At 12:23 02/10/95 -0400, Peter Harvey wrote:

>WHAT QUESTIONS ARE WE TRYING TO ANSWER?

>In looking at the topic of 'Buddhism and human rights', are we seeking: a) potential reasons, based in Buddhism, to persuade Buddhists, especially Buddhist rulers, to repect human rights, or to do so to a greater degree, or >b) to persuade rulers - who may themselves be non-Buddhist, or pay only lip-service to Buddhism, to respect the rights of their Buddhist subjects, or >c) to articulate reasons, based on Buddhism, for enhancing the notion of human rights, in a way which is persuasive to all, Buddhist and non-Buddhist?

I would say c). Any reasons for respecting human rights which Buddhism offers must have universal appeal.

>We are interested in the possible grounding of the notion of human rights in Buddhism- will we also give some attention to //which// supposed human rights have a basis, or strong basis, in Buddhism? I note that the paper by Strain makes a useful distinction between 'intrinsic rights' and 'instrumental rights', the latter being instrumental in securing the former.

The most basic rights must include those in Article 3 of the UN Declaration, namely the right to "life, liberty and security of person." The rights to recognition and equality before the law, ie justice (articles 6 and 7) would also seem fundamental.

Damien Keown