Editing Human rights (section)

== Philosophies of human rights ==
{{rights}}

Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights become part of social expectations. One of the oldest Western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a [[natural law]], stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with [[David Hume]]). Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of [[Max Weber]]). These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in [[John Rawls]]) – a social contract.

=== Natural rights ===
{{main|Natural law|Natural rights}}

Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural" moral, religious or even biological order which is independent of transitory human laws or traditions. [[Socrates]] and his philosophic heirs, [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], posited the existence of [[natural justice]] or natural right ({{Transliteration|grc|dikaion physikon}}, ''δικαιον φυσικον'', [[Latin]] {{lang|la|ius naturale}}). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law,{{sfnp|Shellens|1959}} although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by [[Thomas Aquinas]].{{sfnp|Jaffa|1979}} The development of this tradition of [[natural justice]] into one of natural law is usually attributed to the [[Stoicism|Stoics]].<ref>Sills (1968, 1972) ''Natural Law''</ref>

Some of the early [[Church Fathers]] sought to incorporate the until then [[pagan]] concept of natural law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Francisco Suárez]], [[Richard Hooker]], [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Hugo Grotius]], [[Samuel von Pufendorf]], and [[John Locke]]. In the 17th century, [[Thomas Hobbes]] founded a [[social contract|contractualist theory]] of [[legal positivism]] on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered by considering humankind's [[natural rights]], whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor.

[[Hugo Grotius]] based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of an [[omnipotent]] being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (''De iure belli ac pacis'', Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument ''etiamsi daremus'' (''non-esse Deum''), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology. [[John Locke]] incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in ''[[Two Treatises of Government]]''. 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 Belgian philosopher of law [[Frank van Dun]] is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception of natural law in the liberal tradition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/NaturalLaw.htm|author=van Dun, Frank|access-date=28 December 2007|title=Natural Law|archive-date=13 December 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071213180721/http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/NaturalLaw.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> There are also emerging and secular forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.{{sfnp|Kohen|2007}} The term "human rights" has replaced the term "[[natural rights]]" in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring [[natural law]] for their existence.<ref>{{cite web|author=Weston, Burns H.|url=https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106289?query=human%20rights&ct=eb|title=Human Rights|publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica Online, p. 2|access-date=18 May 2006|archive-date=18 December 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071218024623/http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106289?query=human%20rights&ct=eb|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Other theories of human rights ===
The philosopher [[John Finnis]] argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental value in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm#SH4b|title=Human Rights|encyclopedia=The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|author=Fagan, Andrew|year=2006|access-date=1 January 2008|archive-date=14 April 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090414035713/http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm#SH4b|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfnp|Finnis|1980}} Interest theories highlight the duty to respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of self-interest:

{{blockquote|text=Human rights law, applied to a State's own citizens serves the interest of states, by, for example, minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest and by keeping the level of dissatisfaction with the government manageable|author=Niraj Nathwani|source=''Rethinking Refugee Law''{{sfnp|Nathwani|2003|p=25}} }}

The [[Biology|biological]] theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior based on empathy and [[altruism]] in the context of [[natural selection]].{{sfnp|Arnhart|1998}}{{sfnp|Clayton|Schloss|2004}}<ref>Paul, Miller, Paul (2001): Arnhart, Larry. ''Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural Right'' p.1</ref> The philosopher [[Zhao Tingyang]] argues that the traditional human rights framework fails to be universal, because it arose from contingent aspects of Western culture, and that the concept of inalienable and unconditional human rights is in tension with the principle of [[justice]]. He proposes an alternative framework called "credit human rights", in which rights are tied to responsibilities.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Han |first1=Sang-Jin |title=Confucianism and Reflexive Modernity: Bringing Community back to Human Rights in the Age of Global Risk Society |chapter=A Universal but Non-Hegemonic Approach to Human Rights in International Politics |date=2020 |pages=102–117 |doi=10.1163/9789004415492_008 |isbn=978-9004415492 |s2cid=214310918 |url=https://brill.com/display/book/9789004415492/BP000007.xml |access-date=10 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=赵汀阳 |title="预付人权"：一种非西方的普遍人权理论 |url=http://ex.cssn.cn/zt/zt_rdzt/ggkfzgshkxdllsyzt/llsyzt_gggl/201812/t20181218_4795278.html |publisher=中国社会科学网 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20210518175432/http://ex.cssn.cn/zt/zt_rdzt/ggkfzgshkxdllsyzt/llsyzt_gggl/201812/t20181218_4795278.html?COLLCC=2753256016& |archivedate=18 May 2021}}</ref>