LESSON 6 RIGHTS: NATURAL, MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS & DEBATE: HUMAN RIGHTS

- UNIVERSALISM OR CULTURAL RELATIVISM

INTRODUCTION

Rights are essentially claims or entitlements that allow a person to grow, develop, and form their
identity. The state does not give rights, but it recognizes and protects them. Rights come from
society and are shaped by social conditions, meaning they are always linked to the community.
Rights belong to individuals, and they exist to help people fully develop themselves.

There are two main questions when we talk about the relationship between an individual and the
state: What does the individual receive from the state? These are their rights. And, what does the
individual owe to the state? These are their duties. In short, rights are the opportunities the state
provides for an individual to grow and develop.

According to political theorist Harald J. Laski, rights are necessary for a person to reach their full
potential. Ernest Barker suggests that rights come from the system of justice that the state and its
laws are based on. Rights show that an individual’s dignity is recognized by the state. However,
not all people have had rights in history. For example, in ancient Greece, only free men had
rights, while slaves, women, and foreigners had none.

Key political documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration
of the Rights of Citizens and Men emphasize the importance of rights and how political systems
are built on them. Historically, the interest in rights grew in the 17th and 18th centuries and
continued to expand in the 19th century. Since the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement has made
rights a key focus for improving society. Today, rights discussions focus on women, minorities,
and issues like the right to die by choice, and rights for sexual minorities (LGBTQ+).

Human rights, a topic of great debate today, have become a powerful language for moral change
in society. In 1948, the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
introducing a new idea of rights that originated in Western countries but has spread to Asia and
Africa. This has led to ongoing political debates on human rights across the world.

NATURE OF RIGHTS

The relationship between individuals and the state has been a key issue in political theory, with
many philosophers debating which is more important: the state or the individual, and what each
owes to the other. Rights are the opportunities that allow a person to fully develop and live a
good life. They are the basic conditions necessary for a person to thrive, and they are recognized
and protected by the state.

Some key ideas about rights include:

1. Rights are part of the state system: Rights come from the legal system, which is based
on the idea of rights. These rights are demands that individuals make from society, and
they are secured by law to help a person develop their full potential.
 2. Sources of rights: Rights come from two places. One source is the individual, based on
their moral nature and social needs. The second source is the state, which secures and
enforces these rights through laws. So, rights come from both the individual and the state.
3. Rights are about relationships in society: Rights are not unlimited and must respect the
rights of others. They are given to everyone equally, unlike privileges that are limited to
specific groups of people. Rights are not based on things like birth, caste, religion, or
economic status.
4. Rights evolve with society: As society develops and new needs arise, new demands for
rights emerge. When these demands are recognized by the state, they become rights.
5. Rights are specific to society and time: While rights are claimed by everyone, they can
be limited by time and place. For example, the rights people had after India gained
independence were different from the rights they had before. The content of rights, such
as the right to property, may also vary between countries.

In summary, rights help individuals develop their potential, come from both the individual and
the state, must be balanced with the needs of others, and change over time based on society’s
development. Rights are also specific to the society and time they exist in.

Negative and Positive Rights

The concept of rights has evolved over time. In the past, rights were mainly seen as benefits for
certain privileged groups, but now there is a broader view. The idea is that rights should be for
everyone, not just the rich or powerful, and that the state should not only limit its own power but
also help improve society.

Negative rights refer to what the state should not do. They protect individual freedom by saying
that certain areas of life should be free from government interference. For example, the right to
freedom of speech is a negative right because it means the state cannot restrict what people say
or think.

Positive rights, on the other hand, focus on what the state should do for people. They require the
state to take action to ensure people's well-being. For example, the right to education or
healthcare is a positive right because it means the state must provide these services to help
people improve their lives.

A capitalist state tends to focus more on negative rights, while a socialist state emphasizes
positive rights. A welfare state tries to balance both negative and positive rights to help people
as much as possible.

Justification of Rights

There are two main ways to explain why rights should be respected:

1. Deontological (Status-based) rights: This approach says that certain characteristics of

humans make respecting rights the right thing to do. For example, it could be based on
qualities like rationality or autonomy (the ability to make choices about one’s life).
 Natural rights theorists, like Locke, argue that humans have inherent rights because of
their nature, and these rights should always be respected.
2. Consequentialist (Instrumental) rights: This approach focuses on the outcomes of
respecting rights. It argues that protecting rights helps achieve a good or fair society. For
example, John Rawls’s theory suggests that the best distribution of rights is one that
would be chosen in a fair situation, where no one knows their position in society. The
idea here is that rights are a tool to create good results, like fairness or well-being.

In summary, status-based theories believe that rights should be respected because it is morally
fitting to do so, regardless of the consequences. In contrast, consequentialist theories believe
that rights are important because they lead to better outcomes for society.

Theories of Rights

There are many different theories that try to explain what rights are, where they come from, and
what they mean. Here are some of the main theories:

1. Natural Rights Theory: This theory says that rights come from nature. People have
certain rights just by being human. These rights are not created by the state or laws but
are inherent in human nature.
2. Idealistic Theory: This theory connects rights to the state and its laws. Rights are seen as
something the state provides, and they are understood in the context of the state’s ideals
or goals.
3. Legal Rights Theory: According to this theory, rights are rights because the law says so.
Rights are created and protected by legal systems.
4. Historical Theory: This theory says that rights come from traditions and customs that
have developed over time. They are not created by the state or nature but are shaped by
historical practices and social customs.
5. Social Welfare Theory: This theory views rights as something that serves both the
individual and society. Rights are to be exercised in a way that benefits both the person
who has the right and the larger community.

Historical Background

The idea of individual rights emerged with the rise of the modern state, especially in response to
the old political and social systems. The demand for rights was especially strong from the rising
middle class, which grew out of the Industrial Revolution. This demand for rights was expressed
in important historical documents like the Declaration of Independence in America and the
Declaration of the Rights of Man in France.

Many well-known thinkers and writers, like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and others, have argued for the importance of individual rights in
society. In more recent times, philosophers like John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and Ronald
Dworkin have continued to expand and develop ideas about rights.
In summary, the idea of rights has evolved over time and has been supported by different
thinkers, each bringing their own perspective on where rights come from and why they are
important.

Theory of Natural Rights

The natural rights theory is one of the most important theories about rights. It suggests that
every person is born with certain rights that come from nature, not from the state or society.
These rights are seen as inherent in the individual.

 Thomas Hobbes was one of the first to talk about natural rights. He introduced the idea
of the "natural state," which is how life would be without government or organized
society. In this state, people have natural rights to protect themselves.
 John Locke is known for his strong support of natural rights. He argued that every
person is born with certain rights that are given by God. These rights are part of being
human and include the right to life, liberty, and property. According to Locke, these
rights are personal and travel with the person, no matter where they go.
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau also believed in natural rights, focusing on the rights of
freedom and equality. He argued that these rights exist before the state is formed, and
people give up some of these rights when they join a government, but the basic rights
must still be protected.
 Modern political ideas, such as libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, continue to
support the natural rights view. Thinkers like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard argue
that people have natural rights over their own lives and property, as these are extensions
of their personal existence.

Critics of Natural Rights

While many thinkers have supported the idea of natural rights, it has also been criticized by
others:

1. Conflicts between Rights: Critics argue that if rights are absolute, conflicts can arise.
For example, a person’s right to life might conflict with another person’s right to
property (e.g., if food is hoarded during a famine). There is no clear principle for
resolving such conflicts if both rights are considered equally absolute.
2. Vagueness of "Natural": The term "natural" is unclear. Some people use it to mean the
universe or all of nature, while others use it to mean something specific to humans. This
lack of clarity makes it difficult to define exactly what "natural" rights are.
3. Rights and Law: Critics also argue that rights cannot exist without laws. Rights are not
just individual claims; they are linked to duties and social relationships. A right needs a
society or law to enforce it, which the natural rights theory does not fully explain.
4. Society's Role: Finally, the theory assumes that people can have rights and duties
independent of society, which critics say is wrong. Rights only make sense in the context
of social relationships and society. Without society, the concept of rights becomes
meaningless.
In short, while natural rights theory argues that certain rights are inherent to humans, critics
believe that it is vague and unrealistic because it does not clearly address how rights can conflict
or exist without society.

The Theory of Moral Rights is based on the idea that rights are rooted in moral principles
rather than being granted by the state. Thinkers like T.H. Green and Laski believe that rights are
essential for a person’s moral freedom and development. For example, the right to life, liberty,
property, education, and health are all connected to the growth of an individual's personality.

According to this theory, rights are not given by the state but are claims individuals make from
society based on moral values. These moral rights are recognized and enforced by the state
through laws. However, legal rights may not always fully represent moral rights. The goal is to
ensure that all moral rights are protected by law.

Rights can change over time and vary from place to place based on society's moral beliefs. As
society's moral awareness grows, certain rights that were once seen as natural may lose their
importance. Ultimately, an individual's rights depend on society’s judgment of how those rights
contribute to the general well-being.

Rights and Duties

Rights and duties are closely connected. For every right we have, there is a corresponding duty,
either on our part or on the part of others. In society, rights and duties are like two sides of the
same coin.

1. Reciprocity: Society works on the principle of "give and take." This means that my
rights come with the duty of others to respect them, and I also have the duty to respect the
rights of others. If everyone focuses only on their rights without considering their duties,
society will break down and become chaotic, like a jungle where the strongest rule.
2. Responsibilities to the State: If we have rights granted by the state, we also have a duty
to contribute to society. This means we should work for the common good, follow laws,
pay taxes, and contribute to national strength. A person contributes to society not just by
being famous or powerful but by doing their best in their everyday life. The idea is that
everyone should try to develop themselves and do their part in making society better.
3. A Balanced Society: A society where people care only about their rights and ignore their
duties will face serious problems, such as anarchy. To protect your own rights, you must
show that by respecting others' rights, you are helping society as a whole. True rights are
only possible when individuals understand the connection between their personal well-
being and the greater good of society. This balance of rights and duties helps create a
stable and fair society.

Debate: Human Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created in 1948, but over the past 20 years,
there has been a debate between two main views on human rights: universalism and cultural
relativism.

1. Universalism: This view believes that human rights are universal and should apply to all
people, regardless of their culture. It argues that all cultures, even the "primitive" ones,
will eventually evolve to adopt similar rights systems like those in Western countries.
2. Cultural Relativism: This perspective believes that human rights are tied to specific
cultures. It argues that different cultures have their own values and beliefs, which should
be respected. According to this view, human rights are not universal because they are
shaped by Western cultural norms.

In simple terms, universalism thinks human rights should be the same everywhere, while
cultural relativism argues that human rights can’t be the same for all cultures because every
culture has its own unique way of life. Both sides agree that human rights are connected to
Western culture, but they disagree on whether they can apply to all cultures in the same way.

Human Rights and Their Universality

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) outlines three generations of human rights:

1. Negative Rights (Civil and Political Rights): These rights protect individuals from
government actions. Examples include:
o The right to life
o Equality before the law
o Freedom of speech and religion
o Freedom of movement and assembly
o Protection against discrimination, slavery, and torture
2. Positive Rights (Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights): These rights require
governments to take action to ensure people have a decent standard of living. Examples
include:
o The right to an adequate standard of living (food, housing, medical care)
o Special care for motherhood and childhood
o The right to free education
3. Collective Rights (Group or Community Rights): These involve rights for groups or
nations, like:
o The right to development among nations
o Solidarity among nations and individuals

Universal Rights: These are rights that belong to all people, no matter where they live. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created after World War II, ensures that all people have
certain rights, such as access to health care, even if their local culture views those rights
differently.

Universalists believe that human rights are valid everywhere, regardless of culture. They argue
that some moral standards, such as those found in the UDHR, are universally applicable. These
rights are seen as inherent to all humans and cannot be denied based on gender, ethnicity, or
nationality. They argue that everyone has the right to these basic freedoms because they are
natural, God-given, or part of human dignity.

However, the concept of universal human rights is often tied to Western values, especially the
importance of the individual. These ideas have their roots in Greek philosophy, Christianity,
and Enlightenment thinkers. The main points of universalism are:

1. All humans have rights because of their humanity.

2. A person's rights are not based on gender or ethnicity.
3. Human rights are the highest moral rights, and they should not be subordinated to any
individual or institution, including the state.

Cultural Relativism and Human Rights

Since the UDHR was created, there has been criticism, especially from cultures outside the West.
These criticisms come from various perspectives, such as socialist, African, or religious
viewpoints, and they challenge the idea that human rights should be the same for everyone. This
is where cultural relativism comes into play.

Cultural Relativism argues that there are no universal standards for judging cultures or
societies. Every culture has its own set of values, and we should not impose outside standards on
them. For example, if a culture practices something like female genital mutilation, relativists
would argue that it shouldn't be judged by outside human rights standards because that practice is
part of the culture's beliefs.

Some key ideas of cultural relativism are:

1. Cultures are unique and can't be understood or judged by outside standards.

2. There is no universal truth or moral standard—each culture defines what is right or
wrong.
3. Values like human rights may not apply to all cultures equally.

Critics of the UDHR, like Adda Bozeman, argue that Western concepts of human rights may not
be applicable in non-Western societies. They believe that Western legal theories may not fit well
with African, Asian, or Islamic cultures. Polis and Schwab also argue that the UDHR reflects a
Western view of human rights and may not work in non-Western areas due to cultural
differences.

Cultural relativism emphasizes that we should respect the values of different cultures. For
example, if a culture practices something controversial, like genital mutilation, relativists would
argue that we should not interfere because it is part of their cultural beliefs. This view also
challenges the idea that Western human rights are the global standard, suggesting that each
culture has its own valid moral framework.
In summary, universalism believes that human rights are the same for everyone, everywhere,
while cultural relativism argues that human rights must be understood in the context of each
culture's values and beliefs.