Monday, April 6, 2015
Week Five: Natural Rights
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson argues that there is a natural law that guarantees 'inalienable rights', including those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Shapiro points out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS16-tI5Zxk), this way of thinking (in both Locke and Jefferson) relies on certain theological presuppositions. Now, what are the consequences for the notion of natural rights (or human rights) when a society becomes skeptical about the very notion of theological truths?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When theological assumptions must be given up due to secularism one would automatically think that natural rights are also abolished. However these natural rights exist with or without the belief in a higher being and Locke’s (and by his influence, Jefferson’s) reference to God as the cause of the existence of natural rights (life, health, liberty, and property), in my opinion, is a way Locke thought people would listen to his theory; whether he personally believed in God or not, he needed to have a role for God in his theory. During the era of Enlightenment people were making a very gradual shift to more scientific ways of thinking rather than total reliance on God, and Locke could not express a theory which would earn respect by completely excluding God’s role. We can see that Hobbes’ theory, although somewhat gaining support is not nearly as favorable, and we cannot directly conclude the cause of this to be his relative exclusion of God (compared to Locke) in his theory but it may have an influence because he and Locke in essence have similar ideas (the purpose of a governing body being for the protection of the people). Therefore Locke’s natural state comes from not just the idea of God but what do humans actually need or have a right to own based on equality of all. Then equality seems to be a concept arising from God, but this is not necessarily the case either; why does there have to be a higher being for people to believe everyone is born equal; what would ever make someone superior to another at birth? So these natural states really exist with or without the presence of God and can be found, as done by Locke, by reasoning of what humans fundamentally share at birth. In addition to this, people/states that oppose the existence of God usually do so due to influence by science, and although they may be missing a big piece of their life without God, they are people like Locke who can reason well, and can come to the conclusion of the natural state (without a role for God) as Locke and Jefferson had with the idea of God.
ReplyDeleteIn Shapiro’s video he states the Four Sources of Individual Rights. The first is workmanship: We are all equally God’s property. The second is ownership; just as God created us, we belong to God. God gave the world to mankind in common. We all have rights to the world. Thirdly; we all have a right to equal access to God’s word. Everyone has a right to read the word for themselves. And fourthly, we are sovereign individuals. Which means that what we interrupt from a scripture is for our understanding and no other person can argue that or make us believe anything other than that. All of these individual rights lead us to the right to resist. We have the right to resist the authority of the state if our individual rights are being taken.
ReplyDeleteIn the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson states all the rights we have as humans. He states that, “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a FREE people.” He goes on to say they have warned Great Britain from time to time...”We have reminded them of the circumstances of out emigration and settlement here, we have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity AND we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends!” Thomas Jefferson decides that war is then necessary.
Since both Locke and Jefferson rely on theological presuppositions to make their arguments for natural rights I believe that it makes their stance much easier to understand, because they are saying that these “inalienable rights” are established not by us but by some divine power that has our best interests at heart. However when this basis is taken away as a society we begin to get a response of relativism. So that most people will take the stance that: “What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.” When this happens it deprives us of any common ground on which we can begin to discuss politics or anything that is morally right or wrong, and we begin to define our natural rights through our perception of the world, which may or may not be such a good thing. That being said I do think that a thorough study of metaphysics still leads us back to an understanding of the natural rights held by all men, but that each of us may interpret the sources of these natural rights differently. For Jefferson and Locke it is through theology that they determine the source of natural rights, for others it may be biology, and for even others something entirely different. Personally I hold the same position as Locke and Jefferson and believe that all men should are created equal and should be treated with respect and dignity due to them.
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke discusses self-evident truths at the basis of the social contract to expand the moral content. His idea was to argue that the social contract was not based on self-preservation, but on the premise of natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Of course, these were more demanding premises, and Locke’s own involvement in the slave trade was difficultly reconcilable with natural rights to liberty and estate. His objective, however, was not so much intellectual rigor as a rhetorically effective condemnation of absolute monarchy. By adding these premises, Locke was able to condemn what Hobbes had supported, and this is probably why the reasoning resonated so well with Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Later secular human rights theories would nearly all follow the same pattern of reasoning, further multiplying the number of natural rights that served as the rational foundation of a universal morality. In these circumstances, however, it was only a matter of time before skeptics started to question whether the constantly expanding list of rights was really made of truths that were that self-evident.
ReplyDeleteBoth Locke and Jefferson believe that humans have a natural right to life and liberty. Locke believes that each person is equal and has the human rights, including a right of property. Jefferson and Locke both explain natural rights through theological presuppositions as stated in Shapiro’s lecture. The potential consequences of having theological presuppositions are that many people could come to disbelieve or think differently. People could argue that natural rights were created by man to form society. Even without God, natural rights could still exist. Another consequence is that people have the natural right to have religious freedom and are not forced to believe that God created everything and gave us our rights. Thomas Jefferson incorporates God into our natural rights along with Locke, but he also states that there is a right to liberty and in this right includes religious freedom. “…That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief” (248). But as Locke used God as the creator it made a way for people to believe there is a natural right. Thomas Jefferson agreed with many of Locke’s theories. In Locke’s theory he argues that natural rights are not created by man, but only by nature, which was created by God.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson and John Locke have the same similar ideas that we, as humans, have inalienable rights granted to us (such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that can't be taken from us. I believe that they use theological presuppositions as an argument to make it more believable for us as people to believe that we are given these rights to all. In the belief that a divine power created us all out of one makes it understandable that since we came from one person then we are all equal as human beings regardless of where we come from or what we look like. The consequences for this when people become skeptical is since there is tangible way of proving that there is an existence of a God or a supreme power that people start to disbelief. Since they believe that these rights were not given to us by an all powerful being then they see themselves above others and begin to take rights away from the weaker beings. This results in more and more anarchy as an organized democratic society can, through time, turn towards a more tyrannical dictatorship as one person claims more power through others and take away these inalienable rights since he resembles himself more of a God.
ReplyDeleteBoth John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued from the position that people were inherently good and that there were certain presuppositions that guided everyday life. Following these ideals it is of the utmost importance to protect the rights of the people. In Locke’s opinion, when the state ceases to function for the people it is to be dissolved and replaced. This idea was furthered by Jefferson as can be seen in this quote from the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson calls out King George III for his injustices: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” He also furthers Locke’s point in a letter to Colonel William Stephens Smith where he says that staying quiet amongst grave injustices was “the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” Stemming from these ideas have been numerous resistances to government crimes against human rights from the American Revolution to the recent Arab Spring. In spite of this there are detractors who are skeptical of the notion of inherent truths, namely among them Thomas Hobbes. However, believing that there are no presuppositions that guide everyday life makes the plight of the many who have struggled against human rights abuses to be trivial and even Jefferson said that governments should not be overthrown for trivial reasons. As far as consequences of lack of belief in presuppositions there are no exact physical ones (as one cannot change whether or not a revolution happened) but it does change whether one’s actions were justified. For example, if there are common inherent truths one would be justified in being upset if someone say stole their lunch. However, if life is not governed by certain presuppositions the lunch stealer could argue that there is no law stopping them from taking the lunch and they would be justified. By the same token if a government forces legislation upon a people who had no say in the matter the people could argue that this violates their rights and they would be justified if life is governed by certain presuppositions but would not be if life is not. Basically what I’m saying is that lack of belief in inherent truths held by all people makes resistance against government powers, such as the American Revolution, unjustifiable. While philosophers such as Hobbes saw the government as protecting people from themselves philosophers such as Locke and Jefferson saw government as an extension of already known inherent truths and that the government was in the wrong when it violated these truths. In my opinion, Jefferson and Locke have the right idea in this case. One could ask whether these inherent truths would exist in a secular society as the truths I mentioned, at least from Locke and Jefferson’s perspective, are theological in nature. I personally would argue that they would but would require one to at least be spiritual as simply looking at the human race from a biological perspective does not provoke certain inherent truths.
ReplyDeleteIf we are assuming that the theological presuppositions from which we derive natural law as the only source of these laws then, I would imagine if society becomes skeptical of these beliefs then it would stand to reason that the belief in natural law would disappear too. Then though we must look at the idea that if the theological presuppositions are, in actuality, true then they would remain true whether society believes in them or not, in that case, natural rights would remain because it would be inherently in us. In our own modern society I feel that, at least in most of the western world, these ideas of natural human rights and laws are a fairly accepted idea. In that case if we suddenly became a largely secular society then I feel those natural law ideas would remain because they are so deeply ingrained in our social beliefs and norms. If those ideas are not inherent and the theological presuppositions are in-fact false then we could see those ideas begin to fade over time as society changes. This is a very close idea with that of inherent morality and ethics as the theological presupposition is applied in some cases to those as well.
ReplyDeleteThe inalienable rights that Jefferson states is due to all people is based on what the people believe life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness truly are. The identity of these ideas is based in different theological teaches that are accepted by different people. If their begins to be skepticism about these theological teaching then the inaliable rights of the people who believe in those idea are brought to skepticism. For these rights to be truly inaliable and be paid to all people, this skepticism must not exist and all people should have the right to define these rights for themselves in order for the rights to be accurately applied to all.
ReplyDeleteOur inalienable rights pronounced by Jefferson, that are structured through theological views as there are comparisons with him and Locke, give us what we believe to be the meaning of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even our dollar bills say "In God We Trust". The religious aspects of these inalienable rights make us in a way come together as one, equal-minded society that make it even more appropriate that we do have these rights. If there becomes skeptical mindsets theologically and approach them in such a manner, a form of 'natural law' can come into place, giving people different mindsets and have different ethical/moral approaches on life, potentially abusing these rights by restricting others from them. From my standpoint, all men are created as one species with no entitlement over one another with these rights to be unconditional to them.
ReplyDeleteBoth Locke and Jefferson had similar views that humans have these inalienable rights such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These two men used theological presuppositions to make their views on these rights more understandable to the people of their time period. Locke's view on workmanship for example Locke believes god as intimate knowledge of the universe because he created it therefore God gave us the power to create ideas which we could have God like knowledge about. Thomas Jefferson as all know stated we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So the question is brought up if people lose their belief in God will they still believe is these viewpoints that has theological backing? In my opinion i believe that these rights will keep their value without the belief in God. These rights have become so ingrained into our society that even those that don't believe in God still believe they should have these rights. People from other countries that have completely different believes come to the United States because we practice these rights that allow humans to live freely and have opportunity. Therefore i believe that the human will to be successful is the driving force behind these rights, and when these rights are taken away people will fight or leave to find an area were these natural rights are realized
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke and Thomas Jefferson both believe that as humans we all have the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They use the theological presuppositions to say that we are created from one God or supreme being. With this we are all granted the same rights and are all equal. Skepticism comes to play because, when people do not believe in a God or a supreme being then they believe not everyone is created equal. Now some people would have more rights than others and to take it one step further more power.
ReplyDeleteLocke and Jefferson believe that humans have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Locke believes that each person is equal and has the human rights. Jefferson and Locke both explain natural rights through theological presuppositions. People could come to not believe in God or think differently based upon the theological presuppositions. Thomas Jefferson stated that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think that many people in our country live by this and without it they would be angry because it is basically their rights. Once someone would lose these rights they would not know what to do. Everyone here has a right to life, including a fetus. Some may believe this where others may not but either way its everyone's right to have that opinion. I can see these rights being based off of religion for a religious person but at the same time for a non religious person. either way everyone has rights and that's what this country gives us.
ReplyDeleteJefferson and Lock both rely on theological presuppositions. They argue about individual freedom by natural laws and rights. God created the foundation for the laws and allowed us to create them. These natural laws and rights arent created by one specific person. They are based on the effect and consequences of our actions. They are not set in stone and can be edited because of evolution. God created us all equal. We are his property and he gave us the power to be miniature Gods. People become skeptical about there being a natural creator or supreme person who gave us these rights so people tend to take their power too far. Under God we are the base of this world and we should act as he would. I agree with both Locke and Jefferson in their argument about natural laws.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson and John Locke both think that every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Both of them believe that we are all created from a higher power or supreme being (God). This theological presumption indicates that everything that God created is his property and should be treated equal. When people stop believing in a higher power then this all goes out the window and starts to mean nothing. With no theological belief then people will start to think that they deserve more rights than others do when we should be all equal instead.
ReplyDeleteAccording to both John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, all human beings are created equal by God. Therefore, we all deserve an equal slice of the pie, so to speak. Both of these men believe in the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe it doesn't matter wether you believe in God or not, the natural laws of man weren't written by a single entity. When there are a lot of people that don't believe in a higher power, they start to become skeptical as to what is the standard in society. They begin to forget about what is moral and ethical.
ReplyDelete