Does the State of Nature justify Natural Rights?

Does the State of Nature justify Natural Rights?

In a state of nature, there is no mutual trust and peace but no civil authority. The law of nature encompasses no overseeing from another party since all members act at judges, juries and executioners. In a state of nature, the social contract theory is employed in a bid to justify political power. Further on, there is no government. As such, in order to ensure there is the protection of some specific inalienable rights, there is a prerequisite for political power as well as authority. The state of nature dictates that the minimal state is justified since individuals residing in a state of nature ultimately would create such a condition through actions which would not disrupt anybody’s rights.

Natural rights constitute fundamental rights derived from a state of nature and consists of things such as property, life and liberty. The theory decrees that individual preservation instinct and whatever is required to attain individual preservation is given the highest priority. The ideal state of nature constitutes a life with no government, without laws or a state. Imagining the state of nature eliminates the police, government, law and takes the remaining constitution. The aforementioned has an in-depth and detailed history in the sphere of political philosophy as it provides sufficient solutions to questions regarding conditions of living under the statute of law (Nozick 27). In daily life, individuals tend to their actions for granted, that there are limitations with regard to what we do, laws we are not permitted to break, and in case they are broken, there is a consequential punishment. Further on, the decisions regarding these laws and punishments are given to other people. In the case there is need to imagine a life living under a state, it is imperative to imagine a life without a state.

In imagining living in a condition without a state, it is important to imagine what it would encompass creating a state. Theorists have utilized the notion of the state of nature in arguing that a state is founded on a coalition between individuals to stay collectively under laws. Therefore, the perception of a state of nature assists in answering the question of how a group of people who have freedom become indebted to obey the statute of a state. However, the question, is not intended to be factual. To some extent, individuals have never been in a state of no rules or submission to someone tasked with enforcing power (Hare 29). Nonetheless, there are instances when the above situation is justifiable by imagining a condition of residing without a state, whether there are reasons behind its benefits and why individuals should accept to reside without a state.

However, there are philosophies which reject the state of nature as it cannot answer some questions since it is not only imagining something untrue but something which does not conform to human nature. Naturally, individuals live collectively being ruled by laws and statues or something akin. Social as well as political organization occurs naturally in human life. Therefore, to imagine living a certain type of order will not offer anything useful about life or the reasons being living in a state. Moreover, it is not necessary to validate the state that there is no survival in all circumstances unless being taken care of by someone else, that it requires two people to produce children and raising them regularly needs the couple if not a wider group of people. As such, obedience necessitates surrendering natural freedom. For instance, it is a significant component to start off in the life of a child, as it numerous implications. Hare (11) asserts that before any social interaction of any form, it is possible to envision people as individuals. However, humans belong to a social group since birth and are also required to survive. Social humans are naturally social, the state of nature should take this fact into account together with its influences on human psychology. In some cases, humans may consider the state to naturally develop, but not through accord.

According to Thomas Hobbes, understanding political society will require understanding the people as its components. There is a need for understanding the agreements which constitute society. Basing on these agreements, one can understand the status and form of the state. Hobbes asserts that conceiving a state of nature, helps in understanding what typically constitutes human beings. Self-preservation is one fundamental desire. In case there is no authority or law to override the actions of humans towards the desire, or someone to provide information on the appropriate ways to remain alive, self-preservation becomes the imminent choice. Therefore, Nozick (26) argues that residing in a state of nature gives everyone the right to utilize power although the choice is based on the need to stay alive.

Furthermore, one’s natural rights tend to conflict with the natural rights of other people. Normally, if one has a right, a duty is instituted on someone else. For instance, if an individual has a right to life, the duty of not killing the individual is instituted on everybody else. If one has the right to own property, everybody else has an obligation not to steal the property. However, since the state of nature gives no mandate to anyone to state the details of not exercising the right to exist, in the case someone judges that staying alive requires killing someone else otherwise stealing from them, hence they possess the right to undertake the action. As such, individuals can argue that they are not obligated not to steal or kill. Therefore, each individual’s right to self-preservation clashes with everybody else’s.

Consequently, each person is required to ultimately depend on themselves, their intelligence and strength solely. The above reliance causes a state of conflict where everyone will be ready or disposed to fight if there is need as opposed to the state where people will be constantly fighting each other. As a result, people will reside in a state riddled with a risk of violent death and continued fear. Natural rights, as a theory, was specifically established to create a bright distinction between coaxing and coercion. In social interaction, rights tend to define as well delimit the valid use or threat of physical force. Therefore, rights are essential components under the libertarian philosophy of justice. Violating a right is similar to committing an injustice. Accordingly, justice is insofar a negative quality since it demands abstinence from the use of coercion when it involves other people. Hare (10) affirms that regularly, human may satisfy all the statues of justice by remaining still and not doing anything. In contemporary libertarian thought as well as political philosophy, speaking of a right resembles speaking of a moral claim which is enforceable. Therefore, when individuals speak of violation of a right, it implies that the target has the alternative of applying physical force in fighting off the perpetrator, regardless of in punishment, self-defense or the purpose of restoration.