Compare the will theory and the interest theory of rights. Which is most plausible - Essay Example

This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the will theory and the interest theory of rights and considers which theory is more plausible. It is submitted at the outset that the tension between the legal protection of human rights, political constraints and the extent of individual protection highlights the conflict between legal enforcement of rights in practice and theoretical concepts of ethics based on the will theory (Donnelly, 2003, p.7). To this end, it is submitted that in context of the contemporary framework of international relations, the interest theory of rights would appear to most plausible.

From a theoretical perspective, Kant was a leading proponent of the will theory and his theory of wills stems from Kant’s theory of enlightenment with the proposition that “enlightenment is man’s emergence from incurred immaturity” and that the concept of immaturity stems from self-infliction due to lack of courage (Kant, in Nisbet & Reiss, 1991). This in turn correlates to Kant’s central theory pertaining to the underlying rationale of being human (Somerville, 2006). . ale for being human suggests that it is the interrelationship between intellectual independence and morality that is central to concepts of democracy (Nisbet & Reiss, 1991).

Kant’s theory is similar Aquinas’ proposition of what constitutes being human also emphasises the independent voluntary exercise of will (Ardley, 2007). However, in contrast to Kant, Aquinas’ theory was heavily intertwined with Catholic hierarchy and interpretations of existence (Ardley, 2007 p.3). Additionally, Ardley highlights that the central difference with Kant’s principle of humanity was that: “Aquinas represents the metaphysician of the philosophia perennis. Kant on the other hand, as we understand him, in his basic contentions gets to the heart of the characteristic non-metaphysical pre-occupation of the modern world which seem alien to the philosophia perennis” (Ardley, 2007 pp.3-4). It is further submitted that a fundamental basis in particular relating to Kant’s enlightenment theory was the supreme moral principle of good will, which catalysed the deontological approach to ethics (Donnelly, 2003 ).

For example, beyond the intellectual intelligence paradigm is Kant’s assumption of the supreme moral principle of good will (Deligiorgi, 2005). This suggests that humans are innately moral and is supported by contemporary deontologist Somerville who refers to the “secular sacred” concept of ethics, which is that there are basic human rights and values that are common to humans irrespective of religious or cultural beliefs (Somerville, 2006, p.xi). Moreover, Somerville goes further and argues that the crux of ethics with regard to human rights protection is whether it is “inherently wrong?

”(Somerville, 2006p. xi). Furthermore, Somerville argues in considering human