Defining the Two Dimensions of Human Rights: Socia...
Roughly speaking，the Western concept of human rights was created under the special historical background of people ’s rebellion against theocracy and royal power since the Enlightenment，so the priority task of such a concept of human rights is to deconstruct the volitional bases for “God” or “man” and build a non-volitional objective basis for human rights，which thus gave birth to the view of natural human rights based on natural law[5].Years of theoretical deepening and development have granted the contemporary theory of natural human rights with a richer connotation and a more complex structure，but its core is still the“innateness” and “sanctity” of human rights，which serve as the value guidance for creating ideal life of human beings.However，the “holiness”and “inviolability” was an attribute that people granted to human rights in order to liberate themselves from the dependence on theocracy and royal power and resist the oppression of religion and secular regimes，so it is not a self-evident axiom.Such a theoretical defect forces the Westerners to add various restrictions to the concept of natural human rights in practicing it.It is foreseeable that such additional supplements are likely to be endless with the ever deepened understanding of humans on themselves.
Seeing this fundamental problem，the contemporary Chinese and Western academic circles started to reflect on and question the traditional concept of human rights and chose to restore the foundation of the human rights theory to the social relations of human，which is in fact transferring the person in isolation in the traditional concept of human rights to the person in relations，thus making social relations the basis for determining the actual state of human rights.For example，the British scholar A.J.M.Milne put forward，“a man becomes an individual and a member of the human race by growing up in a particular society learning its language and participating in its life.If he is to become a person and not a member of the human race in the purely zoological sense，he must have a certain kind of society on which he grows.While different societies make important differences...Therefore，a real person cannot be a neutral person in society and culture.He is always a product of a social and cultural environment.”[6] Milne realized that since man is a person in social culture，it is impossible to understand his existence without specific social life.In the process of deconstructing modernity，contemporary Western communitarians also emphasize the importance of social relations in understanding the realistic existence of human.
While some domestic scholars，especially Confucian scholars on human rights，also believe that human rights should be interpreted from the perspective of social relations.Prof.Yang Guorong，for example，stated that“the essence of the theory of natural rights is to emphasize that everyone is born with inviolable rights.It is not difficult to see that，at the substantive level，this theory of rights means regarding the individual existence of human beings as the basis of individual rights: Any individual who comes to this world can enjoy many rights.However，the above understanding of rights is only an abstract theoretical presupposition.In terms of its actual form，rights do not come from the innate or natural sense of existence，but are endowed by the society.Only in certain social communities can individuals enjoy relevant rights，and various forms of social communities themselves constitute different bases of rights.It can be said that，the social community constitutes the premise of individual rights，whether in the ontological sense，or from the perspective of legal relationship.”[7]
It is certainly a major advancement to define human rights on the basis of “people in social relations” instead of isolated “natural persons”，as it is not only based on the natural attributes of human beings，but also sees the essential attribute of human sociality，which is one of the basic premises of our discussions on human rights.A person exists as a participant in social life，the other party of social relations and a member of a social community.Only such a person has the so-called rights of man.It is impossible for us to discuss the human rights of a so-called “natural person” that is isolated from social life，social relations and social community.
If survival and development are regarded as two basic aspects of human rights （these two aspects can include almost all human rights，such as right to life，right to property，right to personality，right to political participation，etc.），then a real person needs to obtain the resources and conditions necessary for survival and development by establishing and maintaining social relations，but it can only prove that social relations are a very important dimension of human rights and a necessary condition for the realization of human rights，but not a sufficient one.However，it is impossible to establish a sufficient basis for the origin of human rights from the dimension of social relations.In other words，human rights are not “granted” by social relations，as on the one hand，the root of a human being lies in his social nature rather than social relations which only constitute the condition or foundation for human being to display his social nature.On the other hand，rights that can be granted can be also deprived of.If social relations can grant people with rights，they can also deprive people of rights，which means social relations can have absolute control over human rights.Once we are caught in such a theoretical presupposition，the relationship between man and society will be alienated，and it is not surprising that there is a ridiculous phenomenon like “killing people with ethical codes”.That is to say，if we only pay attention to the form and not the essence，the fate of human beings may be dominated by some forms that appear “justified” but are essentially unjust，resulting in evil consequences.Just as Confucius said，“If a man be without the virtues proper to humanity，what has he to do with the rites of propriety？ If a man be without the virtues proper to humanity，what has he to do with music？”（Book Ⅲ.Pa Yih，The Analects of Confucius）.Here it can be interpreted that if the essence （humanity） is not paid attention to，then what the meaning of forms such as rites and music is？
Compared with the above definitions of human and human rights directly based on social relations，Prof.Zhao Tingyang further holds that morality reflects the “particularity of human and human life issues”.In this sense，he regards “moral people” as the most appropriate concept for human beings.Based on theoretical presupposition of “moral people”，he put forward the theory of “credit human rights” to oppose the theory of natural human rights.Again，morality is only one aspect of human particularity，although it is the most central aspect of what we think of as human particularity，it cannot be generalized to include all other particularities or other issues of life that might not be relevant to morality.Therefore，it is also biased to describe human essence only in terms of morality.Besides，morality is aimed at the social relations of human beings，so the theory of “credit human rights” also takes social relations as the basis for the human rights theory.According to him，“Any kind of right exists in the ‘relationship’，rather than pre-existing on the individual ’s body.Rights are a value of interpersonal relationship，a value that a relationship gives to an individual” and “the legitimacy of rights can only be determined in interpersonal relationships.” He regards rights as the result of interpersonal relationship games，but he also morally limits rights and games with “legitimacy” and “impartiality”.[8] Therefore，the theory of“credit human rights” also inevitably has some hidden risks.
In this sense，the dimension of social relations alone cannot comprehensively remedy the traditional view of human rights to complete the definition of human rights，for which the reason lies in that the social relation dimension of human rights can only interpret its form of existence and fails to present the justification for its origin.Although social relations are indeed a necessary dimension to define human rights，they are not the sole sufficient dimension，so we also need to add a dimension to human rights that can explain their origin，namely the social nature.
The so-called social nature emphasizes that man is a kind of social existence that depends on co-existence.Such an essence means an individual must depend on not only the society and other members of the society，but the natural world as well，which highlights the existence attributes of people in the sense of a community.The social nature is not transferred by human will，so it can provide a reliable objective foundation for humanity and human rights.Nor does it have unrealistic trust in the positive value of human will as morality does，so it can accommodate the traits of a wider range of people.
Then，how to understand the difference between the dimension of social nature and that of social relations？ We can explain it simply through the relationship between the two and people.Social nature is associated with human existence，that is，social nature is the most important basis of human existence and there is no such a person that has no social nature.Even the physiological attributes of human beings cannot actually be purely natural，but must be the product of humanization.For example，when we say that a person is irrational like an animal，we mean his behavior presents humanized animality，rather than purely physiological traits.
Can rights then intend to all things？ Theoretically，all things coexist.The concept of rights，however，is merely a human property as it is people ’s subjective and conscious description of the state of existence in social life rather than a natural existence.If one insists anything other than human beings have rights，it can be claimed by people on its behalf（this is also one of the arguments of some scholars who advocate “animal rights”）.Different form social nature，social relations and human existence constitute a derivative relationship or a causal relationship，namely，the emergence of social relations presupposes the existence of human beings who establish social relations through conscious social activities and there is no such person that has social relations without social activities.Social nature defines people in an abstract sense，while social relations in a figurative sense，the latter being the realistic representation of the former.Therefore，we can conclude that the dimension of social relations defines the actual state of human rights，and that of social nature defines the idealistic state[9]，both of which are indispensable if human rights and their development are to be properly and fully comprehended.