Assess whether rights are natural or based on utility

A right is an entitlement to perform or refrain from certain acts, the way that one views rights can be a significant influencing factor in the way in which one's politics develop. There are two opposing views on where rights come from or should come from; on the one hand there is Locke who defends the position that rights are natural, they are god given and are something we have before society, he believes that we have natural rights. On the other hand we have Mill, whose perspective on rights is characteristic of a utilitarian, arguing that the only rights are moral rights; a right is determined by its consequences, if it results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number it is indeed moral. However, neither of these positions are without flaws; a position that seems less flawed is that of Karl Marx, and for that reason in this essay I am going to explore the positions outlined and demonstrate the way in which Marxism presents the strongest account of rights. Locke and Hobbes, despite their varying political ideologies - Locke is a classical liberal, whilst Hobbes is a traditional conservative - are united in their belief that we have natural rights, however it is their opinions on human nature that lead their accounts of said rights to vary. Hobbes claimed that the right to self defence was a natural right, since in Hobbes's mind humans are self interested and irrational allowing people to exercise their natural rights allowing them to do whatever they must to defend and uphold their rights - would be disastrous, people would be killing each other left, right and centre. In order to solve this issue Hobbes argued that a social contract would be necessary, in return for our natural right of self defence, a sovereign would step in and defend everyone against themselves and each other. However, Locke corrects this perverse reading of rights; whilst he agrees that self preservation would be an overriding concern of individuals as they attempt to preserve their right to life, he believes that we are rational. Therefore, we would recognise limits on our right to defend ourselves. He argues that our rationality would be what would lead us to recognise our natural rights to life, liberty and property. For Locke, since we have a natural right to property, if someone were to violate that right a natural right to punish them exists, and it is here that the necessity for a state arises. He argues that our self interest would lead us to punish others for the violation of our rights in a overly harsh way, for this reason he deemed it a necessary evil to have a state in order to assure that fair punishment was distributed to protect people's rights. The real question though, is not how the idea of natural rights functions within Locke's politics but rather what a natural right is and how Locke knows we have them. Since much of Locke's politics are based upon this assumption that we have natural rights, establishing his grounds for their existence lends itself to successfully evaluating his politics. Locke believe that the rights that we have are natural, they are derived from natural laws; such laws, he would argue, are God given. This means that as part of God's creation, we were not only given bodies but fundamental rights, rights that we can use our rationality to deduce that we have. As these rights are natural they would be present in the state of nature; regardless of whether or not there is a state in place to protect these rights, we have them and know that we have them. Natural rights are universal, absolute and inalienable.

Nevertheless, whether Locke defends the position that natural rights are god given or even simply discoverable through reasoning, there are problems with Locke's account of natural rights. Firstly, the argument that they are god given is only accessible to theists, since God's existence cannot be proven, this greatly weakens the notion of god given natural rights. As for the idea that, as Kant also suggested, natural rights can be discovered through reasoning alone , this is also weak. The fact that there is so much debate over rights, suggests that many people do not agree that they have these natural rights upon rational introspection, suggesting that these natural rights cannot necessarily be discovered through rationality alone. Furthermore, Locke is an empiricist which by definition means that he believes all knowledge is derived from sense experience, it also means that he believes that we are born a tabula rasa or blank slate. Belief in natural rights themselves, as non physical entities, automatically contradicts the empiricist school of thought - natural rights cannot be empirically verified. Moreover, to suggest that they are God given further contradicts empiricism as God is yet another entity that cannot be empirically verified. Even sticking to the idea that natural rights can be discovered solely through rationality opposes empiricism. The idea that we can 'find' them within ourselves using our rationality suggests some sort of innate knowledge which completely contravenes the empiricist idea that we are born a tabula rasa or blank slate. This leads to the idea that there are in fact no natural rights at all, only positive rights. Positive rights are rights that are derived from laws and come about as a result of social conventions not pre-socially. Bentham described natural rights as 'nonsense on stilts' a position that Mill also supported. For Mill, rights embody basic social utilities that are imperative for human wellbeing; we cannot flourish if society does not protect individual rights. Therefore, rights are necessary to achieve the greatest happiness principle (utility), since they must be protected for people to be able to enjoy anything else. However, due to being based upon utility, if the observation and protection (by the state) of a right is no longer creating the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number it can be removed, thus, Mill's rights differ from Locke's in the sense that they are not inalienable. However, whilst perhaps more sensible than Locke's natural rights, rights that are based upon utility present their own problems. Firstly, how convincing this presentation of rights is would depend upon your view of human nature. A traditional conservative would criticise this position arguing that our irrationality would render us incapable of knowing what would create the greatest sense of well being. A liberal (such as Locke or Nozick) may take issue with the stance due to it focusing too much upon rights benefitting the community as a whole and not enough upon individual rights to life, liberty and property; they would argue that an individual should be at liberty to exercise his or her rights regardless of whether it increases the overall well being. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict between rights and utility, it could increase overall utility for one person to exercise right R, whilst another person also exercising R may result in decreased utility. The right to free speech is an example of this, in some instances free speech creates greater all round happiness, however, the persistent employment of this right to say, perpetrate racism could eventually result in decreased utility.

Whether a right is founded in utility or is a natural right, both Locke's a Mill's account of rights fall prey to the modern liberal critique that whilst they may provide rights, these rights are not effective. That is to say, that everyone may have a right to property, however, if a poor person's right to property is violated they would not be able to do all that much about it. This is due to the fact that they would be lacking in the funds required to get legal representation in order to have the person that violated their right to property justly punished. So, whilst they may have the formal right to property, this right is not effective as their ability to exercise it is restrained by their socioeconomic position. Modern liberals attempt to solve this by having the state intervene. They argue that with utilitarianism minorities are likely to suffer, so as opposed to prioritising the greatest good for the greatest number, we should have equal basic liberties for all citizens. However, in order for this to happen the state has to intervene a lot more than within a liberal society. Modern liberalism can be criticised as once the state begins to intervene to do more than protect rights, it's a slippery slope to totalitarianism. Marx also recognises the problem with having formal rights that are not in fact effective. In addition to that Marx views rights historically, he does not believe that they are universal, rather that as society changes, rights also change and different rights become more important within different societies. He claims something similar of human nature, presenting it as somewhat malleable and maintaining that as society changes so will the way humans think and behave; humans are a product of the society in which they live, as are rights to an extent. Marx argued that rights only exist in an oppressive society because they emerge as a means of protection, allowing the ruling class to maintain the present state of affairs to the best of their ability. A belief that they are inalienable and somewhat intrinsic in their existence is just another example false consciousness. Nonetheless, a common criticism of marxism is that whilst it may sound good in theory, in practice communism has not been successful. The USSR is an example of this failed communism. Despite this criticism there is a defence of marxism here. Whilst the USSR may have been run under the pretence of communism, it was not the communism Marx had in mind, the communism of marxist theory is part of a long process of progression and succession. Feudalism must be overthrown, giving way to capitalism, which will eventually be overthrown and then there will be communism. In the case of the USSR, it went straight from feudalism to communism, and thus, was not true communism. In light of all of this, I am inclined to side with Marx as his historicist approach to rights seems both more plausible and sophisticated than the accounts of natural and utility based rights put forward by Locke and Mill respectively. The problem of having rights that are actually effective, is a big concern for both Locke and Mill, the modern liberalist approach is creditworthy for its recognition of this problem, however, Marx's view seems altogether more plausible. His position is further strengthened by his view of human nature which not only presents a likely reality, but also accounts for the way in which there are such varying opinions on human nature, his account of rights accomplishes this same feat, making his stance all the more credible.