Natural Laws: Enlightenment's Foundation

The Enlightenment saw a shift in the way people viewed the relationship between the government and citizens, with the emergence of the idea that people possessed natural rights. These rights are understood as those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government and are therefore considered universal and inalienable. During the Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government.

The development of the modern concept of natural rights is often attributed to Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who built upon ideas from antiquity. Hobbes, for instance, defined the natural (human) right as the liberty each man hath to use his own power for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, of his own life. Meanwhile, Locke is known for his statement that individuals have a right to life, liberty, and property, and his belief that the natural right to property is derived from labour. Locke's theory of natural rights has influenced many political documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence.

Natural rights are universal and inalienable

During the Enlightenment, the concept of natural law was used to challenge the divine right of kings and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government.

The idea of natural rights was first introduced in ancient Greek philosophy and was later alluded to in the Bible. During the Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau further developed the concept. Locke, for example, believed that humans possess a natural capacity for reason and self-restraint, which means they are capable of working together for the common good. He also believed that citizens have the right to replace a government that fails to protect their natural rights.

While the concept of natural rights has been influential, it is not universally accepted. Some critics argue that natural rights do not exist and that legal rights are the only rights. Others point out that natural rights can be vague and require precise definition, especially when human relations are complex. Despite these criticisms, the idea of natural rights has played a significant role in shaping political and legal thought and continues to be a subject of debate among philosophers and politicians.

Natural law is based on observation of human nature

Natural law is a system of law based on the observation of human nature. It is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent to human nature and can be universally understood through human reason.

The idea of natural law is based on the belief that all people have inherent rights, which are conferred not by legislation but by "God, nature, or reason". These rights are thought to be intrinsic to human nature and can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society).

During the Enlightenment, natural law was used to challenge the theory of the divine right of kings and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke were key proponents of natural law, stressing its role in the justification of property rights and the right to revolution.

The concept of natural law can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle, and was also mentioned in ancient Roman philosophy by Cicero. However, it was during the Enlightenment that natural law took on a new significance, combining inspiration from Roman law, Christian scholastic philosophy, and contemporary concepts such as social contract theory.

Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau agreed that a social contract—in which the government's authority lies in the consent of the governed—is necessary for humans to live in civil society. They believed that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.

The idea of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights, which are considered universal rights that all people are born with, regardless of the legal system in which they live. These natural rights may include the right to life, liberty, equality, property, justice, and happiness.

The Enlightenment's focus on natural law and natural rights had a significant impact on the development of modern political and intellectual culture, contributing to the creation of modern, liberal democracies and challenging traditional authorities such as religion and absolute monarchy.

Natural law is independent of positive law

Natural law is a theory that posits the existence of a higher, universal law that is inherent in nature and accessible to reason. It is considered to be pre-existing and independent of human-made legal systems. Natural law theorists argue that certain moral principles or fundamental rights are discoverable through reason and are part of a higher, natural order. These principles are seen as transcending positive laws created by governments.

Positive law, on the other hand, is human-made or enacted law that derives its legitimacy from human authority, such as legislation, constitutions, and legal systems established by governments or other governing bodies. The authority to create positive law comes from recognised legal institutions and processes. It is law that is posited or laid down by human authorities.

Natural law and positive law are two distinct theories within jurisprudence that provide different perspectives on the nature and source of law. The relationship between these two perspectives has been a subject of ongoing debate.

Natural law is rooted in moral principles derived from nature and reason, while positive law is based on human-constructed legal systems. Natural law finds legitimacy in moral principles, whereas positive law derives its legitimacy from authoritative human institutions.

Natural law often has a strong moral component, prescribing that just laws align with inherent moral principles. Positive law, on the other hand, can be morally neutral, and the morality of a law is not a criterion for its validity. The validity of a positive law is determined by its source rather than its inherent moral quality.

Natural law is seen as relatively stable and enduring, reflecting timeless principles. In contrast, positive law can change over time based on the decisions of legislative bodies and legal authorities.

During the Enlightenment, natural law took shape, combining inspiration from Roman law, Christian scholastic philosophy, and contemporary concepts such as social contract theory. It was used to challenge the theory of the divine right of kings and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke stressed the role of natural law in justifying property rights and the right to revolution.

The idea of natural law and natural rights was of particular interest to philosophers during the Enlightenment. They were keen to show that humanity's inherent capacity for reason and their ability to compromise their self-interest for the betterment of all could permit citizens more rights.

Enlightenment thinkers primarily concerned themselves with the question of what system of government is best. The debate around natural rights was secondary to this discussion but was relevant as it pertained to the success of a particular political system. Some thinkers suggested that citizens had natural rights independent of the state, and thus the government could be legitimately challenged, especially if it was based on non-natural rights such as privilege.

The Enlightenment made progress towards bringing clarity to the definition of rights and what they entail, and to a limited extent, guaranteeing an equality of rights to all. However, there was still much room for improvement and many debates to come regarding what constitutes a right and how those rights should be protected.

Natural law is related to natural rights

During the Enlightenment, natural law was used to challenge the divine right of kings and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government. The idea of natural law is that the world is governed by natural laws, which are discoverable by human reason and independent of the express enacted laws of a state or society. These natural laws are considered intrinsic to human nature and are bestowed by "God, nature, or reason", rather than by any state or legal authority.

Natural rights are those rights considered to be bestowed by natural law. They are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government and are therefore universal and inalienable. They are usually defined in opposition to legal rights, which are those bestowed by a given legal system.

The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke, who argued that natural rights include perfect equality and freedom, and the right to preserve life and property. Locke believed that if a ruler goes against natural law and fails to protect "life, liberty, and property", then the people are justified in overthrowing the existing state.

Other Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers that developed and complicated the concept of natural rights include John Lilburne, Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, and Thomas Paine.

Natural law is used to challenge the divine right of kings

During the Enlightenment, natural law was used to challenge the theory of the divine right of kings. The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine that asserts that a monarch's right to rule is derived from divine authority. This means that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly power, such as a parliament, and that their power is absolute.

Natural law, on the other hand, is a system of law based on the close observation of natural order and human nature. It holds that all people have certain inherent rights, conferred not by legislation but by "God, nature, or reason". These rights may include the right to life, liberty, equality, property, justice, and happiness.

During the Enlightenment, thinkers such as John Locke stressed the role of natural law in justifying property rights and the right to revolution. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.

The idea of natural law was particularly appealing to Enlightenment thinkers because it provided a way to challenge the authority of monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right. By arguing that people had natural rights that could not be taken away by the state, Enlightenment thinkers laid the groundwork for the concept of human rights and modern democratic governments.

The Enlightenment thinkers were influenced by ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, which emphasized the distinction between "nature" and "law," and by Christian philosophy, which held that human lives are sacred and of infinite value because they are endowed with reason—a spark of the divine. This led to the idea that everyone is fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic set of rights that cannot be removed.

The Enlightenment's focus on reason and individual rights challenged the notion of divine right and contributed to the development of modern ideas about democracy, human rights, and the social contract.

Frequently asked questions