Research On Natural Rights Theory

All men are free and equal each other by nature; they have certain inalienable rights by nature. Government is or ought to be instituted for these natural and inherent rights. The just power of government is derived from the consent of all people, and if the government betrays its mission, people have a right to change or abolish it, and establish another new government. This kind of natural rights theory was consisted by the idea of natural state, natural law theory and social contract theory, and came into being in England on the early times of seventeen century; then rapidly overspreads the land of Europe and North America, shaped and dominated the western social political thoughts of Enlighten times. The theory was affirmed formally by the Declaration of Independence by the United States of America and the Declaration of Rights of Man by the National Assembly of France on the late times of eighteen century, and became the theoretic basis and dominant thoughts of American Independence and French Revolution. The theory engendered the incomparable effect to formation of the modern social political values and social political system. The natural rights theory made liberty and equality become the two great political values of the modern society, become the criterion of weighing just or not on the social political law and system, and made democracy become the basic form of modern society organize, become political goal of every country washing modernization. The rise of natural rights theory has brought up a new time in the history of political philosophy and moral philosophy.The rise and development of natural rights theory has an inherent association with the political revolution in Europe and America. Just so, the theory was criticized by all kinds of school from the late time of eighteen and especially nineteen century, because the new capitalism society was sick of the revolution and dreaded it. The opponent of natural rights theory stepped on historical stage one after the other. And the utilitarianism criticized it according to maximum of social welfare or utility; the historicism criticized it according to history; the communitarianism criticized it according to the common good of community. The critics thought the natural rights theory possessed three fundamental characters, such as radicalism, individualism and rationalism. The radicalism was also regarded as absolutism, and those theorists of natural rights theory were regarded as the subversive of government and assassin of security, and the natural rights theory was regarded as terroristic words and anarchical fallacies. The individualism was also regarded as anti-social atomism, and natural rights were regarded as anarchical rights, and the system of natural rights theory was regarded as the anti-social system of natural rights theory. The rationalism was also regarded as priorism, essentialism and metaphysics, and then natural rights were regarded as the illusive rights and metaphysical rights. According to it, the notion of natural rights was also regarded as the illusive notion and political moral falsism, and the natural rights theory also regarded as sophism and fantasy. After Hume and Vico put forward their critiques on the modern notion of natural law, the Utilitarian or Benthamite including Bentham and Austin put forward a kind of positivism of law, and they protested that the maximum of social welfare or utility was the ultimate standard of evaluating political actions and all human behaviors. They thought that the rights of man were the results of positive law, and the rights of man couldn't exist before or beyond positive law. In their opinion, the natural rights theory was only talking nonsense. From Hume and Vico on, the historicist such as Burke and Savigny put forward a kind of idea of historical-becoming, and protested the social political law and system were the results of historical evolution. They thought that the rights of man weren't natural and inherent, and the rights of man were the results of historical evolution. The different nations possess the different course of historical-becoming, and there wasn't at all the universal political value and political system. According to it, they believed that there wasn't the universal rights belong to human-being, and this kind of rights was only the political and moral falsism. And many communitarians put forward a kind of idea of social acceptation and the idea of common good, such as Thomas Hill Green, Beth J. Singer and the contemporary moral philosopher Alasdair McIntyre. They protested that the rights were the expression of common good of the community, and the existence of certain social rules or criterions was the precondition of the rights. So there aren't those kinds of rights without the community, and the rights only exist in the community. And only human-being as the members of community have certain rights designated by the criterion of community. The communitarians believed that those natural rights theorists ignored the fact of human-being as the members of community, and ignored the important sense of the common good of community. So natural rights are a kind of falsism myth like fox-eidolon or unicorn, and the concept of natural rights is only an illusive notion.The undercurrent of criticizing natural rights theory quietly sprang up on the late period of eighteen century, and expanded strongly to mainstream in the nineteen century. And the three fundamental characters of natural rights theory were drastically attacked and denied, such as its radicalism, individualism and rationalism. All kinds of attack and denial persisted to our times. These critics resulted in that natural rights theory at the height of power and splendour in the eighteen century exited from the historical stage of political philosophy legal philosophy and moral philosophy in the nineteen century. As far as nineteen seventy years, the idea and principle of natural rights disappeared from the thoughts of men, except for a few of liberalism. The historical puzzledom of natural rights theory was also regarded as the crisis of natural rights, but in fact that was not at all the crisis of natural rights itself, and that was only the crisis of traditional theory of natural rights in the attack and denial of the utilitarianism, historicism and communitarianism. Of course the natural rights theories of Hobbes and others were regarded as a kind of historical rubbish and falsism fantasy, and were spurned by many contemporary philosophers; the fact indicated on the one hand that those critics'critiques was strong, and on the other hand it indicated that natural rights theories itself in enlighten times were in possession of more or less problems needing farther explanation and demonstrate. And if the theorists of natural rights theory want to reconstruct the natural rights theory in the contemporary sphere of rights theories, they must be up against and accept the challenge of those critics and overthrow the logic of those critiques. Especially it is not enough to stay in refution and justification, and we must provide new explanation and demonstration.According to the critiques above, most of critics opened out their critiques about natural rights theory from the notions of natural state and natural law, including the social contract. In fact, if the objectors want to overthrow natural rights theory, they indeed have to begin with the three aspects. And so when we commence to analyse their critiques, we can't avoid analyzing the three aspects of natural rights theory. The critics denied the notion of natural state from two aspects. First, they alleged from positive opinion that natural state was devoid of the historical authenticity, and pointed out that natural state was only the political and moral fantasy. Second, they thought that natural state opposed to social state from the sociality of human, and denied the possibility of its existence. The two critiques not only contained the certain reasonability, but also the certain mistakenness. One hand natural state in itself is only a kind of imaginary pre-political state, and the preexistence of this state is only a kind of logical preexistence against body politic and political society organized. Another hand natural state is opposed to social state, and it is only a kind of imaginary social state that is devoid of government and body politic, its existence only possesses reasonability and possibility in logic. So the critiques to the historical authenticity completely mistaken the opponent in fact and were criticizing jackstraw. The critiques to social contract actually possessed the same mistakenness. Because the theory of social contract didn't care how to come into being the political society in fact, and this theory only cared how to establish the just political society in logic. The theory offers the important frame of reference to comprehend and verify the validity of political society and power for us. Certainly the critiques to natural law possessed the similar mistakes, including the mistakenness to natural law. The natural law of natural rights theory is not the strict law at all, and it is only the certain just principles by nature or in itself. So if someone alleges that natural law is devoid of the legal effectiveness or the objectivity of existence, this indicates that he misapprehends the idea of natural law. The critiques to utilitarianism and historicism from new liberalism in the contemporary political philosophy are enough to testify that their critiques to natural rights theory are debatable and jaundiced clearly. Even then through to the twenty eighties the rising of new Communitarianism was difficult to imperil the fundamental principles of natural rights theory and the disability of MacIntyre'critiques to natural rights indicated it. Because the basis of critics are also debatable, for example the utilitarian notion of felicity, the historicism notion of human nature or humanity and the Communitarian notion of common good. There were more or less problems in them, and they either resulted in the dangerous totalitarianism or bring about the extreme relativism. The contemporary communitarianism is especially not enough at all replace the liberalism of natural rights theory, such as MacIntyre and Charles Tyler. Because the new communitarianism is actually only a kind of negative and passive theoretical system, there is not the systemic and positive political proposition in them.So the new communitarianism is actually only a kind of complementarities to the new liberalism of natural rights theory.Though Natural rights theory is always criticized and attacked, the theory is still alive. Since the Second World War, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rising of new liberalism in the contemporary philosophy indicated that not only natural rights theory didn't retreat from the historical stage, but also it show itself a kind of the phenomena of renewal. All the renewal natural state, natural law and social contract one after the other in the contemporary political and moral philosophy indicated it. The new liberalism philosophers can't think that the rights as the basis of their system are only the results of historical evolution or the results of positive law or contact, and they can't also think that the rights are endowed by the common good of community, even as what'said by Dworkin, the theory based on rights must contain a supposition that the rights exists independently from the positive law and are preexistent relatively to every contract and stipulation. The rights as the basis of new liberalism system are natural.Although the critics of the objectors are debatable, this is not enough to indicate that natural rights theory still possesses the important values and sense in thoughts and practice for the contemporary human society, especially for the contemporary Chinese society. So research on natural rights theory can't avoid relating to its adaptability in contemporary world. If natural rights theory is useful for us, it is supposed to acclimatize itself to the new social positions and conditions. In fact even though the international human rights theory at the summit of its power and the moral rights theory are in the ascendant today, the natural rights theory still possesses important theoretical values and practical senses. Moral rights are based on the moral system and depend on the certain moral law, and then it is not enough to take on the role for providing reasoning for universal human rights. Human rights as moral rights are empty of firm base, and so Human rights as moral rights are a kind of rootless rights. And human rights as natural rights have no this kind of problems and misgivings. The morality is not enough to be the basis of human rights, and people shouldn't regard human rights as moral rights. Because the morality is historical, consuetudinary, relative and factitious, and on the contrary human rights can only be based on the common humanity of human-being; so long as human rights as natural rights are universal and inalienable. Certainly, natural rights theory must possess practical maneuverability in the practical political actions, if it wants to acclimatize itself to the contemporary society. This makes us have to pay attention to another critique to natural rights itself that the inalienable rights must result in anarchy. The critiques always concentrated in the problem of relation between natural rights and social punishment, especially he problem of relation between natural rights and death penalty. The difference between natural state and political society actually indicates that natural rights can't be unconditional and unqualified rights; the inevitability from natural state to political society also indicates it; and the others'natural rights constitute limitation and restraints to every one; the others'natural rights form the moral side- restriction of your behavior. Even as principle expressed by the Declaration of Rights of Man, liberty is only indicating that you have a right to do anything that doesn't injure other anyone, and everybody'exertion to natural rights must obey the constraint that they don't disturb the others'exertion to natural rights in the political society, especially your existence or your exertion to natural rights can't result in the death of the others or the disability to their rights. Natural rights are not unlimited in the political society, and the theorists of natural rights theory are unwavering liberalist, but they are not anarchist. The fact that they approved the death penalty is enough to indicate it. Certainly, it also indicates that natural rights are not suited to justify the rightness of abolishing death penalty. In fact if we accept that the inalienability of natural rights can justify the rightness of abolishing death penalty, we would have to be faced with the challenge that the imprisonment to murder is damaging his liberty. It is obvious that the opinion of incompatibility between natural rights and death penalty misapprehend natural rights theory.The important significance of natural rights theory doesn't only provide the sufficient justification for human rights and serve as the supreme basis of the system of human rights. In fact natural rights theory possesses much more political functions, and the most important function of natural rights theory is that it can replace the utilitarianism and become once more the basis of modern liberalism democracy in the contemporary political society. The theory has provided the most sufficient justification for the political values of modern democracy in history, and the abnegation to utilitarianism democracy today caused that the democratic theory without natural rights theory is difficult to justify the validity of modern democracy. Especially if the democratic manner of political life is bankrupt in the constraints of natural rights, it probably translates into a kind of tyranny with majority over minority. The constraints of natural rights over political power put up the strict division between the political public sphere and private life sphere. It is the key that a society wants to become a really liberal society. The power of government shall be established on the democratic procedure, and the exertion to political public power must be restricted in the political public sphere. If the exertion to political public power goes beyond the confines between the political public sphere and private life sphere, the democracy probably evolves as the suppression with majority over minority. Natural rights can confirm the strict confines between private sphere and public sphere, and the democracy of natural rights theory is justly this kind of democracy in order to safeguard everyone rights. In fact only this kind of democratic society is real liberal society.Since natural rights theory sprang up in the England on the seventeen century; the theory was formally accepted and affirmed by the Declaration of Independence by the United States of America and the Declaration of Rights of Man by France through to the late times of eighteen century; at last the theory became the basis of liberal democracy in the rising times of capitalism; and the theory has offered important historical contributions for the formation and development of western contemporary political system and legal system. Therefore it possesses the important significance in reaffirming natural rights theory for the contemporary western capitalism political society. But what contributions can the natural rights theory do for the development of contemporary Chinese society? In general, natural rights theory can offer five contributions for the reformation of contemporary Chinese political system and legal system, including the political goal of constructing harmonious society and the building of Chinese market economy system. First, the natural rights theory can offer a kind of theoretical basis for refuting the anarchical fallacies and demonstrating the rightness of political society or body politic. Second, the natural rights theory can offer a kind of sufficient justification for the importance or necessity of constructing nomocracy or law ruling society. Third, the natural rights theory can offer a kind of theoretical basis for restricting and guarding against the public power of government. Fourth, the natural rights theory can offer a kind of sufficient justification for the reformation of contemporary Chinese social distribution system and offer a kind of theoretical basis for raveling out the social inequality and offer a kind of theoretical direction for constructing harmonious society. Fifth, the natural rights theory can offer a kind of sufficient justification for the political value of democracy and offer some certain constraints for the political system of democracy. Certainly, the five aspects above are not enough to sum up all significances of natural rights theory in the contemporary Chinese society. In fact, the five political values of natural rights theory are universal, and anyone political society must take it seriously, including its pursuit in values and system, if it wishes to become a truly liberal society and just society. It is the most important values of natural rights theory for the contemporary China and world that can become a standard of valuating the extent of social liberty and social justice.