The Natural Rights Theory - Coursework Example

THE NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY By Location The Natural Rights Theory Introduction John Locke is one of the renowned liberal philosophers who placed emphasis on individual rights. He developed the theory of natural rights, which he based on the understanding of the natural law. His philosophy has received attention from other philosophers who do believe in the existence of human rights. One of the outstanding critics of the theory developed by Locke is Jeremy Bentham, who did not believe in the system of natural rights. In his opinion, natural rights were but anarchical fallacies. Therefore, he rejected the natural rights theory developed by Locke. This paper will describe Locke’s view and his theory of natural rights. In addition, the paper will present the criticism presented by Bentham and his reasons for rejecting the natural theory of human rights. The Natural Rights Theory Developed by John Locke According to Locke, human beings exist in a state of perfect freedom. For this reason, they exhibit anatomy in deciding what they want to do, what possessions that can own or dispose of, and think independently as long as their thoughts are within the natural law of nature. The state of perfect freedom gives an individual the room to lead an autonomous life without the dependence on anyone else. Locke also had the conviction that human beings existed in a state of equality. According to him, nobody was greater than the other was. He opined that all human beings belong to a similar species and an equal rank, exposed to similar advantages of nature, and able to use similar faculties. For this reason, none of the human beings should have to submit or subordinate before other human beings. Subjection would only result if the general master appointed a ruler over the other human beings. In addition, Locke described the state of liberty that human beings enjoyed (Locke 2001, p. 8). In his opinion, each had a measure of uncontrollable liberty that allowed him or her to dispose of or hold possessions. As long as an individual did not seek to destroy himself, he was at liberty to dispose of any possession. Although human beings exist in a state of liberty as Locke highlighted, this state did not give them the opportunity to destroy one’s life or other people’s lives. Despite this state of liberty, it was inappropriate for an individual to harm his or her health or the possessions one has. For this reason, Locke highlighted that each had a responsibility to preserve itself, as well as others. It was out of the question for one to think of terminating the life of others or harming their health in any way. Locke placed emphasis on an individual’s duty to maintain respect for other people’s rights. Since each existed in a state of natural law that presented the individual with an opportunity to enjoy certain rights, it was inappropriate for other people to deny a person such rights. An individual had the responsibility of preserving one’s rights and those of others. However, Locke describes the responsibility to respect the right of others as dependent on the natural law and not on individual rights as other philosophers highlighted. Locke was keen to highlight that God was the originator of the natural law. Since He is a supreme master, all the human beings were accountable to him. In the fourth chapter of Locke’s second treatise on government, he highlights the rights to property. He described the way in which human beings were born with a natural right to preserve the self. Self-preservation involved eating and drinking so as to meet all the needs for one’s sustenance (Locke 2001, p. 10). God is the giver of possessions and the earth to men. Therefore, He expects them to use what they have been given wisely and for their convenience without harming anything that they have received. The earth has numerous resources that can support the survival of human beings. However, human beings should be keen to use the resources appropriately without any form of destruction. Interestingly, Locke proceeded to highlight that small creatures that were inferior to human beings filled the earth and each needed to have a property in his person. Human beings were expected to labor so as to utilize the resources presented by the earth. Therefore, whatever an individual accumulated through hard work belonged to him or her. According to the argument presented by Locke, the available resource in nature became one’s property after an individual transformed them from their original state (Locke 2001, p. 13). For example, Locke highlights that by gathering fruits from their trees, they become one’s property. However, it is unfair for individuals to take too much possession from the earth without being mindful of the needs of the others. It is only fair that individual take what is enough for them and leave some properties for others. Locke also gave attention to politics and civil societies. He based his argument on the fact that individuals had a right to perfect freedom and equality. However, the same individuals needed to protect not only their lives, but also that of others. In a political society, all the individuals give up their power and freedom, leaving it in the hands of a community. Political societies have rules and standards that apply to the members. Similarly, civil societies comprise of individuals who have a common law that guides them in settling controversies. Such laws also determine individuals who err and punish them. Notably, Locke mentions that individual consent is important in the formation of political societies (Locke 2001, p. 19). By consent expression, an individual becomes a member of either a political or a civil society. In a political society, individuals submit to the government through an informed consent. Therefore, such individuals allow the government to give some directions. As a member of a political society, an individual must obey the government in power. Locke’s main ideas highlighted the need for individuals to enjoy the natural rights, which qualified as human rights in the view of other experts. However, not every individual in the society gives willing consent to a political society when his or her needs are compromised. Locke also mentioned that governments can define the laws that have punitive measures. Therefore, governments exhibit the use of political power. As long as there is a law with highlighting the penalties for contravention, individuals in that government may be subject to the law. The natural rights theory faces increasing criticism because Locke did not clarify his thoughts on some ideas (Locke 2001, p. 42). Jeremy Bentham against the Natural Rights Theory Jeremy Bentham disputed the natural rights theory. During the French revolution, Bentham highlighted that the declaration of rights represented anarchical fallacies. He highlighted that the preservation of natural rights of human beings represented dangerous nonsense that only brought forth confusion. Bentham did not see any meaning in natural rights that were imprescriptible. In his opinion, natural rights did not exist completely. Bentham viewed Locke’s expression as misleading because they lacked meaning in either their literal or figurative sense. According to Bentham people that did not have a government lacked laws and rights, therefore, the people had no security, no liberty, and could not access property ownership. Bentham opined that natural rights emerged from human fantasies and wishes. Therefore, they were likely to remain just wishes (Bentham 1843, p. 374). Evidently, one’s wishes do not translate to rights. Since Locke highlighted that it was against the natural rights to destroy one’s possession, Bentham counters this claim. According to Bentham, one cannot destroy something that does not exist. In addition, none existent things could not demand preservation. Notably, Bentham had watched the American rhetoric of rights with a keen eye. He opined that both natural law and natural rights that Locke focused on were only fictitious imaginations. In his philosophical criticism against the natural rights, Bentham highlighted that it was wrong to either postulate or assume that natural rights existed. He had the conviction that supporters of Locke wished for rights and desired them immensely. However, he explained that such desire did not translate to the existence of the natural rights. In the declaration of rights during the French revolution, it was stated that all human beings “were born free”. Bentham dismissed that statement as a miserable nonsense. He highlighted that the contrary was the reality of life. According to him, nobody was born free. Rather, every individual was born into a form of subordination. The subordination and subjection resulted from social positions, family structures, or actual slavery systems in the world. Bentham viewed it as ironical to claim that individuals are born into freedom, whereas many literary works have indicated that people are born into slavery (Bentham 1843, p. 377). He also criticized the fact that all men were equal, as Locke had suggested. In his view, a husband and wife would never be equal because the family structure declares the husband the head of the family. In addition, slaves do not enjoy equal rights with their masters. Bentham was also keen to highlight that the rich and the poor have a different set of rights. Bentham outlines that it was impossible for the society to pinpoint any existing evidence that could promote the existence of natural rights. Locke had argued that human beings enjoyed certain rights as individuals. Bentham highlighted that rights only resulted from laws established by the governments. Therefore, without governments, it was impossible for anyone to enjoy rights. In addition, Bentham rejected the idea that human beings voluntarily became members of the societies. He highlighted that the formation of the societies involved compulsion and the use of force in real life. Bentham criticized the declaration of rights because of the language used, which did not reveal any reality but rather led to confusion (Bentham 1843, p. 378). Evidently, Bentham criticized the theory of natural rights immensely. His criticism motivated many people to lose interest in the natural rights and natural law. Evaluation of Locke’s and Bentham’s Arguments Evidently, Locke’s natural rights theory has received attention across the globe and has been used as the basis for the definition of human rights. Notably, Locke’s philosophy does not appear to be a perfect development of ideas and convictions. However, natural rights do exist. Locke does not recognize that it is impossible for an individual to reinforce such rights without the intervention of the government. Bentham’s view that the government plays a critical role in the formation and reinforcement of human laws and the protection of human rights seems to be more convincing. Locke bases his arguments on the natural law that originates from God who is the supreme creator. Notably, in the eyes of God, all human beings are equal. Therefore, it is true that no individual has a higher value than the rest (Bentham 1843, p. 375). However, human beings have created social classes in order to feel more superior to others. If only human beings could recognize that all individuals are equal and that they deserve fair treatment, then the world would change for better. It is unfortunate that slavery and other social systems have only served to promote Bentham’s views that equality of people does not exist. Although some of Bentham’s views are logical, it is inappropriate for him to consider human rights as anarchical fallacies. In my opinion, I do not accept that human rights represent anarchical fallacies. Evidently, Locke makes some sense when he describes some of the natural human rights entitled to human beings (Locke 2001, p. 24). Locke’s views have remained outstandingly influential in the formation of human rights documents, despite the criticism from Bentham. Conclusion As mentioned above, John Locke remains to be one of the outstanding liberal philosophers. Locke developed the natural rights theory that has gained attention from philosophers over the years. Locke believed that human beings had some natural rights such as perfect freedom, equality, liberty, as well as a right to own property. Bentham did not support Locke’s views and considered the natural rights as anarchical fallacies. Bentham expressed his conviction that human rights, as natural rights, as well as natural law were imaginary. The fact that people desired them triggered them to imagine that natural rights existed. Although Bentham developed a strong criticism of Locke, it remains evident that the issue of natural rights needs further clarifications. Bibliography Bentham J 1843, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2 (Judicial Procedure, Anarchical Fallacies, works on Taxation) [1843], London: W. Tait. Locke, J 2001, Second Treatise of Government. [Electronic Resource]. Raleigh, NC : Alex Catalogue, 2001., OhioLINK Library Catalog – LR, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2015. Read More