Essay: Natural Vs Human Rights
Natural rights also referred to as unalienable rights or moral rights are the rights, which are universally necessary. These are the rights, which human beings have to enjoy without the involvement of any form of agreements (Tierney, 1997). This implies that they are entitled to people by nature and thus there is no need of interventions of legal and political institutions. This brings in a controversy in that whichever type rights are, there has to be legal laws that will protect them and thus enable them be respected.
Human rights on the other hand, are the freedoms and basic rights, which are entitled to human beings simply because they are human (Donnelly, 2003). Just like the natural rights, human rights have egalitarian and Universalist concept. Different countries have different types of freedoms, which are seen as being human rights. It should be noted that all human rights should be morally acceptable.
When Locke talked of natural rights, he meant the rights which man was born to enjoy even without the imposition of laws. According to Locke, man was born in a nature state where he is expected to be happy, tolerant and rational. In this state, a man has to enjoy the rights of property, liberty and life (Paul et al, 2005). Since not all men respected the natural laws of the others, there was the formation and imposition of laws to ensure that the natural laws of every one are protected. Locke further argues that governments’ role is not to identify the natural laws but rather to protect them together with man’s security and happiness.