. It is after all stated in the second paragraph of the UDHR.

Say Google's intention is really to advocate freedom of speech in China, is it right for them to go into a country where its values are different than those of liberal America and say that they should not censor their search engines? Who's right, who's wrong?

On the other hand, freedom of speech is a right agreed by many world leaders. Can China being one of today's leading powers get away with 'protecting' its citizens through censorship?

Google is not budging on this matter and is still under negotiation with China after angering them for moving their search engine site to Hong Kong where they're not censored.

On a lighter note, my Chinese roommate mentioned today that she will be getting a Facebook account other than her Chinese version of Facebook.

Read Google-China story here.

Harry Potter and Fighting Poverty, Genocide, and Inequality?

The Harry Potter Alliance is a group that has apparently been around for some time and I have simply not been in the know. They feel themselves inspired by messages contained in Harry Potter, such as love, equal rights, making the world a better place, etc., and in response have created the Harry Potter Alliance to promote these ideas. The group explains that “The Harry Potter Alliance is dedicated to using the examples of Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore to spread love and fight the Dark Arts in the Real World” (http://www.thehpalliance.org/). With their motto, “The Weapon We Have Is Love,” the group has raised funds for Darfur and Burma, donated books collected in their “Accio Books!” drives (Harry Potter fans will get the accio reference), and more. Finding this group (in extremely nerdy ways that will not be discussed in further detail) during the time of the semester that we have read Orwell made me think again about the impact of fiction on real world issues, or at least perceptions of real world issues. While Orwell was explicitly concerned about torture and totalitarianism, Rowling told a broad story of love and right choice. This group has expanded upon the spirit of Rowling’s tale to think of other humans in terms of love and concern, leading them to focus directly on genocide and poverty. It is a fascinating use of Rowling’s work and leaves me with several questions. First, I wonder whether there are moral implications of being motivated to care about real world suffering primarily because of fictional writings? In other words, is this the sort of sentimental education that Rorty would support, or ought we to be motivated by real world cases? Second, I wonder if this group can hold the attention of those it attracts at an early age? With this question I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that younger persons are more likely to join the Harry Potter Alliance. If this is the case, are they attached to the group (and Harry Potter), or to the broader cause? The answer to this question seems rather straightforward: the group is a way to get awareness of the broader cause and so I assume that the commitment is sincere though it seems the question could still be out there for some. Third, I wonder what will happen to this group as Harry Potter goes out of style (though perhaps it will not in ways that certain other works of fiction have not). Finally, I wonder what this approach to dealing with rights violations has to offer. It clearly aims at getting a younger generation concerned about rights violations, which seems a good step forward. Is this step enough to keep them engaged throughout their life, or should we be satisfied simply with their involvement at any stage in their life? These questions about the Harry Potter Alliance are not be of the same caliber as the concerns about the rights violations themselves, but they seem interesting to consider while taking a Human Rights course which includes a reading of Orwell.

Human Rights Alliance Demands Inquiry into UK Torture Role

It will be pretty fascinating to see how things shake out in Britain, where a group of human rights organizations have joined up with MPs to demand an independent inquiry:

The case for an inquiry is supported by almost everybody except the government, including Lord Carlile, the government’s own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the joint committee on human rights, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and other experts in this field. This proposal offers a clear way forward. The government should take it.

Full article here (HT: Susanne Ure).

(via).

Open Borders vs. National Sovereignty

Coming off of our class discussions regarding immigration, I had to wonder where state sovereignty fits into the immigration issue. State Sovereignty, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "supreme power especially over a body politic; freedom from external control". The idea of state sovereignty came from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 when leaders from all over Europe decided that each leader had sovereign control over their independent state.

The idea of state sovereignty has continued to this day and the article attached is a perfect example of that. China has restricted the free movement of it's own national citizens in and around Beijing. The hukou system was developed to try and control the massive population of China and control the movements of it's people. Each person is given a hukou card that is designated as either a urban card or a rural card, and each citizen is expected to live in their "home district" for life. While the Chineese idea is a good one in theory for population control, it severly restricts the free movement of it's people by limiting healthcare, education to people not in their "home district".

The question that comes with this article would be: Does the international community have an obligation to stand up for the Chineese who are feeling oppressed? Or, does China have the right to control the free movement of it's people under the philosophy of national sovereignty?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/china.hukou.migrants/index.html

Immigration and Government Expenditures

    I was curious about some things said regarding immigration during class, specifically about immigration and government services, so I did a little research. One well-regarded, though somewhat dated, study was done by the National Academy of Sciences in 1997. The study, entitled The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, found that most immigrants paid more in new taxes than they received in new government services in their lifetime. As the study brief points out, part of this is due to the fact that they receive protection from high fixed-cost services (national defense, roads, interest on national debt) without requiring additional expenditures on those items. In effect, they pull down the average cost per citizen of providing those services. A piece by the Cato Institute further expands on immigration and this study, saying that the study shows the average immigrant family pays $80,000 more in government services than it receives in a lifetime. Even better, those immigrants with college degrees (likely those who benefit from the H1-B visas) constitute a net gain in revenue of $198,000 (Cato, p. 3). Keep in mind that not only are immigrants making our fiscal situation better, but also we are giving them a much better opportunity to make a decent living, an effect that many would argue would be worth paying for.

    Two other thoughts struck me as I was doing this research. First, if we amended our immigration policies to allow anyone who wants to come here, the net benefit of the average immigrant would probably decrease. At present, we are probably keeping out many low-skilled workers who want to come here. Thus, while the current 'typical' immigrant represents a net gain of $80,000, much of that is inflated by our current policy which allows high-skilled workers yet it more restrictive of low-skilled. That said, there is still a lot of play in that area. Even if a new immigrant was neutral financially or even a small loss, the gain he represents for economic growth is not negative, nor is the benefit conferred by giving him more opportunities. The second thought was that by drastically reducing border patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border, we could save $3 billion, or at least a significant portion of that, each year (Cato, p. 12). Thus, even if we somehow allowed enough low-skilled immigrants to enter that the net benefit was negative, we could pay for part of that with these reduced expenditures.

    Finally, in a somewhat unrelated thought, I was wondering how Carens' argument, especially regarding Rawls or utilitarianism, would apply to protectionist policies. Wouldn't Rawls, under the 'veil of ignorance,' say we should buy the most efficiently produced item, regardless of unimportant contingencies such as nationality? And in this same vein of thought, are attacks on outsourced labor wrong? This is just a brief thought, and I don't have time to expand on it, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts.

Feel free to post any thoughts on whether these immigration statistics affected your thinking, or if you had any thoughts on Carens, Rawls, and outsourcing.

Nebraska Gov. Opposes Prenatal Care for Illegal Immigrants

Dave Heineman, the governor of our fine state of Nebraska, has taken a public stance against a bill (LB 1110) currently before the legislature that would provide prenatal care to poor and undocumented immigrant women. According to this article, the bill would reestablish a 20 year-old program that provided prenatal care to all low-income mothers through Medicaid, which was stopped last year when the federal government had notified the state that it could no longer use Medicaid funds to provide care to women in the country illegally. The new program would fund the care through federal SCHIP funding, which is apparently allowed.

Heineman is quoted as saying, that “after a careful and thoughtful review of the various aspects of this issue” he is “opposed to illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded benefits."

Supporters of the bill believe the governor to be trying to score political points in an election year. If this is true I am confused by his logic of valuing an expectant mother’s immigration status over her status as a human being, and as the mother of a future U.S citizen. He also seems to be betting on an anti-immigrant base of support to override the dismay of other groups who have endorsed him in the past, such as Pro-Life voters, who are angered at his disregard for the health of unborn children and mothers. The Catholic Bishops of Nebraska wrote a letter to Heineman last week that said, “denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity.”

Lincoln Journal-Star

Omaha World-Herald

Politics over Human Rights?

A committee measure passed the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that would recognize the 1915 killings of Armenians in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The uproar that has risen from the executive branch, State Department and members of Congress is surprising considering the human rights atrocities that were committed at the end of the Ottoman Empire. This article shows how a moral and political fork in the road can make politicans hesitate on certain human rights issues. The United States would like to morally recognize this genocide in the past, however, current relations with Turkey are too important to do that. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States needs to hold onto ever avaliable ally in the Middle East. The declaration of genocide could also hurt Turkish relations with Armenia, however cold they might be. In the end, the real question is: Do you think the United States, as one of the most powerful and christian nations in the world, should take a moral stand and recognize the genocide?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/06/us.turkey.genocide.debate/index.htmleref=edition&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Torts and Torture in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Yesterday, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an interesting human rights case. Bashe Abdi Yousuf and a collection of former Somalians have sued Mohamed Ali Samantar, a former minister of defense in a region of Somalia, due to torture inflicted by the Somalian government under Maj. Gen. Mohamed Said Barre. Samantar, who now lives in Virginia, may be open to the lawsuit due to the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which allows torture victims to bring suit against perpetrators of torture. However, Samantar has countered a defense under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which "bars suits against foreign states and their 'agencies or instrumentalities.' "

    Much of the debate between attorneys and justices centered on how broad the immunity protection was, yet the most interesting part of the article came from Yousuf as he recounted the atrocities of the former regime:

        "I was tortured—waterboarded [emphasis added] and put in electric shock."

    This, of course, is interesting because it describes a practice that the United States utilized quite recently. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded 183 times while Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. Putting aside legal intricacies of whether Samantar is liable under the 1991 act, one must wonder how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule regarding waterboarding as torture. If the Court sided with the plaintiffs, it would effectively be saying that our own government engaged in activities that are against the civil law of this nation, in addition to any international criminal laws violated by our actions. I'm a legal novice, but I am sure there are laws prohibiting American government officials from being sued in this manner. Yet a verdict for the plaintiff (on the torture issue, not the issue of liability) would imply that the Supreme Court believes that the previous administration acted unlawfully.

    From what I understand about this case, the justices of the Supreme Court will not actually address the issue of torture, but rather decide on the issue of whether Samantar can be sued before dismissing the case (if ruling in favor of Samantar) or sending it back to the proper court (if ruling in favor of Yousuf). However, it is interesting to think about how the justices would vote. Many of the conservative justices may be willing to side with the Bush Administration regarding the prerogative of the executive, but Justice Kennedy could be a hard sell. Kennedy has shown a past affinity for foreign law, and the international community has some sort of consensus against torture. One could easily imagine a Supreme Court decision declaring waterboarding to be torture, violating domestic and international law.

Link

What do you think? Is waterboarding torture? If so, should Bush Administration officials be held responsible? In civil or criminal courts, or both?

Additionally, do you think perpetrators of torture from other countries should be held liable under U.S. law, if they currently reside in the U.S.? Or would the ICC be a better venue for these cases?

Rights, Dignity, and Well-being: A Closer Look at Nowheresville

Defending and securing human rights is a difficult struggle, but one that many of us agree is worthwhile. We have seen arguments for these rights based on a variety of foundations, such as human sacredness (Perry, p. 11), action (Gewirth, p. 12) or dignity (Kohen, p. 9), yet all of these reasons support the end that “certain things ought not to be done to any human being and certain other things ought to be done for every human being” (Perry, p. 13). In contrast to this end, Joel Feinburg argues that the act of claiming a right gives human a certain dignity that cannot be accessed without a notion of rights. I contend that Feinberg is wrong in this notion, and, by drawing on Onuma Yasuaki, I show that rights are merely a means to an end, that of a certain type of well-being for mankind. Through this process, I hope to show that Feinberg’s Nowheresville is not nearly as bad as he contends.

Feinburg attempts to illustrate the necessity of rights for human dignity by constructing a fictional place which he entitles ‘Nowheresville’ (p. 143). In this state, there is no notion of rights, yet there are still many of the good things that rights provide for us. Men are sympathetic and benevolent, but only from compassionate motives. Additionally, duties exist in Nowheresville, though not because of any corresponding right of any particular individual (p. 143-144). Finally, Feinberg tacks on characteristics such as personal desert and a sovereign monopoly of rights in order to make Nowheresville even more functional and desirable (p. 145-148). Indeed, Nowheresville appears to be a wonderful utopia.

But appearances are deceiving, he warns. Because of the absence of rights, people have no notion of a legitimate claim to something (Feinberg, p. 148). Rights are meant to be ‘claimed, demanded, and affirmed,’ and without the ability to make these sorts of claims, man is without dignity (Feinberg, p. 151). To Feinberg, it is rights that allow men to be ‘properly proud, to have that minimal self-respect that is necessary to be worthy of the love and esteem of others’ (p. 151). This apparent utopia has been shown to be a farce, a place full of utility but lacking in self-worth.

To me, this view is wrong-headed. Rights are not asserted to claim dignity, but rather to promote a certain type of life. Onuma Yasuaki has addressed this as he claims that rights are but one means of achieving the ultimate end: the spiritual and material well-being of humanity (p. 1). Yasuaki does not expand on this well-being, but it surely focuses on safety and security of person without oppression from others. This well-being is difficult to obtain due to the malevolent nature of mankind. Proof of this evil is hardly necessary; one need simply to peruse the history books or to watch the evening news to observe the senseless violence and disregard for the Other that is endemic to human beings. No other animal has invented as many ways to be cruel as we have, and our potential remains unlimited.

Fortunately, Western Enlightenment thinkers discovered a rather useful way to promote the widespread well-being that is a universal yearning of mankind. The idea of human rights as an individual claim against others, especially one’s government, have accounted for giant leaps in well-being in recent centuries. Yasuaki claims these rights often use a distinctly individual language due to the political dysfunction from which they arose (p. 8). In fact, the idea of rights could not have arisen from any other place but one that was individualistic and legalistic (Yasuaki, p. 9). These rights have been expanded to other countries precisely because it is the most effective method we currently have to promote the general well-being (Yasuaki, p. 9). Assuredly, rights have their own problems to deal with, including the criticism by Mary Ann Glendon that individualistic rights talk can lead to less focus on corresponding duties, but there will always be trade-offs (Glendon, p. 14). The important thing is to recognize the utility that rights give us in achieving our ultimate goals, while also understanding that rights may not be the most effective way in the future.

In sum, Feinberg fails to convince me of what is so bad about Nowheresville. A state that functions wonderfully and justly without a need for distinct rights sounds more conducive to the spiritual and material well-being that we all seek and, as such, seems preferable to our current state of affairs. If we could somehow educate everyone to act benevolently and to obey moral duties, rights would become a forgotten relic of an unfortunate time. I am unconvinced about the potential for mankind to achieve this type of benevolence so, at this time, rights will have to do. Not because I need to claim them in order to respect myself, but because they are currently the most effective means to the most desirable end.

Questions:

1: Are rights necessary for dignity?

2: Would you live in Nowheresville? Is a benevolent world without rights preferable to an evil world with rights?

Alex DeBrie