ChatGPT: Did folks who came up with "Humans have human rights because they are human" think about how the first and - especially - the last 'human' here might be misinterpreted?
"Human" here doesn't mean "biologically human" or even "biologically human organism."
++++++
Yes, many philosophers and legal theorists who formulated or defended the idea that "humans have human rights because they are human" were aware of potential ambiguities in the term human. The first and last use of human in that phrase can be interpreted in different ways, which can lead to confusion or even misrepresentation of the argument.
-
First 'Human' (Who Has Rights?) – If "human" here refers to any biologically human organism, then the claim would imply that all human organisms, regardless of their stage of development (e.g., zygotes, embryos, fetuses) or cognitive capacities (e.g., those in persistent vegetative states), automatically possess rights. But many philosophers argue that rights are based on personhood, moral agency, or other capacities rather than mere biological humanity.
-
Last 'Human' (Why Do They Have Rights?) – If "human" in this position simply means "biologically human," then the claim risks being circular or trivial: "Humans have rights because they are members of the species Homo sapiens." But this doesn't explain why being human is morally relevant. Most human rights theories ground rights in factors like rationality, autonomy, dignity, or interests—not just species membership.
Many thinkers (e.g., Kant, Rawls, and contemporary bioethicists) carefully distinguish between biological humanity and moral humanity (e.g., personhood). Some critics even argue that species membership alone cannot be a sufficient basis for rights, as this would commit the speciesist fallacy—treating Homo sapiens as morally special simply because they belong to a certain species rather than due to morally relevant traits.
Did you have a specific thinker or debate in mind, or are you thinking about how this phrase is used in public discourse?
+++++
Ok good but historically who had this concern about "human" being misunderstood?
+++++
Historically, concerns about the ambiguity of human in moral and legal contexts can be traced back at least to the Enlightenment, though they became more explicit in the 20th and 21st centuries. Here are some key figures and debates where this issue surfaced:
-
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) – While Bentham didn’t explicitly discuss the ambiguity of human, he critiqued natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts" because they seemed to be based on vague, undefined notions of human nature. His utilitarianism shifted the focus from mere species membership to sentience and the capacity for pleasure and pain.
-
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) – Kant distinguished between biological humanity and moral humanity (rational agency, autonomy). His idea that dignity and moral worth come from rationality, not just being human, suggests an early awareness that human in moral discourse needed clarification.
-
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) – Mill emphasized capacities like rationality and self-awareness over mere biological species membership when discussing moral and political rights. His work hints at concerns about species-based definitions of rights.
-
Legal Debates on Slavery and Personhood (18th–19th Century) – In cases like Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the question of whether certain humans had legal standing as "persons" showed how the term human could be politically and legally contested.
-
Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) – In The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), Arendt discussed how mere biological humanity was insufficient for securing rights—what mattered was recognition within a political community. Stateless persons, despite being biologically human, often lacked basic rights.
-
Peter Singer (b. 1946) and the Personhood Debate – Singer explicitly challenges the idea that all Homo sapiens automatically have rights simply by being human, arguing that moral status should depend on characteristics like self-awareness and suffering. His critiques of speciesism highlight the potential confusion in grounding rights purely in biological humanity.
-
Contemporary Bioethics and Abortion Debates – Philosophers like Mary Anne Warren, Michael Tooley, and Judith Jarvis Thomson have all grappled with whether fetuses (or even newborns, in Tooley’s case) qualify as humans in the morally relevant sense. Their work underscores the importance of distinguishing biological humanity from moral personhood.
So while earlier thinkers might not have explicitly stated, “the word human is being misused,” many of them implicitly recognized the problem by arguing that rights require more than just species membership. Do you think the issue is more pressing today than in past centuries?
+++++
+++++
Yes, concerns about how human might be interpreted were present during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. While the drafters did not explicitly debate the ambiguity of the word human in the way contemporary philosophers do, they were deeply aware that the justification for human rights could not rest solely on species membership or biological definitions.
Here are some key moments and figures related to this issue:
1. The Need for a Universal Basis for Rights
- The drafters of the UDHR, including thinkers like René Cassin, Charles Malik, and Peng Chun Chang, debated how to justify rights universally without relying on specific religious, cultural, or biological foundations.
- There was concern that if rights were simply grounded in being a biological human, this might not provide a robust moral or legal basis—especially given the Nazi regime’s pseudo-scientific racial classifications that excluded some humans from moral consideration.
2. The Role of Personhood and Dignity
- The phrase "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (Article 1) was chosen carefully. The emphasis on dignity suggests that what matters is not just being a member of Homo sapiens but possessing qualities tied to moral agency, rationality, and autonomy.
- Jacques Maritain, a Thomist philosopher who influenced the drafting process, argued that rights should be based on the intrinsic dignity of persons, not just their biological status.
3. Avoiding Exclusionary Interpretations
- The drafters were aware that defining human too narrowly (e.g., linking rights only to rationality or legal personhood) could exclude vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities or those in extreme poverty.
- Conversely, they also resisted defining human too broadly in a way that might justify rights for non-persons or non-humans.
4. Later Clarifications and Debates
- Over time, legal scholars and philosophers have debated whether the UDHR’s concept of human should include embryos, fetuses, or even certain non-human animals (e.g., great apes).
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) further clarified that the right to life (Article 6) applies to "every human being", but legal interpretations have varied on whether this includes unborn humans.
Was the Ambiguity Intentional?
Yes, to some extent. The drafters wanted the UDHR to have broad appeal across cultures and ideologies, so they deliberately avoided grounding human rights in any single religious, philosophical, or scientific doctrine. This left some terms, like human, open to interpretation—allowing for evolving moral and legal discussions.
Do you think this ambiguity weakens the UDHR’s force, or does it allow for necessary flexibility?
+++++
Where can I learn more about this issue?
+++++
