The Human Responsibility Movement

Sue L. T. McGregor PhD ProfessorMount Saint Vincent University, Halifax NS Canada2010 International Cultural Research Network Conference Halifax NS

Finding a moral ground for a globalized world

Four different philosophical positions within movement:

Responsibilities complement rights

Responsibilities infringe on rights

Responsibilities take precedence over rights

World is so different that new norms are needed

Powerful support and opposition Bills or declarations of responsible

humans have powerful support of luminary world leaders (emeritus politicians, faith leaders, scientists, artists, philosophers and Nobel Laureates)

BUT – also strong opposition from Western capitalistic nation states, some “developing- country” states, lawyers, and some non-government organizations (especially Amnesty International)

Global movement, with many initiatives (1993-2003) 1993 The Carta of Human Duties

(International Council of Human Duties

1993 Declaration Toward a Global Ethic (Council of the Parliament of the World’s Religions)

1995 Our Global Neighbourhood (Commission on Global Governance)

1997 Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities (The InterAction Council)

Responsibility initiatives continued: 1998 The Universal Declaration of Global

Ethic (Temple University) 1998 The Charter of Human

Responsibilities (the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World)

1998 Universal Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities (UNESCO Valencia)

1999 A Common Framework for the Ethics of the 21st Century (UNESCO)

Responsibility initiatives continued: 2000 Universal Declaration of

Human Responsibilities (former Hart Center UK)

2000 Earth Charter (The Earth Charter Initiative)

2003 Declaration on Human Social Responsibilities (UN Human Rights Commission (now the Human Rights Council)

Four initiatives in this paper 1993 Parliament of the World’s

Churches

1997 InterAction Council

1998 UNESCO Valencia Initiative

2003 UN Human Rights Commission

Conceptual framework

Details of conceptual frameworkCOMMUNITARIAN VERSUS FAITH-BASED Western notions of

individualism (rights) neglected responsibilities

Failure to give duties equal footing with rights caused today’s problems

Western notion of rights is not the only right’s perspective

Need a global ethical standard that reflects principles entrenched in world’s religions

CONVERSE VERSUS CORRELATIVE DUTIES Responsibilities owed

by individuals to society

Vertical duties that run upwards towards society

Responsibility of individual to respect the rights of other individuals

Horizontal duties that run between (across) actors

Details of conceptual framework continued:‘AN ETHIC’ VERSUS ETHICS A global ethic represents

shared ethical values, attitudes and criteria to which all nations and interest groups commit themselves – a universal ethical manifesto

Ethics refers to uniform ethical system (codes of ethics of which some are legally enforceable, norms)

ETHICAL VERSUS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES Ethical responsibilities are

personally felt by a person who is internally motivated to accept the duty out of a sense of conscience, love and the dignity of humanity (duty towards others and the community)

Legal responsibilities are duties that are imposed by an external body or authority

Details of conceptual framework concluded Transcultural undertandings and

interpretations of core concepts – the conundrum created when people of different languages and cultures try to agree on how to define and translate:

Duty Obligation Responsibility NOTE – Küng (2005) observed most initiatives tend to

use responsibility because it emphasizes inner responsibility (‘an ethic’) rather than external law (ethics); the term responsibility exerts a moral pressure but does not legally compel

Conceptual framework

Duties to

Society

Responsibility

Main intellectual architects 1993 - Council of the Parliament

of the World’s Religions (CPWR) Hans Küng

1997 - InterAction Council Hans Küng

1998 - UNESCO/Valencia Richard Goldstone

2003 - UNHRC Miguel Algonso Martinez

Basic Models CPWR contains four

irrevocable directives (commitments or affirmations – ancient guidelines or ethical principles of humanity that underpin all religions)

IAC contains 19 articles organized into six main topics/themes

Valencia declaration contains 41 articles organized into 12 chapters (akin to major rights housed in UNDHR)

UNHRC contains 29 articles, with 17 of them pertaining to “every person” (no themes or chapters)

Exercise ...

Insights from analysis 31 duties in total across four initiatives Common Duties/Themes (7 appeared in all four

(22%), 13 appeared in three (42%), 5 appeared in two declarations (16%) and 6 appeared once (19%)

65% (n=20)appeared three times or more – evidence of fairly strong correlation

35% (n=11) appeared twice or less, and mostly in the communitarian approach

Relatively unique sets of duties in each initiative, with overlap

Different duties for faith-based versus communitarian

Insights continued

Titles included the concepts of universal and global (to ensure the future of humanity and the planet)

Universal means worldwide in scope, global means involving the whole earth – both terms refer to not being limited to local concerns

Meet basic human needs and security of humankind through reciprocal responsibilities

Insights continued

Three aspire for eventual adoption by the United Nations

Two of these are receiving a lot of pushback (UNHRC and InterAction Council)

The third, the Valencia one, is under the radar

The one on global ethics has not had any pushback and was not intended for the UN

Pushback – duties will morph into legal responsibilities that will weaken rights

Insights final Whether it is faith-based or communitarian

does not seem to matter (one of each is getting push back – respectively, InterAction Council and the UNHRC

Main focus is to strive to reconcile ideologies, beliefs, political views and cultural differences for the good of humanity and the earth – become grounded in ethical principals, values and aspirations as fellow humans