In French and German, the same word (law, law) serves as a noun, referring to both legal norms and the rights created by them, which is why disambiguation is necessary. John Locke (1632–1704) was another prominent Western philosopher who conceived of rights as natural and inalienable. Like Hobbes, Locke believed in a natural right to life, liberty, and property. It was once conventional wisdom that Locke greatly influenced the American Revolutionary War with his writings on natural rights, but this claim has been the subject of long controversy in recent decades. Among other philosophers, John Locke regarded rights as inalienable and naturally possessed by every human being from birth, in his opinion every human being has three natural rights; Right to life, right to liberty and right to property. It is widely accepted by philosophers that rights derive from law and that in order to determine the origin of rights, one must find the origins of law. The right to what is essentially inalienable is inalienable, because the act by which I take possession of my personality, my essential essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and leading a moral and religious life, deprives my qualities precisely of that exteriority which alone has made them capable. pass into possession of another. If I have thus suspended their exteriority, I cannot lose them by the passage of time or for any other reason arising from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them. [22] The existence of natural rights has been affirmed by different individuals under different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles.

For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights from reason alone. The United States Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, is based on the “self-evident” truth that “all men . endowed by its creator with certain inalienable rights”. [9] According to Dworkin, the thesis of the discretion of positivism is attached to the third sense of discretion, which he calls strong discretion. According to Dworkin, the thesis that judges have discretion only in the sense that they exercise judgment is trivially true, while the thesis that judges have discretion in the sense that their decisions cannot be overturned by a superior court is false. Even the Supreme Court can be struck down by Congress or by a constitutional amendment. According to Dworkin, the discretionary thesis implies that judges have the discretion to decide difficult cases, which amounts to a legal act because the judge is not bound by any legal norm. A more modern version of this theory was proposed by MacCormick (1977), who argued that a rights holder was the intended recipient of a particular benefit and not just a general beneficiary of the rules. However, even with this change, it remains difficult to explain the rights of third parties under contracts.

Suppose that X and Y enter into a contract imposing customs duties on each of them, with the intention that the performance of those obligations will benefit Z. According to the theory, Z must (conceptually) be a legitimate rights holder. But it is indeed a completely random question of whether Z is or not. Some legal systems recognize Z rights in such a situation, others do not. In the United Kingdom, for example, Scots law recognized these rights for a long time under certain conditions, but English law did not do so until the situation was changed by law in 1999. As discussion of the relative merits of choice and utility theories has continued and increasingly sophisticated versions of the two have been proposed (see, for example, the tripartite debate in Kramer, Simmonds and Steiner 1998, Kramer 2010, Vrousalis 2010, Van Duffel 2012), some authors have attempted to propose different or combined approaches. Wenar (2005) defends what he calls a theory of “multiple functions”. Accordingly, any “Hohfeld incident” (or a combination thereof) that grants an exception, discretion or authorization, or that authorizes the owner to protect, provide or perform, is a right. However, Kramer and Steiner (2007) argue that this is really nothing more than another version of utility theory and is not superior to existing versions. Another suggestion comes from Sreenivasan (2005), which should apply only to claimed rights and not to other types of rights. The essence of this is that Y is entitled to claim that X performs an action if, and only if, Y`s level of control over X`s duty (intends) corresponds to the level of control that furthers Y`s interests as a whole. Kramer and Steiner (2007) also criticize this situation on the grounds that it would include the case where someone deliberately did not obtain such power on the basis of their own interests.

However, this would lead to a very implausible widening of the circle of those who should be considered right holders. According to Dworkin, the legal authority of a binding principle derives from the contribution it makes to the best moral justification for the legal practice of a society as a whole. According to Dworkin, a legal principle contributes to no more such justification unless it meets two conditions: (1) the principle is consistent with existing legal documents; and (2) the principle is the most morally appealing standard that (1) satisfies. The correct legal principle is one that makes the law morally the best it can be. Thus, Dworkin concludes: “If we treat principles as laws, we must reject the first principle of positivists, namely that the law of a community is distinguished from other social norms by a test in the form of a master rule” (Dworkin 1977, 44). In developing his concept of natural rights, Locke was influenced by the narratives of Native American society, which he saw as natural peoples living in a “state of freedom” and complete freedom, but “not in a state of license.” [41] It also shaped its conception of the social contract. While he doesn`t say it bluntly, his position implies that even given our unique characteristics, we should not be treated differently by our neighbors or leaders. Locke argues that there is no natural trait sufficient to distinguish one person from another. Of course, there are many natural differences between us” (Haworth 103). [42] What Haworth takes away from Locke is that John Locke was obsessed with supporting equality in society and treating everyone as equals. However, he highlights our differences with his philosophy, which shows that we are all unique and important to society. His philosophy emphasizes that the ideal government should also protect everyone and grant rights and freedoms to all, because we are all important to society.

His ideas were later developed into the freedom movements by the British who founded our government. However, his implicit idea of freedom for all is more widely applied in our culture today. Starting with the civil rights movement and continuing with women`s rights, Locke`s call for equitable government can be seen as an influence on these movements. His ideas are generally regarded only as the basis of modern democracy, but it is not unreasonable to attribute social activism to Locke throughout American history.