When those services are not performed, external concern is entirely appropriate—in the same way in which, when parents neglect or abuse their children, external concern, whether on the part of other families or by the state itself, is also appropriate.

Question

As we have seen, on (my version of) the political approach, human rights designate a distinctive moral phenomenon. Yet, unlike in the case of the orthodox view, it is hard to come up with synonyms for it. While we may easily replace the orthodox idea of human rights with the notion of fundamental moral rights, no such replacement appears available for the phenomenon captured by the political idea of human rights. This may give us some reason for understanding human rights in line with the political approach. Our reasons for doing so will be further strengthened by considering the other two desiderata.
The previous discussion should already illustrate how the political approach has a good claim to satisfying ‘consistency with ordinary language use’, at least when it comes to core instances of the use of human-rights language (ii). By definition, on a political approach, human-rights violations can only be perpetrated by sovereign and authoritative entities: so private murders are not human-rights violations, while state executions of political opponents are.
It may be objected that, contrary to common use, on the political view, only citizens of a given state S may have their human rights violated by S. A tyrannical state arbitrarily imprisoning a group of tourists would not be violating their human rights—which seems counter-intuitive. This conclusion is not quite correct. While citizens may in fact be subjected to particularly extensive state authority, residents as well as tourists who find themselves on a state’s territory are also subjected to its authority, albeit across a narrower set of domains (eg tourists might not have to pay income tax). To that extent, classes of individuals other than citizens may also be, in principle, the victims of human-rights violations on the political approach I am proposing.37
Finally, turning to desideratum (iii), the political approach to human rights helpfully avoids metaphysical controversies. It defines the notion of human rights without tying it to any particular conception of the individual; rather, it ties it to a particular conception of duty-bearers.

Analyze the passage in the simplest best way possible

Answer 1

The passage discusses the concept of human rights from a political perspective, distinguishing it from more traditional or orthodox views. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

1. External Concern: Just as society should intervene when parents neglect or abuse their children, it is appropriate to be concerned about violations of human rights when these are not upheld by states or authorities.

2. Political Approach vs. Orthodox View:

   • The political approach treats human rights as a specific moral concept that is difficult to replace with synonyms, unlike the orthodox view where terms like "fundamental moral rights" can be used interchangeably.
   • This uniqueness gives weight to the political approach in understanding what human rights are.

3. Language Consistency:

   • The political approach aligns well with how language around human rights is generally used. Human rights violations are seen as actions taken by sovereign entities (like governments), meaning private acts (like murder) wouldn’t count as human rights violations, while state-sponsored actions (like executions of political opponents) would.

4. Citizens vs. Non-Citizens:

   • Some might argue it’s strange that, according to the political view, only citizens can have their rights violated by their own state. However, the argument asserts that non-citizens (like tourists) can also have their rights violated, as they are still under the authority of the state when on its territory, albeit with limitations.

5. Avoiding Metaphysical Controversies:

   • The political approach simplifies the concept of human rights by focusing on the responsibilities of those who enforce rights (duty-bearers) rather than defining rights through any specific beliefs about individuals. This sidesteps complex philosophical debates.

In summary, the political approach to human rights emphasizes the responsibilities of states and authority figures, aligns with common usage of human rights language, includes both citizens and non-citizens under the potential for rights violations, and avoids philosophical disputes by focusing on duty rather than individual conceptions.