You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
That every human being possesses certain rights simply by virtue of being human is one of the most powerful moral ideas of the modern age — and also one of the most philosophically puzzling. What is a right? Where do human rights come from: are they discovered in nature, conferred by law, dictated by reason, commanded by God, or merely agreed by convention? And what happens when one person's rights collide with another's? This enrichment lesson examines the concept of a right, the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the central dispute between natural-rights and legal-positivist accounts of their grounding, the religious and secular justifications offered for them, and the hard cases of conflicting rights. The aim is to weigh competing accounts and reach judgements, not to recite a list.
Before asking where rights come from, it helps to be clear what a right is. The standard analysis, associated with Wesley Hohfeld, distinguishes several things the word "right" can mean — most importantly a claim-right (a claim against others that correlates with a duty on their part: my right to life entails your duty not to kill me) and a liberty (a freedom to act, with no corresponding duty on others to assist). A further distinction, due to H.L.A. Hart and others, separates two theories of what rights do: the will (or choice) theory, on which a right is a protected sphere of choice that its holder can waive or enforce, and the interest (or benefit) theory, on which a right protects an important interest of the holder, whether or not they can choose to assert it (which better explains the rights of infants and the unconscious).
Key term: Claim-right: a right held against one or more other persons that correlates with a duty on their part — my right to X entails that others have a duty to provide, or not to interfere with, X.
Rights are also typically held to be, in the human-rights context, universal (held by all humans), inalienable (not forfeitable or transferable), and equal (held in the same measure by everyone). A central task for any theory of human rights is to explain these features — why every human, and only by being human, has them, and why they cannot be lost — and it is precisely here that the rival groundings are tested. Whichever theory we adopt, rights characteristically function as what Ronald Dworkin called "trumps" over ordinary considerations of social welfare: to say someone has a right to free speech is to say that their speech may not be suppressed merely because doing so would, on balance, make others happier.
Key term: Inalienable: incapable of being surrendered, transferred or taken away; a human right is said to be inalienable in that its holder retains it whatever they or others do, so that even a person who consents to enslavement does not thereby lose the right to liberty.
A recurring question is the correlativity of rights and duties. On the claim-right analysis, my right entails a duty on others, so rights and duties are two sides of one coin; but in which direction does the priority run? The modern Western tradition tends to start from the individual's rights and derive others' duties from them, whereas several religious and communitarian traditions reverse the order, beginning with duties — to God, to neighbour, to community — from which others' protections follow. Many strands of Islamic, Hindu and Confucian thought, and the Catholic emphasis on the common good, hold that a rights-first culture risks breeding a selfish individualism that forgets responsibility; the rights-first theorist replies that grounding protection in duties leaves the vulnerable dependent on others' goodwill rather than able to claim what is theirs. Pacem in Terris tries to hold both together, insisting that "to claim one's rights and ignore one's duties... is to build with one hand and destroy with the other." Noticing that "human rights" can be approached from either the claim or the duty pole is an AO2 discriminator, because much of the religious–secular and Western–non-Western disagreement is really about which has priority.
Key term: Natural rights: rights held to belong to human beings by nature — inherent in the human condition, discoverable by reason, and binding prior to and independently of any human law or government.
The natural-rights tradition holds that human beings possess certain rights by nature — rights not granted by any state but inherent in the human condition and discoverable by reason. John Locke (1632–1704), in the Two Treatises of Government (1689), argued that in the state of nature all are free and equal under a law of nature, and possess natural rights to life, liberty and property (or, broadly, "estate"). These rights are God-given and grounded in natural law; government is instituted by consent precisely to protect them, and a government that systematically violates them forfeits its authority and may be resisted. Locke's framework shaped the American Declaration of Independence (1776), with its "unalienable Rights" to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).
The theological roots run deeper still. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), though he speaks of natural law more than natural rights, provides the framework on which the tradition rests: natural law is the participation of rational creatures in God's eternal law, so that through reason human beings can discern the fundamental goods and precepts that govern human life — the preservation of life, life in community, the pursuit of truth. From this, later thinkers derived objective claims (rights) that every person can make in virtue of their rational, God-given nature. On this account rights are objective moral facts, as real and binding as the natural law from which they flow, and not the creation of any human legislator.
It is illuminating to set Locke beside his predecessor Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), since both are social-contract theorists who reach very different conclusions. For Hobbes the state of nature is a "war of all against all" in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", and the single natural right is a near-unlimited right of self-preservation; rational fear drives people to surrender almost all of it to an absolute sovereign in exchange for security, so that, once the contract is made, subjects retain essentially no rights against the state. Locke's more optimistic state of nature, governed by a knowable law of nature, lets him argue the reverse: people surrender only the right to enforce the natural law themselves, retaining their substantive rights to life, liberty and property against the government, which holds power in trust and may be resisted if it betrays that trust. The contrast shows that "social contract" does not by itself secure human rights — it depends entirely on what the parties are taken to bring into, and keep out of, the bargain — and it explains why Locke, not Hobbes, became the patron of the rights tradition. A standard criticism of both, pressed by Hume, is that the historical "contract" is a fiction: no one actually consented, and the appeal to "tacit consent" (you consent merely by remaining in the country) is implausible for those with no real power to leave.
The natural-rights tradition has a powerful rival: legal positivism, which holds that rights are not discovered in nature but created by law — that there are no rights prior to or independent of the legal and social systems that establish them. Its most famous broadside is Jeremy Bentham's (1748–1832): the doctrine of natural, imprescriptible rights is "nonsense upon stilts". Bentham's point is that a legal right is an intelligible thing — a claim conferred and enforced by an actual legal system — whereas a natural right, asserted to exist prior to all law, is a claim with no enforcing authority and no clear content, more a rhetorical wish ("reasons for wishing there were such things as rights") than a fact. For the positivist, talk of human rights that all states ought to recognise is at best a recommendation about what laws we should make, not a report of rights that already exist.
Key term: Legal positivism (on rights): the view that rights exist only insofar as they are established by an actual legal or social system; there are no "natural" rights prior to or independent of human law.
The challenge is sharpened from a different direction by Alasdair MacIntyre (1929–2025), who in After Virtue (1981) wrote that belief in natural human rights "is one with belief in witches and in unicorns", since "every attempt to give good reasons for believing that there are such rights has failed". MacIntyre's objection is not the positivist's but the historicist's: the very concept of a "human right", he argues, is a distinctively modern invention with no equivalent in many cultures and languages, which counts against the claim that such rights are timeless features of the human condition. The natural-rights theorist must answer both: to Bentham, that a moral right can be real and action-guiding without being legally enforced (we think slavery violated the slaves' rights even where it was perfectly legal); to MacIntyre, that the late arrival of a word does not show the absence of the thing (the concept of oxygen is modern, but people always breathed it). Whether these replies succeed is exactly the kind of question a strong essay adjudicates rather than dodges.
The most influential practical expression of human-rights thinking is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, in the shadow of the Second World War and the Holocaust — atrocities that had been, in their own jurisdictions, legal, and so dramatised the need for a standard above national law. The drafting committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962). Article 1 proclaims that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"; Article 3 asserts the right to "life, liberty and security of person"; Article 18 the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion"; Article 25 the right to an adequate standard of living. The Declaration has been translated into hundreds of languages and underpins later instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) and the two 1966 UN Covenants.
Philosophically, the UDHR is notable for what it does not do: famously, the drafters secured agreement on the list of rights while deliberately leaving their grounding open, because delegates from very different traditions (Christian, secular-liberal, Confucian, Marxist) could agree on the practical norms while disagreeing about their ultimate basis — the philosopher Jacques Maritain's celebrated observation that they agreed "on condition that no one asks us why". This is at once the Declaration's genius and its vulnerability. Critics on one side charge that it encodes Western liberal values and universalises them illegitimately: cultural relativism holds that moral standards are culturally constituted, so that imposing a particular conception of rights on other societies is a form of cultural imperialism, and the Bangkok Declaration (1993) of several Asian governments insisted that rights be read "in the context of... national and regional particularities". Defenders reply that the relativist's argument cuts both ways — it would equally disarm criticism of slavery, apartheid or genocide as mere external "imposition" — and that the very diversity of the drafters tells against the charge of a narrowly Western origin.
Many religious traditions offer a grounding for human rights of exactly the kind the UDHR left open, and the most influential is the Christian doctrine of the imago Dei — that humanity is created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:26–27). Because every person bears the divine image, each possesses an inherent, inviolable dignity that does not depend on capacity, achievement or social status; this supplies precisely the universality, equality and inalienability that a theory of human rights must explain. Catholic social teaching builds on this and on natural law: Pope John XXIII's Pacem in Terris (1963) sets out a comprehensive account on which every human being, "a person... endowed with intelligence and free will", has rights that are "universal, inviolable and inalienable". Other traditions echo the structure: Judaism grounds the infinite worth of each person in being made b'tselem Elohim (in God's image), expressed in the Mishnaic teaching (Sanhedrin 4:5) that to save one life is to save a whole world; Islam affirms human dignity (karamah) and the equality of all before God, though the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) frames rights within, and subordinate to, Sharia — a move critics argue compromises their universality, particularly on gender and religious freedom.
Nicholas Wolterstorff (b. 1932), in Justice: Rights and Wrongs (2008), presses the religious grounding into a direct argument against its secular rivals. Human rights, he argues, presuppose that every human being has an equal, inherent worth that nothing can diminish; but the secular candidates for grounding that worth all fail, because each ties worth to some capacity — rationality (Kant), or the ability to pursue a life-plan — that humans possess in unequal measure and that some (infants, the severely cognitively impaired) largely lack, so that a capacity-based account cannot secure the equal worth human rights require. His positive proposal is that worth is bestowed by God's love: "being loved by God... gives one a great and inalienable worth", held equally by all because God loves each, and independent of any quality of the person. Justice then consists in rendering to each the treatment their God-given worth requires. The force of the argument is sharpest in the "marginal cases": a newborn, a person with advanced dementia, or one in a persistent vegetative state has little or none of the rationality on which Kant rests dignity, yet we insist they have full and equal human rights — and Wolterstorff contends that only a worth grounded in something other than the person's own capacities, namely the love of God who values each equally, can explain why this is so without arbitrariness. A purely capacity-based secular theory, he argues, must either deny these humans full rights (which we refuse to do) or smuggle in equality by fiat.
Key term: Imago Dei: the doctrine that human beings are made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:26–27), widely invoked as a ground for the inherent, equal and inalienable dignity from which human rights are said to flow.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.