Moral beliefs are related to, but not identical with, moral behavior : it is possible to know the right thing to do, but not actually do it. This section, in contrast, proceeds to consider the different categories of substantive human rights. This method is intended to yield substantive and objective descriptions of the fundamental, non-hierarchically ordered, dimensions of human flourishing, while allowing the content and relative importance of these dimensions to be specified in a participatory process according to a particular group’s historical, cultural, and personal values. Critique of the political philosophy in Nussbaum’s theory. However, moral universalism has long been subject to criticism by so-called moral relativists. As essential prerequisites, each individual is entitled to have access to them. Moral philosophers remain concerned by the question of the philosophical foundations of human rights. Strong argument by Sen that cultural rights should be derivative upon individuals’ freedom to choose. Capability evaluation is informationally demanding and its precision is limited by the level of agreement about which functionings are valuable. This allows her to go beyond standard cost-benefit analyses of development projects in financial terms to investigate which capabilities that the people concerned have reason to value are enhanced and by how much. An underlying aspiration of the doctrine of human rights is to provide a set of legitimate criteria to which all nation-states should adhere. Charles Gore. While Sen’s approach is founded on enhancing individual freedom, Nussbaum’s theory is founded on respecting human dignity. Sen’s Capability Approach is founded on the idea that much more information about the quality of human lives can and should be taken into account in evaluating them. Similarly, relativist arguments are typically presented by members of the political elites within those countries whose systematic oppression of their peoples has attracted the attention of advocates of human rights. The final and third generation of rights are associated with such rights as a right to national self-determination, a clean environment, and the rights of indigenous minorities. In order to gain a full understanding of both the philosophical foundations of the doctrine of human rights and the different ways in which separate human rights function, a detailed analysis is required. One might seek to include freedom as a basic human interest, but freedom is not constitutive of our interests on this account. Put simply, the interests-based approach tends to construe our fundamental interests as pre-determinants of human moral agency. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one’s own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Sen illustrates his point with the example of a standard bicycle. Take, for example, an interest each of us has in respect of our own personal security. As James Nickel states, human rights aim to secure for individuals the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life. Amartya Sen’s first publication on the capability approach, particularly focused on criticizing utilitarian and Rawlsian perspectives on well-being. This is not a purely procedural matter of adding up the number of options available, since the option to purchase a tenth brand of washing powder has a rather different significance than the option to vote in democratic elections. And, vice versa, countries with very small economies can sometimes score as highly on these dimensions as the richest. The natural rights to life, liberty, and property set clear limits to the authority and jurisdiction of the State. An appeal to human rights does not provide us with a fully comprehensive account of morality per se. This has the characteristics of ‘transportation’ but whether it will actually provide transportation will depend on the characteristics of those who try to use it. Kant provides a formulation of fundamental moral principles that, though exceedingly formal and abstract, are based upon the twin ideals of equality and moral autonomy. One reason that social scientists and philosophers are so keen to specify a list is that it can be used as an index: by ranking all the different constituents of the flourishing life with respect to each other it would allow easier evaluation of how well people are doing. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. These are as follows: rights to life; rights to freedom; rights to political participation; rights to the protection of the rule of law; rights to fundamental social, economic, and cultural goods. As a result more information will become available about how people are faring on the currently ‘missing dimensions’ of the lives we have reason to value, for example, relating to employment or gender equality in domestic arrangements. Key text in Nussbaum’s second stage – political – development of a capability theory of justice. Though one could argue that the conceptual prerequisites for the defence of human rights had long been in place, a full Declaration of the doctrine of human rights only finally occurred during the 20th. Therefore evaluation must be sensitive to both actual achievements (‘functionings’) and effective freedom (‘capability’). There were, for example, the "reserves" created under the British government in the nineteenth century. In work, being able to work as a human being, exercising practical reason, and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers. December 1948 and was explicitly motivated to prevent the future occurrence of any similar atrocities. This generation of rights really only takes hold during the last two decades of the 20th. This relates to Rawls’ conception of justice as political rather than metaphysical: it is not the task of justice to assess people’s achievements, but rather to ensure the fairness of the conditions of participation in a society. Email: fagaaw@essex.ac.uk This demonstrates both the limitations of relying exclusively on economic metrics for evaluating development, and the fact that national wealth does not pose a rigid constraint on such achievements (that GNP is not destiny). There is therefore no need to limit our assessment to economic metrics which firstly count the wrong things (means) and secondly also come with significant measurement error despite their apparent numerical precision. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it[115]. I cannot logically will my own claims to basic human rights without simultaneously accepting the equal claims of all rationally purposive agents to the same basic attributes. The existence and validity of a moral right is not deemed to be dependent upon the actions of jurists and legislators. In other words, two people with the same vision of the good life and the same bundle of resources may not be equally able to achieve that life, and so resourcists’ neutrality about the use of resources is not as fair as they believe it is. Most moral dilemmas in medicine are analysed using the four principles with some consideration of consequentialism but these frameworks have limitations. For example, it matters not only whether people have an equal capability to live a long life, but how that equality is achieved. Human rights are typically understood to be of equal value, each right is conceived of as equally important as every other. Here ‘poverty’ is understood as deprivation in the capability to live a good life, and ‘development’ is understood as capability expansion. For example, countries with similar levels of wealth can have dramatically different levels of aggregate achievement – and inequality – on such non-controversially important dimensions as longevity and literacy. Negative claim rights, in contrast, are rights one holds against others’ interfering in or trespassing upon one’s life or property in some way. Kant’s moral philosophy is notoriously abstract and resists easy comprehension. Human rights are best thought of, therefore, as being both moral and legal rights. Century and only in response to the most atrocious violations of human rights, exemplified by the Holocaust. However, it would be equally fair to say that the so-called ‘third generation’ of human rights is far more attuned to the communal and collective basis of many individuals’ lives.