A Critique of Norberto Bobbio’s Fideism regarding Human Rights
Norberto Bobbio’s claim that it is not necessary to seek an absolute justification for human rights, but to protect them, is well known. This paper presents Bobbio’s position, shows its similarities and differences with that of authors like Maritain and Villey, and subjects it to a critical analysis...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | México |
| Institución: | UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO |
| Repositorio: | Problema. Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/17036 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/filosofia-derecho/article/view/17036 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Human Rights Norberto Bobbio Natural Law Theory Universal Declaration of Human Rights Derechos humanos iusnaturalismo Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos |
| Sumario: | Norberto Bobbio’s claim that it is not necessary to seek an absolute justification for human rights, but to protect them, is well known. This paper presents Bobbio’s position, shows its similarities and differences with that of authors like Maritain and Villey, and subjects it to a critical analysis. We conclude that Bobbio’s argument has several flaws, such as the genetic fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy. Furthermore, even his own ideas on how to protect human rights are debatable. |
|---|