Peter G. Kirchschlaeger is Ethics-Professor and Director of the Institute of Social Ethics ISE of the University of Lucerne (Switzerland). He is President of the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology and a consultative expert in ethics of international institutions, organizations, companies, and NGOs.
The title of this piece unfortunately does not reflect reality, but rather constitutes an ethically justifiable demand. From an ethical perspective, it is essential that religious and worldview-based communities understand themselves as partners in human rights. They have a responsibility, both within and outside their communities, to contribute to the respect, protection, implementation, and realization of the human rights of all humans. For all humans—including those of faith—are bearers of human rights. This universality of human rights is ethically justifiable—among other things, by the principle of vulnerability. Furthermore, people do not relinquish their human rights at the church door, nor at the entrance to a synagogue, mosque, or temple. While individuals remain within their religious and worldview-based communities, their human rights must be respected.
At the same time, from an ethical perspective, religions should also be seen by other actors— including states and other non-state actors, the international community, and human rights organizations – as allies of human rights. For this to succeed, religious and worldview-based communities must lead by example, both within and beyond their own communities, through their commitment to human rights.
In the present where human rights are under pressure due to the unscrupulous and ruthless pursuit of self-interest by states and corporations, as well as certain forms of technological progress, human rights need religious and philosophical communities as partners. Currently, this is particularly relevant in the area of so-called “artificial intelligence (AI),” which is more accurately described as “data-based systems (DS)”, since it is not intelligent.
Religions Must Live By Human Rights
In order to be regarded as partners of human rights by other actors, they must fulfill their human rights responsibilities in both their internal and external activities. A supposedly collective freedom of religion does not absolve them of their human rights obligations, because human rights are individual rights, meaning that collective legal interventions in human rights must always serve to protect and realize individual human rights claims. Nor does offering those who can no longer tolerate human rights violations within a religion the option to leave the religious or worldview-based community absolve them of their human rights responsibilities. Such a push for the option of leaving does not do justice to the nature of religiosity and faith.
Moreover, it would undermine the binding nature of human rights and the liberal rule of law as a whole. Furthermore, it would constitute a reversal of victim and perpetrator roles. To understand the latter, a comparison with a human rights violation in the workplace is helpful, where the state would also intervene and not refrain from intervention with the argument that the person concerned can simply change jobs and therefore no action is required.
Secondarily, it is also pragmatically important to consider that leaving a religious or worldview-based community can have devastating socio-economic consequences for the individual concerned. For example, withdrawing from a religious or worldview-based community can trigger problems at work or lead, e.g., for an entrepreneur, to a loss of customers.
Ultimately, tolerating human rights violations in religious and worldview-based communities while simultaneously highlighting and emphasizing the option of leaving would amount to promoting forces hostile to human rights and thus illiberalism. This cannot be in the interest of religious and worldview-based communities—the protection of the human right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is, among other things, a crucial pillar upon which they themselves sit—nor in the interest of the liberal rule of law. Such an exception would infringe upon the legitimate rights of members of religious and worldview-based communities as bearers of human rights.
There is therefore an urgent need for action. Religious and worldview-based communities can address this need by applying a human rights hermeneutics to their own practices and traditions. This means critically examining whether, for example, the human rights to non-discrimination and to participation are respected in their internal and external practices. If this is not the case, the next step would be to pave the way for improvements in human rights. In this endeavor, religious and worldview-based communities can draw on voices within their own communities that promote human rights.
And if religious and worldview-based communities do not spontaneously develop into partners of human rights, then it is incumbent upon the liberal constitutional state to take action. State intervention can take various forms (e.g., mediation, active religious policy, etc.) and can rely on the support of voices promoting human rights within religious and worldview-based communities. This can also mitigate the legitimate concern about the potential for conflict arising from state intervention.
The Tribune is committed to publishing a diversity of opinions. We’d like to hear from you. Send your articles to our email: opinion@merotribune.com.
Follow the Mero Tribune on Facebook and Twitter.
Advertisement
