Modern Human Rights and Natural Law - Report Example

Modern Human Rights and Natural Law Introduction The United Nations has for the last fifty years been making legislations that have had a great effect on the doctrines of human rights. The question that many people have been asking is whether the philosophic foundations have any effect on the natural law foundations. According to Plato, the most important thing about philosophy is that it allows an individual to know themselves. There are some other people who teach that the important thing about natural law is that it deepens the understanding that people have on truth. With the great efforts that the United Nations have been putting in defining human rights, the question that then comes up is on whether natural law has any influence on these modern human rights (Bandow 73). In essence, this is the question that this paper seeks to answer and clarify as possible. Natural Law and Natural Rights Ideally, natural law and natural rights originate from the traditional nature, as well as concept of man and the world that he lives in. Natural law states that man has the right to defend himself and his property due to the kind of species that we are. The true law comes from this right and not from the arbitrary powers that are created by such bodies such as the United Nations. Natural law is objective and has an outside existence and this fact is derived from the evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) which argues that it is ordinary for human beings and other animals that are similar to them to use force. The aptitude to make ethical judgments as well as the ability to differentiate between good and evil has instant transformational benefits. The capacity to know good and evil therefore comes naturally to men in just the same way as they are able to throw stones without learning that art (Blanche 23). By closely examining today’s society, an individual realizes that natural law is very applicable in the modern society as it was applied by Locke three decades ago or by Dade in his endeavor to check the excesses of government’s just about a century ago. Individuals who deny that natural rights has any place in the modern human rights point out that those who advocate for natural rights are not consistent in their explanations because there has been varying definitions of natural law. This group of opponents has for long been trying to come up with a list of possible contradictions to the so called natural law in a bid to discredit its application. It is worthy noting that the definitions that are used in describing natural law are not necessarily equivalent but due to the state of the world, they are significantly the same in application. The complaints raised by those who oppose natural rights are to a large extent frivolous and they can not therefore be used as basis for the rejection of natural law. Given that human beings are intelligent as compared to other animals, it is therefore ideal to conclude that the offered definitions for natural law are all the same, not by some sort of reasoning but instead by the fact that history, experience, economics, and observation has consistently proved this (Bovard 184). In order to prove that natural law has still got a big effect on modern human rights, it is important to look at the various definitions given on natural law with a view to establishing whether they are still applicable. In the medieval period, philosophers claimed that it is impossible to define natural law and to try to do that would be to play in the gallery of those who do not love freedom. According to the medieval stage, the only way possible to define natural law would be to point at certain examples just in the same manner that biologists define species usually by indicating a certain animal or a specimen that has been preserved for examination (Locke 69). Apart from the medieval stage, the historical state of nature points out that natural law is the one that matches with an impulsive order in the absence of state and one that is usually enforced by spontaneous violence and an example of this is the force that overthrew the Roman Empire during the dark ages. On its part, the philosophical definition states that natural law is the kind of law which is ideal to carry on with unorganized violence either in the absence or presence of a government and one which is needed in punishing crimes during such a state. Locke notes that such a system is required especially due to the rise of instances where there is no state power to try wrongs or in the event where the state cannot be relied upon to bring justice to the society. The most current definition is the scientific or theoretic definition, which states that if an individual uses unorganized violence in the absence of an organized society, then such an individual could not be termed to be a threat to the reasonable man (Locke 69). Over the years, utilitarian and relativist theories have been pushing those who adhere to natural law to come with a definition that is autonomous of the nature of man and the nature of the world around him. However, since it is impossible to separate the essence of natural law from human nature, then it becomes hard to meet this philosopher’s standard. For a long time, sociologists have been working hard to recreate the human nature. However, their continual failure has been enough testimony that the nature of man is universal and cannot be recreated. This means that if natural law had an effect on human rights back in the medieval days, then this effect is still holding ground. Man is considered a rational animal that is capable of owning property and creating things that were not in existence. Although bees are considered to be social animals, man is not social in the same manner but is instead social in the manner of wolves and penguins. It is from this concept that it becomes clear that, the type of totalitarian society that is suitable for bees would not be idea for human beings. Borrowing from the language of sociologist, human beings are social but they cannot be said to be unsocial which implies, natural laws therefore come from the very nature of men. Based on social law, men are entitled to life, independence and property, as well as the right to guard themselves against those who would want to take away these privileges (Ellickson 66). Given the above analogy, it therefore follows that the law is derived from the right of man to defend himself and not from the authority of the state as many people would want to believe. If the law was anything that the state deemed fit, then the tenets of the rule of law and of authenticity could not have the significance that it holds and the concepts of actions being lawful or not would not bear the emotional significance that it has. In other words, if the state could declare any law that they deemed fit, then that would not be considered to be law but it would instead be seen as the use of force (Ellickson 66). In the last four decades, the society has been dominated by ideas with numerous changes occurring between the existent ideas and the social order. Today, many people probably due to the ideas on human rights proposed by the United States have continued to see the place of natural law as non effective in relation to human rights but the rationalizations that justify such a position are not as influential. Although the professors who hold to such beliefs can accord students who dissent some failing grades, the truth is that they do not have a convincing position. Unlike a few years ago when people who supported natural law were constantly under threat, the truth is that such a position is currently gaining more acceptance in learning institutions (Keyes 1). Just like in the past when natural law was heavily relied upon in meting out justice, the state in the current society spends even more resources and invades private lives in more detailed ways and even wields more authority that gives them the chance to formulate stiffer penalties. The crimes that these penalties are meant to address were only declared illegal just recently and this means that they have been relying on the transforming human nature to continue coining laws which they feel are ideal in addressing the new form of man. During this same period, the capacity of the state to coerce and collect taxes has been declining at a very fast rate and this has led even fewer people to be concerned with the political statements that the ruling elites make and they are even less inclined to identify with a winning political party. The above trends are driven by forces that have been in existence since time immemorial. Although sociologists have tried to explain why these things are so while political strategists try to look for ways to bring harmony between the people and the state, the truth is that these forces are unstoppable since they are driven by a natural law that is hard to control (Barkow & Tooby 100). With various human right groups working so hard to fight for the rights of the masses even ion the middle of government repressions, there is no doubt that these two forces are headed for a collision. On one hand the states have been losing their ability to coerce while on the other hand the people are becoming hard to be coerced. In the recent past, there have been numerous revolts against states that have been trying to repress the rights of people. In most cases just like in Dante’s observation, these revolts are usually spontaneous and they are usually directed towards people whom the society feels that they are repressing their rights. This trend explains why gun sales have been going up greatly in the last few years (Barkow & Tooby 101). As people continue to fight for their human rights, it is estimated that there will be extra use of force. As Dante once noted, free societies are only created in places where there is an increase of force. This does not mean that the use of force will guarantee the existence of a free society but it will instead make it possible for such a society to exist. Although there are individuals who have been using force lawfully, the larger group has been using lawful means under natural law to fight for their human rights. In a large form, the current fight for human rights can be likened to the ancient war between the Greeks and the Persians, which demonstrated that the common adherence to the rule of law was more potent than in situations where the emergence of such unity was brought about by trying to adhere to some sort of central power (Locke 69). Conclusion The fact that natural law has still have a great influence on the modern human rights can be seen by examining the fall of the Soviet Union. Although most people claim that the union failed because of economic errors performed by Stalin, the truth is that the union failed because of lack of social cohesion. Stalin felt that he had an authority to dictate what was right or wrong but the people had their own version of what was right and what was wrong. Although the Soviet Union finally crumbled, most states have been using the model used by Stalin in running their governments and just in the same manner as it happened to Stalin, the people have been rebelling to such laws by use of spontaneous violence that has led to the collapse of numerous governments. Works Cited Bandow, Doug. What is still wrong with the World Bank? Orbis, 2009. 73 – 89. Barkow, Joseph & Tooby, Cosmides. The Adapted Mind, Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press, 2010. 100-115. Blanche, Benson. The enterprise of law, justice without the state. Pacific Research Institute, 2011. 23-35. Bovard, James. The World Bank vs. the Worlds Poor. The Freeman, 2008: 184 – 187. Keyes, Alan. Ethiopia: The U.N.s Role. Statement by the Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs before the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Washington D. C., US. Department of State, Current Policy No. 803 2012: 1-20. Ellickson, Robert. Order without Law, How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Harvard University Press, 2001. 66-75. Print. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Harvard University Press, ed, 2009. 69-80. Read More