Natural and legal rights are two types of rights[->0] theoretically distinct according to philosophers[->1] and political scientists[->2]. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system[->3]. The theory of natural law[->4] is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment[->5], natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings[->6], and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract[->7], positive law[->8], and government[->9] — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism[->10]. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists[->11] to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-2" The idea of human rights[->12] is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body[->13] to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights[->14] is an important legal instrument[->15] enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law[->16]. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights[->17], whereas human rights also comprise positive rights. The idea that animals have natural rights[->18] is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century, Even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous. The legal philosophy known as Declarationism[->19] seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence[->20] into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution[->21]. Contents[hide] ·1 Natural rights theories ·1.1 Thomas Hobbes 1.2 John Locke 1.3 Thomas Paine·2 Debate 3 History ·3.1 Ancient history 3.2 Modern history ·3.2.1 In Iran ·3.3 Contemporary history·4 Legal rights documents 5 See also 6 Notes 7 Further reading 8 External links|  Natural rights theories
The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori[->22] philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant[->23] claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone. The Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident[->24]" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life[->25] and liberty[->26] as the two highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart[->27] argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green[->28] argued that “if there are such things as rights at all, then, there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life.” John Locke[->29] emphasized "life, liberty and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution[->30], Thomas Jefferson[->31] substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence[->32].  Thomas Hobbes
Main article: Thomas Hobbes[->33]
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) included a discussion of natural rights in his moral and political philosophy[->34]. Hobbes' conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a "state of...
...both classical republicans and naturalrights philosophers to create the constitutional republic we have in our country. While our founders have found a way to combine the theories from both thinkers into one government, classical republicanism and naturalrights philosophy are actually very different in thoughts and concepts. But there are also few similarities such as both sides stress the need for education and preparation for citizenship.
Classical republicanism and naturalrights emphasize very different ideas. Naturalrights philosophy focuses on individual importance. John Locke refers to a naturalrights as our givens we have when we are in a state of nature of no laws or rules, rights that come to us as a given as human beings. But people still have to have duties and moral behavior as a citizen, also known as a social contract. Classical republicanism stresses the importance of civic virtue, or helping out society for the benefit through the common good or what is best for the people as a whole. When coming to straight comparisons, they seem very opposite ideas but they both focus on what is best for a country whether that be individually or generally.
Our founders believed that there were good points in government from both theorists. They believed that by combining the idea of helping the...
...The right to vote or the right of free speech are aspects that, as citizens, we posses. Being born in America automatically gives you these rights and many more, and most importantly, you become a citizen. Now, with citizenship comes responsibility such as obeying the law and paying taxes. So if you follow these simple rules does this make you an effective citizen? This question, in my opinion, is almost impossible to answer for a number of reasons, which will be addressed in the following paper. It was extremely hard to come up with a clear cut answer as to what an effective citizen entails. I grappled with this term through many drafts and in the end came up with many conclusions about effective citizenship. Let me state my main point of this paper, and that is, effective citizenship entails so many things and the true meaning of a "good citizen" differs from person to person and from time to time. In this paper I will share with you how the idea of effective citizenship varies according to person and time and my personal beliefs on what is effective citizenship.
As an American citizen I have a responsibility to this country as a citizen. I also have rights because I am a citizen of this country. Firstly, as stated above, being a citizen of America entitles me to certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson, 352). Thomas Jefferson made...
...start that focused on the rights of individuals and not just promoting the common good. The philosophers thought back to a state of nature, which describes itself as a place where all is free with no government to enforce rules or manage conflicts. In order to leave this chaos, the people would need to create a social contract to make a government; this formed into what we call NaturalRights Philosophy which proposed that governments were founded for the purpose of protecting individual rights. It also states that each individual possesses inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property regardless of wealth, social status, or birth.
Together these beliefs had influenced the Founding Father’s views on what a government should resemble. Not only did these two beliefs influence their views, other philosophers and their ideas or ways had made a huge impact on the development of the Constitution. Even Cicero states for Classical Republicanism the importance of an active life of virtue, which builds the foundation of communities, including the community of all human beings. NaturalRights Philosophy inspired parts of the Declaration of Independence and described the role of philosophy in the study of government, which included phrases such as, “Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are...
...John Locke: Property Rights
Perhaps one of, if not the, most historically influential political
thinkers of the western world was John Locke. John Locke, the man who initiated
what is now known as British Empiricism, is also considered highly influential
in establishing grounds, theoretically at least, for the constitution of the
United States of America. The basis for understanding Locke is that he sees
all people as having natural God givenrights. As God's creations, this
denotes a certain equality, at least in an abstract sense. This religious back
drop acts as a the foundation for all of Locke's theories, including his
theories of individuality, private property, and the state. The reader will be
shown how and why people have a naturalright to property and the impact this
has on the sovereign, as well as the extent of this impact.
Locke was a micro based ideologist. He believed that humans were
autonomous individuals who, although lived in a social setting, could not be
articulated as a herd or social animal. Locke believed person to stand for,
"... a thinking, intelligent being, that has
reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking
thing in different times and places, which it only does by that consciousness
which is inseparable from thinking." This ability to reflect, think, and
reason intelligibly is one of the many gifts from God and is...
...identify rights that are truly truly universal?
It is possible that there is no such thing as rights that are Universal.
Rights usually have a cultural context. Philosophers have thought, spoken and written about human rights for thousands of years, but it is only in comparative recent years that these rights have been codified. Since the Second World War the major document embodying aspirations on humanrights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The murder of millions of civilians by the Germans was the obvious motivation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However the Declaration went much further than expressing a right to life, liberty and property, as set out, for instance, by the seventeenth century philosopher, John Locke. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out 30 articles containing human rights. This was a much more ambitious attempt at codifying rights than Locke who confined himself to life liberty and property.
Locke, for his inalienable rights, relied on two factors, the existence of god and a concept of a social contract. He relied on god to bestow what he termed naturalrights and he relied on the concept of a social contract to explain why people obeyed a sovereign. The Universal Declaration of Human...
Today, freedom is observed, interpreted, and practiced in many different ways. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence gives everybody their naturalrights as a citizen of the United States. Although these laws are written on paper and certified, people extend their version of freedom and worldview in their own way. Frederick Douglass speaks about his freedom as a slave and his point of view on slavery. Dante speaks about the tale of Ulysses and his flourishing. Lastly, Martin Luther speaks his mind about the future of a man depending on his faith.
During the 4th of July anniversary, Frederick Douglass was asked to give an oration and he speaks about the concept of this so-called “freedom” that America is known to have provide. During his speech, he starts with the meaning of the 4th of July for a black man. He says, “…the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable…” (189). During the days when he was a slave, he would not be respected in any way. In his speech, he mentions that our forefather’s were brilliant men who created this land to be the way it is, including the Declaration of Independence. He continues on by telling the people that they don’t have the right to “wear out and waste the hard-earned fame” built by their forefathers (193). Frederick Douglass argues that if America is a land of “freedom”, why limit those...
...men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness" it only gave rights to some. The Declaration failed to extend the same rights to women and the African Americans. The Declaration was mainly directed towards the free white men’s rights. Abigail Adams fought for the rights of women and the African Americans.
To begin, Abigail Adams made a plea for women’s rights. Women were considered inferior to men, and they did not have any rights to vote or own property. Most women cooked, did the laundry, and nursed the sick soldiers in the battles. Some women even disguised themselves as men and fought in the battles. Abigail believed that women should be treated equally because they have the same potential as men. Abigail expressed that women should not submit to laws not made in their interest, nor should they be happy with the simple role of being their husband’s companion. Abigail expressed these ideas in the letters she sent to her husband, John Adams, and requested for women to have a voice and representation in the government.
In addition, Abigail obstinately opposed slavery. African Americans were not treated fairly. They were treated as property and often sold into slavery. African Americans were enslaved and not paid for their work. African Americans did...
...gives the reason that they have the right of separation if they wish it
Where does a government acquire its power, according to the declaration?
The people of America.
3. What are the "unalienable rights" that Jefferson states?
Jefferson says that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights.
Who or what does Jefferson hold accountable for most of the problems the colonies are suffering through?
The King of Britain and his deliberate show of using the colonies for money.
What tone does the final statement of the Declaration of Independence display?
Is this tone effective in conveying the importance of this document? Why or why not?
It displays a tone of unison and resentment. The tone is effective, as it was written to declare freedom.
Jefferson speaks of "the laws of nature and of Nature's God." What does he mean by this? Give an example of a law that might be contrary to "the laws of nature."
Find and write the dictionary meaning for the word "self-evident." Jefferson mentions four truths, which he says are "self-evident." Name these and argue for or against the notion that they are indeed "self-evident."
Self evidence means:not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.
The truths are self evident, as we would follow them if there was no outside interference, it is a natural acceptance.
Find and write the meaning to the phrase "absolute despotism." Jefferson...