Personhood versus Human Needs as Grounds for Human Rights

Although Griffin’s personhood account of human rights and my human needs account are similar in certain respects, this chapter criticizes Griffin for locating human rights within ethical reasoning rather than political argument; for justifying these rights by appeal to a narrowly liberal understanding of human agency; and for failing to establish their upper limits in an appropriate way. A need account begins with the human form of life as made up of activities that are reiterated across societies, and understands human needs as conditions that must be fulfilled to be able to engage in these activities at a minimally decent level. It justifies the set of rights that best enable all agents to fulfil their needs. The chapter defends this view against Griffin’s charge that needs are insufficiently determinate to ground human rights, and explain how conflicts of rights can be avoided by taking this approach