Page 2 :
The Theory of Natural Rights, , ; This theory occupied an important place in the political writings of the seventeenth and, eighteenth centuries but has gradually passed into the background of obscurity basis., , Contractual Basis, , _The idea of natural rights was a favourite theme with contractualists like Hobbes,, Spinoza and Locke. These thinkers contemplated the existence of rights in the ‘state of, nature’ and termed them as ‘natural right’. As such, these rights were independent of the, state, which itself was the outcome of a contract. They are pre-political and, according to, some thinkers, even pre-social. There is, however, no agreement as to what these rights were., According to Locke, man in the state of nature enjoys the right to life, liberty and property., These rights inhere in man and are not the creation of the state. These pre-political rights are, based on, and suggested by, reason. They are natural because they are of universal, application. They cannot be curtailed or alienated. The state is created by its members,, among other reasons, in order to safeguard and preserve these natural rights. The state has no, right to abridge or abrogate them. Thus, while Locke believes that the natural man, surrendered only some aspect of his natural rights to a superior authority in order to, safeguard the rest, Hobbes adopts a totally different point of view. According to him, one’s, natural rights are one’s natural powers. The state of nature was a purely animal condition. On, the emergence of the Civil Society termed as the State, the natural man surrendered all of his, rights to sovereign. In Rousseau’s view, the ‘man becomes completely submerged in the, newly-created political community where the general will determines his rights., , While the contractualists defined natural rights in terms of some pre-political privileges, of the ‘natural’ man, other thinkers have enunciated the concept of natural tights with, reference to the purpose of human life. According to them, tights are natural in the sense that, they. “pre-exist in the individual” or they are inherent in the moral nature of associated men, who “live in society,” In their opinion, rights are sanctioned not by the law of the state but, the moral consciousness of the community. Hence they consider rights as self evident truth., , Thinkers belonging to the sociological school have endeavoured to give a social content, to the meaning of natural rights. According to them, natural rights are those freedoms of man, which are conducive to the most effective functioning of society. What is natural must be in, harmony with essential conditions of the existence and development of man. In the words of

Page 3 :
168 Political Theory, , Professor Giddings, natural rights, “are socially necessary forms of right, enforced by natural, selection in the sphere of social relations, and in the long run there can be neither legal nor, moral rights that are not grounded in natural rights as thus defined.”, , The theory of natural rights has played a very important role in political theory. It, exercised a great influence on the American and French revolutions. The American, Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are, created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of ., governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the, right of the people to alter or abolish it.” The French Assembly soon after the French, Revolution resolved to state in solemn declaration the natural, inalienable and the sacred, , Tights of man. This declaration named liberty, equality security and property to be among the, important natural rights of man., , Criticism. The theory of natural rights has been subjected to severe criticism., , (1) Vague. The most obvious criticism is that, since it is difficult to give an exact, meaning to the term ‘natural’, varied interpretations have been given. D.G. Ritchie in, “Natural Rights” describes the variety of sense in which the term has been used. One, consequence of this situation is that there is no commonly agreed list of natural rights., Whereas some thinkers justified slavery as being natural, others condemned it. While some, writers regard private property a natural right, others deny it. While some insist that men and, women are equal by nature. others do not agree to it. On account of this ambiguity. Ritchie, remarked, “Jf you appeal to Nature, we may not be able to prove you wrong in your own, court of appeal; but neither can you prove yourself right.””!, , (ii) No Unanimity. The so-called natural rights conflict with one another. Liberty,, equality and property are considered to be the natural rights. But when we begin to apply, them, we are faced with endless difficulty. In no political system can men be given absolute, liberty and equality. As we have seen earlier, absolute liberty may lead to inequality; and to, ensure equality for all, restraints will have to be imposed on liberty. The theory of natural, rights fails to suggest a sure way of reconciling liberty and equality. The same hold true of, the right to property. The supporters of the theory of natural rights have not clearly defined, this right and its limits. Hocking points out, my natural tight does not tell me what my limits, are., , (iii) There can be no right independent of society. It is not Proper to speak of rights as, being independent of society. Bentham has denied the existence of pre-civil rights. Rights, can exist only in a society possessing an adequate legal frame-work to protect their, enjoyment. Without society men may have powers—but not rights. Rights are not prior to, society; they arise out of the fact of man being social. In the words of Bosanquet, “A, right....is a claim recognised by society and enforced by the state.”, , aes) ge ts, 1. D.G. Ritchie, Natural Rights, p. 105.

Page 4 :
Citizenship and Rights 169, , (iv) Rights are not static. FOURTHLY, there can be no permanent and unchanging, catalogue of rights as some contractualists conceive of. Rights are not an unchanging bundle —, , of privileges. They are essentially dynamic and they keep on changing with the changing :social needs. ;, , (v) Rights not properly defined. Lord points out, the advocates of the theory of natural, rights place undue emphasis on ‘the nature of ‘Nature’ and ignore the nature of Right’. They, are at great pains to elucidate the meaning of nature, but forget that a careful elucidation of, ‘right’ is just as essential., if not more., , Value. In spite of these criticism, there is some truth in the theory. If by natural rights we, mean those rights which, whether afforded by human agency or not, are necessary for the, development of individual personality the concept is not without significance. But natural, rights in sense of some pre-civil rights which man had in the dim past, is a meaningless, concept. In this sense, the concept of natural rights is a contradiction in terms. In the state of, nature, there could be power but not rights. But if we interpret natural rights to mean the, ideal or moral rights which we ought to have because of their utility and with which the state, should not interfere, the theory of natural right is still valuable. It would then provide us with, a basis for criticizing existing conditions and help us also in shaping our course of action., The fact that certain rights are basic and, therefore, natural as well as necessary for human, existence has long been recognised. The recognition of such rights and their embodiment in, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations, marks an important mile-stone in the history of human rights.