The aim of this essay is to critically discuss what was meant by the term
nonsense upon stilts used by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) in relation
to the debate that one should have possession of natural rights. The essay
will begin by defining the main key terms of Rights, Natural Laws and
Natural Rights. It will then move onto briefly discussing the history of the
modern day concept of human rights, whilst critically evaluating human
rights and its origin with reference to the idea of inherent (natural)
entitlement. The main body of the essay will comprise of a setting out of
the natural rights idea with particular regard to Locke: and the challenges
leveled against the concept of inherent entitlement driven by Bentham
and Marx. Once again Bentham a belief in natural rights was- simply
nonsense, a view that Marx would also share. To conclude, all points will
be drawn together to bring this essay to a close.
Human rights are a political claim that outlines what an individual is
entitled to (Goodhart, 2009) due to the fact they are simply human
(Heywood, 1994). Human rights can be also known as fundamental rights
(Jones, 1994), which suggest that they are inalienable. The concept of
rights can be seen linked to the idea of life, liberty and property (Freeden,
1991). Regardless of a persons nationality or citizenship, human rights
belong to everyone to help uphold a civilised society (Ministry of Justice,
2006). Lawyers, historians and philosophers all have interests in human
rights (Freeden, 1991).
Natural law has seen to be associated with Christianity and the church;
this therefore proposes that individuals have the duty to God and one
another. The term natural is used to clarify that the law is not man made
(Jones, 1994). Thus rights were derived from duties we owed to one
another and God (Goodhart, 2009: 12).
A contemporary concept of human rights claims that there is a long
history of evidence of the idea of human rights, which emerged from
natural law. Freeman (2011) explains how in some religions and
philosophies there are concepts linked to the idea of rights. History
provides examples of the rise in natural rights and the concept of rights,
rights. On the other hand, recognition should be given to moral rights due
to it being the foundation of what legal rights have developed from.
A communist thinker, Karl Marx (19th century), argues for a
conflict-free society where there is no need for rights due
to the absence of private ownership. By taking away
individuals rights and replacing them with group rights will
therefore create an equal society. Marx argued against the
Lockean theory with regards to the rights of man being
individualistic and therefore separates society and limits
their natural freedoms. Tribe (1990) supports Marx as he
suggests that through power of those in control, such as
the sovereign and the government, rights may negatively
aid in contributing to injustice and inequality. Tribe further
states that rights can be seen as simplistic and unrealistic.
Marxs believes that natural rights allows the bourgeois to
have a free hand in the capitalistic society, whilst paying
no attention towards the well-being of the rest (Goodhart,
2009). Marx argued that even though natural rights gave
the impression of being universal it seemed to benefit the
bourgeois, in the terms of property rights (Campbell,
2006). Thus allowing the remainder to be at a
disadvantage.
Benthams idea of legal rights were later criticised by
Marx, who claimed that they fail to treat the individual as
a human but rather legal entities that can be controlled by
the state. Laws are put in place to protect our human
rights known as legal positivism. However, as mentioned
previously, a main critique of Benthams idea is the risk
that rights exist only where a law is put in place to say it
does. Without this law there is no regard to human rights.
Which therefore contradicts the main purpose of the
human rights movement and the idea that laws are put in
place to protect and policy human rights. (Langlois, 2004).
Another critique of Benthams work was based on theory
of utilitarianism. Nozicks main criticism is that
utilitarianism entails of the greatest happiness for the
greatest number. This therefore creates opportunity to
sacrifice the minority for the sake of the majority
References
Davidson, S. (1993) Human Rights. Buckingham. Open
University Press.
Freeman, M. (2011) Human Rights. Second edn.
Cambridge. Polity Press.
Waldron, J. (1987) Nonsesne upon Stilts. Bentham, Burke
and Marx on the Rights of man. New York. Mthuen and Co.
Goodhart, M. (2009) Human Rights. Politics and Practice.
New York. Oxford University Press.
Langlois, A.J. (2004) The elusive ontology of human rights:
Global Society. 18(3), 243-261. (LOOK AT)
Donnelly, J. (2007) International Human Rights. Third edn.
Oxford. Westview Press.
Ministry Of Justice. (2006) Making sense of human rights.
Available at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/humanrights/human-rights-making-sense-human-rights.pdf
[Accessed 3rd November 2015].
Wenar, L. (2011)
Hart, (1969)
Waldron, J. (1984) Theories of Rights. New York. Oxford
University Press.