Theory Of Natural Rights Research Articles

"Tekhnologicheskii zhurnal": An Early Russian Technoeconomic Periodical

Tekhnologicheskii zhurnal (1804-26) was one of Russia's first economic periodicals and the first to concentrate on nonagricultural affairs, but its importance does not lie solely in its pioneering status.1 While intrinsically interesting, a study of its origins, popular reception, and editorial policy also contributes to an understanding of the sociopolitical ideals and cultural values which guided Russian economic growth and underpinned Russian society in the early 19th century. Three imperatives inspired its publication. The rising crescendo of utilitarianism which gradually pushed the theory of natural rights into the background and asserted the importance of natural wealth and greatness prompted its publication.2 The Napoleonic Wars added

The harm principle and a theory of natural rights

The harm principle and a theory of natural rights

J. S. Mill's concept of liberty and the principle of utility

Looked at on these three levels — the definitional, the justificatory, the dimensional — Mill's concept of liberty does not appear to be rooted in the principle of utility in any meaningful sense of this principle. It appears rather to be based on a consideration of the social benefits liberty would conduce to combined with an implicit and at times explicit theory of natural rights. Liberty is neither defined nor justified relative to any felicific, sensory pleasure-pain calculus or Greatest Happiness estimate. The limits of individual or collective interference in individual action are not prescribed with the utility principle as the guide.

A Note on Murphy's “A Paradox in Locke's Theory of Natural Rights.”

A Note on Murphy's “A Paradox in Locke's Theory of Natural Rights.”

A paradox in Locke's Theory of Natural Rights

There are certain recurring objections to Locke's theory of legitimate government and the conception of natural rights on which it is based. These objections generally take the form of showing that most of Locke's claims in the Second Treatise stand largely as ad hoc assertions, defended—if at all—not by philosophical argumentation but by appeals to theology or intuition. These criticisms might be called external criticisms of Locke's theory because they focus, not upon the coherence of the theory or the perplexities which prompted Locke to adopt it, but rather upon the justifications (or lack of them) for that theory. Important as these criticisms are to an ultimate evaluation of Locke's success, my purpose here is neither to reiterate them nor to defend Locke against them. Rather I want to develop a purely internal criticism of his view. For I shall argue that upon any acceptable interpretation of at least one of Locke's central natural rights claims, this claim will not be able to perform the crucial task envisioned for it by Locke—namely, provide a key premise for the moral justification for passing from a pre-civil society to a civil society that is responsible to its citizens.

The Antithesis of Nature and Art, and Rousseau's Rejection of the Theory of Natural Rights

In spite of all that has been written about Rousseau's political theory, he is still generally regarded as a proponent of the theory of natural rights. His political writings are thought to contain an exposition of that theory, and they are believed to have been highly influential in spreading it. Thus Professor Crane Brinton, writing in the Encyclopædia of the Social Sciences, says that although Rousseau added little to the actual dogmas of the theory of natural rights, “he did much to give it proselyting strength” and he “gave the doctrine of natural rights, hitherto endowed with the solid and effective but imaginatively limited prestige of nature as reality, as uniformity, and as the “golden mean,” the additional prestige of nature as mystic strength, as magna mater.” But it has already been shown that Rousseau's political doctrine was neither wellknown nor influential in France until the doctrine of natural rights lost its vogue and the authoritarian doctrines of Robespierre and the extremists of 1793 superseded it.

Survival of the Theory of Natural Rights in Judicial Decisions

Survival of the Theory of Natural Rights in Judicial Decisions