Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
This is an important point, and I think you're right that I glossed over it too much. Lapidator's point about the political (vs. philosophical) aims of the writers of the declaration seems to be along the same line.
But I guess what I'm vaguely interested in (and my thoughts are half baked so this thread is too) is processes of social legitimation. So the appeal to "natural" rights endowed by a creator is interesting because it's a way of legitimizing that legal enterprise.
I think that's very nearly true in the west, but I think what is interesting is the extent to which the nearly unanimous assent to that proposition depends on religious (or quasi-religious) modes of justification. I don't mean "religious" to be pejorative here. I would unironically describe my belief in universal human rights (or a universal idea of human dignity and value) as a "sacred belief", as something more or less religious. I'm sure that the weight this belief has for me is founded in religious faith, although I no longer intellectually hold to the same faith that I would have used a decade ago to explain that belief.
Very roughly, what I find intriguing is the way that collective action (e.g. politics) depends on collective representations and beliefs, and how the most clearly effective/persistent means of forming and preserving those collective representations are essentially religious, in the sense that it's not just the rational justification for a belief that ensures its survival, but the symbolic and emotional weight that gets attached to it, that sense of sacredness.
Perhaps what I'm trying to work towards is some sense of "civic religion" as a way of communicating those values?
I understand the use of the term "religion". Our "western" belief in human rights does really have aspects of faith. We can get into a lot of cultural confusion when we assume these cultural norms and attitudes are universal.
And yes, symbols and artifacts are extremely powerful persuaders. Take something as simple as teaching. I could harp on for three hours about the importance of diligence and honesty in research or I could take two minutes and appeal to the ideal of the brilliant scientist and a story about Feynman, and I could almost guarantee you that the effect would be better.
The dangers of using symbols and artifacts is of course that they don't require reasoning and as such are far more immune to skepticism. We could build a "civic religion", but it would be far more weak to be exploited by a demagogue. Think of populist politicians who just inject flags, historical persons or words like "freedom" or "equality" into statements. And in the worst case scenario a leader might be able to equate himself to the symbol, so disagreement with the leader becomes treasonous in itself.
