Pareciera que las determinaciones políticas se tuvieran que tomar siempre desde un enfoque frívolo de cálculo y conveniencia. Hablar de anteponer el interés de los valores y los derechos humanos a cualquier otra situación que, en términos políticos, pueda resultar más cómoda y manejable, hay quien cree que es lo correcto por razones de practicidad y de mejor protección de los intereses particulares de una nación y de sus ciudadanos. En este artículo sostengo que esto es un error y que el respeto y atención a los valores y derechos humanos de todos y, la consciencia y convicción de ellos y de su superioridad, son de capital importancia en el ejercicio de las decisiones políticas.Reflexiono desde la ética de Max Weber y desde la idea de la fuerza trascendental hegeliana.DOIhttps://doi.org/10.24265/voxjuris.2018.v36n2.03

Este trabajo pretende brindar un panorama de la idea del estado de la cuestión de los derechos humanos, buscando introducir una visión crítica sobre los mismos y con especial atención a los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales. La visión del constitucionalismo tradicional considera de una determinada manera a los derechos civiles y políticos, porque ellos están formalmente garantizados, esto es, que son derechos factibles de ser judicializados, reclamados en la vía judicial. Para esta visión, estos serían los derechos humanos propiamente dichos. Del otro lado, desde esta misma visión, estarían los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales, los que solo alcanzarían a ser meros principios rectores que informan a la legislación positiva, a la práctica judicial y a la actuación de los poderes públicos, tal y como lo establece, por ejemplo, la Constitución española...

The discrimination or vexation of rights suffered by a given person cannot and should never be corrected by causing other discrimination or vexation equal to or worse than that which is intended to be tackled, and even less so against the other who is supposed to remain, at present, the same historical discriminator and vexatious person who is accused. This article will analyse why accepting a kind of exchange of one form of discrimination for another is a contradiction and a recklessness that, in the world of rights, is irrefutably unacceptable.

In this work I seek to awake a reflection on the legal situation that is causing discrimination against men because of sex and that, in turn, benefits women granting them procedural and normative privileges, for the same reason. I do not deny the historical discrimination women have suffered over the time and in this article I give clear evidence of this and affirm that this discriminatory idea still remains alive in some heads, even in notorious persons of our society. However, in this article I reject that this situation can justify from the Law legal rules that harass the dignity of man for the simple fact of being. The State, wanting to give immediate and efficient answers, especially through the popular pressure of some interested people, has ended up establishing abusive and disproportionate norms against men. Being able to, unfairly mistreat a man in his dignity, because the law f...

Human dignity means understanding human beings as beings that, due to its specific characteristics that are specific to the human condition, has a special value that requires recognition and respect from society. Human being would be placed in the center of the world, occupying a preeminent place with respect to the other beings. Thus, speaking of a human dignity of all human beings, equal for all as human beings, supposes placing ourselves in a universal and unified vision as to what it is. Here then, the problem begins. It is easy to find references to human dignity in many regulations, especially in human rights, both in national and international norms. In these regulations we will find, easily, the use of the term dignity repeated several times to sustain a certain right or legal argument, but not to define what is precisely and properly human dignity. Then, everything goes well as ...