🤜🏻
Lynn Hunt, The French
Revolution and Human Rights
Revolutionary Origins of Human Rights
In the eighteenth century, many writers distinguished between political and civil
rights:
Political rights guaranteed equal participation in voting, officeholding, and
other aspects of political participation; civil rights guaranteed equal
treatment before the law in matters concerning marriage, property, and
inheritance, that is, nonpolitical matters.
In the twentieth century the distinction between political and civil rights has
been blurred because, increasingly, people assume that individuals should
enjoy both (hence the more general term human rights), and other rights have
been progressively added to the list: the right to nondiscrimination in
employment or housing, the right to a basic level of welfare, etc.
In 1948 UN made a Universal declaration of Human rights.
It proclaimed that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world."
To declare the existence and political relevance of human rights in this
fashion implies that
Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights 1
, (1) all human beings have certain inherent rights simply by virtue of being and
not by virtue of them being with a status
(2) these rights are consequently imagined as "natural," as stemming from
human nature itself, and they have in the past often been called "natural
rights"
(3) rights belong therefore to individuals and not to any social group, whether a
sex, a race, an ethnicity, a group of families, a social class, an occupational
group, a nation,
(4) these rights must be made equally available by law to all individuals and
cannot be denied as long as an individual lives under the law;
(5) the legitimacy of any government rests on its ability to guarantee the
rights of all its members.
This was a break from the traditional hierarchy of the society where
Privileges depended on a social rank which was vertical and now the human
rights were a horizontal conception where all politically active individuals
possess the same rights by their nature as humans.
The notion of human rights tends to favor democracy; traditional ideas of
social difference support aristocracy and monarchy. Religion could and did
justify both conceptions; but in the long run the believers in human rights
often insisted on a separation between church and state, whereas upholders
of traditional ideas argued for a close connection between religion and
politics. Thus human rights was an idea with great consequences; more than
any other notion, it has defined the nature of modern politics and society .
UN declaration of 1948, all people are equally entitled to human rights. Article 1
of the declaration asserted that "All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights."
This in itself has not been achieved and there are arguments on if it will ever be.
Jeremy Bentham insisted that "Natural rights is simple nonsense; natural and
imprescriptible rights (an American phrase), rhetorical nonsense, nonsense
upon stilts.”
In many ways the political history of the Western world since the early
eighteenth century has been dominated by the issue of rights: Do they exist,
what are they, who enjoys them, and what means are justified in protecting and
establishing them?
Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights 2
, Most debates about rights originated in the eighteenth century, most explicit,
most divisive, or most influential than in revolutionary France in the 1790s.
The framers of the UN declaration of 1948 closely followed the model
established by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of
1789, while substituting "human" for the more ambiguous "man" throughout.
Article
French declaration of 1789 decreed, for instance that
"Men are born free and remain free and equal in rights,"
DEFINING RIGHTS BEFORE 1789
Its sources in western world varied from new conceptions of individual
autonomy (the belief that individuals should make their own decisions about
marriage, for example) to debates about the foundations of government.
Most distinctive about Western notions of human rights is the emphasis on
their universal applicability; by implication, human rights are for all humans.
This universalism may have come from the idea of NATURAL LAWS.
Hugo Grotius, in 1625, argued that natural laws are derived from the study of
human nature, not from religion. He believed that these laws did not vary with
historical context and, as a result, existed independently of all political powers
and authorities. In other words, natural law stood above the current historical
and political context and served as a standard against which any actual
laws or governments could be judged. Interestingly, ideas of natural law,
especially natural rights, were soon embraced by opponents of Western
imperialism and colonialism who used them to criticize the subjugation of other
peoples. They argued that colonization destroyed the natural rights of these
oppressed populations.
The Social Contract theory proposed by John Locke in 1690 played a crucial
role in bridging the gap between natural law and universal rights. Locke
asserted that all government was based on an implicit social contract rooted
in human nature. This social contract expressed natural laws and aimed to
protect natural rights. However, the specific nature of these rights and
whether everyone was equally entitled to them became a subject of debate.
In one of the most enduring formulations of human rights, Locke maintained
that all men had a natural right to life, liberty, and property. In Locke's view,
the purpose of government was to safeguard these rights, and if it failed to do
so, it could be justifiably overthrown, as the English Parliament had done with
Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights 3
Lynn Hunt, The French
Revolution and Human Rights
Revolutionary Origins of Human Rights
In the eighteenth century, many writers distinguished between political and civil
rights:
Political rights guaranteed equal participation in voting, officeholding, and
other aspects of political participation; civil rights guaranteed equal
treatment before the law in matters concerning marriage, property, and
inheritance, that is, nonpolitical matters.
In the twentieth century the distinction between political and civil rights has
been blurred because, increasingly, people assume that individuals should
enjoy both (hence the more general term human rights), and other rights have
been progressively added to the list: the right to nondiscrimination in
employment or housing, the right to a basic level of welfare, etc.
In 1948 UN made a Universal declaration of Human rights.
It proclaimed that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world."
To declare the existence and political relevance of human rights in this
fashion implies that
Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights 1
, (1) all human beings have certain inherent rights simply by virtue of being and
not by virtue of them being with a status
(2) these rights are consequently imagined as "natural," as stemming from
human nature itself, and they have in the past often been called "natural
rights"
(3) rights belong therefore to individuals and not to any social group, whether a
sex, a race, an ethnicity, a group of families, a social class, an occupational
group, a nation,
(4) these rights must be made equally available by law to all individuals and
cannot be denied as long as an individual lives under the law;
(5) the legitimacy of any government rests on its ability to guarantee the
rights of all its members.
This was a break from the traditional hierarchy of the society where
Privileges depended on a social rank which was vertical and now the human
rights were a horizontal conception where all politically active individuals
possess the same rights by their nature as humans.
The notion of human rights tends to favor democracy; traditional ideas of
social difference support aristocracy and monarchy. Religion could and did
justify both conceptions; but in the long run the believers in human rights
often insisted on a separation between church and state, whereas upholders
of traditional ideas argued for a close connection between religion and
politics. Thus human rights was an idea with great consequences; more than
any other notion, it has defined the nature of modern politics and society .
UN declaration of 1948, all people are equally entitled to human rights. Article 1
of the declaration asserted that "All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights."
This in itself has not been achieved and there are arguments on if it will ever be.
Jeremy Bentham insisted that "Natural rights is simple nonsense; natural and
imprescriptible rights (an American phrase), rhetorical nonsense, nonsense
upon stilts.”
In many ways the political history of the Western world since the early
eighteenth century has been dominated by the issue of rights: Do they exist,
what are they, who enjoys them, and what means are justified in protecting and
establishing them?
Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights 2
, Most debates about rights originated in the eighteenth century, most explicit,
most divisive, or most influential than in revolutionary France in the 1790s.
The framers of the UN declaration of 1948 closely followed the model
established by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of
1789, while substituting "human" for the more ambiguous "man" throughout.
Article
French declaration of 1789 decreed, for instance that
"Men are born free and remain free and equal in rights,"
DEFINING RIGHTS BEFORE 1789
Its sources in western world varied from new conceptions of individual
autonomy (the belief that individuals should make their own decisions about
marriage, for example) to debates about the foundations of government.
Most distinctive about Western notions of human rights is the emphasis on
their universal applicability; by implication, human rights are for all humans.
This universalism may have come from the idea of NATURAL LAWS.
Hugo Grotius, in 1625, argued that natural laws are derived from the study of
human nature, not from religion. He believed that these laws did not vary with
historical context and, as a result, existed independently of all political powers
and authorities. In other words, natural law stood above the current historical
and political context and served as a standard against which any actual
laws or governments could be judged. Interestingly, ideas of natural law,
especially natural rights, were soon embraced by opponents of Western
imperialism and colonialism who used them to criticize the subjugation of other
peoples. They argued that colonization destroyed the natural rights of these
oppressed populations.
The Social Contract theory proposed by John Locke in 1690 played a crucial
role in bridging the gap between natural law and universal rights. Locke
asserted that all government was based on an implicit social contract rooted
in human nature. This social contract expressed natural laws and aimed to
protect natural rights. However, the specific nature of these rights and
whether everyone was equally entitled to them became a subject of debate.
In one of the most enduring formulations of human rights, Locke maintained
that all men had a natural right to life, liberty, and property. In Locke's view,
the purpose of government was to safeguard these rights, and if it failed to do
so, it could be justifiably overthrown, as the English Parliament had done with
Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights 3
