Will Theory and the Interest Theory of Rights - Assignment Example

Compare the will theory and the interest theory of rights. Which is most plausible? The social contract model is rooted in the notion of individualsaccepting rules and duties through mutual consent (Boucher & Kelly, 1994). However, the basis upon which the social contract is formed has been the subject of polarised debate particularly in relation to whether the social contract is based on the will theory or the interest theory of rights (Somerville, 2006). This is further evidenced by the academic discourse pertaining to human rights and the concept of “human rights” has been the subject of polarised philosophical debate as regards the rights of the individual versus legal protections conferred by the state, particularly in western liberal democracies (Donnelly, 2003, p.7). This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the will theory and the interest theory of rights and considers which theory is more plausible. It is submitted at the outset that the tension between the legal protection of human rights, political constraints and the extent of individual protection highlights the conflict between legal enforcement of rights in practice and theoretical concepts of ethics based on the will theory (Donnelly, 2003, p.7). To this end, it is submitted that in context of the contemporary framework of international relations, the interest theory of rights would appear to most plausible. From a theoretical perspective, Kant was a leading proponent of the will theory and his theory of wills stems from Kant’s theory of enlightenment with the proposition that “enlightenment is man’s emergence from incurred immaturity” and that the concept of immaturity stems from self-infliction due to lack of courage (Kant, in Nisbet & Reiss, 1991). This in turn correlates to Kant’s central theory pertaining to the underlying rationale of being human (Somerville, 2006). Moreover, Kant’s theory of wills regarding freedom, public and private interest refers to the overriding Kantian notion of the “Supreme Moral Principle of Good Will” (Kant, in Nisbet & Reiss 1991). For example, Kant’s philosophy is rooted in an innate moral propensity towards democracy as a result of human intellectual independence (Erckel, 2009). Kant’s theory of the rationale for being human suggests that it is the interrelationship between intellectual independence and morality that is central to concepts of democracy (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991). Kant’s theory is similar Aquinas’ proposition of what constitutes being human also emphasises the independent voluntary exercise of will (Ardley, 2007). However, in contrast to Kant, Aquinas’ theory was heavily intertwined with Catholic hierarchy and interpretations of existence (Ardley, 2007 p.3). Additionally, Ardley highlights that the central difference with Kant’s principle of humanity was that: “Aquinas represents the metaphysician of the philosophia perennis. Kant on the other hand, as we understand him, in his basic contentions gets to the heart of the characteristic non-metaphysical pre-occupation of the modern world which seem alien to the philosophia perennis” (Ardley, 2007 pp.3-4). It is further submitted that a fundamental basis in particular relating to Kant’s enlightenment theory was the supreme moral principle of good will, which catalysed the deontological approach to ethics (Donnelly, 2003 ). For example, beyond the intellectual intelligence paradigm is Kant’s assumption of the supreme moral principle of good will (Deligiorgi, 2005). This suggests that humans are innately moral and is supported by contemporary deontologist Somerville who refers to the “secular sacred” concept of ethics, which is that there are basic human rights and values that are common to humans irrespective of religious or cultural beliefs (Somerville, 2006, p.xi). Moreover, Somerville goes further and argues that the crux of ethics with regard to human rights protection is whether it is “inherently wrong?”(Somerville, 2006p. xi). Furthermore, Somerville argues in considering human rights protection, often the legal issue of human rights protection is inherently linked to the issue of whether it is ethical and that to consider ethics, “we must first ask whether what we plan to do is inherently wrong”(Somerville, 2006 pxi). Therefore, Somerville’s ethical imagination echoes Kant’s theoretical idealism of the supreme moral principle of good will. Conversely, the interest theory of rights model suggests that the social contract is intrinsically dependent on the human instinct and desire for survival (Fiala, 2002). For example, Hobbes posits that humans are innately anti-social and that desire for war comprised part of the natural state of human nature (Morgan, 2001, 523). To this end, Hobbes’ denounces any notion of supreme good will and argued that: “I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes, Leviathan, quoted in Morgan, 2001, p.523). Moreover, Hobbes’ interest theory of rights argues that social norms and rules are only complied with out of self interest and therefore human morality is limited within the context of being required to follow rules (Donelan, 1990). Hobbes further suggests that human morality is dictated by the desire to avoid sanctions imposed by the state, which in turn supports the interest theory of rights model (Morgan, 2001). The realism model of the interest theory of rights is further supported by academic discourse regarding international relations and the contemporary mechanism for human rights protection, which would appear to suggest that the wills theory propounded by Kant is intrinsically flawed and not supported by reality in relation to foreign policy initiatives and the system of international relations. For example, whilst Kant’s theory is rooted in the assumption of innate human morality, the realist perception is that human nature cannot be trusted. Indeed, Hobbes’ supporter Donelan argues that there is: “Senselessness for survival of being moral when you can have no confidence that the other will be also; when there is no common power over you” (Donelan, 1990). Conversely, Kant argues the following principles of international relations under the enlightenment paradigm: 1) The Freedom of every member as human being; 2) The equality of each with all the others as a subject; and 3) The independence of each member of a commonwealth as a citizen (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991, p.74). Kant’s theory regarding the moral development of the state weighs heavily on the presumption that the civil state will uphold these rights (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991, p.74). Moreover, Kant extended his idealist theory to postulate the “original contract” between man and civil society (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991, p.79), which Kant argued was vital for man to maintain his freedom under the concept of supreme morality (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991, p.46). However, whilst Kant’s assertions may be realistic within the state’s internal framework, it is questionable how far this notion of an innate human need for mutuality extends beyond a state’s border in international relations vis-à-vis other state; which in turn would appear to render the interest theory of rights more plausible. For example, Kant put forward the argument that man would inherently be in favour of complying with this “implied contract” to prevent the anarchic state and that the sacrosanct status of the original contract extended to international relations with other states (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991, p.46). This idealism was rooted in Kant’s belief that an evolved moral state would become disgusted with war in the international system and that the idealism would result in an end to war (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991, p.125). However, if we consider this in context of contemporary international relations theory, Weber highlights that the central basis of international relations is state self interest and is to prevent other states gaining advantage, which is considered key in shaping national foreign policy (In Jackson & Sorenson, 2001). Moreover, according to Donelan “Their efforts result in a stalemate in which they survive” (Donelan, 1990). Thus according to Hobbes’ theory of realism, every state works with self interest to be better than others with a rough balance of power resulting in stalemate, where foreign policy and international politics is locked in a repetitive cycle (Donelan, 1990). However, as between states, there is no moral duty or extension of Kant’s “original contract” and therefore States can do anything to prevent the other gaining control (Jackson & Sorrenson, 2001). Jackson and Sorrenson further comment that “All states must be prepared to sacrifice their international obligations on the altar of their self-interest if the two come into conflict” (Jackson & Sorenson, 2001, p.69). This means therefore that progress in international relations cannot be made unless the international situation of each state is peaceful as if the state is suffering internal crisis then submit to self interest before international politics. This conflict between concepts of “justice” and the interest theory of rights is further underlined by Rawls’ critique of the classic philosophical model of the social contract as propounded by Kant. Rawls challenges pre-existing theorem and goes further in hypothesising the justice theory under the aegis of “Justice as Fairness” (1999 (Ed) p.289). The “Justice as Fairness hypothesis further derives the following Rawlsian principles of justice: 1) The liberty principle; and 2) The difference principle (Rawls, 1999 (ed) p.65). Moreover, Rawls’ theory of justice attempts to reconcile the utilitarian and deontological approach to ethics by arguing with regard to the Kantian social contract model. However, whilst Rawls acknowledges that the “Justice as Fairness” model is rooted in “Kant’s notion of autonomy”; Rawls argues that the will theory is intrinsically flawed by reliance on innate morality (Rawls, 1999, (ed) p.221). As such, Rawls’ arguments further support the proposition that the interest theory of rights is more plausible. Indeed, Rawls goes further and considers justice in terms of the original position principle where justice is rooted in “veiled ignorance” ((Rawls, 1999 (ed), p.118). Therefore, whilst awls theory of justice supports an element of the Kantian social contract philosophy; Rawls denounces Kant’s ideal of a cosmopolitan constitution under the cosmopolitan theory of justice. On this basis, Rawls’ veil of ignorance proposition suggests that individuals in a society will inherently demonstrate a propensity towards a system of equality, which mirrors Kant’s social contract theory. In developing this proposition further, Rawls’ suggests that whereas Kant’s theory of the social contract is underpinned by his emphasis of innate morality, Rawls’ philosophy acknowledges difference and social inequality as compatible within the “justice” paradigm (Rawls, 1999 (ed)). For example, in terms of unequal distribution, Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable on the difference aspect of justice under the second principle, which is in line with the interest of rights theory model by undermining the Kantian ideal of the cosmopolitan system of justice; which is rooted in an innate moral propensity towards democracy as a result of human intellectual independence (Rawls, 1999 (ed)). Accordingly, it is submitted that whilst Kant’s original contract and cosmopolitan constitution concept is clearly an ideal approach in shaping foreign policy it is inherently flawed by relying on the morality of human nature. As such, the interest theory of rights remains more plausible as the basis upon which the social contract operates. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ardley, G. (2007) Aquinas and Kant. Read Books Deligiorgi, K. (2005) Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. SUNY Press Donelan, M. (1990) Elements of International Political Theory. Oxford University Press Donnelly, J. (2003) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press Erckel, S. (2009). Classical Social Contract Theory: The Classical Social Contract. GRIN Verlag. Fiala, A. G (2002) The Philosopher’s Voice. Suny Press Jackson, R and Sorenson, G. (2001) Introduction to International Relations University Press Morgan, W. (2001) Questionable Charity: Gender, Humanitarianism, and Complicity in American Literary Realism. University Press of New England Nisbet, H. S. & Reiss, H. S. (1991). Kant: Political Writings. Cambridge University Press. Rawls, J. (1999) (eds.) A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press Somerville, Margaret. A.(2006) The ethical imagination: journeys of the human spirit. Anansi Read More