RIGHTS
Introduction
Introductory Line
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 suggests that there are human rights that
ought to be afforded to individuals simply by virtue of them being human.
However, the basis of those rights ought to be considered.
Philosophies
There are several justifications for universal human rights such as John Locke’s’ theory as well as
Immanuel Kant’s secular justification.
These are contrasted against the view of Legal positivists such as Jeremy Bentham and Edmund
Burke.
Societal Implications
This debate has significance because if there are in fact universal human rights, then there is a
responsibility for the government to uphold them.
Conclusion
After comparing the views of Lock, Kant, and legal positivists, it seem Kant’s secular justification is
the most promising.
Defining Rights
Human Rights
It is important in this debate to first define the variety of terms associated with rights.
Human rights are the rights that ought to be afforded to an individual “simply by virtue of being
human”, whilst legal rights are the rights offered to an individual under the laws they live by.
Positive and Negative Rights
There are also two types of rights, as distinguished by Isiah Berlin: positive and negative.
Positive rights are rights to be able to do something, whilst negative rights are a right from
something (essentially non-interference).
Hohfeldian Analytic system of rights
According to the Hohfeldian Analytic system of rights, rights led to duties in other people to uphold
these rights, so positive rights lead to someone else having to provide you with something, whereas
negative rights require other people to not interfere with you.
Trumps
Ronald Dworkin believed rights were best understood as ‘Trumps’, whereby they cannot be violated
regardless of whether doing so would result in benefits for most society, which emphasises the
intrinsic value of all human beings.
Locke
General Theory
John Locke provided a theistic justification of rights through his social contract theory.
He argued in the state of nature we have a right to our “life, health, liberty and possessions”.
He justified our right to life, health, and liberty by arguing that we are all God’s creation made in the
image of God (‘imago dei’), and it is wrong to disturb what God has made.
He justified a right to our possessions through his conception of property rights, whereby you are
entitled to your labour, and so when you mix your labour with land, you come to own the hand.
This is because such a thing was not ‘manner from heaven’, but required your hard work and
labour, which you owned.
Criticisms
However, there are some problems with Locke’s conceptions of natural rights.
1. First is that they are not natural rights, but rather are supernatural rights, as they rely on so
heavily upon God. This is an issue for many philosopher such as Ayn Rand, who suggested that
“to rest one’s case on faith means to concede one has no rational arguments to offer”,
suggesting that arguments based on a metaphysical assumption are weak. Against this
advocates for the Lockean system of rights would argue that there is a rational side to his state
of nature, as described by Jonathan Wolffe. This suggests that since there is retributivist justice
in the state of nature, it surely makes sense to allow people to enjoy their “life, health, liberty,
and possessions:, so that your life is not impacted. However, it seems paradoxical to base a
legislation for human rights on a consequentialist principle, as it makes them conditional and
consequently refutable. Therefore, a secular justification is required.
Introduction
Introductory Line
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 suggests that there are human rights that
ought to be afforded to individuals simply by virtue of them being human.
However, the basis of those rights ought to be considered.
Philosophies
There are several justifications for universal human rights such as John Locke’s’ theory as well as
Immanuel Kant’s secular justification.
These are contrasted against the view of Legal positivists such as Jeremy Bentham and Edmund
Burke.
Societal Implications
This debate has significance because if there are in fact universal human rights, then there is a
responsibility for the government to uphold them.
Conclusion
After comparing the views of Lock, Kant, and legal positivists, it seem Kant’s secular justification is
the most promising.
Defining Rights
Human Rights
It is important in this debate to first define the variety of terms associated with rights.
Human rights are the rights that ought to be afforded to an individual “simply by virtue of being
human”, whilst legal rights are the rights offered to an individual under the laws they live by.
Positive and Negative Rights
There are also two types of rights, as distinguished by Isiah Berlin: positive and negative.
Positive rights are rights to be able to do something, whilst negative rights are a right from
something (essentially non-interference).
Hohfeldian Analytic system of rights
According to the Hohfeldian Analytic system of rights, rights led to duties in other people to uphold
these rights, so positive rights lead to someone else having to provide you with something, whereas
negative rights require other people to not interfere with you.
Trumps
Ronald Dworkin believed rights were best understood as ‘Trumps’, whereby they cannot be violated
regardless of whether doing so would result in benefits for most society, which emphasises the
intrinsic value of all human beings.
Locke
General Theory
John Locke provided a theistic justification of rights through his social contract theory.
He argued in the state of nature we have a right to our “life, health, liberty and possessions”.
He justified our right to life, health, and liberty by arguing that we are all God’s creation made in the
image of God (‘imago dei’), and it is wrong to disturb what God has made.
He justified a right to our possessions through his conception of property rights, whereby you are
entitled to your labour, and so when you mix your labour with land, you come to own the hand.
This is because such a thing was not ‘manner from heaven’, but required your hard work and
labour, which you owned.
Criticisms
However, there are some problems with Locke’s conceptions of natural rights.
1. First is that they are not natural rights, but rather are supernatural rights, as they rely on so
heavily upon God. This is an issue for many philosopher such as Ayn Rand, who suggested that
“to rest one’s case on faith means to concede one has no rational arguments to offer”,
suggesting that arguments based on a metaphysical assumption are weak. Against this
advocates for the Lockean system of rights would argue that there is a rational side to his state
of nature, as described by Jonathan Wolffe. This suggests that since there is retributivist justice
in the state of nature, it surely makes sense to allow people to enjoy their “life, health, liberty,
and possessions:, so that your life is not impacted. However, it seems paradoxical to base a
legislation for human rights on a consequentialist principle, as it makes them conditional and
consequently refutable. Therefore, a secular justification is required.
