Introduction
“Rights are difficult to define because of their foundation in natural law, which is a notoriously ambiguous concept.”
The concept of rights from the perspective of natural law theorists, which denotes that the foundation of rights is derived by the virtue of moral principles and human beings reason, is a notoriously ambiguous concept. In other words, human beings, by way of practical reasoning, possess certain moral rights. Therefore, natural law theorists argue that law and morality are co-extensive. In other words, for a law to be a just law, it must have a moral basis and purpose to protect certain moral rights.1 Thus, laws that are not founded on morality are unjust law.2 Accordingly, the natural law theory denotes that …show more content…
In essence, it presents a more illuminating structure of the natural law theory, by way of listing the objective basic goods and principles of practical reasonableness. Having said that, he clarified the contents of the moral principles of natural law, and developed the theory to make it more logical to the modern mind.
Another benefit of Finnis’s theory includes religion, but is not based on any particular religion. Rather, it is based on the concept that the nature confers certain basic goods on human beings, and there is a moral duty on the law, the political officials, to protect these objective self-evident goods which are common goods for all human beings. In other words, here the emphasis on the individuals’ well-being in life which is distinct from Thomas Aquinas’s theory which is based on religion, the Christian religion. Thus it does not take into consideration other religions such as Buddhism, or even non-religious …show more content…
For instance, his theory denotes that these objective basic values are conferred on every single human being: a new born baby, the girl next door, the man you see on the street. Although, they are only discovered through practical reasonableness. He is only one person, but is declaring to everyone else, from his own subjective point of view, the objective basic values that are good for them, and then state that he does not have to prove that these values are objectively basic goods, because they are self-evident. For example, if the man on the street, as pointed out earlier, denies that play is an objective good, Finnis has not way of proving otherwise, because he has no evidence. However, if the man disagrees with him, then the man is unreasonable, even though he has provided no proof. Further, he is not only imputing his indefensible subjective assertion about objective goods, he adds ‘insult to injury’, as extricates rights from these objective goods. Therefore, moral principles (the basic objective goods) are natural human rights and form the basis for protection by the law. Here, an analysis of David Hume’s argument is relevant, “you cannot derive an is from an ought”. In other words, Finnis’s argument, in Natural Law and Natural Rights, expresses his opinion of what he believes the law
“Rights are difficult to define because of their foundation in natural law, which is a notoriously ambiguous concept.”
The concept of rights from the perspective of natural law theorists, which denotes that the foundation of rights is derived by the virtue of moral principles and human beings reason, is a notoriously ambiguous concept. In other words, human beings, by way of practical reasoning, possess certain moral rights. Therefore, natural law theorists argue that law and morality are co-extensive. In other words, for a law to be a just law, it must have a moral basis and purpose to protect certain moral rights.1 Thus, laws that are not founded on morality are unjust law.2 Accordingly, the natural law theory denotes that …show more content…
In essence, it presents a more illuminating structure of the natural law theory, by way of listing the objective basic goods and principles of practical reasonableness. Having said that, he clarified the contents of the moral principles of natural law, and developed the theory to make it more logical to the modern mind.
Another benefit of Finnis’s theory includes religion, but is not based on any particular religion. Rather, it is based on the concept that the nature confers certain basic goods on human beings, and there is a moral duty on the law, the political officials, to protect these objective self-evident goods which are common goods for all human beings. In other words, here the emphasis on the individuals’ well-being in life which is distinct from Thomas Aquinas’s theory which is based on religion, the Christian religion. Thus it does not take into consideration other religions such as Buddhism, or even non-religious …show more content…
For instance, his theory denotes that these objective basic values are conferred on every single human being: a new born baby, the girl next door, the man you see on the street. Although, they are only discovered through practical reasonableness. He is only one person, but is declaring to everyone else, from his own subjective point of view, the objective basic values that are good for them, and then state that he does not have to prove that these values are objectively basic goods, because they are self-evident. For example, if the man on the street, as pointed out earlier, denies that play is an objective good, Finnis has not way of proving otherwise, because he has no evidence. However, if the man disagrees with him, then the man is unreasonable, even though he has provided no proof. Further, he is not only imputing his indefensible subjective assertion about objective goods, he adds ‘insult to injury’, as extricates rights from these objective goods. Therefore, moral principles (the basic objective goods) are natural human rights and form the basis for protection by the law. Here, an analysis of David Hume’s argument is relevant, “you cannot derive an is from an ought”. In other words, Finnis’s argument, in Natural Law and Natural Rights, expresses his opinion of what he believes the law