T. H. Green, an idealist and advocate of positive liberty, in his Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligations has defined right as ‘a power of acting for his own ends … secured to an individual by the community on the supposition that it contributes to the good of the community.’ Power of acting for his own ends implies that Green sees right as power, as capacity or empowerment to act for certain ends that the individual seeks. These ends are self-realization and fulfilment of moral nature of human beings. According to Wayper, Green believes that men have certain claims, which ought to be recognized as rights, if man is to fulfil his moral character. Green calls these rights as ‘Natural Rights.4 However, his conception of natural rights is not like the one contractualists spell. They arise not from state of nature but from moral character of men. The fact that rights are important for the individual is obvious from the first part of Greens definition. Moreover, these are also beneficial for the community. He believes that will and common consciousness of common good, and not force, are the basis of the State. As such, moral character of human beings must be realized and the community must secure rights. It is clear that only the community can secure rights and in securing them it supposes that rights secured to individuals are in the interest of the community as a whole.
Leonard T. Hobhouse views rights in terms of coordinated rights. He says, ‘the system of rights is the system of harmonized liberties.’ This means, liberties secured by rights of one must be restricted by the rights of all.
Ernest Barker, a pluralist and advocate of positive liberty, in his Principles of Social and Political Theory, defines rights as ‘external conditions necessary for the greatest possible development of the capacities of the personality.’ Barker defines rights in terms of conditions that help in development of the capabilities of personality. He measures the quality of rightness and justice of law of the State in terms of securing and guaranteeing to the greatest possible numbers of persons the external conditions necessary for the greatest possible development of the capacities of the personality. These secured and guaranteed conditions are rights. Barker adds a criterion of greatest possible numbers of persons to whom rights must be at least secured and guaranteed. This means allocation of rights requires distributive justice, which, in turn, requires application of principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. According to Barker, rights of a person are the result of the general system of rights. That is, rights of a particular person are capacities of that person of enjoying some status as a share of the whole. To clarify this point, Article 19 (g) provides the right to practice any profession, or to carry on an occupation, trade or business. Do a business leader and a pedestrian cycle repairer equally share this right? The answer is no because their external capacity to enjoy this right is different. Thus, Barker concludes that rights of a person are the whole of his/her capacity, whole power of actions within the State. The sum total of rights enjoyed by a person determines his/her legal personality. Distribution of capacity or power of action should be such that it serves the greatest possible number of persons. This calls for principle of justice and equality.
Laski in his, A Grammar of Politics, defines rights as those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be his best.’ Laski, though associated with varied political and intellectual streams, advocates positive liberty and puts a premium on the self-development of human beings. He identifies rights with conditions of social life that help human beings realize their best self. He says that the State exists to help human beings achieve their best selves and this can be secured only by maintaining rights. This leads him to conclude that every state is known by the rights that it maintains. In brief, Laski maintains that the end of the State is to make possible those conditions of social life, which help human beings achieve their best selves. These can be secured with the provision of rights.
In defining rights Green, Barker and Laski, all emphasize on two components of rights: (i) certain external conditions to be secured by the community or the State and (ii) development of self and capacity of human beings. This means that interests of the community, society or the political order, i.e., the State and that of the individuals are not very opposed. However, the main focus is on securing rights so that individuals seek their best. R. N. Gilchrist in his Principles of Political Science, echoes similar views when he says, ‘Rights arise … from individuals as members of society, and from the recognition that, for society, there is ultimate good which may be reached by the development of the powers inherent in every individual.’ Gilchrist underlines the social aspects of individuals seeking their best. Rights will help individuals develop their powers that, in turn, serve the ultimate good of society. Social recognition and community securing individual rights is important but essentiality of recognition of rights by the State is also to be appreciated. Without legal back up rights may not be quite exercisable. Rights in one person require that his/her freedom of action is guaranteed by a penalty which prevents another person from violating it.
Leave a Reply