Natural rights are rights that are given to individuals based on “natural law” and are inherent, unconditional, and unchangeable. They cannot be transferred to anyone else and are equal for all human beings, without being subject to the agreement of others, the existence of political and judicial institutions, or laws and traditions. Therefore, natural rights belong to every human being at any time and place.

European political thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries considered these rights to be natural rights that humans possess in the “state of nature” before the establishment of civil society, or rights that humans naturally possess in the absence of government. The most fundamental natural rights of humans, which are universally agreed upon, are the right to life, liberty, and equality.

This concept has a long history in European thought, but it became popular in the 17th and 18th centuries. Although traces of their inclination towards natural law can also be found in the works of Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient Greek philosophers, Cicero, the famous Roman theorist and speaker before Christ, has best explained the core of traditional natural law perspective.

After that, in the Middle Ages, Aquinas, the Christian theologian and philosopher, undoubtedly must be considered the most important reviver of natural rights. Aquinas’ natural rights were discussed in a theological and divine context. In fact, his main concern was not just natural rights, but providing an interpretation and theoretical framework for the position of revelation and divine laws in the social norms of human societies. He thought deeply about the role of revelation and its relationship with reason, and the result of this plan was the presentation of a significant role for human reason in the very important area of social norms in human relationships.

During the post-Renaissance period, the concept of natural rights was usually associated with the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius. He was a complete example of a Renaissance humanist, as well as a mathematician, jurist, politician, speaker, and historian. He has been referred to as the father of international law. The modern approach to Grotius’ statement that “natural rights can be understood even if God does not exist” has an undeniable connection; in fact, the non-religious perspective on natural rights is a turning point that brings this idea from the realm of theology and religion to the realm of humanity. According to Grotius, natural rights are the same as the dictates of reason, which considers an action to be either commendable or reprehensible based on its harmony with the rational and social nature of humans, and therefore God, as the creator of nature, has deemed them either forbidden or permissible.

However, the modern idea of natural rights emerged in the 17th century with the rise of individualistic ideologies based on ancient theories of natural law. The traditional theory of natural law was based on the belief that humans, as creations of nature and God, should govern their lives and organize their societies according to the laws and commandments of nature and God.

The revolutionary content of the theory of natural law was that government should be based on the will and satisfaction of the people, and its supporters believed that their “political community” was the result of a contract. From now on, justice was no longer seen as anything other than the will and consent of the individual, but rather justice was seen as a manifestation of the conditions of the social contract. This view was opposed to the Christian theory – which had been provided by Thomas Aquinas – as well as the Aristotelian theory, which did not see the purpose of government as being subject to the desires and wishes of individuals, but rather saw it as recognizing an objective reality of justice and guiding individuals towards actualizing their human essence and helping them achieve perfection. In this theory, individuals have rights as human beings, but their rights stem from their duties; whereas the new theory sees duties as dependent on rights, meaning that in the new society, individuals are obliged to the extent that they are considered to have

The most important descriptions of natural rights were formed among the North American colonists. Where the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine used the theory of natural rights as a powerful tool to legitimize the revolution. This idea also emerged in some of the earliest constitutions of the United States. For example, the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution declared that “all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” In the “Declaration of Independence,” these natural rights were formulated and emphasized as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 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 – that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers

John Locke, an English philosopher, was a pioneer of this theory in the modern era and expands on it in his second essay on government. Like other new political thinkers, John Locke does not believe that natural rights come from God, but rather sees them as a principle that is intuitively understood by reason. It is self-evident to reason that all humans are “equal and independent” and that “no one should harm another’s life, health, freedom, or property.” Because humans are, by nature, “free, equal, and independent,” it follows that “no one can be removed from this state without their consent and subjected to the political power of another.” According to Locke, the “great and primary goal” of people coming together to form a government and society is to protect their property. This theory, as proposed by Locke, relied on the natural right to unequal acquisition of property, especially in the form of money, and was favorable to the growing middle class and provided justification

These opinions of Locke emerged during the post-Thomas Hobbes era and became widespread. Hobbes was one of the prominent political philosophers of England, known mostly for his works in political philosophy and his book Leviathan. Leviathan is a wicked dragon whose name is mentioned in the Torah, and Hobbes referred to the government, which he believed was the result of a social contract, by this name. The book was written in 1651 and laid the foundation for many theories of social contract in political philosophy. Hobbes was a philosopher with a broad perspective and great power of argumentation. From a theoretical standpoint, he accepts natural rights, but in his view, the most important and perhaps the only principle of natural rights is the right to self-preservation. Everyone has the right to use their power to protect their own life and use any means necessary in this regard. The right to achieve a goal also includes the right to use means. In such a state, humans have the right to everything

The theory of natural law also has its opponents, including Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and jurist, who referred to natural law as “meaningless jargon” and stated that the only meaningful speech is that of “legal rights” and not “natural rights”. Bentham considered the idea of natural law to be imaginary and the arguments in its defense to be empty rhetoric. This is because speaking of a right without the necessary practical obligations to respect it is impossible, and the ability to enforce it is only possible with a legal system in place. Opponents of natural law generally limit their analysis to positive law and view natural law as emotional, non-rational, indeterminate, and supernatural, and therefore useless. Despite these objections, which were prevalent in the 19th century, thinkers of the 20th century declared the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, and this phrase is mentioned in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted by the United

The declaration of “equal rights and inseparable dignity of all members of the human family” encompasses the belief that there are principles of justice that go beyond the established rights of any society and apply equally to all human beings in any place and time. These principles are the foundation of social justice and serve as a measure for evaluating legislation or as fundamental principles for a rule of law.

Thomas Hill Green, a 19th century English politician and philosopher, also considered natural rights unacceptable from three perspectives; this theory believed that individuals bring legal rights to society that are not derived from society, claimed that these rights could be used against society, and separated individual rights from the duties of individuals towards their society.

In the face of supporters of natural rights or idealists, positivists or supporters of the realist school are present. The main difference between supporters of natural rights and positivists is a difference in the basis of rights and the foundation of legal obligations. Supporters of natural rights consider rights as a common ideal of human societies and see fairness and adherence to natural principles and doctrines as the source of their obligations, while positivists do not see rights as anything other than a legal system dependent on a specific society.

Gathering: Ali Fotouti

“Positivism” in its literal meaning refers to “positive and established” (what has been established). Francis Bacon, the 17th century English philosopher, first used this term in his book “Principles and Sources” to mean “real”, “achievable”, and “certain”. Despite its ancient roots, positivism has gained its fame as logical positivism and has been associated with terms such as authenticity, achievement, or proof. It has also been given its own name in the Western world and has been attributed to a short period of philosophical thought.

Sources:

Michael Freiden. Fundamentals of Human Rights. Translation by Fereydoun Majlesi.

Human Rights (Theories and Practices) – Hossein Sharifi

Political Encyclopedia, Author: Dariush Ashoori

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, translated by Hossein Beshiriyeh.

Naser Katouzian, Philosophy of Law

Wikipedia website