To paraphrase John Henry Newman: we have rights precisely because we have responsibilities.
From the moment of our conception, as rational creatures oriented towards integral flourishing, we by nature have the right (in ordinary language) to “be all that we can be” as human beings. But we also have the concomitant duty to respect other human beings in their right to live and to have the opportunity to achieve that integral flourishing.
In possession of intellect, every one of us is accorded “human dignity.” We are always the end, never the means, in any human activity. This takes away any justification for us to use other human beings, no matter how “good” the ends sought may be.
Some of the inclinations which express our orientation towards that integral human flourishing are seen in our need to have friendships, education, work, an orderly society, religion or belief in something bigger than ourselves, procreation and family life, and — of course — the desire for life.
Since these inclinations lead us to human flourishing, that “eudaimonia,” it is necessary that such be unhindered and instead encouraged. Hence, the rights to life, freedom, property, free expression, freedom of beliefs. Popularly known as “basic human rights,” they are essentially “natural rights,” proceeding from an understanding of our shared human nature using reason and logic.
Partnered with “natural rights” is “natural law,” the latter not created by religion but rather is an objective set of norms (i.e., laws), again rooted in that understanding of our shared human nature.
Natural law not only upholds natural rights, it also directs us to attaining integral human flourishing.
Such points have been deliberated upon for thousands of years, from Plato to Aristotle, Aquinas, to Hobbes and Rousseau. Locke’s “Second Treatise of Civil Government,” was instrumental not only in the US Constitution’s drafting but also with regard to that other US foundational text: the Declaration of Independence, which in part reads:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Certain important principles spring from that short pithy paragraph:
• There are self-evident truths, which the Republic upholds;
• All men are created equal;
• All men were made by a “Creator”;
• That “Creator” endowed us all with “unalienable rights”;
• Among these rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
These principles are important because from it flows the US national governmental structure, which we in the Philippines essentially copied and currently employ:
• Due to our inherent equality, no individual stationed above us, sovereign power therefore lies with The People;
• Yet, practicality requires governmental power be delegated. Nevertheless, to safeguard power remaining with The People, such power is broken up and distributed — in the US case, into three branches: the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of government;
• To ensure there is no confusion as to who holds the power, The People promulgated a fundamental document, the Constitution, that sets out the limits of governmental power and where also is contained The People’s exclusive power to amend the Constitution should the need arise;
• The People having fundamental inherent rights, this means recognizing that the government neither created nor can take away those rights;
• Government’s duty is to create an environment that would allow The People, individually and by themselves, to attain human flourishing — that environment is what is called the “common good”;
• At the same time, however, recognizing the realities of State, government is sometimes allowed to interfere or even take away those rights, but under expressed conditions — those expressed conditions are directly laid out in that portion of the Constitution now known as the “Bill of Rights”; and, finally,
• Since human beings are all created equal, with inherent rights and human dignity, we created a legal system disallowing any individual to exercise his rights at the expense of another — this system is encapsulated in three words: “rule of law”. No one is above it, all subject to it.
Also from the foregoing, one sees that the so-called “rights” demanded by some activists are not really rights: some examples are free tuition, paternal leaves, cash dole-outs, contraception, minimum wage, disability rights, and LGBT “rights.”
They are not rights but rather privileges: special treatment for a particular group that is not afforded to others, which sometimes may actually contravene people’s inherent rights.
We also know such privileges are not inherent because of their origin: not arising from our constitutional system’s foundation (i.e., natural law) but rather merely granted by government. Which means the government can take them away anytime.
That is not the case with inherent rights: to interfere with such, in violation of due process and the rule of law, is rightly considered an immoral tyrannical act.
Things to remember in these highly confusing times.
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula
