ABSTRACT
This chapter explores a widespread confusion about the philosophical basis for human rights claims. Rights that are grounded in international consensus—even "semisensus"—and elaborated in formal treaties and conventions are far more likely to be perceived as politically legitimate than notions of what Truth or Nature does or does not justify. William Schulz fails to distinguish between the practical task of building a global consensus in favor of human rights and getting governments to observe them, and the philosophical question of where these rights come from and how they are grounded. If so, the promotion of human rights in non-Western societies would actually constitute a grave injustice, a crushing of genuine moral and cultural alternatives by the wealthy and powerful. But for the United States in particular, a moral grounding for foreign policy is essential to sustain democratic consensus behind American involvement in the world.
