In the first part of this
article, I’ve shown how Enlightenment thinkers emancipated human beings from
the shackles of the Church’s power and authority. This emancipation was in terms of
reaffirmation of the ideas of man’s individuality, his rational nature, and his
freedom. These philosophical ideals are
liberating, which help pave the way to the reclamation of human rights. Kant, however, did not specifically deal with
the idea of human rights as emphasized in the first part.
Locke on Human Rights
John Locke (1632-1704) considers human
rights as natural endowments such as the right to life and the right to
live. But, it’s not clear to me if Locke
grounds the idea of human rights in man’s reason similar to what I’ve traced in
Kant’s philosophy. What is clear to me
is that these rights are inviolable. For
example, if a person loses in a battle and becomes a captive, we obviously
conclude that he loses also his independence.
His freedom is taken away from him.
Yet, his rights as a person cannot be stripped off from him. The capturer may take everything from him
like his henchmen, armor, family, properties, and even his freedom. But his human rights cannot be taken away
from him. This is also true of a case of
a blind person or any person with special needs. Although he is deprived of one or two parts
of his body which are necessary to live a normal life, he/she has still all
these rights. These rights will only be
gone once the person dies. It seems to
me that when we say, “human rights are natural,” the word “natural” could refer
to one’s existence. In other words,
human rights are inseparably one with one’s existence. This is, I think, a very important
development in the conceptualization of human rights. The concept of human rights is first and
foremost rooted in man’s very existence.
Thus, it’s over and above any conventional matter of human rights, like
found in social contract, constitution, laws and any other legal proceedings.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
is also an important figure in the conceptualization of human rights since he
introduces the word, “social contract.”
He views that “persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent
upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.”[1] Human society is best formed under a certain
social contract in which all of its members agree and enter into. This idea defies the belief in Medieval times
that society is created and ordained by God.
For Rousseau, the formation of society is conventional. It’s a matter of agreement, which each and
every member of the society enters into.
This gives us the idea that society must be democratic, not authoritative
and monarchical. It’s a kind of society
wherein each and every member shall take active participation in its social and
political affairs. On this basis, we
conclude that human rights can best be exercised and only be respected under
democratic principles. The advocacy of
human rights does not strive in authoritative governments.
Finally, let me try to single out
some threads of philosophical ideas, which we can connect to the idea of human rights. First, the following ideas, namely: reason,
individuality, freedom are the foundation of human rights. Second, the exercise of human rights can only
strive under democratic principles.
Third, respect of human rights happens only in democratic governments.
