View With Charts And Images
Definition of Human Rights, the relevance of Social Contract Theories in the making of ideas of Human Rights.
Introduction
When governments do horribly cruel and unfair things to their citizens we are now likely to describe those actions as violations of human rights, instead of simply saying that they are unfair, immoral or barbaric. Appealing to human rights in order to describe and criticize the actions of repressive governments is relatively new as a popular phenomenon. Talk of fundamental rights and of constitutional rights has long been common, but since 1948 by UN with the declaration of human rights, the idea of human rights has gradually been adopted by journalists, civil society, politicians and the public in much of the world. Violations of human rights are now regularly recognized and reported by social rights worker, journalists and many people around the world have come to have some new categories of political thought and appraisal and perhaps, decreased tolerance of oppressive governments and the ways they abuse their citizens.
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally adequate to our human rights without any discrimination. These rights are all indivisible interrelated and interdependent.
Social contract theory emerged during the enlightenment in response to the changes imposed upon human beings as society evolved from an arrangement characterized by independence-“each on one’s own” living in the “state of nature” -to the economies afforded human beings as they came to live together in small families and clans and then, as they formed small communities.Complicating these arrangements further was the later conversions from rural, agrarian society to that of modern, industrialized, urban society.
The principle applies to everyone in relation to all human rights and freedoms and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive categories such as sex, race, and color and so on that in the past discussed by Social Contract Theory. Human Rights are the transformational name of Social Contract Theory by comparing the human rights articles and components of social contract theories.
Human Rights
Human rights are fundamental rights to the stability such as the right to life, ethnic origin, race, language, sex, security, liberty, freedom of expression and social, economic rights and cultural rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to shelter, the right to work and receive an education or other status. Great emphasis has been placed on international conventions and their implementation in order to ensure adherence to a universal standard of acceptability.
With the originate of globalization and the introduction of new technology, the principles gain important not only in protecting human beings from the ill effects of change but also in ensuring that all are allowed a share of the benefits.
However the efficacies of the mechanisms in place today has been questioned in the light of deliberate human rights violation and forget about for basic human dignity in nearly all countries in one or more forms.
In many cases, those who are to blame cannot be brought to book because of political considerations, corruption in management, power equations, social status etc. When such violations are allowed to go unchecked and judged less, they often increase in frequency and intensity usually because perpetrators feel that they enjoy immunity from punishment.
Definition and Meaning
The following definition of human rights expresses clearly the meaning of human rights:
“A human right is a universal moral right, something which all men, everywhere, at all times ought to have, something of which no one may be deprived without a grave affront to justice, something which is owing to every human simply because he is human.”
An alternative explanation was provided by philosopher Melden. He said that “Human beings have an intrinsic value absent in inanimate objects. To violate a human right would therefore be a failure to recognize the worth of human life.”
Different countries ensure these human rights in different way. In India, they are controlled in the constitution as fundamental rights, i.e. they are guaranteed constitutionally. In the UK, they are available through superiority, various elements having been laid down by the courts through case law. In addition, authorized international law and conventions also provide certain safeguards.
Classification
Human rights are classified into three classes of the following rights:
i. First generation rights which include civil and political right.
ii. Second generation rights such as social, economic and cultural rights.
iii. Third generation rights such as the right of self-determination and the right to participate in the benefits from mankind’s common heritage.
Human rights may be either positive or negative effect of incident. An example of the former, is the right to a fair trial and an example of the latter is the right not to be tortured.
Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration approved by the United Nation General Assembly on 10th December, 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris.<href=”#_ftn8″ name=”_ftnref8″ title=””>[8] The declaration come up directly from the experience of Second World War represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members<href=”#_ftn9″ name=”_ftnref9″ title=””>[9] of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world is ensured.
Whereas overlook about and disregard for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
Whereas it is fundamental, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against domination and repression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of regulation and law, whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations is secured.
However the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and significance of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
While Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Main Articles of Human Rights
The formulation by the United Nations in 1948 of the UDHR made possible the ensuing thriving of the idea of international human rights. The UDHR’s list of human rights is, largely speaking, the list that is use today also. And the international human rights convention that followed in its wake refined the formulations of these rights and gave them the status of international law.
UDHR consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in following liberty to life, international treaties, regional human rights instruments and national constitutions and laws. The main articles are:
Article 1: We are all born free & equal
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.<href=”#_ftn12″ name=”_ftnref12″ title=””>[12]
Article 2: Don’t discriminate
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3: The right to life
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4: No slavery
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude<href=”#_ftn13″ name=”_ftnref13″ title=””>[13]; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5: No torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6: You have rights no matter where you go
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7: We’re all equal before the law
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8: Your human rights are protected by law
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9: We’re always innocent till proven guilty
· Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
· No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 10: The right to trial
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory raises the possibility that the need for social order and certain natural constraints might provide us with a natural basis for morality. While it would appear that there are strong incentives for social anarchy without an outside objective source of morality, according to Thomas Hobbes, “the incentive is built into the social system by the vary nature of our existing among each other.”
Rachels stated according to SCT that, “the state exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that facilitate social living”.
Rousseau posited a “social contract” theorize how human beings can remain free yet live together in a society where no one person has a right to govern other persons and where the only justified authority is that generated out of agreements or covenants among members.
Members of society are accorded certain rights in return for giving up certain freedoms society’s members would otherwise possess in the ‘state of nature’ or by remaining alone (as Robinson Crusoe). Society appears to enforce the rights and responsibilities borne by its social members. The reason is these rights and responsibilities are neither “natural” nor “fixed,” they can be altered should a society’s members so desire. However, they must remember that implementing additional rights will always entail bearing additional responsibilities.
Social Contract Theory by Philosophers
By investigating each of these philosophers’ views regarding the social contract theories we can found to not only question the nature of our morality but also our relationship with authority.
Socrates
In the early Platonic dialogue,In Crito, Socrates maintained that a decision to remain in society confers legitimacy to the social contract and imposes its obligations upon a citizen, a decision to leave society signals illegitimacy and although relieved of its obligations, a citizen now must submit to suffer the consequences of this decision or to leave society.
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes book Leviathan (1651) captures his main ideas about morality being the same as the law. In other way, our actions are governed by the law and not our ethics. This very concept is described in his version of the ‘state of nature’ where no laws exist. Life in the ‘state of nature’ in Hobbes words is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’ and also that man is in continual fear, and in danger of a violent death.”Once we start to observe life without rules and regulations we can really begin to question and reflect on our own morality. It could be argued that even if we wanted to take the moral high ground in the state of nature we could still be forced into a corner by others who are irresponsible, making you as selfish as the next man.
Hobbes supports the egoist theory, which implements the point of view that people are self inspired, self motivated and only act for their own self interests. Both of these similes are how Hobbes describes people in the ‘state of nature’.
John Locke
Hobbes theory was challenged by John Locke who felt that our morality is not based on law and sovereign authority otherwise the social contract. In fact Locke predicted that the ‘state of nature’ would be a much more inhabitable place. His reason for this is that we have natural laws which are also referred to as God-given laws. Locke recognizes that there would still be the need for some sort of governing authority but in comparison to Hobbes theory- individuals are morally equal and would personally be able to enforce punishments for bad behavior. One criticism here would be that individuals could have the tendency to be biased for self interest. Another obvious criticism is that Locke’s state of nature’ is dependent on a lot of religious connotations. Though, you have to take in to consideration that it was written in a period when this would be a lot more relevant.
David Hume
David Hume heavily criticized Hobbes and Lockes versions of the social contract. Firstly he point out that there had never been a situation called ‘the state of nature’ and that nobody had consented to a social contract, generally because the social contract was entirely hypothetical. The following quote explains nicely Hume’s thoughts about why we agree to the state:
“Men, therefore, are bound to obey the magistrates, only because they promise to it: and if they had not given their word, either expressively or tacitly, to preserve allegiance, it would never have become a part of their moral duties.”
What Hume is saying here is that we are born into a society and we don’t need a contract theory because our belief is that the government is in our best interests and therefore the people support its continuation. This is motivating because if we know that it is in our best interests to be ruled by the state then this could suggest that our moral obligations would not stand without it. Although Hume was hopeful about human nature and felt that people can exhibit qualities such as faithfulness and politeness which are not directly related to self-development or happiness.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The most recent philosopher, named Jean-Jacques Rousseau felt that the social contact was an agreement between individuals that is detained together by common interests. Rousseau famously wrote The Social Contract which vital aim was to explain the sources and limits of legitimate authority. Rousseau believes that we are not give up freedom to adhere to the state because so much freedom can be gained from the state. He stated “we might add that man acquires the civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man a master of himself; while obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom.”
This is a little different concept because here he is saying that a state or ruling body needn’t be oppressive, in fact quite the opposite because he explains our moral responsibilities can only increase.
In spite of this Rousseau doesn’t make any assumptions about human beings having any superior moral values without a so called social contract. He does however explain that humans are naturally compassionate and do not like to see others come to any harm or distress.
Basic Components of SCT
According to SCT, these are basic components or elements that are needed for the survival of any society.
· Form an organized society: Humans must equally agree to form an organized society where they renounce the anarchy, or lack of order, that was present in a ‘natural state’.<href=”#_ftn21″ name=”_ftnref21″ title=””>[21]
· Establish common law: They must agree to exist under common laws and create a government which acts as a mechanism of enforcement for the contract and its laws.<href=”#_ftn22″ name=”_ftnref22″ title=””>[22]
· Equality of need: All human have certain basic needs in common such as food, clothing and shelter.
· Protection of life and property: This means there will be prohibitions against assault, theft, murder and destruction. A police force will be needed.
· Protection of society against outside threats: Sovereignty must be kept in the society to protect from other society’s threats.<href=”#_ftn23″ name=”_ftnref23″ title=””>[23] An army might be needed.
· Right to avoid inevitable disintegration: Human must consent to forming a society and consent to be governed. The governed have the right to rebel against rulers when they become autocratic or tyrannical. Tyrannical rulers create a state of war with their people, which forces men to protect themselves and begin to create a new government.<href=”#_ftn24″ name=”_ftnref24″ title=””>[24]
· Civil Society: To create a Civil Society and accomplish peace, everyone agrees to sacrifice ALL their rights to the monarchy authority, who will then give back whatever rights s/he chooses—but who can recollect any of those rights at any time (and for any reason or no reason)?<href=”#_ftn25″ name=”_ftnref25″ title=””>[25]
· Freedom from arbitrary discrimination: All human being are equal in the society so there must be free from arbitrary discrimination based on age, gender and especially in race.
· Freedom of speech: Authority or rulers must be obliged to protect private property and the right to freedom of thought and speech.<href=”#_ftn26″ name=”_ftnref26″ title=””>[26]
· Freedom of religion: The human beings follow their religion by born or by their choice, they must be free in maintaining their religion. Rulers must be obliged to sovereignty and the right to freedom of religion.<href=”#_ftn27″ name=”_ftnref27″ title=””>[27]
· Protection of the environment: Absolutely, it is in everyone’s interest to have breathable air and clean, healthy environment in which to live peacefully. Preventions against harming the environment or claiming it as private property seem to be in order. How widespread this is, though it is unclear. Also, the self-interested justification for environmentalism does necessarily cover protecting in danger of extinction species or anything that is only of interest to some people.
Detached from SCT
· Prohibitions on abortion<href=”#_ftn28″ name=”_ftnref28″ title=””>[28]
· Prohibitions on harming animals<href=”#_ftn29″ name=”_ftnref29″ title=””>[29]
· Establishment of any particular religion. A possible exception may exist if there were a society where everyone subscribed to the same religion.<href=”#_ftn30″ name=”_ftnref30″ title=””>[30]
· Paternalism: Forcing another party to act because it is believed that to be in the best interest of the other party to do so. Remember, self-interest or egotism is what obliges the need for a social contract. If other people don’t hurt you by engaging in a certain type of activities, then you don’t have egotism or self-interested reason for banning that behavior as part of the contract. If anyone want to hurt oneself, that’s their own business. For this reason, laws against taking certain drugs, seatbelt laws, prostitution, gambling etc. are all suspect.<href=”#_ftn31″ name=”_ftnref31″ title=””>[31]
· Anti-sodomy laws: In general, SCT suggests that personal choices that don’t directly harm others are not subject to legal constraint. As example, any consensual sexual practice is done by anyone.
These issues are not complete and may not be totally accurate. It can be argued that certain activities (e.g. drug abuse, animal torture) have negative side-effects that are harmful to society in general and so it would be in everyone’s interest to prohibit them.
Social Contract Theory transforms Human Rights
”All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”<href=”#_ftn32″ name=”_ftnref32″ title=””>[32]
To explain how and why human rights become part of social expectations or social theory, some theories trend to allocate the influence from aspect of some philosophers. For example, Hume said that the human rights point to a moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social advancement or evolution. Philosophers like Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau remark that we need a social contract to live with a minimum of security and to own economic advantages but we have to be subordinate to some rules from a legitimate authority to made respect to the law.<href=”#_ftn33″ name=”_ftnref33″ title=””>[33]
In the Nineteenth century Thomas Hobbes founded a social contract theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they want or look for (happiness) was subjected to argument, but if the most important fear of a man is a violent death at the hands of another person, social contract was how a rational human could assure them to survive and prosper.<href=”#_ftn34″ name=”_ftnref34″ title=””>[34] In this lay the declaration of universal human rights, in the Second World War when thousands people were killed barbarically without legal approval, that time United Nations come up with so called Human Rights to establish a fair rights among the human being around the world.
Human Rights are modern name of Social Contract Theory as the discussion goes on. As the philosophers stated that we need a social contract to live with a minimum of security and to own economic advantages but we have to be subordinate to some rules from a legitimate authority to made respect the law. That is the contract what is done by United Nations around the world with its member states in the name of Human Rights.
Clearly, then, there are not many human rights life including liberty and the pursuit of happiness but they are fundamental to our ability to live as human beings in the society. Central to all is the right to one’s life. The right of liberty includes freedom of the body that is freedom from slavery, false imprisonment and independence of the mind that is, in spoken and written communications, liberty of conscience and in association with others in a society. The concept of ordered liberty adds the right to marry and to raise a family and educate one’s children according to the best afford. The pursuit of happiness includes the right to acquire and own property and the right to a minimum standard of living. If we justify the SCT with the philosophers thought and observe the components of SCT, we will see it just same to our articles of UDHR. It clarifies the answer about origin of human rights that derived from Social Contract Theory.
Finally, Social Contract Theory make the idea of Human Rights and Human rights are universal since the reciprocal basic natural duties established by the social contract theory are general in their application to all people and at all times.
Conclusion
These final discussions regarding the origin and nature of human rights create important challenges to their operation as universal standards of behavior. Fundamentally diverging foundations for human rights may be given, that finally must rely upon either divine exposure, human reason extrapolating from nature or conscious human invention and agreement. Even if a satisfactory basis for human rights can be constructed, further fundamental challenges emerge to both the `human’ and `rights’ dimensions of human rights. It is not self-evident what it is about humans that generates the moral entitlement to certain benefits, neither is the status clear of those humans who do not share these qualities. A particular problem is posed by the manner in which these benefits are asserted to be `rights’, since this concept can operate in practical circumstances as a liberty, power, immunity, or claim-right. Consequently human rights must be examined more closely, because they are at once so important and yet so vulnerable to probing questions about their origin, foundation, substance, and operation that is derived from Social Contract Theory.
Bibliography
1. A.I. Melden, Rights and Persons (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977) at pg.189.
2. Henry Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy (2nd ed, 1996) 52.
3. Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). London, UK: Penguin Books.
4. Hobbes (2005) Sovereignty and Security’ In Cottingham, J (ed.), Western Philosophy: an anthology. Pt. IX, Section 3, PP481
5. Hume (2000) A Treatise of Human Nature’ In Baillie J, Hume on Morality, Chapter 6, PP 184
6. Human Rights (J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman, New York: New York University Press, 1981) at 19-21
7. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (Hackett, 1999) p. 151.
8. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971) p. 378.
9. Locke, J. (2003). Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Locke, Second Treatise, p. 269
11. P. L. Mehta and S. S. Jaswal, “Human Rights: Concept and Ideology”, 30(1&2) Indian Socio Legal Journal (2004) at 83-85
12. Rachels “How Coherent is the Social Contract Tradition?” Journal of the History of Ideas 34: 4 (Oct. – Dec., 1973): 543-562.
13. Rousseau, J. (1987). The basic political writings (D. A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
14. Rousseau, J-J (2004) The Social Contract. London, Penguin Great Ideas. Chapter 8, PP 21
15. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p. 8.
16. S. Augender (2002), “Questioning the Universality of Human Rights”, 28(1&2) Indian Socio Legal Journal (2002) at 80.
17. Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, New York: Penguin Books, 1985, p.68.
18. UDHR information retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
1998) 20 Human Rights Quarterly 691
19. UDHR website, Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop
20. Woods, T. E. (2005). How the Catholic Church built Western civilization. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
.
.
<href=”#_ftnref1″ name=”_ftn1″ title=””>[1] K. Vasak, The International Dimensions of Human Rights Volume I (P. Alston ed., Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982) at 4-8.
<href=”#_ftnref2″ name=”_ftn2″ title=””>[2]J. J. Rousseau, Social Contract Theory (The Basic Political Writings, 1987) at p.49
<href=”#_ftnref3″ name=”_ftn3″ title=””>[3] S. Augender (2002), “Questioning the Universality of Human Rights”, 28(1&2) Indian Socio Legal Journal (2002) at 80.
<href=”#_ftnref4″ name=”_ftn4″ title=””>[4] A. I. Melden, Rights and Persons (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977) at pg.189.
<href=”#_ftnref5″ name=”_ftn5″ title=””>[5] L. Henkin, The Rights of Man Today (London: Stevens and Sons, 1979) at 4-5.
<href=”#_ftnref6″ name=”_ftn6″ title=””>[6] P. L. Mehta and S. S. Jaswal, “Human Rights: Concept and Ideology”, 30(1&2) Indian Socio Legal Journal (2004) at 83-85
<href=”#_ftnref7″ name=”_ftn7″ title=””>[7]Human Rights (J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman, New York: New York University Press, 1981) at 19-21.
<href=”#_ftnref8″ name=”_ftn8″ title=””>[8] UDHR information retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
<href=”#_ftnref9″ name=”_ftn9″ title=””>[9] 1998) 20 Human Rights Quarterly 691
<href=”#_ftnref10″ name=”_ftn10″ title=””>[10] Henry Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy (2nd ed, 1996) 52.
<href=”#_ftnref11″ name=”_ftn11″ title=””>[11] UDHR website, Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop
<href=”#_ftnref12″ name=”_ftn12″ title=””>[12]ICCPR, above n 1, art 2(3)(b).
<href=”#_ftnref13″ name=”_ftn13″ title=””>[13] CESCR, General Comment 3, above n 39, [5].
<href=”#_ftnref14″ name=”_ftn14″ title=””>[14] Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). London, UK: Penguin Books.
<href=”#_ftnref15″ name=”_ftn15″ title=””>[15] Rachels “How Coherent is the Social Contract Tradition?” Journal of the History of Ideas 34: 4 (Oct. – Dec., 1973): 543-562.
<href=”#_ftnref16″ name=”_ftn16″ title=””>[16] Rousseau, J. (1987). The basic political writings (D. A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
<href=”#_ftnref17″ name=”_ftn17″ title=””>[17] Hobbes (2005) Sovereignty and Security’ In Cottingham, J (ed.), Western Philosophy: an anthology. Pt. IX,
Section 3, PP481
<href=”#_ftnref18″ name=”_ftn18″ title=””>[18] Rachels, S., 2002, “Nagelian Arguments against Egoism,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80: 191–208.
<href=”#_ftnref19″ name=”_ftn19″ title=””>[19] Hume (2000) A Treatise of Human Nature’ In Baillie J, Hume on Morality, Chapter 6, PP 184
<href=”#_ftnref20″ name=”_ftn20″ title=””>[20] Rousseau, J-J (2004) The Social Contract. London, Penguin Great Ideas. Chapter 8, PP 21
<href=”#_ftnref21″ name=”_ftn21″ title=””>[21] Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). London, UK: Penguin Books.
<href=”#_ftnref22″ name=”_ftn22″ title=””>[22] Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). London, UK: Penguin Books.
<href=”#_ftnref23″ name=”_ftn23″ title=””>[23] Rousseau, J. (1987). The basic political writings (D. A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
<href=”#_ftnref24″ name=”_ftn24″ title=””>[24] Locke, J. (2003). Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
<href=”#_ftnref25″ name=”_ftn25″ title=””>[25] Hobbes (2005) Sovereignty and Security’ In Cottingham, J (ed.), Western Philosophy: an anthology. Pt. IX,
Section 3, PP481
<href=”#_ftnref26″ name=”_ftn26″ title=””>[26] Locke, Second Treatise, p. 269
<href=”#_ftnref27″ name=”_ftn27″ title=””>[27] Locke, J. (2003). Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
<href=”#_ftnref28″ name=”_ftn28″ title=””>[28] Because fetuses can’t be parties to a contract
<href=”#_ftnref29″ name=”_ftn29″ title=””>[29] Because fetuses can’t be parties to a contract
<href=”#_ftnref30″ name=”_ftn30″ title=””>[30] It would not be in everyone’s interest to have any one religion enforced.
<href=”#_ftnref31″ name=”_ftn31″ title=””>[31] Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p. 8.
<href=”#_ftnref32″ name=”_ftn32″ title=””>[32] UDHR website, Article one, Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop
<href=”#_ftnref33″ name=”_ftn33″ title=””>[33] Woods, T. E. (2005). How the Catholic Church built Western civilization. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
<href=”#_ftnref34″ name=”_ftn34″ title=””>[34] Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (Hackett, 1999) p. 151.