|
It is well known that the western idea of individual rights is originally derived from the social contract theory of Thomas Hobbes.
In his Leviathan, Hobbes postulates a state of nature, in which egoistical individuals, with limited resources (including material goods and honor) and without mutual trust and a common government, find themselves trapped in “a war of all against all”.To escape such a miserable condition, every person rationally enters a compact with every other person to put themselves under a sovereign.From such a original promise, enforced by the common power, is derived a set of natural laws which command each individual to keep peace and observe the terms of compact.The duties thus prescribed, however, is strictly conditioned upon the original purpose for which the compact was made at the first place: the preservation of individual life.This is indeed the “inalienable” natural right that Hobbes finds in every rational human being.Every human government must work toward the preservation and security of life; failure to do so constitutes a fundamental breach by the sovereign, which brings back the state of nature, where every individual is absolved of all duties toward others and regains natural liberty.The primacy of natural right over duty is obvious, as there is no equivalent “natural duty”, but only duties derived from rights.The notion of natural right is further extended by John Locke to include the right to liberty and property.Although, in Locke’s theory, the natural laws maintain their binding force in the state of nature, the fundamental asymmetry between rights and duty would remain if the biblical authority of God is left out.
Despite its wide acceptance today, the social contract theory of rights contains several difficulties.
First, without presupposing the a priori validity of transcendent divine command, the existence of human duty would depend entirely upon the prudential calculations of one’s self-interest, and is thus made secondary to rights.Among other things, the Hobbesian theory can support only a weak notion of duty, that is, a person observe his duty not for its own sake, but only because it furthers his selfish interest, and his duty stops as soon as the cost of obeying it apparently outweighs the benefits.Prudential considerations, however, depend on the actors’ foresight and circumstances in which they are situated, and the ensuing uncertainty necessarily undermines the binding force of certain basic duties (e.g., “Don’t steal” or “Act justly under all circumstances”).Second, without the sanction of an external divine authority, which requires belief in a particular religion,
the primacy of natural right of self-preservation in the Hobbesian theory makes it difficult to even accommodate other widely held rights, such as personal liberty and property.If human beings are by nature selfish, unjust, vile, and rapacious, it seems doubtful whether they are worthy of any rights other than bare preservation.Finally, and most significant for our purpose, it seems to be very difficult to consistently derive from this theory the widely held “recognition of the inherent dignity” in the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or respect for “the worth, the dignity, the potential and the freedom of every citizen”, to which President Clinton alluded in his China trip.If everyone is, as Hobbes depicts, an egoistical animal preoccupied with his self-interest, and his apparent observance of law and duties arises only from the fear for the punishments of the sovereign power, then it is difficult to find any worth and dignity in human beings.If men act by nature like thieves and robbers, then the mere appearance of law-abidingness does not change who they really are, and few would find that theft and robbery are worthy or dignified way of life.
|
