Do rights come from God, nature, or humans?

Do rights come from God, nature, or humans? (Rawls)

Problem the philosopher addresses:

- Rawls faced a problem on how to stabilize the inverted pyramid in which the leaders are viewed as the servants of the people

- Social contract tradition also faced difficulty with the identification of some people living in a state of nature and other people living in a state of civilization People living in a state of civilization regarded themselves as more advanced and enlightened then people living in a state of nature - Addresses problems with John Locke’s natural rights foundation, regards that rights do not come from nature Compares Locke’s theory to playing the card game with the cards facing up and trying to reach a unanimous vote With the cards faced up, tyranny of minority can occur Tyranny of majority can occur if a majority vote was required to protect the greatest good of the greatest number

Solution to the problem:

- Rawls corrects this by assigning people in the state of nature, the motive to fair-mindedness In natural state people can turn their cards down, when they turn the cards down they negotiate the social contract which negotiate the basic rights on which representative democracies are built, once rights are in place and institutions are established to protect those rights, cards are turned back up for policy decisions in the state of civilization. He believed that altruism and self-interest motivate people in state of civilization, when there is an excess of these motives, causing social division, where some treat others in a tyrannical manner; the cards go back down for renegotiation of the basic rights

- Rawls sides with Kant and believes that rights are created by individuals from a moral point of view, not from nature

- State is built upon two principles Maximum liberty compatible with equal liberty for all Inequalities with distribution of goods is acceptable provided that there are in advantage of the least well off and equality of opportunity is available to all Those who enter the social contract behind the “veil of ignorance” negotiate these two principles, and to negotiate behind the veil of ignorance is to negotiate with the cards facing down which can avoid the tyranny of the minority or the tyranny of the majority, which is caused by Locke’s “natural rights”

Classic problem to the solution:

- Rawls fair-minded approach is too judicial and that even though it describes a moral relationship between a judge and defendant accurately it fails to describe a moral relationship between a parent and child, for example

- Some critics also argue that people may tend to argue over who adopts this perspective and who does not and some people that adopt this perspective can be seen as proofs of orthodox

- If one doesn’t want to turn down their card, that it can make them seem wrongheaded and lacking fairness.

- Rawls theory is that it doesn’t include women. Rawls sees these people that negotiate the social contract and are part of this “unanimous vote” as heads of a family, which leaves out the rights and wants of women.