| dc.description.abstract | Literature Review
Plato’s Republic (c. 380 BC) is the most critical text under examination, offering the idea of the “noble lie” around which this project is built. Seminal political documents which proclaim some form of human rights, including The Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights are referenced and explored. Samuel Moyn’s book The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History (2012) and Cary J. Nederman’s essay on “Rights” from The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy (2012) provide important background to the notion of human rights and their history. Excerpts from Hannah Arendt’s books, Origins of Totalitarianism (1958) and Between Past and Future (1961), as well as Jenna Reinbold’s Seeing the Myth in Human Rights (2017) are the basis for the critical evaluation of human rights as a noble made in the final chapter. Finally, various historical sources are discussed throughout in order to explicate key concepts such as human rights and noble lies.
Thesis Statement
Human rights are a Platonic noble lie, and their value and role in society must be reexamined.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this essay is political theory and the methods used are those usually employed in the discipline. The purpose of the project is to investigate the possibility that human rights do not exist in the way that they are currently conceived; in other words, that they are a noble lie (as defined by Plato in his Republic).
Project Description
Modern civil society is ordered around the, often unconscious, assumption that human rights exist. That is to say, there are certain rights to which all people are entitled simply by virtue of their membership in the human species. In 1789, for instance, the French National Assembly in The Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaimed that it had “determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man.” Other renowned political charters, including the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, similarly state that there are rights natural and undeniable to all people. Since the revolutions of the Enlightenment era, human rights have been codified in more and more foundational political documents. The bloody history of the last century, however, has been a constant foil to the idea that human beings have any inviolable dignity or rights that can be guaranteed on a global scale.
The apparent tension between human rights in theory and in practice prompts the question: do human rights, in fact exist in any tangible way? Philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that there are no human rights. Describing the plight of minorities in 20th Century Europe, she writes that “The Rights of Man, supposedly inalienable, proved to be unenforceable—even in countries whose constitutions were based upon them” (Origins of Totalitarianism 293). Arendt goes on to argue that rights are not impossible, but that they can be guaranteed only in a political community, not by any universal doctrine. If Arendt’s judgment is correct, and humans are entitled to no certain protections by nature, then it is incumbent upon scholars to reexamine how human rights are understood. All the same, such an investigation will not necessarily lead to the same conclusions as Arendt draws.
If human rights cannot be protected internationally, are they perhaps a noble lie? The concept of a noble lie originates in Plato’s Republic. In it the philosopher proposes a complex civil hierarchy based on the fiction that the best citizens, guardians, are fashioned by the gods out of gold, warriors or auxiliaries of silver, and farmers and craftsmen from bronze. It is a myth, but one that, if believed, “would help to make [people] care more for the city and each other” (Plato Republic 415d-e). A noble lie, then, is simply a falsehood meant to be accepted for the sake of a stable, harmonious society. Similarly, if human rights do not exist inherently, perhaps it is still better for people to believe and act as if they do. It is possible that the current understanding of human rights must be reconsidered, if it is truly a noble lie.
Human rights, and even noble lies, are widely known and much debated topics. Nevertheless, in weaving together the disparate threads already discussed, an original project emerges: On the assumption that Arendt and thinkers like her are correct, and human rights are not truly enforceable, then the idea of human rights is some kind of falsehood. That being the case, is the concept of human rights a noble lie—something that it is better for society to believe in regardless of its truth—or is it a false idea that is detrimental to society? The answer to this question will be sought through a survey of the philosophy and history surrounding both noble lies and human rights. Such a project could reveal that current thought on human rights needs adjustment and might suggest what those adjustments should be. | en |
