Griffen's Naturalist Approach Analysis

Midterm // Philosophy of Human Rights // Conner Hanke
The predominant discrepancy between Beitz’ practical approach and Griffen’s naturalist theory is that the practical approach is a structural account and Griffen’s is a substantive account. Beitz’ approach is structural in the sense that the protection and enforcal of human rights is contingent on state governments and the international community as a whole. The contingency of human rights’ existence on state governments is the answer to his main questions of what conceptual human rights are and how come we have them— they are defined by state governments and we have them because of state governments. He views human rights as a social practice and they have nothing to do with some innate …show more content…
Some noticeable characteristics of the practical approach is that it has broad normative reach (more will be elaborated on this in the second question), relative to institutional mechanisms- non-universal, dynamic, heterogenous in its composition. Griffen’s naturalist approach is reliant on the idea that human rights are rights we have in virtue of our humanity (this is the answer to his question of what they are). He also looks to answer the question of what grounds human rights. He answers this by saying that it is the three features of normative agency and the values that accompany them. The general concept of normative agency according to Griffen’s theory is to be able to have a conception of a good life and acting on it. The three features for this to occur are autonomy, minimum provision, and liberty. Autonomy is valued because one must choose his/her path through life. Minimum provision is valued because in order for ones choice to become reality they must have a certain amount of education/knowledge and also a certain amount of resources/capabilities. Liberty is important because others mustn’t prevent others from pursuing what one sees as a worthwhile life. The question is …show more content…
But if it is true that humans normative agency is just a product of a trait and they are no more imprint than other species, then it makes no sense that humans should be prioritized over other species. I am an agreement theorist but if forced to choose between the two theories, I would go with Beitz’ practical approach. The listed weaknesses of the naturalist theory render it completely unacceptable for me to support. A thing that I like about the practical approach is that it bears some similarities to the agreement theory. both are going to be very flexible which to me should be the most important thing for human rights theories. They have to be able to adapt the times and needs of the present day. You could also argue that some of the things states protect as human rights are things that are generally agreed on around the world thus you could make the claim that the practical account sort of stems from an agreement theory; for if there weren't generally agreed on things by nations around the globe then those things wouldn't be protected by the international community in the first place. An obvious example of this would be the