Abstracts
Abstract
What are human rights? Do they exist? I propose to answer these questions by advancing a contractarian account of human rights. I focus on the human right to found a family and have children. I also show how the contractarian approach to human rights can explain the current relevance of reproductive rights in the human rights discourse, and how the emergence of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) has contributed to this shift. The contractarian account of human rights asks, firstly, the following question: which basic needs and desires can be ascribed to any human being regardless of gender, nationality, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity etc.? Having an interest, for instance, in preserving one’s own bodily integrity, freedom, and private property qualifies as a basic human need or basic desire. But a basic human need or desire does not constitute in itself a human right. Secondly, the contractarian account of human rights asks, then, which basic human needs or basic desires individuals and states representatives would consider so important that they would agree to create institutional frameworks, both at the domestic and international level, in such a way as to enable individuals to pursue the fulfilment of their basic needs or desires without state interference. Human rights exist and can only be claimed in the context of these normative frameworks.
Keywords:
- contractarianism,
- virtues,
- human rights,
- ART,
- Assisted Reproductive Technologies,
- David Hume,
- Immanuel Kant
Résumé
Que sont les droits de l’homme? Existent-ils? Je me propose de répondre à ces questions en proposant un compte-rendu contractuel des droits de l’homme. Je me concentre sur le droit de fonder une famille et d’avoir des enfants. Je montre également comment l’approche contractuelle des droits de l’homme peut expliquer la pertinence actuelle des droits reproductifs dans le discours sur les droits de l’homme, et comment l’émergence des TRA (technologies de reproduction assistée) a contribué à ce changement. Le compte rendu contractuel des droits de l’homme pose, en premier lieu, la question suivante : quels besoins et désirs fondamentaux peuvent être attribués à tout être humain indépendamment de son sexe, de sa nationalité, de son orientation sexuelle, de son âge, de son appartenance ethnique, etc. Le fait d’avoir un intérêt, par exemple, à préserver sa propre intégrité corporelle, sa liberté et sa propriété privée est considéré comme un besoin fondamental ou un désir fondamental de l’être humain. Mais un besoin ou un désir humain fondamental ne constitue pas en soi un droit de l’homme. Deuxièmement, le compte rendu contractuel des droits de l’homme demande donc quels besoins ou désirs fondamentaux de l’homme les individus et les représentants des États considéreraient comme si importants qu’ils accepteraient de créer des cadres institutionnels, tant au niveau national qu’international, de manière à permettre aux individus de poursuivre la satisfaction de leurs besoins ou désirs fondamentaux sans interférence de l’État. Les droits de l’homme existent et ne peuvent être revendiqués que dans le contexte de ces cadres normatifs.
Mots-clés :
- contratarianisme,
- vertus,
- droits de l’homme,
- TRA,
- technologies de reproduction assistée,
- David Hume,
- Immanuel Kant
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Acknowledgements / Remerciements
Thanks to Peter Stemmer (University of Konstanz) and Lukas Meyer (University of Graz) for their critical comments on an earlier version of this article. An early draft was presented in the Philosophy Department of University of Graz (June 2019), in the Philosophy Department of the University of Konstanz (July 2019) and at the Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine in Zurich (September 2019): I thank the participants for their critical comments. Two reviewers also made invaluable comments, for which I am grateful. This research benefited from financial support granted by the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Foundation (Germany, 2018) and the CNPq (The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil, 2019-2023). I am a member of the SIENNA Project (Stakeholder-Informed Ethics for New technologies with high socio-ecoNomic and human rights impAct) funded by the European Union’s H2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 741716). This article and its contents are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect views of the European Commission. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information here contained.
Merci à Peter Stemmer (Université de Constance) et Lukas Meyer (Université de Graz) pour leurs commentaires critiques sur une version antérieure de cet article. Une première version a été présentée au département de philosophie de l’Université de Graz (juin 2019), au département de philosophie de l’Université de Constance (juillet 2019) et à l’Institut d’éthique biomédicale et d’histoire de la médecine de Zurich (septembre 2019) : je remercie les participants pour leurs commentaires critiques. Deux examinateurs ont également fait des commentaires précieux, ce dont je leur suis reconnaissant. Cette recherche a bénéficié du soutien financier de la Fondation Alexander-von-Humboldt (Allemagne, 2018) et du CNPq (Conseil national pour le développement scientifique et technologique, Brésil, 2019-2023). Je suis membre du projet SIENNA (Stakeholder-Informed Ethics for New technologies with high socio-ecoNomic and human rights impAct) financé par le programme de recherche et d'innovation H2020 de l’Union européenne dans le cadre de la convention de subvention n° 741716). Cet article et son contenu sont les vues de l’auteur et ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de la Commission européenne. La Commission européenne n’est pas responsable de l'utilisation qui pourrait être faite des informations contenues dans cet article.
Bibliography
- 1. Griffin J. On Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
- 2. Skinner Q. Modernity and disenchantment. In: Tully J, ed. Philosophy in an Age of Pluralism: The Philosophy of Charles Taylor in Question. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
- 3. Harrison R. Bentham (Argument of the Philosophers). London: Routledge; 1999.
- 4. MacIntyre A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press; 1981.
- 5. Kant I. Reflexionen zur Moralphilosophie. In: Akademieausgabe von Immanuel Kants Gesammelten Werken. Berlin: Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 19, p. 145 [Frag. 6736].
- 6. Bentham J. Pannomial fragments. In: Bowring J, ed. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Vol. 3. New York: Russell & Russell; 1962.
- 7. Bentham J. Anarchical fallacies. In: Waldron J, ed. Nonsense upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of the Man. London: Methuen; 1987. p. 29-76.
- 8. Cruft R, Liao M, Renzo M. The philosophical foundations of human rights: An overview. In: Cruft R, Liao M, Renzo M, eds. Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 1-41.
- 9. Sen A. Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development. 2005;6(2):151-166.
- 10. Searle J. Human rights. In: Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 174-198.
- 11. Schofield P. A defence of Jeremy Bentham’s critique of natural rights. In: Bentham’s Theory of Law and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 208-230.
- 12. Gauthier D. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
- 13. Stemmer P. Handeln zugunsten anderer: Eine moralphilosophische Untersuchung. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2000.
- 14. Murray M. Morals and Consent. Contractarian Solutions to Ethical Woes. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press; 2017.
- 15. Araujo M. Kontraktualismus. In: Lohmann G, Pollmann A, eds. Menschenrechte: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Stuttgart: Metzler; 2012. p. 193-198.
- 16. Sangiovanni A. Why there cannot be a truly Kantian theory of human rights. In: Cruft R, Liao M, Renzo M, eds. Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 671-689.
- 17. Höffe O. Das angeborene Recht ist nur ein einziges. Hat Kant eine Philosophie der Menschenrechte? In: Mosayebi R, ed. Kant und Menschenrechte. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2018. p. 37-48.
- 18. Hume D. A Treatise of Human Nature. Selby-Bigge LA, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1988.
- 19. McGuinness S, Widdows H. Access to basic reproductive rights: global challenges. In: Francis L, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Reproductive Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 58-77.
- 20. Chaudhry AS. Unlikely motherhood in the Qur’ān: oncofertility as devotion. In: Woodruff T, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, eds. Oncofertility. Cancer Treatment and Research, Vol. 156. Boston: Springer; 2010. p. 287-294.
- 21. Mill JS. Utilitarianism. In: Utilitarianism and On Liberty. (Edited with an Introduction by Mary Warnock). Oxford: Blackwell; 2003.
- 22. Lo W, Campo-Engelstein L. Expanding the clinical definition of infertility to include socially infertile individuals and couples. In: Campo-Engelstein L, Burcher P, eds. Reproductive Ethics II. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2018. p. 71-83.
- 23. Almond B. New reproductive technologies: Whose human rights? In: The Fragmenting Family. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2006. p. 98-120.
- 24. Mohr S. Beyond motivation: on what it means to be a sperm donor in Denmark. Anthropology & Medicine. 2014;21(2):162-173.
- 25. Woestenburg NM, Winter HB, Janssens PW. What motivates men to offer sperm donation via the internet? Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2016;21(4):424-430.
- 26. Thijssen A, Provoost V, Vandormael E, et al. Motivations and attitudes of candidate sperm donors in Belgium. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108(3):539-547.
- 27. Freeman T, Jadva V. Tranfield E, Golombok S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Human Reproduction. 2016;31(9):2082-2089.
- 28. United Nations. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). 20th Anniversary Edition, 2014.
- 29. United Nations. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The Fourth World Conference on Women. Beijing, 4-15 September 1995.
- 30. United Nations. Reproductive Rights are Human Rights: A Handbook for National Human Rights Institutions. HR/PUB/14/6; 2014.
- 31. Francis L, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Reproductive Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
- 32. Osborn F. Our Plundered Planet. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1948.
- 33. Vogt W. Road to Survival. New York: William Sloane Associates; 1948.
- 34. Desrochers P, Hoffbauer C. The post war intellectual roots of the Population Bomb. Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s Road to Survival in retrospect. Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. 2009;1(3):38-61.
- 35. Grimes S. From population control to ‘reproductive rights’: Ideological influences in population. Third World Quarterly. 1998;(19)3:375-39.
- 36. Ehrlich P. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books; 1968.
- 37. Population Growth. Plenty of People, by Warren S. Thopson (book review). Nature. 1944;154:721-722.
- 38. Toynbee, Arnold. Man and hunger: The perspectives of history. Report of the World Food Congress, Washington, D.C., 4-18 June 1963, vol. 2: Major Addresses and Speeches; United Nations, FAO, ed. 1963.
- 39. Bricker D, Ibbitson J. Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline. Oxford: Signal; 2019.
- 40. Thanks to education, global fertility could fall faster than expected. The world’s population in 2100 could be no higher than it is today. The Economist. 2 Februrary 2019.
- 41. Hart HLA. Law, Liberty, and Morality. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1963.
- 42. United Nations (Human Rights Committee). Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992; 1994.
- 43. Imaz E. Same-sex parenting, assisted reproduction and gender asymmetry: reflecting on the differential effects of legislation on gay and lesbian family formation in Spain. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online. 2017;4:5-12.
- 44. Sussman AL. The case for redefining infertility. Proponents of ‘social infertility’ ask: What if it’s your biography, rather than your body, that prevents you from having a child? The New Yorker. 18 June 2019.
- 45. Cauterucci C. Four New Jersey lesbians sue over preposterous rule that delays their fertility coverage. Slate, 11 August 2016.
- 46. United Nations (Human Rights Council). Report on Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. UN Human Rights Council; 17 November 2011.
- 47. Schneewind JB. The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
- 48. Hill TE. The Kantian conception of autonomy. In: Christman J, ed. The inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989. p. 91-105.
- 49. Araujo M. Scepticism, Freedom, and Autonomy: A Study of the Moral Foundations of Descartes’ Theory of Knowledge. New York: De Gruyter; 2003.
- 50. Pinker S. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. New York: Viking Books; 2011.
- 51. Gómez J, Verdú M, González-Megías A, Méndez M. The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence. Nature. 2016;538:233-237.
- 52. Palacios-González C, Harris J, Testa G. Multiplex parenting: IVG and the generations to come. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014;40:752-758.
- 53. Cohen IG, Daley GQ, Adashi EY. Disruptive reproductive technologies. Science Translational Medicine. 2017;9(372):1-3.
- 54. Smajdor A, Cutas D. Background paper: Artificial gametes. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; December 2015.
- 55. Suter SM. In vitro gametogenesis: just another way to have a baby? Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2016;3(1):87-119.
- 56. Greely H. The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press; 2016.
- 57. Di C, Gell J, Tao Y, et al. Modeling human infertility with pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Research. 2017;21:187-192.
- 58. Fang F, Li Z, Zhao Q, et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells and male infertility: an overview of current progress and perspectives. Human Reproduction. 2018;33(2):188-195.
- 59. Hendriks S, Dancet EF, van Pelt AM, et al. Artificial gametes: a systematic review of biological progress towards clinical application. Human Reproduction Update. 2015; 21(3):285-296.
- 60. Hendriks S, Dondorp W, de Wert Guido, et al. Potential consequences of clinical application of artificial gametes: a systematic review of stakeholder views. Human Reproduction Update. 2015;21(3):297-309.
- 61. Newson AJ, Smajdor AC. Artificial gametes: new paths to parenthood? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2005;31(3):184-186.
- 62. Smajdor A, Cutas D. Artificial gametes and the ethics of unwitting parenthood. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014;40:748-751.
- 63. Cyranoski D. Mouse eggs made from skin cells in a dish. Breakthrough raises call for debate over prospect of artificial human eggs. Nature. 2016;538(301).