präsentiert von
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2
2.1 HUMAN RIGHTS SKEPTICISM
2.1.1 HUMAN RIGHTS SKEPTICISM AND CASES FROM APPLIED SCIENCES
2.1.2 STEM CELL RESEARCH AND HUMAN RIGHTS SKEPTICISM
2.1.3 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS SKEPTICISM
CHAPTER 3
3.1 HUMAN RIGHTS SKEPTICISM AND CASES FROM SOCIAL SCIENCES
3.1.1 FAILURE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT
3.1.2 PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRESS, STATE OF NATURE AND SOCIAL CONTRACT
3.1.3 INDIVIDUALISM OF HUMAN RIGHTS VS SOCIALISM OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOCIAL CONTRACT
CHAPTER 4
4.1 HUMAN RIGHTS AND WRONGS WITH UN DECLARATIONS
4.1.1 CUSTOMARY LAWS IN MEDICAL SCIENCES VS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS REGIMES
CONCLUSION
Objectives and Core Topics
The primary objective of this thesis is to provide a theoretical framework for understanding human rights through a biological lens, arguing that human rights discourse often faces skepticism from the applied sciences due to a lack of empirical grounding. The work investigates the friction between human rights legal frameworks and scientific advancements, advocating for a more collaborative approach that incorporates biological, cognitive, and behavioral insights to maintain the pragmatic validity of human rights in a modern, scientific society.
- The biological basis of human rights and innate behavioral traits.
- Skepticism from the applied sciences regarding current human rights legal regimes.
- Ethical dilemmas in stem cell research and the clash with human rights activists.
- The emergence of robotic rights and its challenge to established legal personhood.
- Critique of social contract theory as a foundational justification for human rights.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1 HUMAN RIGHTS SKEPTICISM AND CASES FROM APPLIED SCIENCES
When social scientists are trying to understand the regulatory mechanisms of wars, ethnic conflicts, refuge crisis, natural disasters and violence of different type, applied scientists are doing cutting edge breakthroughs in science and technology. On one hand, a huge number of human population is suffering from difficult social, economic and politics hardships and on the other hand, the same people are finding comfort in scientific innovations which are easing their lives to some extent. Human rights activists and social scientists are claiming that human rights are passing through tough times. But what about that fraction of society which might support human rights, but human rights are creating tough times for them? Human rights scholars link “skepticism” to the rightist scholars and conservative fraction of the population. They even refer them as irrational people. Even among the social scientists who affiliate themselves with nationalists and realists movements, think that human rights are too much demanding from independent regimes. Legal scientists who are skeptic about human rights say that it is impossible to achieve social justice and human rights are not enough for this struggle. We need a strong rule of law instead of rule of human rights. Whereas post-modern socialist and critics of feminists merriments question the politics of liberal rights.
All these ideological debates can find consensus at some find. There is a compromise between theorists and to “give and take” is the part of their scholarship. Actually, they argue just to find a middle ground. This is the beauty of social science scholarship that they can convince each other by sacrificing their demands. The human rights skepticism emerging in social science can be tackled at philosophical level. But there is another fraction of ration population who is sharp enough in their action that they don’t often consider any social science scholarship until enforced by law or demanding to settle their inter-community conflicts. These are the people who deal with applied sciences.
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER 1: Provides an introduction to the interdisciplinary study of human rights through the prism of biological, cognitive, and behavioral sciences.
CHAPTER 2: Analyzes the skepticism toward human rights, specifically focusing on conflicts arising from stem cell research and the advancement of artificial intelligence.
CHAPTER 3: Critically examines the social contract theory and its role in human rights discourse, contrasting individualistic versus socialistic approaches to human rights.
CHAPTER 4: Investigates the empirical implications of various UN Declarations on medical and biological research, comparing them with established customary medical ethics.
CONCLUSION: Summarizes the need for a biological framework of cooperation to reconcile the interests of social and applied scientists for the future of human rights.
Keywords
Human Rights, Biological Basis, Applied Sciences, Skepticism, Social Contract, Stem Cell Research, Humanoid Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Bioethics, Human Dignity, Individualism, Socialism, Legal Personhood, UN Declarations, Behavioral Biology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this thesis?
This work focuses on the biological basis of human rights and addresses the growing skepticism toward these rights, particularly from the applied sciences community.
What are the primary fields of research involved?
The research integrates legal and political philosophy with applied scientific fields like genetics, robotics, and evolutionary biology.
What is the central research question?
The thesis explores how human rights discourse can be reconciled with scientific advancements to prevent applied scientists from becoming major critics of the human rights regime.
Which methodology is employed in the study?
The author uses a top-down investigative approach, starting from skepticism to understand the origin and potential future legitimacy of human rights.
What does the main body cover?
It covers case studies on stem cell research, artificial intelligence, a critique of the social contract theory, and an analysis of UN declarations on bioethics.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include biological basis of human rights, stem cell controversy, AI ethics, social contract failure, and interdisciplinary cooperation.
How does the author view the social contract?
The author criticizes the traditional social contract as a hypothetical, unscientific premise that fails to account for the biological and evolutionary roots of human cooperation.
What is the author's stance on human dignity?
The author suggests that current human rights documents use "dignity" vaguely and argues that dignity should be defined as a biological concept to make it a more effective unit of analysis.
Ende der Leseprobe aus 65 Seiten
- nach oben
- Arbeit zitieren
- Ammar Younas (Autor:in), 2018, Human Rights and Wrongs. Biological Skepticism towards Human Rights, München, Page::Imprint:: GRINVerlagOHG, https://www.diplomarbeiten24.de/document/445441
neugierig - aktuell - relevant
Entdecken Sie hilfreiche Tipps und Tricks rund ums Studium!
Entdecken Sie hilfreiche Tipps und Tricks rund ums Studium!
Ihre Hausarbeit / Abschlussarbeit:
- - Publikation als E-Book und Buch
- - Hohes Honorar auf die Verkäufe
- - Für Sie komplett kostenlos - mit ISBN
- - Es dauert nur 5 Minuten
- - Jede Arbeit findet Leser
- © GRIN Publishing GmbH.
- Alle Inhalte urheberrechtlich geschützt. Kopieren und verbreiten untersagt.
- info@grin.com
- AGB
- Open Publishing
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!
Folgen Sie GRIN auf
- GRIN Verlag GmbH
-
- Nymphenburger Str. 86
- 80636
- Munich, Deutschland
- +49 89-550559-0
- +49 89-550559-10
- info@grin.com
-
