|
Research and Publications Journal Articles in Progress (1) “An East and West Debate on Rights to Physical Security and Rights to Political Liberty” (under review) Scholars from different cultures disagree on whether all civil and political rights are moral rights in East Asia (i.e., East Asian rights). On one hand, all scholars generally agree that basic civil rights, especially rights against torture and rights against slavery, are East Asian rights (For convenience, I call them “rights to physical security”). On the other hand, some of them argue that traditional political rights in the West, especially rights to freedom of speech and rights to freedom of political participation, are not East Asian rights (For convenience, I call them “rights to political liberty”). Some scholars, such as Daniel A. Bell, argue that rights to political liberty are only Western rights but not East Asian rights. Since rights to political liberty are not East Asian rights, they are not human rights. In this paper, I evaluate such a debate on East Asian rights in depth. I argue that both rights to physical security and rights to political liberty are East Asian rights, and I explain the relationship between these rights and East Asian cultures. First, I argue that if rights to political liberty are not East Asian rights because they conflict with some East Asian cultures, then rights to physical security are also not East Asian rights because rights to physical security also conflict with some East Asian cultures. Next, I discuss the idea from Daniel Bell and Michael Walzer that rights to physical security are East Asian rights because they are minimal values. Based on their idea, I explain what minimal values are, and argue that since physical security is a minimal value, rights to physical security are still East Asian rights even they conflict with some East Asian cultures. I then argue that political liberty, similar to physical security, is also a minimal value. Therefore, similar to rights to physical security, rights to political liberty are also East Asian rights even they also conflict with some East Asian cultures.
(2) “Universality and Relativity of Human Rights” (in progress) Are human rights universal? Or are they relative to different cultures? Philosophers Jack Donnelly and Daniel Bell answer these questions differently. Donnelly argues that although some applications of human rights are relative, the concept, list, and justification of human rights are universal. Bell challenges Donnelly’s view and argues that the concept, list, and justification of human rights are particular and relative to different cultures, and he especially uses East Asian cultures to support his idea. In this paper, I argue for a third option. Based on Joseph Raz’s interest account of rights and Michael Walzer’s minimalism, I develop an argument which shows that (1) the concept, list, and justification of human rights are universal but (2) they are also relevant to different cultures. I argue that such an argument is a sufficient account to satisfy both Donnelly’s view on the universality of human rights and Bell’s view on the relativity of human rights.
(3) “Developing an ‘Agreement Theory’ of Human Rights” (in progress) In The Idea of Human rights, Charles Beitz argues that some “agreement theories of human rights” are problematic. Among these agreement theories, he especially challenges Michael Walzer’s “common core theory” and Charles Taylor’s “overlapping consensus theory.” Although I agree with Beitz that these theories have some problems, I argue that we can develop a new version of agreement theory based on Walzer’s and Taylor’s theories. Roughly, the idea is that human rights are not common core or overlapping consensus among different cultures; instead, every culture agrees that some values are important in a specific sense, and such an agreement shows that rights to these values are (universal) human rights. I also argue that this approach does not only solve the problems in Walzer’s and Taylor’s theories, but also solves some problems in Beitz’s own theory of human rights as well.
(4) “An East and West Debate on Human Dignity and Human Rights” (in progress) Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that human dignity is a moral foundation of human rights. But are there cultural differences on the notions of human dignity? If there are, do they affect human rights? In this paper, I discuss different notions of human dignity in East Asian cultures (especially Confucianism) and Western cultures (especially liberalism). I then argue that no matter which notions of human dignity we believe in, human rights are still a good instrument to protect human dignity. I conclude that such an “instrument account” is sufficient to show that human dignity is a moral foundation of human rights.
Doctoral Dissertation Title: An East and West Debate on Human Rights Committee: Professor Christopher Morris (Supervisor) Dr. David Crocker Dr. Xiaorong Li Professor Dan Moller Professor Karol Soltan
Abstract In an East and West debate on human rights, scholars from different cultures disagree on whether all civil and political rights are human rights. While they generally agree that basic civil rights such as rights against torture and slavery (i.e., physical security rights) are human rights, some of them argue that traditional political rights in the West such as freedom of speech and political participation (i.e., liberal rights) are not human rights. Some scholars, such as Daniel A. Bell, argue that liberal rights are not human rights because liberal rights conflict with some East Asian cultures. In my dissertation, I argue that both physical security rights and liberal rights are human rights, and explain the relationship between these rights and East Asian cultures. I argue that if liberal rights are not human rights because they conflict with some East Asian cultures, then physical security rights are also not human rights because physical security rights also conflict with some East Asian cultures. I then discuss the idea from Bell and Michael Walzer that physical security rights are human rights because they are minimal values. Based on their idea, I explain what minimal values are, and why it is possible to develop maximal theories of them in East Asian cultures. I conclude that since physical security rights are minimal values, they are still human rights even they conflict with some East Asian cultures. I then argue that similar to physical security rights, liberal rights are also minimal values, and it is possible to develop some maximal theories of them in East Asian cultures. Therefore, similar to physical security rights, liberal rights are also human rights even they also conflict with some East Asian cultures. I also discuss other human rights debates, especially the debates between Bell and other philosophers. Charles Taylor argues for an overlapping consensus approach on human rights; Jack Donnelly argues for a Western liberalist approach on human rights. I explain the relationship between these approaches and my arguments, and how my arguments can help them to reply to the challenges from Bell.
Chinese Book Chapters: 〈從基督教、羅爾斯到柯亨：簡述左翼政治與平等主義〉，《基督教與現代社會的爭論──道德、政治與「宗教右派」》，關啟文、蔡志森編 (香港：天道出版社，將於2012年出版) [Translation: “From Christianity, John Rawls, to G.A. Cohen: An Introduction to Political Left and Egalitarianism,” in Debates between Christianity and Modern Society—Ethics, Politics, and “Religious Right,” eds. Kwan Kai Man & Choi Chi Sum (Hong Kong: Tien Dao Publishing House Ltd., Forthcoming in 2012)]
〈從洛克的自然權利到諾齊克的最小國家: 簡述一個政治哲學上的右派〉，《宗教右派》，羅永生、龔立人編 (香港：Dirty Press, 2010年) ，頁19-36 [Translation: “From Locke’s Natural Rights to Nozick’s Minimal State” in Religious Right, edited by Law Wing-sang & Kung Lap Yan (Hong Kong: Dirty Press, 2010), 19-36]
〈經濟學與倫理學互不相干？—從哲學的觀點看道德哲學對經濟分析的影響〉，《經濟商業生活與基督教倫理》，張國棟編 (香港：FES出版社，2006年)，頁113-130 [Translation: “Is Economics Irrelevant to Moral Philosophy?” in Economic Life and Christian Ethics, edited by Cheung Kwok-Tung (Hong Kong: FES Press, 2006), 113-130]
Book Review: Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context, by Daniel Bell, Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 35, Fall 2008: 215-222 [Written in Chinese]
Newspaper and Magazines: I have published extensively in public media (newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong). For the full list of my publication in public media, please see http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~bschan/publication%20list.pdf
Academic Conferences (Referred) “An East and West Debate on Political Rights and Civil Rights,” group session in American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, International Society for Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy, December 30, 2011 “An East and West Debate on the Cultural Justification of Human Rights”, Beijing International Conference on Human Rights, Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, October 15-17, 2010 “Confucianism and Human Rights”, The Contemporary Significance of Confucianism: Implications for Harmonious Society, Sustainable Development, and World Peace, Asian Division, Library of Congress, and Confucius Institute at the University of Maryland, January 24-25, 2008 “Is Synaesthesia a Counterexample to Representationalism?”, Joint Session of the Aristotelian Society and MIND Association, University of Bristol, U.K., July 8 -10, 2007 “Putting Synaesthesia into Representational Theories of Consciousness”, Conference on Analytical Philosophy, Soochow University, Taiwan, June 20-23, 2007
Public Presentations (Invited) “The Problem of Global Justice”, Hong Kong Society of Humanistic Philosophy, July 13, 2006 “Dialogue Between Christianity and Confucianism”, Hong Kong Society of Humanistic Philosophy, July 19, 2005 “The Next Generation of Analytical Philosophy”, Hong Kong Society of Humanistic Philosophy, July 12, 2005
|