human rights

           Universality of Human Humanistic General Rights
       In this paper from intercultural comparative philosophy I want to explore and explain the reasons of the universality of human humanistic general rights. Therefore in this discussion universality is the subject and human humanistic general rights is its object. For exploring their relations we have to propose a preliminary outline and then in the process of the discussion make this outline more exact, precise and refined. In the context of intercultural and comparative philosophy it seems more appropriate to begin from more or less agreed and short points. Accordingly based on the common sense and heuristically it would better to say that this statement or expression has three components: a category called universality in contradistinction of generality, being global and particularity; the set of concepts named human humanistic general rights that in it human is without any gender connotation and can have a nature or properties – in eastern philosophy we have to technical philosophical terms ensan (a concept that can have theological and / or social connotation such as a forgetfulness entity or a socialized and cooperative being) and bashar (that is more near to an evil and worldly entity); rights as a legal or moral category (although as a basic philosophical but neglected point it seems that in the eastern philosophy there is not a concept or category such as right and more or less its more suitable, common and usual equivalent can be the category of justice), general in contrast with special and generic, and humanistic in order to differentiate it from the other rights ( such as political, social, economical ); and lastly of  as a preposition .
   With these relatively agreed points we have an outline of the subject and object of our topic or expression. More pedantically, with this image we know that what are the categories that we seek the reasons of their universality. For by analyzing and explaining the subject or universality the related object will be in a new perspective or is more refined. In other words, there is a two way movement: a preliminary picture of the object in order to understand about what thing we want to speak and then after getting this picture we focus on subject or universality as a background and put the object or human humanistic general rights in it. But it is not all, for there is the preposition of (with diverse and different meanings) between the subject and the object.  
       Therefore I begin my discussion with the reasons that can be suggested about the universality of human humanistic rights. I think they can be four:
- Conceptual reason. This reason means that human humanistic rights refer to an idea, which is said to be dependent upon intelligence. This intelligence is in the process of constructing in an intersubjective way, therefore is not a given or constructed entity in a subjective way. In another version of this notion and in comparison with the analytical and actual we can say that here the standards or ideals will not be inferred from the reason and nature, but these things are logical or considered logical.  
- Actual reasons. According to this reason human humanistic rights refer to an aspect of actual individuals, which have aspects that are relatively dependent on universality. The substratum-matter of human beings as different persons is somehow in relation and linkage (and not separation and disconnection) with humanity. It is possible to say some versions of this statement: by actual or rational I mean the abstraction or using abstract thinking (knowing-that) besides knowing-how, and not merely one of them. But we have to say that it is not the case that all men do this with equal skill, therefore it is variable among human beings, in some human being very high and in other at low level; and the intrinsic or essential nature of man is reason, all men have reason as a common quality and differentiation from brutes. The fact human beings have reason shows the existence of the rational universality of human humanistic rights that are for man as a human being.    
- Analytical reasons. This reason refers to the definition of the human humanistic rights, which is independent of the ideas we may have of it. As another versions of the same idea we can mention to: natural or analytical can mean human nature or may be posited against the established and constructed, in its first meaning analytical means that men are entitled to make certain claims by virtue simply of their common humanity, and in its second meaning we can say that there are human rights that an appeal to safeguard and restore ( where necessary) some rights, those ultimate points at which authority and social, political, economical, and … differences vanish presenting the essential human nature; human humanistic rights are rights which all men have if they are capable of choice, they have it qua men; and these human rights are not created or conferred by men’s voluntary action. Therefore universality of human rights is interconnected with the truths and nature and not the beings and the things that are.        
- Essential reason. This reason on the basis of essence-existence distinction says that human humanistic rights constitute a unique essence or a unity in which sensible distinction are not counted or this essence exists in separation from particular persons.
In other words, we can say that there are four logical, rational, natural and essential reasons that form the universality of human humanistic rights. By logical or conceptual reason or according to the eastern philosophy “unity before plurality” I mean that the universality of human humanistic rights is a subjective and conceptual notion. By rational or actual reason or according to the eastern philosophy “unity after plurality” I mean that the universality of human humanistic rights is a notion that is distilled and abstracted from the concrete persons and individuals – therefore it is not an imagination, whim and fantasy. By natural or analytical reason or according to the eastern philosophy “unity in plurality” I mean that the universality of human humanistic rights is a fact that exists in each and every individual. Lastly by essential reason I want to say that the universality of human humanistic rights is not merely a conceptual, nominal, and realistic category. Firstly this reason rejects the theory which claims that an individual universal existent may exist outside minds and apart from that which is predicted of individual concreta. Secondly here universality is put in the realm of the essences and is not merely and only a name without reality. Besides the notion of the universality makes sense also as a concept. And lastly universality does not refer to mental concepts, but rather to essences which do not necessarily depend on particular minds. Therefore essential reason wants to go beyond realistic, conceptualist and nominalist categories.
    After these four basic intercultural philosophical reasons about the universality of human humanistic rights we have to pay attention to the of as preposition. Literally and conceptually of have different meanings but a common pivot links them together. Accordingly it can mean: derived from; resulting from; away from; made from; from the group comprising; associated with; belonging to; having; directed toward; produced by; identified by; and concerning. What are the usefulness of this list and what position of has between universality and human humanistic rights as a set? Notwithstanding this diversity and plurality this list can show that universality and human humanistic rights without any order are coming from each other and this situation can be in connected or disconnected modes. On the one hand, human humanistic rights can be all other things than universal (for example, particular) and also universal, in this case there is a disconnection and also connection between universality and these kinds of rights. On the other hand, universality can be not applied to human humanistic rights or can be applied, in this case there is a disconnection and connection between universality and these kinds of rights. We have pay attention to both connection and disconnection  although in this paper we concentrate on connection. For the universality is not complete or invariable and human humanistic rights are not complete but have degrees it would better to search for a medium or intermediate category. In other words, a kind of mediating and intervening or accommodating theory and action is needed – although it can be itself the main general and contemporary problematic and disagreement.