The Inherent Rights of Human Beings
This question is concerned with whether or not it is possible for 'natural rights' to exist. 'Natural' rights are rights which we have 'naturally' as humans, in other words rights which we inherently have, just by being human. A large problem with answering this question is that of defining the term 'rights', a question to which the answer has been very elusive throughout the history of political analysis. The following investigation into the possibility of 'natural rights' will begin with an attempt to create a working definition of a rights, and will then proceed to examine the essence of humanity and the roots of what is a 'right', to see if it is possible to have a 'right' simply by being human. Questions concerning society, freedom and morality will all be seen to arise, and will be dealt with accordingly.
A most important attempt at defining rights is Richard Dworkin's metaphor of 'Rights as Trumps'. This is essentially comparing a rights to a trump in a card game, one which overrides what would otherwise have one the hand. Put in a political scenario, this metaphor functions as thus: Society may have and hold a set of rules and laws imposing on and restricting individuals behaviour. A right is something to which the individual is entitled that will be ensured over and above the civil laws and rules of the land. The existence of these rights is a way that individuals have a degree of sovereignty over the state, where civil laws are the tools of the state's sovereignty over individuals. This balance should create a situation which is morally justifiable.
A problem with this doctrine when it comes to 'natural rights', however, is the reliance on the existence of society t...
... middle of paper ...
... a great number of people, and thus is morally desirable.
As can be seen, then, the discussion of natural rights is an inherently moral one. Moral question create fierce arguments, as it is nearly impossible to define a complete set of definite moral standards, taking into account different cultures and conflicting beliefs and interests. It is possible, however, to take the investigation of natural rights a fair distance before reaching the trap of making moral statements. It can be seen that a right, although it is only functional as protection against state oppression, can be derived from that existence of a single individual, in the form of the right to freedom. This does raise many other questions about freedom in general, and how it is possible to relate the roles of the individual and society using the rights of an individual and the laws of society.
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
The primary purpose of this essay is stated in the title. It is to consider whether certain principles presented in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and commonly referred to as human rights are supported by the authority of God 's word. A secondary goal is to consider how society might be influenced to establish and maintain laws which agree with God 's moral authority. Yet a third goal is to consider how free exercise of human rights might be impacted by obedience and disobedience to God 's moral authority.
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
legitimate authority of law and the state,” and that “Rights are often thought of as naturally
ABSTRACT: Recent analyses of the concept of inalienable rights (i.e., analyses of the inalienable rights to life) transmute these rights into restrictions on the choices of individuals who possess the rights. In this paper I argue that such construals are counter-intuitive, and incompatible with the modern notion of rights as positive benefits to be enjoyed by those who possess them. I offer an alternative (somewhat Lockean) view which proposes that inalienable rights be regarded as entitlements to discretionary options, options the objects of which need not be chosen. To flesh out the theory, such rights (construed as discretionary options) are distinguished from absolute rights, from alienable rights, and from some kinds of indefeasible human rights. I point to several advantages of the open options account of inalienable rights, including the fact that inalienable rights construed as open options are rights that may provide grounds for calling oppressive governments to account, while at the same time protecting areas of freedom which make the possession of the rights worthwhile rather than burdensome. A concluding appeal suggests that the open options view of inalienable rights awaits and encourages the development of theories which bolster modern intuitions concerning the plausibility of affirming individuated, comprehensive, desirable, and universally applicable human rights.
Morality is the principles and standards set by society for evaluating between right and wrong. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” (A Natural Law Approach 284). Unreasonable laws created by a democratic legislature can very e...
In his essay “Anarchical Fallacies,” Jeremy Bentham argues that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [i.e. inalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts” Bentham supports his conclusion that not only that these ideas are meaningless, but are also quite dangerous and that natural law is simply nonsense by stating the following reasons:
So far, I have discussed the needs of early man, and how they were met in relation to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I am now going to compare these needs to human rights and explore whether there is a causal relationship between the two. I will also discuss whether human rights have become a need in themselves as a result of our growing population.
Inalienable rights are rights according to natural law-- rights that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred away from one. These rights present everyone with equal opportunity, as stated within the Declaration of Independence. Examples of such rights include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order to protect these rights, the Founders and Framers set up limits within the government. Limits exist at every avenue of government and are clearly stated within many important documents vital to the American government’s history. These include the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other important documents, letters, and quotes from the Founders and Framers of the American government.
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
Tasioulas believes that two things that will help explain the criteria for rights lies in possibility and burden. This saying that it is understood that there are cases that interest cannot fulfill duty for many reasons, but it needs to be met at times to let human interests further contribute to human rights. If it is possible to meet the duties needed next you must consider the burden it places on the bearer and on the society as a whole. Tasioulas concludes, “if it can be successfully executed, the interest-based account of human rights promises to make sense of the phenomenon that eluded Wolterstorff: the status of the right-holder as the ultimate source of the moral claim embodied in his rights.” All this to say that there are foundations to human
- These rights are natural rights, petitions, bills of rights, declarations of the rights of man etc.
Both the pluralist account as well as the personhood account will yield highly indeterminate and, or, unreasonable norms without specification of the threshold as to when an interest or autonomy does generate a right upon others. Griffin introduces this threshold through the addition of the further ground of ‘practicalities’, that rights need enough content so to generate a socially manageable claim. A pluralist perspective introduces threshold criterion through understanding a right to be an imposition of duties upon others, in addition to evaluating the ‘impossibility’ and ‘burdensomeness’ of a the interest. Therefore, if we are assessing not when a right is generated, but rather what can serve as the grounding of human right we return to the question of why the interest of liberty and autonomy are any more pertinent to the human condition than any other
Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”. That means we are entitled to human rights because we have inherent values to be pursued and realized. Human rights are originated in ourselves, but not conferred by law or others. If a society does not recognize those aforementioned justifications, human rights would be unsupported and a...
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.