Abstract

Grounding human rights in philosophy or theology may or may not satisfy the demands of universality ascribed by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” This paper seeks to explore how philosophical and theological partners may contribute or detract from the universal applicability of human rights. Major world religions share universal values such as the Golden Rule, a conception of compassion and the recognition of the basic interests necessary for human flourishing. While the indignities and inhumanity experienced in World War II prompted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document affirms human dignity that relies heavily on a variety of civic, political, cultural and economic rights. Human rights as with global bioethics share a concern for the human condition, addressing issues at every stage of life. Human capacity equates with rational and relational ability. It is the universal embrace of human dignity for all persons with various capacities for cognition and relating that inspires advocates of human rights. The newborn child, the mentally compromised, the dementia sufferers share species-membership. Empathy and compassion for the suffering of others is embraced by philosophers and theologians of diverse stripes, each recognizing the common humanity articulated at least in theory as universal human rights. The concept of human rights depends on a vision of what might be rather than the current status quo. Such a vision challenges power structures, tradition, and provokes resistance because claiming human rights as universal suggests we look carefully at who we count as persons-humans.