Explicative-Existencial Justificacion of Human Rights Analysis of Robert Alexy's Argument in Context of Is-Ought Problem

  • Martin Hapla Masaryk University
Keywords: human rights, justification, explicative-existencial justification, is-ought problem, universality of human rights


This paper analyzes Robert Alexy's explicative-existential justification of human rights. According to the author, there are two problems connected with this concept. It cannot establish human rights universally and explain why we should accept them. In the paper, these questions are addressed in the context of the Is-Ought problem. Alexy's approach is compared with other theories that strive for human rights justification (basic needs approach, capability approach, and the foundationalism of Alan Gewirth). The author finds that in this respect all other theories have similar disadvantages. The inability to adequately elucidate the transition from Is to Ought is a general problem in moral philosophy, and therefore cannot diminish the position of Alexy's justification in this context. Although his approach does not really meet certain absolute requirements for good justification, if we evaluate it in relation to other available alternatives, we have to acknowledge its significant place in the philosophy of human rights. Even with Alexy's theory, however, the problem persists that it establishes rights of human persons rather than rights of human beings. It is therefore not able to fulfill some of its universalist aspirations.


ALEXY, R. (1996) ‘Discourse Theory and Human Rights’ Ratio Juris, 9 (3), pp. 209-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1996.tb00241.x

ALEXY, R. (2004) ‘Menschenrechte ohne Metaphysik?’ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 52 (1), pp. 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1524/dzph.2004.52.1.15

ALEXY, R. (2006) ‘Discourse Theory and Fundamental Rights’ in Menéndez, J. A. and Eriksen, E. O. (Eds.). Arguing Fundamental Rights. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4919-4_1

ALEXY, R. (2012) ‘Law, Morality, and the Existence of Human Rights’ Ratio Juris, 25 (1), pp. 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00499.x

ALLEN III, P. (1982) ‘A Critique of Gewirth’s “Is-Ought” Derivation’ Ethics, 92 (2), pp. 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1086/292322

BEITZ, Ch. R. (2009) The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572458.001.0001

BOBBIO, N. (2005) The Age of Rights. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press.

BOYLAN, M. (2014) Natural Human Rights: a Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DONNELLY, J. (2013) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. 3rd Edition. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

FEINBERG, J. (1992) ‘In Defence of Moral Rights’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 12 (2), pp. 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/12.2.149

FREEMAN, M. (2011) Human Rights. An Interdisciplinary Approach. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

GEWIRTH, A. (1973) ‘The ’Is-Ought’ Problem Resolved’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, pp. 34-61. https://doi.org/10.2307/3129900

GEWIRTH, A. (1978) Reason and Morality. Chicago and London: The University pf Chicago Press.

GEWIRTH, A. (1984) ‘The Epistemology of Human Rights’ Social Philosophy & Policy, 1 (2), pp. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500003836

HAPLA, M. (2016) Lidská práva bez metafyziky: legitimita v (post)moderní době. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

HAPLA, M. (2018) ‘Theory of Needs as Justification of Human Rights: Current Approaches and Problems of Uncertainty and Normativeness’ The Age of Human Rights Journal, 6 (10), pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.n10.1

HUDSON, W. D. (1984) ‘The ’Is-Ought’ Problem Resolved?‘ in Regis JR, E. (ed.). Gewirth’s Ethical Rationalism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

HUDSON, W. D. (ed.) (1969) The Is-Ought Question. A Collection of Papers on the Central Problem in Moral Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Co.

KLATT, M. (2020) ‘Proportionality and Justification’ in Herlin-Karnell, E. and Klatt, M. (Eds.). Constitutionalism Justified. Rainer Forst in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 159-196. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889050.003.0008

KOHEN, A. (2005) ‘The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency’ Human Rights Review, 7 (1), pp. 49-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-005-1002-3

KOHEN, A. (2007) In Defense of Human Rights: a Non-religious Grounding in a Pluralistic World. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203963760

MILLER, D. (2012) ‘Grounding Human Rights’ Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15 (4), pp. 407-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2012.699396

NUSSBAUM, M. C. (1997) ‘Capabilities and Human Rights’ Fordham Law Review, 66 (2), pp. 273-300.

RAWLS, J. (2005) Political Liberalism. Expanded Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.

RENZO, M. (2015) ‘Human Needs, Human Rights’ in Cruft, R., Liao S. M., Renzo, M. (eds.). Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights. 1st Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 570-587. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0033

SEARLE, J. R. (1964) ‘How to Derive “Ought” From “Is”’ The Philosophical Review, 73 (1), pp. 43-58. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183201

SEN, A. (2004) ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’ Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32 (4), pp. 315-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00017.x

SEN, A. (2005) ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’ Journal of Human Development, 6 (2), pp. 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491

WALDRON, J. (2000) ‘The Role of Rights in Practical Reasoning: “Rights” versus “Needs”’ The Journal of Ethics, 4 (1/2), pp. 115-135.

WITKOWSKI, K. (1975) ‘The “Is-Ought” Gap: Deduction or Justification?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 36 (2), pp. 233-245. https://doi.org/10.2307/2107056

How to Cite
Hapla, M. (2020). Explicative-Existencial Justificacion of Human Rights Analysis of Robert Alexy’s Argument in Context of Is-Ought Problem. The Age of Human Rights Journal, (15), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v15.5780