Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

contractualist OP t1_j74k1eu wrote

  1. I argue that natural law is based on social contract theory and those rights would have to be within the powers of one's freedom
  2. I wouldn't claim its an unalienable right (we allow government takings and adverse possession). Property rights require specification and prioritization, which social contract theory specifies.
  3. There is no consensus that I'm aware of. Inalienable rights is misleading, since rights require specification and are subject to reasonable restrictions. They aren't trumps according to my conception of them. I use natural rights.
  4. In Europe, before the enlightenment, natural law theory was based on divine providence, so god.
  5. It may have depended more on power than reason, so the most powerful.
  6. No, this is actual the strengths of contractualism/social contract theory. It can explain moral obligations and political legitimacy.
  7. Yes, since rights implies duties.
  8. Then reason must figure out an ordering of rights. This ordering may be universal (the social contract stage), based on national values (the political constitution stage) or based on the applicable law (the formal law creation stage).
1