 I
think Ann may be too cynical about this. Maybe we can make sense of
the notion of natural rights.
Many philosophers believe that individual human beings have an
intrinsic value -- a value that is not valued for the sake of something else. Some philosophers have said that individuals have "equal worth."
We could say, for example, that human beings have equal worth or equal intrinsic value. I'm not sure whether we should think of this as a fact about people that we have discovered or as a decision that we have made to regard people in a certain way. I lean toward the latter. But if I had a different metaphysics or a different theology I might lean toward the former.
I would say that we attribute this value or worth to people because of
certain qualities or properties that they have -- the ability to
reason, to develop an idea of what is good, and to choose a way of
life that fits their ideal of the good. These are all natural
qualities that people show. There is nothing odd or metaphysical about
being able to choose a way of life.
This value or worth may be closely connected with moral rights. We might say that moral rights are based on
this value. I'm not sure how we could show that. On the other hand, we could say that moral rights are a device that human beings create in order to
preserve that value or to protect the people who have that value. I understand that connection.
Since creating these rights doesn't require government, and since we
attribute these rights based on certain natural qualities of human
beings, we could say these rights are natural.
The main differences between philosophers have to do with the question "What rights do people have?" "Do people have only rights to liberty (i.e., to non-interference)? Or do they also have positive rights (e.g., to medical care)?" "Are rights absolute or can they be justly overridden or infringed under certain circumstances?"
|
