This essay takes up the question of why human rights have been something of a peripheral concern for Martin Krygier. The essay suggests that a possible explanation lies in divergent ways in which human rights are commonly understood. The first understanding invokes human rights as a violation of our common humanity (through debasement and humiliation; rape; torture; slavery). The second understanding extends human rights to matters of thick morality (through the human potential for enjoyment; growth; fulfilment and self-realization). On the first understanding, Krygier believes (like Thomas Nagel) that the philosophical interest of an issue is inversely proportional to its real-life significance. Cruelty, evil and abuse demand denunciation and practical opposition, not scholarly discussion. For Krygier, situations that invoke the first understanding are too obvious to require much reflection. On the second understanding, Krygier believes that context is everything. Particular histories, traditions and localities radically (and rightly) alter the way humans seek fulfilment. Situations that invoke the second understanding call for the accommodation and understanding of multiple conflicting perspectives: the language of human rights lacks the necessary nuance and texture. The essay concludes that for students of human rights, susceptible to the myopia of their subject, Krygier’s lesson is a salutary one.

中文翻译：

---

马丁·克莱吉尔（Martin Krygier）与人权

本文讨论了为什么人权一直是马丁·克莱吉尔（Martin Krygier）所关心的问题。这篇文章表明，一种可能的解释在于普遍理解人权的不同方式。第一种理解将人权视为对我们共同人类的侵犯（通过贬低和屈辱；强奸；酷刑；奴役）。第二种理解（通过人类享有享乐，成长，实现和自我实现的潜力）将人权扩展到道德问题上。在第一个理解上，Krygier相信（像Thomas Nagel一样），问题的哲学兴趣与其现实意义成反比。残忍，邪恶和虐待要求谴责和实际反对，而不是学术讨论。对于Krygier，引起最初理解的情况太明显了，需要进行大量反思。根据第二种理解，Krygier认为上下文就是一切。特定的历史，传统和地区从根本上（正确地）改变了人类追求成就的方式。引起第二种理解的情况需要容纳和理解多种相互矛盾的观点：人权语言缺乏必要的细微差别和结构。本文的结论是，对于易受其学科近视影响的人权学生来说，克雷吉尔的课程是有益的。引起第二种理解的情况需要容纳和理解多种相互矛盾的观点：人权语言缺乏必要的细微差别和构造。本文的结论是，对于易受其学科近视影响的人权学生来说，克雷吉尔的课程是有益的。引起第二种理解的情况需要容纳和理解多种相互矛盾的观点：人权语言缺乏必要的细微差别和结构。本文的结论是，对于易受其学科近视影响的人权学生来说，克雷吉尔的课程是有益的。