An Analysis of Nagel's Personal Rights and Public Spaces

Nagel’s argument is harder to refute, owing to its lack of definitive conclusion. Nevertheless, its effectiveness remains debateable. It is interesting that he embraces the incomprehensibility of

Everyone has their own very unique views on everything in the world. What’s right and what’s wrong is a good example of how humanity views different subjects let’s say a man kills another man to protect his family from harm he may see it as okay to do but in the bible it says “thou shall should not kill” so it’s all how you look at it. In this paper I will be discussing the different view point of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the most basic tenets of classical liberalism. For example the states of nature, the social contracts, and the sets of view of the rights and obligations of citizens and states. My first topic that I will be discussing is the different views of social contracts. It will go in order from Hobbes to Locke then to Rousseau.

Cohen defines rights as “a claim that one party may exercise against another”(339). He explains that there are many different types of rights: some moral, some legal; some held by a single person, others held by groups; all differing in what the right entitles one to. Above all this, however, Cohen stresses that rights are a concept rooted in morality. They arise out of the necessity for self-governance among a community, providing standards of conduct that beget personal protection and safety. Therefore, the argument continues that the holders of rights must only be those who are capable of comprehending such concepts as morality and duty and right against wrong. After all, standards can only be held to subjects capable of understanding and achieving them. Because humans are the only

I intend to discuss these issues while also discussing why it is important for these issues to be highlighted in this document. Firstly, the issues of personal rights are acknowledged at the beginning of the document. “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good” . At this time, to be equal meant the end of legal differences.

One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its

Hannah Arendt [1] introduces us to the expression of the “right to have rights”, a universal right to speak and act in public which according to Arendt was more valuable even than the right to life. It exists because we are human beings and therefore part of a pluralistic society that is detached from a sovereign state or government. This was first realised by Arendt when she spoke of totalitarian European nation states which had an inability to protect people’s human rights; specifically focusing on Communism and Nazism [p.296]. In fact Arendt [1] suggests that people during totalitarian regimes who

In “Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights”, Jeremy Bentham aims to show the reader why the Declaration of Rights is a troubling and terrible document, or as he describes it, a “dangerous nonsense”. In his critique, Bentham describes natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts” and says they do not exist, but they are actually made up. He then goes on to attack the Declaration’s vagueness and contradictions, saying it will lead to constant unrest. The Declaration, Bentham says, is condoning revolution and giving grounds for permanent revolution and by doing this, they diminish the roles of government and other future authority. Despite a few confusions, Bentham’s argument is successful because he proves the Declaration is full of confusions and contradictions that can lead to dangerous acts. Natural rights are something we should have, but they are not “natural” and instead made-up, as Bentham suggests.

Nagel proposes that ends, or final outcomes, though they might not be under one’s control, should not be our responsibility. He supports his argument by stating that the consequences are not within our control after actions are carried out. For example, he argues that upon the surrounding circumstances changing the final result will change as well. He uses the

today we call them human rights" (McShea 34). The issue of whether or not to

In this passage from Hegel he is saying that freedom is terribly misunderstood in it's formal subjective sense, and has been far removed from its essential purpose and goals. People think they should be able to do whatever they want and that is what freedom is, and that anything limiting there desires, impulses , and passions is a limit of there freedom. Hegel is saying this is not true, but these limitations are simply the condition from which they must free themselves from, and that society and the government are where freedom is actualized.

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

To a great extent, the theory of personhood rests on a breaking down and clarification of what it is to be an agent. Human rights, as understood by Griffin, are protections of our status as functional human agents, grounded in our interests in autonomy, liberty and the minimum material provision requisite to make the exercise of our agency real and possible. Griffin acknowledges that the human interests in autonomy and liberty are not the only important interests that exist, but it is the protection of these particular interests that generate a human right . In this sense, autonomy and liberty are the special, determinant grounding elements identified by Griffin as the interests required for normative agency.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes attempts to set up the stage for the understanding of the nature of freedom. The account holds much significance, because, what people understand freedom to be matters a great deal to their past and present life. According to Hobbes, freedom implies “the absence of opposition (by opposition I mean external impediments of motion) …” (Hobbes, 2005, P157). However, Hobbes understood this to have had political implications and he talks of liberty (freedom from legal constraints) in contrast with obligations that act as constraints. He suggests that legal constraints do not make it physically impossible to do something, thus, he denies that there is anything more to freedom within a state than this absence of legal restrictions. Having argued this, he emphasizes the duty to obey the laws issued by the sovereign. However, Hobbes’s account has rightly been challenged in a number of ways. Suitably, in this paper, I will confront and critically assess the argument to show how it is ineffective in its attempt to provide an account for the nature of freedom.

Wars, death, and other acts of violence have all been part of a process to attain true freedom. However, what is true freedom? John Stuart Mill and Georg Hegel tackle this notion of freedom. Mills states that freedom is when individuals have unlimited liberty, while Hegel says that is a false freedom. He states that freedom is when the individual’s morals align with external laws within the nation state. Despite what many say freedom is more similar in Hegel’s and Mills than different. We can see this through Hegel’s notion of absolute mind and Mill’s value of liberty and notion of diversity.

These documents, at the same time, take back the sociopolitical thought that had been developped in a long tradition, and whose most striking stages are: the supreme value of reason as basis for any sociopolitical relation such as we discover at the Greek Polis and such as it is presented by the great thinkers Plato and Aristotle; the intrinsic value of human person, son of the same Christian God, and capable, because of his freedom, either of salvation or of condemnation, as it was understood by the main thinkers in the Middle Ages; the human Individual, considered as a juridical subject, capable of making contracts and assuming rights and duties and, therefore, as the last foundation of any sociopolitical organization, as he was thought by the liberal tradition embodied by Hobbes, Locke and the Encyclopedists. The concrete praxis of these theoretical principles in democratic societies and nations where the Individuals are the cause and the end of this sociopolitical order such as we find in Great Britain, Switzerland, Holland, USA, France, Sweeden, Norwegen, Canada and many other nations throughout the five continents.