It is commonly held that the idea of natural rights originated with the ancient Greeks, and was given full form by more modern philosophers such as John Locke, who believed that natural rights were apprehensible primarily to reason. The problem with this broad position is three-fold: first, it is predicated on the presumption that the idea of rights is modern, biologically speaking ; second, it makes it appear that reason and rights are integrally, even causally, linked; finally, it legitimizes debate about just what rights might be, even in their most fundamental essence. In consequence, the most cherished presumptions of the West remain castles in the air, historically and philosophically speaking. This perceived weakness of foundation makes societies grounded on conceptions of natural right vulnerable to criticism and attack in the most dangerous of manners. Most of the bloodiest battles and moral catastrophes of the twentieth century were a consequence of disagreement between groups of people who had different rationally-derived notions of what exactly constituted an inalienable right . If natural rights are anything at all, therefore, they better be something more than mere rational constructions. The adoption of a much broader evolutionary/historical perspective with regards to the development of human individuality and society allows for the generation of a deep solution to this problem—one dependent on a transformation of ontology, much as moral vision. Such a solution grounds the concept of sovereignty and natural right back into the increasingly implicit and profoundly religious soil from which it originally emerged, and provides a rock-solid foundation for explicit Western claims for the innate dignity of man
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/008467206777832580
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,242
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.Marc H. Bornstein - 1980 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39 (2):203-206.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A Psycho-Ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6.Jordan B. Peterson - 2007 - Archive for the Psychology of Religion 29 (1):87-125.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Against ‘Permanent Sovereignty’ Over Natural Resources.Chris Armstrong - 2015 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (2):129-151.
Against ‘Permanent Sovereignty’ Over Natural Resources.Chris Armstrong - 2015 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (2):129-151.
Natural Rights and Individual Sovereignty.Siegfried Van Duffel - 2004 - Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2):147–162.
Grotius, Hugo.Andrew Blom - 2014 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Natural Rights Basis of Aristotelian Education.Christopher Vasillopulos - 2011 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 30 (1):19-36.
Adam Smith on the ‘Natural Principles of Religion’.Ryan Patrick Hanley - 2015 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 13 (1):37-53.
Getting Rights Right: Reply to Van Duffel.G. E. Morton - 2009 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 21 (1):109-116.
Human Rights Without Foundations.Joseph Raz - 2010 - In J. Tasioulas & S. Besson (eds.), The Philosphy of International Law. Oxford University Press.


Added to PP index

Total views
165 ( #63,040 of 2,444,876 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #185,966 of 2,444,876 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes