A philosophical analysis of religion as a justification for human rights

Abstract

One of the highlights of the twentieth century was the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the newly formed United Nations in 1948. Since this step was taken, however, the concept of human rights has become the topic of much debate. Also, current statistics indicate that human right violations are more frequent now than they were, prior to the world wars. To ensure that the UDHR achieves its aim of protecting human dignity, philosophers and other scholars have risen to the challenge of building a coherent theoretical foundation for universal human rights in order that the concept may appeal universally. As part of this exercise, scholars, including Michael J. Perry, have postulated religion as a means, even the only means by which human rights can be justified. On the opposing side of the debate stand the secularists who argue that, considering the nature of religion, it cannot and must not be used as a justification of human rights. This research analyzes the arguments in support of human rights from selected religious traditions and makes some discoveries. Contrary to what some secularist theorists hold, religion does qualify as a justification for human rights except that those who claim religion is the only way to make sense of the morality of human rights might need to revise their stand. The researcher thus concludes that a successful justification of human rights must have both a religious dimension based on faith and a secular one, based on pure reason.