The possession of such rights by individuals is linked to the possession of some natural property. Natural property being the condition for a human right in these theories there is necessarily some form of realistic epistemology. This can be seen in the doctrine of equal right of all men to be free Modern human rights are also associated with the natural law theory; one chief exponent being John Locke through his philosophy the age of enlightment. He imagined human beings in a state of nature. In that state men and women were in a state of freedom, able to determine their actions and also in a state of equality in the sense that no one was subjected to the will or authority of another.
Austin uses utilitarianism to form the basis of his theory which in turn lay down the foundation of modern positive law. He felt that the law should not be impacted by morals and we should therefore keep law and morality separate. He believed that when judging laws on a moral basis, it caused a subjective standpoint and could potentially lead to anarchy. To avoid the subjective approach that may be achieved by applying other theories – such as the neutral theory – positive law provides an objective standard and a legal norm which can be applied impartially to all individuals. The
Locke's most important and influential political writings are contained in his Two Treatises on Government. The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument that political authority was derived from religious authority. The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government. According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest.
A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all
If civil law is a type of moral law, and justice is a moral virtue, then it is impossible to execute justice in civil affairs without reference to moral law. Without morality, law does not exist because it does not contain real justice. Real justice is following natural and moral law in how a person punishes and acts. Natural law is instilled into the hearts of men by God and provides a means of deciphering right from wrong. It can be “discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God 's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.”12 Though one may not believe in divine or moral law, natural law can still be used to determine justice from injustice.
He defines the theory of justice as a work of political philosophy and ethics Rawls (1971). His main aim was to bring together two fundamental political philosophies egalitarianism and libertarianism. Rawls' theory attempts to resolve this division by meeting the libertarian demand, for the most part, to respect personal freedom, and meeting the egalitarian demand of equality regarding economic redistribution. Rawls argues that the concepts of freedom and equality are basically the same. For justice to be truly just, everyone must be afforded the same rights under the law.
Dr. Simon Clarke published an article called Mill, Liberty & Euthanasia in which his thesis states that, “deciding when to die is a matter of individuality” (Clarke 1). Dr. Clarke backs up his thesis by using some of the rationalities behind John Stuart Mill’s Liberty Principle. According to the Liberty Principle, people should be free to pursue their greatest good as long as it does not cause harm for the community. Secondly, the principle argues that when people are free they have the ability to seek their “individuality” therefore liberty benefits the person. For example, a person develops their individuality by developing their skills, personality, values, and potential.
Human rights are the rights that a person has for the sake of being human (Donnelly, 2003), these rights are human rights because they only apply to humans. Every human being, regardless of race, religion and gender has a claim these rights. The term right can be interpreted in different ways according to different aspects such as the central moral and the political senses. In the sense of rectitude, the term right refers to as the right thing to do, the entitlement aspect suggests that a right is having a right to do something. Human rights are established by human needs, such as the right to basic health care, it is something that all humans need, and it is up the government to provide basic health care to all human being.
Natural Humans The human condition is a subjective term used to encompass the things that differentiate humans from animals. Through the philosophy of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, their beliefs of what is natural shapes their insight into the human condition. Locke believes that nature is governed by a general law of reason and that people are free, equal, and independent in this life. Whereas Rousseau believes that a hypothetical nature is ideal yet humans are corrupted through the formation of societies. This basis in the belief of nature shapes Locke’s and Rousseau’s beliefs regarding learning, dependency, social interaction, and living when exploring the human condition.