Assignment:
Ethics and Human Rights - Group Activity
Arizona State University - Spring 2018
Part One
Survey your group on how each member would identify as either communitarian or a liberal/cosmopolitan in their moral outlook. Try to do this without considering any particular issue but instead, either (1) the ontological question of whether humans are individuals or socially constructed or (2) the question of whether rights are universal or relative. Don't take the easy way out by saying "both," we will get to that. First, try to figure out where you would fall at your core or gut instinct.
Part Two
In all of the following examples, be sure that you are considering these rights regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religious views, and political views.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) reads:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Article 19 of the UDHR reads:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Repeat the above procedure, this time on the question of whether the right to free speech and conscience (Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR) is or should be universal - in which case you would be a cosmopolitan/liberal - or whether the right to free speech should be determined by states - in which case you would fall on the side of communitarianism.
Notice that this is in the realm of negative freedom (freedom from regulation on speech) that places restrictions on others from interfering with your ability to speak your mind.
Part Three
Article 25(1) of the UDHR states:
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
Now repeat the above procedure, this time addressing the question of whether the right to food security is (or should be) universal - in which case you would be a cosmopolitan/liberal - or whether the right to food security should be determined by states - in which case you would fall on the side of communitarianism.
Notice that this is in the realm of positive freedom (freedom to have access to food) that places a duty on the government or others to provide this necessity.
Part Four
Article 17(1) of the UDHR states:
"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."
Now repeat the above procedure, this time addressing the question of whether the right to own property (land and capital, not personal possessions) is or should be universal - in which case you would be a cosmopolitan/liberal - or whether the right to own private property should be determined by states - in which case you would fall on the side of communitarianism.
Part Five
Did anyone in your group view cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differently in these examples?
How was this justified?
Now try to reach consensus over one of these issues - swaying all in the group toward either communitarianism or cosmopolitanism. Was it successful? Why or why not? What seems to be getting in the way of obtaining consensus? Is there a solution that would be supported by all members of the group?