Natural Rights Theory of the 20th Century - Coursework Example

of the of the Concerned 14 June Natural Rights Theory Introduction There is no denying the fact that the 20th century philosophers came across many limiting problems and circumstances while writing about natural rights. It has been 67 years since the II World War and much has changed since then. In the current circumstances, the concept of human rights enjoys an important and undeniable place in the realm of political and philosophical debates (Tuck 5). It is difficult to talk about natural rights in the sense that to own a right means to be in a position to benefit from the duties enjoined on others, and that any debate into the nature of natural rights is easily translatable into a debate on the duties associated with an individual or a group (Tuck 5). In that context a sense of duty gains preponderance over claim over rights in the sense that it raises the issue of propositions related to duties (Tuck 5). Any attempt to elaborate on the meaning of a term like ‘rights’, is dependant to a great extent on the enjoining theories and since times immemorial, varied theories have played a pivotal role in the determination of the meaning and the spirit of the term ‘rights’ (Tuck 8). This raises many questions pertaining to the meaning of ‘rights’, as to whether rights are something whose application and expression could be directly controlled by its possessors, or is it the moral and political duty of the public institutions and laws to make way for a hassle free extension of rights (Tuck 8)? Thus, the natural rights theory pertaining to the basic freedoms and rights which should be accessible to all individuals is not that simplistic and straightforward in its philosophical and political scope. Natural Rights Before delving on a philosophical delineation of the concept of natural rights and the successive developments and the emergence of varied classifications, it will be really pragmatic to delve on the notion of natural rights in a simplistic context. Natural rights are the rights that tend to be universal in their scope and application and that are readily accessible to all the individuals simply by the virtue of their being human. Natural rights include within their ambit a range of rights affiliated to civil, cultural, political, social, and economic rights. The theory of natural rights is quintessentially based on the notion of human dignity and worth. Natural Rights- A Historical Perspective In a historical perspective, the notion of natural rights could be traced back to the tablet of Hammurabi. Though the codifications of Hammurabi tended to protect the individuals from arbitrary persecution and exploitation, they were limiting in the sense that they evinced little in the context of abstract concepts like racial, religious and individual beliefs (Chadwick 876). It was eventually in the ancient Greece that the term natural rights began to accrue a much broader and holistic meaning than being merely confined to protection from arbitrary persecution. As per the Greek tradition enunciated by Plato and Socrates, natural rights are the rights that originate from the natural laws of the universe, and which essentially express the will of the gods that exercise a control over the nature and the universe (Barker 4). Many scholars do tend to hold that the idea of natural rights was inextricably inherent in the early Judeo-Christian doctrines, which delved on the moral autonomy and the dignity of each and every human being (Tierney 46). However, in a contemporary context, the idea of natural rights has to some extent been severed from its Judeo-Christian origins and is explained and talked about in more of a secular context. One undeniably can trace the elements akin to natural rights in the Magna Carta. The concept of natural rights indeed got intertwined with the predominant American and European political and philosophical thought in the 18th and 19th century. The concrete notions of natural rights are implicitly and explicitly evident in the salient historic and political movements, dogmas and the commensurate documents associated with the modern Western civilization, are they the French Declaration of the Rights of a Man and Citizen, the American Declaration of Independence, or the later United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would not be wrong to say that in a pragmatic sense, natural rights to a great extent have been a universally celebrated yet a practically disregarded concept. Varied philosophers, politicians and doctrines tend to hold different views as to the set of rights that could be validly ascribed to be natural rights. HLA Hart puts the right to liberty at the forefront of natural rights and considers all natural rights to be dependent on the right to liberty. TH Green included the right to life within the ambit of natural rights. Thomas Jefferson included the “pursuit of happiness” to constitute a natural right in the Declaration of Independence. John Locke Since times immemorial, the usurpation of the rights of a man by the ensuing political and cultural turmoil has time and again stimulated the thinkers to write on the concepts of rights and liberty. John Locke moved by the pervasive civil war, repression and violence rampant in the mid seventeenth century England, propounded his theory of natural rights. As per Locke, it was the undeniable moral duty of the state and the governments to serve people, by safeguarding and protecting their natural rights that included within their ambit, the right to life, liberty and property (Anstey 69). In the interest of the natural rights of the people, Locke proposed a system of checks and balances aimed at curtailing the power of the state so that it may never get so powerful so as to usurp the natural rights of the citizens (Anstey 69). Locke held the rule of law and a representative government to be unexceptionally essential so as to protect the natural rights of the populace. Locke held that man by nature happened to be a social animal and tends to honour one’s promises and obligations (Anstey 69). In the context of the natural rights, Locke held that human beings do always have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, and the role of the state should be limited to merely look to it that the justice is being done (Anstey 74). It goes without saying that Locke’s views pertaining to natural rights were considered to be so radical in his times that he did not sign his name to them. However, Locke’s views had a discernible influence on the American War for Independence. Though the prevalent Monarchist influences strictly criticised Locke, the wisdom of Locke lied in his ability to be able to see beyond the Monarchist influences of his times. Some scholars criticized Locke’s doctrine of natural rights by saying that when Locke’s talks about natural rights, it is more in regards to the duty enjoined on an individual to not to curtail the liberty, life and property rights of others (Anstey 167). Many contemporary politicians and thinkers also criticized Lockes’ notion as to the extent to which the natural rights could be deducted by reason (Anstey 167) Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes though happened to be a natural rights theorist like Locke, yet this similarity does not go very far. All the natural rights theorists including Locke held that man by nature was a social animal. However, Hobbes believed otherwise. As per Thomas Hobbes, that man was not essentially a social animal and the society could not survive on its own without the existence of the state (Malcolm 33). Since times immemorial, natural rights were considered to be a sort of higher authority that not only allowed for a moral ordering of the society in consonance with the requirements of human dignity, but extended to the ordinary citizens a standard by which they could estimate as to whether the laws put in place by the state were humane or tyrannical. Thomas Hobbes went against the flow by declaring that affiliation to some divine or natural laws that stood superior to state statutes gave way to anarchy and bloodshed (Malcolm 33). Hobbes discarded all the pre-existing natural rights doctrines and advised the people to uphold the customs and laws propounded by the state, in the interest of security and peace, even when these laws and customs seemed to be inhumane and unjust. The merit of Hobbes line of thought lied in the fact that it put more stress on the human obligations, both as an individual and a citizen, rather than solely thriving for rights. Hobbes also laid stress on the existence of some higher coercive power like state, fearing which citizens would follow the laws of nature and respect the natural rights of others, which sounds pragmatic and commonsensical. Bentham- Rejection of Natural Rights At a conceptual level, Bentham considered the concept of natural rights to be nonsensical and troublesome (Ramaswamy & Mukherjee 280). As per Bentham there existed no such rights as the natural rights that contradicted the provisions made in the legal rights (Ramaswamy & Mukherjee 280). Bentham was such discarding of the notions of natural rights for two reasons. First and foremost Bentham was critical of anything that came within the scope of metaphysics and tended to be ambiguous or unclear (Ramaswamy & Mukherjee 280). Secondly Bentham believed that the way natural rights theorists expressed their views and notions regarding natural rights, in a way guaranteed the falsity of the natural rights theory (Ramaswamy & Mukherjee 280). In that sense Bentham stood closer to Hobbes than Locke. Just like Hobbes, Bentham insisted that theorists while give words to their thoughts must stick to the choice of words, which facilitated clarity and preciseness. He held that considering the confused and ambiguous nature of the notion of natural rights was bound to give way to political conflicts and confusion. In a more pragmatic context, Bentham favoured change as enshrined in the theory of natural rights, but not at the cost of sacrificing order, security and continuity (Ramaswamy & Mukherjee 280). Bentham’s views pertaining to natural rights seem relevant when one tends to consider them in a much broader context, while taking into consideration all the existing theories of natural rights. It is pragmatic to expect the citizens to agree to a partial curtailment of their natural rights in the interest of assuring stability and peace for all. However, in a scenario where the state infringes on the natural rights of the citizens to the extent that it in itself becomes an instrument of tyranny, injustice and violence, then Locke’s proposition of diluting the powers of the state sounds valid. Conclusion Strictly speaking, the theory of natural rights is a two sided coin. Its visible side upholds the rights that are deemed to be necessary and in consonance with the requirements of human dignity. However, the other side of this coin tacitly upholds the duties and obligations, which are necessary to maintain peace and stability. Works Cited Anstey, Peter R. The Philosophy of John Locke. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print. Barker, E. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York: Dover 1985. Print. Chadwick, Ruth. Encyclopaedia of Applied Ethics. Volume:3. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998. Print. Malcolm, Noel. Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Print. Tierney, Brian. The Idea of Natural Rights. London: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Print. Tuck, Richard. Natural Rights Theories. London: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print. Ramaswamy, Sushila & Mukherjee, Subrata. A History of Political Thought. New York: PHI Learning, 2011. Print. Read More