Human rights and Communitarian? Can someone explain please...

Communitarianism as a group of related but distinct philosophies began in the late 20th century, opposing radical individualism, and other similar philosophies while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism rather has a different emphasis, shifting the focus of interest toward communities and societies and away from the individual. The question of priority, whether on the individual or community, often has the largest impact in the most pressing ethical questions, such as poverty, abortion, multiculturalism, and hate speech.Though the term communitarianism is of 20th-century origin, it is derived from the 1840s term communitarian, which was coined by Goodwyn Barmby to refer to one who was a member or advocate of a communalist society. The modern use of the term is a redefinition of the original sense. Many communitarians trace their philosophy to earlier thinkers. The term is primarily used in two senses:
1) Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
2) Ideological communitarianism is a radical middle ideology that emphasises the community, and is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and conservatism on social issues. This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers. Please note that communitarianism is not to be confused with communism, a political philosophy based on sharing resources. Communitarian philosophers are primarily concerned with ontological and epistemological issues, as distinct from policy issues. The communitarian response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice reflects dissatisfaction with the image Rawls presents of humans as atomistic individuals. Although Rawls allows some space for benevolence, for example, he views it merely as one of many values that exist within a single person's head.
Communitarians claim values and beliefs exist in public space, in which debate takes place. They argue that becoming an individual means taking a stance on the issues that circulate in the public space. For example, within the United States debate on gun politics, there are a number of stances to be taken, but all of these stances presuppose the existence of a gun politics debate in the first place; this is one sense in which the community predates individualism. Similarly, both linguistic and non-linguistic traditions are communicated to children and form the backdrop against which individuals can formulate and understand beliefs. The dependence of the individual upon community members is typically meant as descriptive. It does not mean that individuals should accept majority beliefs on any issue. Rather, if an individual rejects a majority belief, such as the historic belief that slavery is acceptable, he or she will do so for reasons that make sense within the community (for example, Christian religious reasons, reasons deriving from the Enlightenment conception of human rights) rather than simply any old reason. In this sense, the rejection of a single majority belief relies on a deep tradition of other majority beliefs.Beginning in the late 20th century, many authors began to observe a deterioration in the social networks of the United States. In the book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam observed that nearly every form of civic organization has undergone drops in membership exemplified by the fact that, while more people are bowling than in the 1950s, there are fewer bowling leagues.

This results in a decline in "social capital", described by Putnam as "the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other". According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy.

Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus [1]:

"Many social goals . . . require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned."
Central to many communitarians' philosophy is the concept of positive rights, that is, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include free education, affordable housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, a social safety net, or even the right to a job. To this end, communitarians generally support social safety programs, free public education, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution and gun ownership.

A common objection is that by providing such rights, they are violating the negative rights of the citizens; that is, rights to not have something done to you. For example, taking money in the form of taxes to pay for such programs as described above deprives individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights respond that without society, individuals would not have any rights, so it is natural that they should give something back to society. They further argue that without positive rights, negative rights are made irrelevant. For example, what does the right to a free press mean in a society with a 15% literacy rate? In addition, with regard to taxation, communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own" . Alternatively, some agree that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost. What is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics; for example, whether or not universal health care can be considered a birthright, or how far the government can go to protect the environment.

Human rights refers to "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law." The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.The idea of human rights descended from the philosophical idea of (natural rights) that are provided by God[3]; some recognize virtually no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[4] John Locke is perhaps the most important philosopher that developed this theory.

The answers post by the user, for information only, does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:
  • Protectionism & Mercantilism superior to Globalisation?
  • Most economists and historians agree that not just one factor caused the Great Depression.?
  • Why do many economists apologize for the Counterfeiter of Last Resort, the Federal Reserve?
  • Searching economic and best two wheeer for women?
  • Why do you think auto sales peak before a recession then recover near the end?
  • How much would $55,000 from1996 amount to today?
  • What are different view points about the role of the Govt. in an economy?
  • Why is it important to examine mangement from different perspectives?
  • Today, the Canadian dollar briefly touched C$1.0480 to the U.S. dollar. What do you Yanks think of that?