Natural Law: From Aquinas to Human Rights
Natural law theorists argue that there is a natural right, which is identified with human reason. For natural law, as in Thomas Aquinas, it depends on divine right or eternal law.
- Natural law cannot be attributed directly to God because God has willed that His features are already in human nature.
The rules of natural law, which are almost necessary conditions for any society, are self-evident to man as a social animal endowed with reason.
For Locke, natural law is the sense of a universally binding moral law, enacted by human reason as a reflection of God, man’s relationship with God, and the fundamental equality of all men as rational creatures. Those laws govern the state of nature, which is prior to incorporation. Consequently, Locke believes in the existence of natural rights, such as the right to the preservation and defense of one’s life or the right to freedom. But the duty to which he devotes more attention is the right of property, which is also a natural right and justified by the job. Through work, man takes over what until then was the domain of nature.
The Sophists and Conventional Laws
By contrast, for the Sophists, there are no natural laws but conventional ones. The Sophists distinguish between acting according to nature (physis) and acting according to law (nomos). When we act according to nature, our behavior is always necessary, and when we act according to law, our behavior is conventional. Consequently, what we do by nature is immutable and universal, like eating or drinking; what we do by law changes and is particular. The same is true of moral norms. Right or wrong, good or bad, do not have a universal value. Every people, every culture has its own laws, their own moral standards, which also change over time.
Kant’s Universal Laws
According to Kant, universal laws are characterized by their form. The law is divided into two: natural law or science, and moral law or ethics. The first is true inexorably. The second must be true but can not be met. Natural law is in force in the realm of causes and is expressed in an expository, making constant relationships observed in the phenomena of nature. Moral law is in force in the kingdom of ends or freedom and is expressed as an imperative, as a mandate, as a duty. But duty is pure, without empirical content. To act morally is to act out of duty, that is, out of reverence for the law. Ultimately, the moral law in Kant is a formal and unqualified law.
The Evolution to Human Rights
At present, the concept of nature is in crisis. As Ortega y Gasset says, man has no nature but has a history. It is questionable to speak of human nature as something fixed and immutable. Much of what makes man is the subject of learning, and learning involved always a modification. When speaking of natural rights, it is to indicate that they are immutable rights. However, this difficulty cannot lead us to fall into relativism, according to which human rights depend on each society or time. On the contrary, there are certain rights that belong to man for being a man, and they have a universal character. They are not only of a country or a particular culture. Given their importance, they are often referred to today under the name of fundamental rights. Consequently, the concept of natural law has been replaced by fundamental rights or human rights. These rights are considered the source of all positive law, in which it is based and that it must respect.
Generations of Human Rights
Human rights are basic, fundamental rights, but we can advance in their formulation. Thus, we speak of generations of human rights: first, second, third, and lately, fourth generation. First-generation rights are civil and political rights based on the defense of freedom; second-generation rights are social and economic rights based on the defense of equality; third-generation rights are based on the defense of solidarity; and fourth-generation rights are related to information.
Whatever name we use—natural law, fundamental rights, or human rights—these are key in our social and political life. Respect for the fundamental rights of the human person is the first requirement of a democratic state, what distinguishes a democracy from a dictatorship.