THEORIES OF NATURAL RIGHTS

1.4 Political Science

Academic Year: 2021-2026

Semester: I

Submitted By:

ARADHYA HEMKE

UID: UG21-53

Submitted To:

Dr. Madhukar Sharma Sir

(Assistant Professor of Political Science)

MAHRASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 RESEARCH METHODLOGY
 CONCEPT OF NATURAL RIGHTS BY THINKERS
1. THOMAS HOBBES
2. JOHN LOCKE

 RELATION OF NATURAL LAW WITH NATURAL RIGHTS

Natural rights are socio-political philosophy that asserts that every human is born with
particular fundamental rights which no authority can take away. The contemporary concepts
if naturals rights evolved from ancient and medieval theories of natural law, which held that
individuals, as products of environment and lord, must spend their life and arrange their
societies according to the nature or divine norms and principles 1. Natural law theories were
amended to emphasize the concept that people as natural creature have rights that cant be
infringed by someone or some community as the concept of individuality grew in popularity,
particularly in 17 th century. Natural law concepts have been changed to emphasise that
humans possess liberties that can not be infringed by anybody or any community since they
are natural entities. John Locke's books contain by far the clearest renowned explanation of
this theory. Locke argued that people were reasonable and virtuous by character, and also that
they brought with them into civic civilization the very same privileges they had in initial
phases of civilization, the most important of which were liberty of religious faith, the capacity
to a say in their chosen administration, and the liberty to possession. Through concept of
societal togetherness and collaboration, Jean Jacques Rousseau endeavoured to integrate the
person's natural rights with the necessity for societal collaboration through the help of social
contract.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

 To Understand the approach of different social thinkers on natural rights

 To understand relation between natural rights and natural law

 To understand relation between social contract theory and natural law

1
[Link] visited on 27 oct
2021
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

 What was the approach of different social thinkers with natural rights?

 What is relation between Natural rights and Natural law?

 What is the relation between Natural Rights and social contract theory?

RESEARCH METHODLOGY:

The method used to approach the afore-mentioned study in this research paper is doctrinal
method of research. It is source-based research which gathers its content from traditional and
modern sources of written texts such as books, journals, research papers and e-resources. This
method is both analytical and descriptive. The issues in the project have been examined
thoroughly by applying intensive literature review.
CONCEPT OF NATURAL RIGHTS BY THINKERS

Natural rights are socio-political philosophy that asserts that every human is born with
particular fundamental rights which no authority can take away. The contemporary concepts
if naturals rights evolved from ancient and medieval theories of natural law, which held that
individuals, as products of environment and lord, must spend their life and arrange their
societies according to the nature or divine 2 norms and principles. Natural law theories were
amended to emphasize the concept that people as natural creature have rights that can’t be
infringed by someone or some community as the concept of individuality grew in popularity,
particularly in 17 the century. Natural law concepts have been changed to emphasise that
humans possess liberties that cannot be infringed by anybody or any community since they
are natural entities. John Locke's books contain by far the clearest renowned explanation of
this theory. Locke argued that people were reasonable and virtuous by character, and also that
they brought with them into civic civilization the very same privileges they had in initial
phases of civilization, the most important of which were liberty of religious faith, the capacity
to a say in their chosen administration, and the liberty to possession. Through concept of
societal togetherness and collaboration, Jean Jacques Rousseau endeavoured to integrate the
person's natural rights with the necessity for societal collaboration through the help of social
contract.

2
[Link] visited on 27 oct
2021
Humans have maintained the presence of natural rights based on various foundations, such as
philosophic argumentation or religious precepts. Immanuel Kant for instance, maintained that
natural rights could be derived solely from reasoning. In the meantime, the United States
Proclamation of Freedom is founded on the "inmost" principle that all individuals are gifted
by our Founder with inherent inviolable Rights. Similarly, various thinkers and politicians
have devised diverse checklists of what they consider to be natural rights; practically all of
them prioritise the freedom of life with liberty. If there are some privileges at all, H. A. Hart
maintained, they must include the freedom to liberty. or to put it differently independent
existence.  The importance of existence, freedom, and ownership was underlined by John
Locke. Although Locke's significant advocacy of the revolutionary liberty, Natural rights
were identified as life, freedom, and property by 17th-century British thinker John Locke,
who believed that certain basic rights couldn't have been lost in the social contract.

 Further in seventieth century an Englishman, John Lilburn, who clashed both with King
Charles I's aristocracy and Cromwell's military regime ruled sovereign state, argued for
universal human fundamental rights, that he described as privileges that each individual is
born with, as contrasted to rights conferred by state or individual law3.

Inalienable rights were defined as those privileges that people can not abandon to the state in
a debate of social contract theory. These were supposed to be natural rights that existed
independently of affirmative law. Nevertheless, some social contract philosophers argued that
somehow the powerful would benefit from their liberties in the original state. As a result,
humans enter into an unwritten social compact, entrusting their natural rights to the
government to safeguard them against misuse, and live beneath the govt's legal liberties from
then on.  Rousseau contends in The Social Contract that presence of inherent liberties is not
required for the creation of a founding document or a collection of rights and laws. The most
frequently accepted alternate is the concept of a social contract, which states that rights and
obligations are originated from a voluntary agreement between the state and the people of
state.

3
[Link] visited on 28 oct 2021
THOMAS HOBBES (1588–1679)

In his ethical and civic theory, Thomas Hobbes discussed natural rights. Natural rights were
derived upon Hobbes' vision of mankind in a natural order. As a result, he debated that the
fundamental natural right was to utilize his own authority, as one wills oneself, and for
conserving of his own Surroundings; that is to say, about his own Living; and subsequently,
of performing whatever, in his own decision, and Purpose, he will construe to be the
suitable means therefore4. According to Hobbes, man's life in his natural state comprised
wholly of liberties and no rules at all It follows, then, that in such society, every individual
has the freedom to do anything, including anyone else's bodies. As a result, as far as this
natural Rights of every person to everything exists, no person can be assured of surviving out
the period that Nature normally allows humans to live. This might eventually result to a
condition described as the war of all with everyone, in which humans murder, rob, and
subjugate another in attempt to survive, and because of their innate desire for "Income,"
"Protection," and "Prestige." Hobbes concluded that the state of instability caused by
unrestricted liberties was unwanted because it would make individual life "isolated, filthy,
ugly, wretched, and brief." As a result, in order to build governmental and civilized society,
people should quit the majority of their inherent rights and establish moral responsibilities. It
is one of the first expressions of the social contract theory of governance.

JOHN LOCKE (1632–1704)

 further A famous Western thinker, John Locke conceived of rights as inherent and
everlasting.  He believed in a fundamental right to living, freedom, and ownership, much as
Hobbes did.
5

4
Leviathan., XIV by Thomas Hobbes , pg.181
5
[Link] visited on 25 oct, 2021
There are Three main natural rights according to John Locke as following:

 Right to Liberty - Everybody has the freedom to do whatever they choose as far as it
does not contradict with the right to life.

 Right To Life – Right to life is right that everybody should have mandatorily.

 Right to property - Everybody has the freedom to possess everything they make or
acquire by gifts or transaction, as long as it does not interfere with the above-
mentioned rights.

In his primary social ideology, Locke advocates in a governance that guarantees people with
what he thinks are fundamental and natural rights. The rights to live, freedom, and estate are
among them. In essence, Locke says that the perfect state will protect these three liberties for
all of its inhabitants.
Locke's views are often credited with laying the groundwork for contemporary democracies,
but it's not unrealistic to attribute social engagement to him over America 's past. The social
contract is a commitment amongst nation citizens to exist under a common set of regulations.
The choices taken by these individuals working in their aggregate capacities culminate in
particular systems of governance. The purpose of administration is to enact laws that preserve
these three basic rights. An administration can be overturned if it fails to adequately defend
these liberties.6

6
[Link] visited on 25 oct,2021
RELATION OF NATURAL LAW WITH NATURAL RIGHTS

The notion of natural rights is frequently contrasted with that of legal rights. A human's legal
rights are ones which are granted to them by a legal framework. Natural rights are those
which are global and indestructible and are therefore not subject to the rules, practises, or
values of any specific society or country. Natural rights and natural laws are intertwined
concepts7.

Natural rights and personal rights are tightly connected concepts; some recognise no
distinction among the two, whereas many prefer to hold the terminology distinct to avoid
identification with specific characteristics usually linked with natural rights. Natural rights, in
contrast, are thought to be above the reach of any state or global entity.

NATURAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

Natural rights have already been considered throughout history, but it was
Enlighten philosophers who invented the contemporary notion of natural rights, which has
been important to contemporary democratic governance and civilized community. Natural
rights emerged as element of the social contract theory, which examined the origins of
civilization and the legality of the government's control on the person at the time. People
have agreed, often directly or implicitly, to renounce part of their liberties and adhere to the
leader's or authority’s power in return for immunity of their existing liberties, according to
social contract reasoning8.

As a result, the relationship among legal and natural rights is frequently discussed in social
contract theory.

7
[Link] visited on 25 oct 2021
8
[Link] on 25 oct 2021
Natural rights were derived upon Hobbes' idea of humanity in a state of nature.  He
maintained that the most basic ankh right was "to employ his own strength, as he wills, for
the conservation of his own Environment; that is, his own Existence." Hobbes made a clear
distinction between natural rights and natural legislation.  Hobbes claimed that in his natural
state, man's life comprised completely of rights and no regulations.

He opposed to attempts to draw liberties from natural law, claiming that the terms law and
privilege, while frequently muddled, relate to polarities, with legislation relating to
responsibilities and liberties pointing to the lack of responsibilities. Individuals will not obey
natural laws until they are subordinated to a governing force, and without it all conceptions of
good and bad are worthless.

When John Locke presents the state of environment in his Second Dissertation, he uses the
widely renowned natural right phrasing. The rule of nature, according to Locke, is based on
reciprocal assurance, or the notion that nobody can encroach on each other 's inviolable
privileges because all men are equal and have the same unalienable rights. Absolute fairness
and liberty, as well as the privilege to live and asset preservation, are among these natural
rights. The social compact also couldn't include such basic rights. A further 17th-century
Briton, John Lilburne, advocated for universal human rights, that he characterised as
privileges that each human creature is entitled with.

Francis Hutcheson proposed the difference among unowned and inherent rights, arguing that
Absolute Rights are Necessary Restrictions in all Authorities. Georg Hegel, a German
Renaissance thinker, explored the inalienability thesis un depth. He, like Hutcheson, founded
his indivisible rights argument on the unofficial inalienability of those features of humanity
that differentiate people from objects. A commodity, such as real estate, can be transmitted
from one individual to the other. The similar might not apply, as per Hegel, to the
characteristics that define an individual. As a result, the subject as to if possession is a
component of natural rights has resurfaced.

In his valuable book Rights of Man, Thomas Paine expanded on inalienable rights,
emphasising that right can’t be bestowed by any constitution as this would constitutionally
indicate that they may be removed as well, reducing them to perks.9

9
[Link] visited on 26 oct 2021
ABOLITIONISM, SLAVERY AND NATURAL RIGHTS

"Inalienable rights" were privileges which people cannot cede to the state in discussions of
social contract theory. These were supposed to be natural rights that existed independently of
positive law. Yet, some social contract thinkers argued that the only strongest would benefit
from the privileges in the original state. As a result, citizens enter into an unwritten social
agreement, entrusting their inalienable liberties to the government to safeguard them against
misuse, and live underneath the govt's constitutional rights from then on.

Many ancient explanations for slavery and authoritarian administration were founded on
consensual agreements to relinquish any natural rights to liberty and self-determination.
Slavery, according to Locke, is beyond the rule of nature because you cannot relinquish your
personal privileges, your liberty is eternal, and no one can take it away from you.
Furthermore, Locke maintains that enslaving other individual is ethically wrong, yet he adds
a proviso by stating that enslaving a legitimate prisoner during a war does not violate
somebody's natural rights.

The anti-slavery campaign used Hutcheson's and his successors' unofficial inalienability
reasonings to advocate opposing all explicitly or implicitly contractual kinds of slave
ownership, not only unintentional slavery. Any agreement attempting to lawfully expatriate
such a right would've been unenforceable from the start. Likewise, the liberal movement
utilised the concept to fight opposing any explicit or implied social agreements of
subordination in which a person's right to self-governance was allegedly alienated to a head
of state10.

10
[Link] visited on 25 oct 2021
CONCLUSION

Thus, it can be concluded Natural rights are the result of social circumstances, man's inherent
need for establishing a good relationship, and his desire for self-survival in a society of
diverse and frequently divergent interests. As a result, there can't be no inalienable rights,
either as established by Divine or as established by reasoning, as various libertarians argue.
Individual rights have become an inherent characteristic of human beings as a result of men's
individual flaws. Natural rights are debatable if they are regarded to arise beyond the human
behaviour and relationships; however, in everyday life, we just accept that we have these
Natural human rights.

In the lack of a community, no one can have any "legitimate" rights. Which is not to arguing
for the universalistic viewpoint that there could be no individual freedoms; rather, it is to
maintain that human beings require one another to properly enjoy all of their privileges. It is
possible to argue that somebody has the right to life solely because others have the ability to
murder him. Because if there were nothing else in the universe, there will be no necessity for
preservation or liberties. Humans can only assert their rights in connection to the others since
they can only live-in community11.

11
[Link]
visited on 2 november 2021.
BIBLOGRAPHY

 Web links: -

[Link]
[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

 Books: -

Leviathan., XIV by Thomas Hobbes, pg.181