The Absoluteness of Human Rights: A Logical Proof Based on Performative Reductio ad Absurdum

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a rigorous logical proof for the proposition that "human rights are absolute." Unlike existing theories that rely on metaphysical presuppositions, theological premises, or empirical induction, this paper employs a method of "performative reductio ad absurdum": proceeding from the counter-proposition that "human rights are not absolute," it analyzes the actions that any critic necessarily performs in the very act of raising an objection, thereby revealing the logical self-refutation inherent in that counter-proposition. This paper argues that any normative claim that denies the absoluteness of human rights itself presupposes, in the act of claiming, the claimant's normative ownership over their own will—which is precisely the core content of the absoluteness of human rights. On this basis, the paper further argues that bodily ownership is the necessary extension of will-ownership in the act of making a claim; that absoluteness itself intrinsically requires validity across time and states; and that if silence is a deliberate choice, it is itself an exercise of will and thus cannot be used to evade the argument. The absoluteness of human rights is therefore not a conclusion proven by empirical facts, but a transcendental condition that makes any normative discussion possible.