Universal human rights

What it is: Secular humanism values universal human rights as an institutional expression of dignity and equality.

How the position understands it: Freedom, integrity, expression, protection against violence, political participation, and legal equality are goods that must hold for all.

Basis and context: The theme strengthened after modern struggles for abolition, democracy, civil equality, and international protection of rights.

Debates and variations: There are discussions about universality, coloniality, and political priorities, but the general commitment to rights remains central.

Supportive

A. C. Grayling, For the Good of the World

secular-humanism,grayling,public-ethics,universalism

Public ethics and a shared humanity in secular language.

Reference: A. C. Grayling, For the Good of the World.
Content: Grayling argues for a universalist public ethics based on our shared humanity, responsibility, and reason.
Use in debate: It is useful for pluralism, rights, and civic responsibility.

Humanist Manifesto II (1973)

secular-humanism,manifesto,human-rights,1973

An expansion of the humanist project in a global and ethical key.

Reference: Humanist Manifesto II (1973).
Content: The text emphasizes human rights, democracy, sexual freedom, peace, science, and global responsibility.
Use in debate: It is central for themes of dignity, secular ethics, and pluralism.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1

secular-humanism,human-rights,dignity,equality

All are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Reference: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1.
Content: The article affirms freedom, equality in dignity, and fraternity among all people.
Use in debate: It is an important basis for universal human rights in public non-confessional language.

Neutral

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue

macintyre,secular-humanism,morality,neutral

A philosophical critique of modern moral fragmentation.

Reference: Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue.
Content: The author criticizes the fragmentation of modern moral languages and questions a certain secular liberal self-understanding.
Use in debate: It is an important source of tension, but not a simple rejection, toward contemporary secular humanism.