Natural Right and Legal Rights Difference

Natu­ral law first appeared in anci­ent Greek philosophy[2] and was men­tio­ned by the Roman phi­lo­so­pher Cice­ro. It was later men­tio­ned in the Bible,[3] and then deve­lo­ped in the Midd­le Ages by Catho­lic phi­lo­so­phers such as Albert the Gre­at and his pupil Tho­mas Aqui­nas. During the Enligh­ten­ment, the con­cept of natu­ral laws was used to chal­len­ge the divi­ne right of kings and beca­me an alter­na­ti­ve jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on for estab­li­shing a social con­tract, posi­ti­ve law, and government – and the­re­fo­re legal rights – in the form of clas­si­cal repu­bli­ca­nism. Con­ver­se­ly, the con­cept of natu­ral rights is used by others to ques­ti­on the legi­ti­ma­cy of all the­se insti­tu­ti­ons. The idea of human rights is also clo­se­ly lin­ked to that of natu­ral rights: some reco­gni­ze no dif­fe­rence bet­ween the two and con­si­der them syn­ony­mous, while others choo­se to keep the terms sepa­ra­te to avoid asso­cia­ti­on with cer­tain cha­rac­te­ris­tics tra­di­tio­nal­ly asso­cia­ted with natu­ral rights. [4] In par­ti­cu­lar, natu­ral rights are con­si­de­red to be bey­ond the power of a government or inter­na­tio­nal body to deny them. The United Nati­ons Uni­ver­sal Decla­ra­ti­on of Human Rights of 1948 is an important legal instru­ment that ensh­ri­nes a con­cept of natu­ral rights in non-bin­ding inter­na­tio­nal law. Natu­ral rights have tra­di­tio­nal­ly been con­si­de­red exclu­si­ve­ly nega­ti­ve rights,[5] while human rights also inclu­de posi­ti­ve rights. [6] Even in a con­cep­ti­on of human rights in natu­ral law, the two terms may not be syn­ony­mous. The dif­fe­rence bet­ween natu­ral and legal rights is that one is codi­fied by law, while the other is con­si­de­red uni­ver­sal and moral­ly gran­ted to all per­sons at birth.

Government agen­ci­es impo­se legal rights, also known as civil rights, to sett­le cri­mi­nal and civil cases. Natu­ral rights and legal rights are often com­bi­ned when laws are writ­ten; Natu­ral rights, such as the right to due pro­cess, are pro­tec­ted by law so that the natu­ral right to liber­ty is not arbi­tra­ri­ly with­drawn. Many docu­ments now repeat the phra­se used in the United Sta­tes Decla­ra­ti­on of Inde­pen­dence. The pream­ble to the 1948 United Nati­ons Uni­ver­sal Decla­ra­ti­on of Human Rights sta­tes that rights are ina­li­en­ab­le: “Reco­gni­ti­on of the inherent digni­ty and equal and ina­li­en­ab­le rights of all mem­bers of the human fami­ly is the foun­da­ti­on of free­dom, jus­ti­ce and peace in the world.” Sec­tion 1, § 1 of the Cali­for­nia Con­sti­tu­ti­on reco­gni­zes ina­li­en­ab­le rights and sta­tes some (not all) of tho­se rights such as “the defen­se of life and liber­ty, the acqui­si­ti­on, pos­ses­si­on, and pro­tec­tion of pro­per­ty, and the pur­su­it and attain­ment of secu­ri­ty, hap­pi­ness, and pri­va­cy.” Howe­ver, the­re is still much con­tro­ver­sy about which “rights” are real­ly natu­ral rights and which are not, and the con­cept of natu­ral or ina­li­en­ab­le rights is still con­tro­ver­si­al for some. The idea that all human bein­gs are born equal and have equal natu­ral rights that can be reco­gni­zed dates back to the begin­nings of human civi­liz­a­ti­on, is roo­ted in histo­ry, and is lin­ked to indi­vi­du­al strug­gles against injus­ti­ce. Alt­hough the term “human rights” is new, the idea that a per­son has cer­tain fun­da­men­tal and ina­li­en­ab­le rights against a sov­er­eign sta­te goes back to the con­cepts of natu­ral law and natu­ral rights. Dif­fe­rent phi­lo­so­phers have drawn up dif­fe­rent lists of rights that they con­si­der natu­ral. Pro­pon­ents of natu­ral rights, espe­cial­ly Hes­sel­berg and Roth­bard, respon­ded that rea­son can be used to sepa­ra­te tru­ly axio­ma­tic rights from sup­po­sed rights, arguing that any princip­le that must be refu­t­ed is an axi­om. Cri­tics have poin­ted to the lack of agree­ment among sup­por­ters as evi­dence for the claim that the idea of natu­ral rights is merely a poli­ti­cal tool. The term “ali­ena­te” comes from the field of pro­per­ty law. It refers to the act of trans­fer­ring something.

In gene­ral, we con­stant­ly sell pro­per­ty rights by sel­ling or giving them away. Then it tur­ned out that it made a signi­fi­cant dif­fe­rence if slavery was said to be wrong becau­se every human being has the natu­ral right to own his own body, or becau­se every human being has a natu­ral right to free­ly deter­mi­ne his desti­ny. The first type of right was ali­en­ab­le: Locke care­ful­ly dedu­ced slavery from cap­tu­re to war, a man losing his job to the con­quer­or who could legi­ti­mate­ly have kil­led him; and so Dred Scott was sen­ten­ced fore­ver for giving up his free­dom. But the second type of right, what Pri­ce cal­led “that power of self-deter­mi­na­ti­on pos­ses­sed by all actors as such,” was ina­li­en­ab­le as long as man remai­ned human. Like the search by the spi­rit for reli­gious truth from which it flowed, self-deter­mi­na­ti­on was not a pro­per­ty claim that could be both acqui­red and aban­do­ned, but an inse­pa­ra­ble aspect of human acti­vi­ty. [27] Fol­low us on Insta­gram and sub­scri­be to our You­Tube chan­nel for more inte­res­ting legal con­tent. Moral rights are based on the princi­ples of reli­gi­on, histo­ry and secu­la­rism. God‘s natu­ral rights are defi­ned by reli­gious beliefs emana­ting from God or ano­t­her supre­me being. They are codi­fied in the Bible, Torah and other reli­gious texts.

The Ten Com­man­dments are examp­les of how cer­tain natu­ral rights have been ensh­ri­ned in law to pro­tect life and liber­ty. The­se rights are deemed ina­li­en­ab­le. Natu­ral rights are rights con­fer­red on all human bein­gs by natu­re or God that no government or indi­vi­du­al can deny or limit. “Natu­ral law” is often used to descri­be how peop­le are gran­ted natu­ral rights. The con­cept of a natu­ral law pro­ving the exis­tence of cer­tain natu­ral rights was ori­gi­nal­ly intro­du­ced into anci­ent Greek phi­lo­so­phy. Later it was men­tio­ned in the Bible and con­ti­nued to deve­lop in the Midd­le Ages. In the Enligh­ten­ment, natu­ral rights were used to coun­ter abso­lu­tism or the divi­ne rights of kings. The con­tem­pora­ry con­cept of natu­ral rights evol­ved from anci­ent and medi­eval theo­ries of natu­ral law, which held that indi­vi­du­als, as crea­tures of natu­re and God, should live their lives and struc­tu­re their socie­ties in accordance with natu­ral or divi­ne norms and com­man­dments. Natu­ral law con­cepts should empha­si­ze that indi­vi­du­als, as natu­ral bein­gs, have rights that can­not be vio­la­ted by anyo­ne or by a com­mu­ni­ty, espe­cial­ly in the 17th cen­tu­ry. Natu­ral law estab­lis­hes natu­ral human mora­li­ty, rights, values, and duties through the actions and beha­vi­ors of the­se individuals.

On the other hand, human law, often known as legal law, estab­lis­hes true human mora­li­ty, rights, values and duties through man-made sys­tems and rules. Natu­ral rights and legal rights are the two basic types of rights. [1] Ever­yo­ne has the right to choo­se and rela­te to his reli­gi­on. The wri­tings of Tho­mas Aqui­nas and the United Sta­tes Bill of Rights reco­gni­ze the right to reli­gi­on. The right to know God was writ­ten by Tho­mas Aqui­nas, and the Bill of Rights affirms that Ame­ri­cans have free­dom of reli­gi­on without government inter­fe­rence. Human rights: The con­cept of human rights is ensh­ri­ned in the United Nati­ons Decla­ra­ti­on of Human Rights. The­se are inter­na­tio­nal­ly agreed stan­dards that some coun­tries pro­tect through their laws and others do not.