HUMAN RIGHTS: NOTES

Following the authors:

General tips
❖ If she asks for “at least 2 arguments” → Give 3 or 4
❖ Use very specific things that assures that you have read the documents (If not,
general information is a 6)
❖ Theory of the state → Means modern constitution
Perennial questions
❖ Is man sociable by nature?
❖ What is the point of political communities, and how do good and bad governments
affect our lives?
❖ Should political authority be limited in any way?
❖ Do we have a choice to make?
❖ Some core concepts that allow us to better understand these questions: government
and “government of the day”, political authority, legal obligation, state, modern state,
sovereignty, people

David Miller
General information:
❖ Book: Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction
❖ Release: 2003 (21th century)
❖ Historical context:
➢ 1970s (When he was in his 30s) → Conflicts between North Ireland and Great
Britain because of unfair traits to Ireland → America intervened (So did
Miller as a philosopher)
❖ Main points:
➢ Political philosophy can be defined by three main ideas:
■ The quality of the governance affects the way people live → He
defends that is not only about the qualities of the ruler → But also
about the system
Ex: A good ruler/system → Prosperity
■ People have the duty of keeping an eye on their representative/ruler
(Because their lives depend on them)
■ We can distinguish between a good and a bad government (There are
objective qualities that distinguish them
➢ Important definitions:
■ Government: The whole guidance and institutions under whose
guidance we live together in societies
■ Government of the day: Group of people in authority of any society
at that particular moment
■ State: Political institutions through which authority is exercised
(Ministers, parliament, courts of law, police, armed forces…)
➢ Opposition:
■ Marxism: Humans do not really have any control over the government
→ The progress is not related with political topics (In which humans
do not have control) → It’s related to economy and the producement
of goods
 ■ Hobbes: We must submit to the government → We shouldn’t make
political changes or have political control
■ Even though globalization has helped in the economic development →
Problems:
● Environmental consequences
● Decrease in national products and national culture

Sophocles (Antigone)
General information:
❖ Tale: Antigone
❖ Release: 441 b.c (5th century b.c)
❖ Movement: Natural law tradition
❖ Historical context:
➢ Greek mythology
➢ A period of victories of Greece against the Persians → Development of
ideologies as democracy and an active period for thinkers and philosophers
➢ Just some years before Plato, Socrates and Aristotle
❖ Main characters:
➢ Polyneices: Brother that was supposed to get the throne
➢ Eteocles: Brother that wanted the throne and allied with his uncle
➢ Creon: King and uncle of Polyneices and Eteocles
➢ Antigone: Polyneices and Eteocles sister
➢ Ismene: Antigone’s sister
❖ General story:
Battle between Eteocles (Allied with his uncle) and Polyneices (The one in the line of
succession) → Both die → Creon (Their uncle) becomes the king → He states that
Eteocles is going to have a funeral and be buried and Polyneices is being left in the
ground → But her sister (Antigone) decides to also give Polyneices a funeral
(following divine law/natural law), even though that goes against the law and even
though she does not agree with her sister
❖ Points of view
➢ Antigone: Follows divine/natural law (moral reasoning above human law) →
Locke
➢ Creon: Follows human law (Legitimate law → Citizens will) (Positivism →
Hobbes)
➢ Ismene: Follows both the divine/natural law and the human law (As she
follows the law to avoid being punished, but at the same time she helps her
sister by not telling what she did to Creon) → Liberalism → Locke

Thomas Hobbes
General information:
❖ Book: Leviathan
❖ Release: 1651 (17th century)
❖ Movement: Positivism and absolutism
❖ Historical context:
➢ English Civil War → Disputes between Crown and Parliament → About how
England, Scotland and Ireland should be governed → Religious and social
dimensions
 His philosophy is strongly influenced by the historical context → Because of
the constant conflict → It led to him thinking of humans in a negative way and
of conflicts as something unavoidable → This also influenced his seek of peace
❖ Main points:
➢ Leviathan → Meaning of the picture

The Leviathan (The sovereign) is a powerful crowned giant rising above the
landscape, wielding both a sword (a symbol of earthly authority) and a crosier
(a symbol of ecclesiastical authority). On the lower left, a castle, flags, a drum,
and a battlefield represent earthly power while on the right, parallel images of
a church and an ecclesiastical dispute represent ecclesiastical power.

In the picture, the giant man is formed by people, which means that the
sovereign had the approval and consent of the population. At the same time, it
means that the state is made out of people and it represents the voice of the
citizens.

➢ Nature of men:
■ Not social → We don’t find pleasure in having company → We just
want to survive (Theory of Moral) → We don’t make friends → We
make allies (Self-interested purposes)
■ Men’s natural state of nature → Constant conflict → Because of
three main reasons:
● Competition → We want to win
● Diffidence (Lack of confidence) → We want security
● Seek of reputation and glory
■ Men are naturally equal in capacities (In terms of body and mind
→ If we have more mental capacities, we compensate it by not having
physical capacities)

But we do not have the same value (Theory of anthropology)

➢ Solution:
■ Natural law:
 ● Freedom without limits (No law)
● Constant conflicts
■ Positive law: (He believes in it)
● The only way of guaranteeing justice and human rights →
Government and political communities
➢ Theory of knowledge → All we can know (Our limit) is in an empirical way →
We can only get to know by experimenting things (That is the only way)
➢ Theory of action → People act because of passions → Passions are the cause of
people behaving in a certain way
➢ Two knowledges:
■ Knowledge of facts: We know because of what we learned and because
of our memory
■ Knowledge of consequence: Even though you can’t fully see what you
have in front of you → Using logic you can know the answer
Ex: Circle → Even if you see the circle entirely drawed, you know that
in case there was a line in between, the circle will be divided
➢ Hobbes vs Aristotle

School of Hobbes Aristotle

thought

Things are only the way we Things are the way they are →
Reality perceive them Even if we do not perceive them
like that

We are not naturally social Humans are naturally social →

Social nature → Political communities are We always tend to the formation
formed in a way of stopping of political communities
the state of nature

➢ Absolutism → Only way of keeping the community secure

■ We have to give up to all of our rights → Give them to a ruler → As
men are constantly in conflict → If we don’t give all our power to a
ruler → Conflicts
■ Social contract → Agreement that people accept when they enter in a
political community → Give up to our rights for the seek of order
■ For the seek of peace → We do not have to revolve → Even if we have a
tyranny → We have to just deal with it in order to achieve peace

John Locke
General information:
❖ Book: Two Treatises of Government
❖ Release: 1689 (17th century)
❖ Movement: Liberalism
❖ Historical context:
➢ English Civil War → Disputes between Crown and Parliament → About how
England, Scotland and Ireland should be governed → Religious and social
dimensions
 His philosophy strongly influenced the culmination of the Civil War → As his
ideas were represented in the Bill of Rights
❖ Main points:
➢ Nature of men:
■ Social →
■ Men’s natural state of nature → Not constant conflict → Positive
human point of view

Naturally → People unite in political communities (Principle of major

→ Legitimity comes from the consent of the majority → Hobbes and
Locke believe that for achieve political communities → Social contract
(Main similarity with Hobbes) → You give your rights to the
government or political community itself) → To protect the 3 main
principles of humans:
● Life
● Freedom
● Property

Main reason for joining them → It is necessary to have a third

objective part to be impartial and judge what happens (In case there is
a problem between two people in the state of nature)

But in case the government becomes a tyranny → We should revolve

→ Because of this → Right to bear weapons → To be able to revolve
against the government

To avoid this → Rule of law → Law is the same for everyone → Even
the government is under the law

He even slightly talks about division of powers → But Montesquieu

divides them better → As Locke says there’s only two branches of
government (He omitted the judicial branch of power)
➢ Principle of legality
■ For law to be applied → It must be public → You can be punished for a
law that was not common knowledge
■ You can not be punished for a law that has been made after you
committed the crime

Montesquieu
General information:
❖ Book: The Spirit of the Laws
❖ Release: 1748 (18th century)
❖ Movement: Liberalism
❖ Historical context:
➢ Montesquieu was born in France and formed part of the movement of the
Enlightenment → He was capable of developing his ideas and books because
he was part of a family of the nobility → Allowing him to study and have
 access to great sources of education → Because of this, he could had access to
Locke (A philosopher that influenced Montesquieu)
❖ Main points:
➢ He bases his thesis in Locke → He shares a lot of beliefs with him
➢ He develops the division of power introduced by Locke → Locke introduces
the division of power between the legislative and executive branches, but
Montesquieu developed this idea and added the judicial branch
➢ Judges:
■ They have to act following the law (Impartial and objective) → No
opinion → Judges are the voice of the law
■ Judges can not be set forever → They have to change (You can not be a
judge for ever or be forever in the same are, judges have to keep
changing)

Constitution, bill of rights and declaration of independence

Some authors influenced the different documents:
❖ English Bill of Rights: 1689 → Inspired by Locke → Written by the Parliament
➢ Even though it was inspired by Locke → Traditions were stronger that some
new ideologies → Because of this there was no separation between religion
and state
❖ American Declaration of Independence: 1776 → Inspired by Locke → Written by the
Congress of the founding fathers (Second Continental Congress)
➢ They introduced better the new ideologies or ways of thinking of Locke by
separating religion from state and by not giving too much power to the state
and allowing a revolution against the state in case it’s necessary
❖ French Declaration of the Rights of Men: 1789 → Inspired by Montesquieu →
Written by the National Assembly of France
➢ There’s also a separation of religious power from state → Introduced by Locke
and developed by Montesquieu (Because of Montesquieu being and defending
his thesis in french → It was more accessible for the french citizens) → But as
Montesquieu says mostly the same than Locke but developed, it is not that
different from the other constitutions or declarations
❖ American Bill of Rights: 1791 → Inspired by Locke → Written by the Congress
(Madison)
➢ Separation of religion and state → Introduced and influenced by Locke → But
as the founding fathers were christians → You can see a christian influence in
its development → For example → The constant references to God
➢ The right to bear weapons → Locke defends that in case there’s a tyranny,
citizens should reveal against the government → Because of this there is a
right to bear arms
Some ways of differentiating them:
❖ English Bill of Rights:
➢ First paragraphs and the middle ones → How the kings didn’t respect some
basic elements:
➢ By… something
■ By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament
■ By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace
without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law
 ■ By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative
for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament
➢ And… something
■ And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases
to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects
■ And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted
➢ That… something
■ That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by
regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal
■ That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of
peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law
■ That election of members of Parliament ought to be free
❖ American Declaration of Independence:
➢ First paragraphs → Our creator gave us the right of life, liberty and happiness,
and when the ruler starts ignoring and decreasing this rights in people it is
necessary to reveal
➢ He… something
■ He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures
■ He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be
elected
■ He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose
of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures
■ He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good (Assent to Laws → The king needed to give his permission
➢ For… something
■ For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world
■ For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
■ For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
➢ After trying on numerous occasions to talk with the English government and
get to better conditions and solve the problems → They ignored us → Because
of this → We have to reveal
❖ French Declaration of the Rights of Men:
➢ Rights were profaned
➢ 17 rights → Not complicate words → Easy to understand → Less specific and
more abstract → Talks about elements as liberty and freedom
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be
founded only upon the general good
2. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to
participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It
must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being
equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all
public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without
distinction except that of their virtues and talents
3. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious
views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order
established by law
❖ American Bill of Rights:
➢ 10 principles → A subtitle before explaining
 1) Freedom of Religion, speech, assembly and petition:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances
2) Militia-Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
➢ New amendments → More difficult to understand than the french ones →
Some of them preceded by “Section” X
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
2. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude

Marbury vs Madison
❖ Date: 1803
❖ Important concepts:
➢ Writ of Mandamus: Paper that authorizes the court to go against the law and
do something different (This’d be a solution for Marbury)
➢ Rule of law: Everyone is under the law and that law should provide you a
solution
➢ Juridical review (Parament law): Compare the law or cases to the constitution
→ Pyramid → If a law is unconstitutional → OUT
❖ Main event:
➢ It all started when Jefferson defeated Addams in the elections of 1800
➢ Before being defeated (He was the former president) he started naming a
large number of judges, whose appointments were signed by the president
and approved by the senate
➢ However, before all these judges could start working, a commission was
needed (A paper that explains the judges all their duties and a confirmation of
its role), but this commissions were not delivered
➢ When Jefferson defeated Addams and Addams had to leave the government,
Jefferson decided not to send this commissions and he asked Madison, the
secretary of his state to hide them
➢ However, one of all these judges named Marbury, decided that he wanted to
start working and brought the case to the Supreme Court
➢ Marbury wanted to have a Writ of Mandamus, so Madison could give him his
commission (The case was ruled by Marshall, a federalist appointed by
Addams)
➢ At the end of the case it was stated that the Supreme Court did not have the
power to take the comissions out from Madison’s hands

Conventions and human rights’ declarations

❖ European Convention
❖ African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
 ❖ American Convention
❖ A Rough Guide to the Regional Human Rights Systems
❖ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ICCPR
❖ International Human Rights

IMPORTANT:
- Soft vs hard law
- Differences between the general and regional ones
- Created but a non-judicial or juridical (As an international or regional court)

Roe vs Wade
❖ Date: 1973
❖ Important points:
➢ Each constitution has a moral aim → Common good, the freedom of all
citizens, the security of the state, achievement of welfare with a minimum
protection of human rights…
➢ General legal situation → Texas → Abortion was illegal unless it interfered in
the life of the mother
➢ Several discussions → Debate between if it is an objective interpretation
following the constitution or if it has a moral analysis that intervened in the
decision:
■ The constitution itself doesn’t talk about the right of abortion nor
privacy → But → Therre are reasons to prove that the right of privacy
is in the constitution:
● Taking any amendments and applying them to a right of
privacy
Ex: Freedom of religion (1st amendment) → Religion is a
private topic, so having the freedom to choose your religion is
having the privacy of religion or of thought

Ex2: In the freedom of religion → Religion is something that

shape who we are as it changes our way of thinking and our
own identity → This means in general that we should have the
freedom and the right to decide in terms of all the decisions
that affect the formation of who we are → Because of this both
privacy and the right of abortion its kind of incorporated in the
constitution
● It is not only looking at each amendment separately → But if
you look at them as a general picture, in a systematic
interpretation → We can find the right of privacy (Specifically
on amendment 14 and amendment 9)
◆ Amendment 9: A fact that a right is not literally
mentioned, doesn’t mean it’s not denied → But… How
do we prove that privacy and abortion are a right? With
amendment 14
◆ Amendment 14: The most useful amendment in the
american constitution → No person shall be deprived
by any state of their life, liberty, or property, without
 due process of law → You can be deprived of your life,
liberty of property WITHOUT A DUE PROCESS OF
LAW → This is the same as amendment 5 (Use in
federal cases) → But if you are taking a case of a state or
local law, you use 14

This comes out from Locke → As he believes that life,

property and liberty should be protected but can be
deprived following the law → But it shouldn’t be
deprived if there isn’t a fair trial (Equal to everyone) →
This is because there is a substantial way → As it is
necessary that they are reasonable → Because of this
there has to be a legal and faire process (Moral
conception) → It is important to have a moral
conception in the life changing decisions

Conclusion → Even though it is not literally implicit → Privacy is a right

according to the constitution
➢ If the fetus is or it is not a legal person → As we are talking about going
against a life → Following also the amendment 14 → The fetus has the right of
life (There’s no right of killing other people → No constitution defends this) →
Because this → Roe had to defend it wasn’t a person according to the
constitution → Main argument → The constitution nowhere recognizes nor
mentions the recognition of the fetus as a person → Therefore it does not exist
(But this is not coherent as the argument for saying that abortion is legal is by
saying that even though privacy is not recognized literally, it is a right)

Hervada
General information:
❖ Book: Critical Introduction to Natural Right
❖ Release: 1981
❖ Movement: Natural law tradition
❖ Historical context:
Franco’s dictatorship → Hervada lived in Spain during his dictatorship (From his
birth up to 1975), so he experienced a strong censorship, a strong division of citizens,
and even terrorist attacks such as the ones made by the basque terrorist group named
ETA.
❖ Main points:
➢ Legal personhood → 3 approaches:
■ Scientific: Who is a member of the human species? Which component
makes us humans? → Ex: Biology
■ Legal: What is legally considered to be a person? Even though scientist
can say that a fetus is or is not a person, it will only matter what it is
considered legally
● University declaration of rights:
◆ Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human
rights
 Hervada deffends that every human being is a holder of
rights, as in the natural law everyone is equal →
Everyone has rights = Everyone is a person →
Principle of equality)

Universality of natural law: “Natural law is equal and

the same for all human beings and for all peoples”

Naturally, everyone is equal in rights (The laws created

for human beings are the ones that sometimes might go
against the human rights)
◆ Article 2: Everyone is allowed to have access to all the
rights without distinction regarding sex, language,
origin…
➢ Legal personhood: The capacity of being a
holder of rights

First you have to be considered a person to have

access to all rights → If you don’t have access to
rights you are not a person

But which rights? The universal declaration of

human rights talks about the rights named in
the article
◆ Article 6: It extends to not only this declaration of
rights → It states that this is going to be applied
everywhere → National legal systems should afford
legal personhood to everyone that's under these
characteristics → It forces states to include it in their
own constitutions
◆ Why does it not include the right of breathing air?
Because it is not possible to avoid it, you do it no matter
what → And why is article 6 specified? Because
sometimes it is avoid

Ex: Germany in the 2WW denied the jews the right of

citizen → Once they are no longer citizens → They have
no more rights
Ex2: Slavery → It is not only that slavery was no
recognized legally → Philosophers itself did not
recognize their rights → There was no one fighting for
their rights → There are authors that still nowadays
believe that legal personhood should be limited to some
people
■ Philosophical: Why should people be dignified and have a special treat
different from other species and objects? What makes humans that
 precious that makes them have rights? → It talks about what makes a
person different from animals, plants and objects

“Since humans are persons, their dignity, which derives from their
beings and their ends, demands that they act and be treated in certain
specific ways. These rules constitute the natural law” → For being
people, humans deserve to be treated in a certain way → Moreover,
following the natural law → All human beings deserve to be treated
equally (Principle of equality)
➢ Laws allow us:
■ It allows us to respect people → Would we have the same way of
behaving if the law wasn’t there?
● Hobbes: We would be like animals that behave only following
the laws of nature → Chaos → We only comply with laws to
avoid this chaos and feel more secure (For fear and self
interest)
● Hervada: Laws are not the only reason why we respect people
→ There is natural law

Natural law: “In politics and in law, as in morality, there are

things which do not pertain to opinion but to the truth, since
they are objective realities. This (...) is summarized in human
nature and in natural law” → Natural law exists (He has the
same point of view as Antigone) → Naturally, the human
beings have the capacity of knowing what is right and wrong,
and apart from the laws, there is an objective moral criteria
that is inherent in humans

“The person is born only with a correct disposition of reason

((...) syndresis) by which it is infallible understood that the
good must be done and evil avoided”

Because of this, we have to know the moral reason of each law

in order to be convinced about them and to have a more stable
reason for complying with them → In case the law is immoral
or unjust we should not follow it

Unjust law: “Such an immoral or unjust “law” is not a true

law which morally binds a person”

In the case of the human laws being unjust or immoral (As

previously explained) → This law can not consider a true law
(As it makes people think that following the law and, in
consequence, doing something morally wrong, is right → It
blinds people)
■ It allow us to have a criteria and a moral standpoint → As sometimes
law can be wrong (Ex: The case of Roe vs Wade vs the actual case) →
The same law, the same constitution, but different results (A different
 anthropological point of view) → Different interpretations of the same
text → Because of this it is important to have a moral standpoint to be
able to judge the law and have your own opinion → In the case of the
law being immoral or unjust, we have to go against it and follow the
natural law
■ It allows us to be free (Because they look after our security, and be
secure allow us to be free)
■ It allow us to communicate freely (Freedom of speech, for example) →
A common knowledge between dogmas and cultures (It does not
matter which culture or religion you are part of) → It goes ahead of
religion
● Ex: American Declaration of Independence → It also refers to
God → Recognizing human dignity in every human being as
they are images of God

But this is not an effective argument as a lot of people does not

believe in God → Because of this laws should not include
religion
➢ Natural sociability: “The theory of social agreement (...) is impossible.
Nothing cultural is possible for humans (...) if a natural basis does not exist”
→ Humans are naturally social → If it wasn’t for that we wouldn’t be living in
a society based on a social agreement

Mill
General information:
❖ Book: On liberty
❖ Release: 1859
❖ Movement: Utilitarianism
❖ Historical context:
19th century → In Europe there were revolutionary phases that began at the end of
the 18th century in France, and that in less than a hundred years transformed the
continent from the Old Regime system, with some old values and obsolete methods,
to the new modern liberal system, characterized by the configuration of capital as the
new element of power (More money, more power) and the expansion of the economy.
Likewise, the political systems tended towards democratization and the principle of
democratic representation.

❖ Main points:
➢ Two different types of interactions:
■ Private sphere: Which should not be regulated by the State
■ Public sphere: Which is and should be regulated by the State (The
areas of intervention of the State → Boundaries → are not completely
clear)

Mill himself draws the borderlines between one and another following a anti
paternalism point of view:
■ If the public affairs take decisions in order to protect other people
(Look after the common good) → Mill approves it
 ■ If the public affairs take decisions in order to protect us from ourselves
→ Mill does not approve ir (Harm principle)
➢ Different stages of society:
■ Absolutism: Only a minority could rule → The only way of protecting
human rights was to revolt
■ Democracity: The majority rules the society → And people do not act
following a natural moral criteria (As Hervada would have said) →
They decide following their likes and dislikes, and this interests can
change

"There is no natural / objective / universal ground for moral

conceptions, but only the power to foster one's own" likes and dislikes"

So, if a large group of people rule in our current society, and there is
no objective criteria of protecting human rights, how do we protect the
individuals?
● Limiting the State so it can only intervene in the public sphere:
◆ “The only part of anyone’s conduct for which is
answerable to society is the part that concerns others.
Over his own body and mind the individual is
sovereign” → Everyone is free until his actions affect
others (Harm principle)
● The fundamental rights are those related to the protection of
the private sphere
◆ Right of securing “The inward domain of
consciousness” (Religion, political thought)
◆ Right of securing those actions that allow us to “shape
our lives” (Property, freedom of expression, basic civil
rights...)
◆ Rights securing our liberty of association (Political
affiliation)
➢ Utilitarianism approach (The best thing to do is the one that brings the
biggest common good) → Relativism → So a right is only recognized if its
recognition is useful for the social progress
➢ Mill’s problem → Self contradiction → We base our rights in the likes and
dislikes of the population → Unstable → Because likes change
■ If the majority likes our rights → We have them
■ If the majority dislikes our rights → We don’t have them

Rawls
General information:
❖ Book: Theory of Justice
❖ Release: 1971
❖ Movement: Liberalism
❖ Historical context:
American liberalism → He was born in the 20th century, a period in which
America was the key country in terms of political importance. He also got to
fight for his country in the army → As someone who participated in the
 Second World War and the Cold War, he saw the damage that fascisms and
communism can cause on people.
❖ Main points:
➢ Contractualism → Political manners should be agreed by the citizens in a
contract (As Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Mill):
➢ He has different elements from the previous thinkers:
■ Locke and Montesquieu: Division of powers
■ Locke: Fundamental rights
■ Mill: Anti Paternalism
■ Rousseau: Democracy
➢ How do we find Human Rights in a society that has diverse morals and
culture?
■ Locke and Mill: Only spoke about societies of one culture or ethnicity:
They were all western societies that had inherited Christianity and
enlightened ideas.
■ Rawls wants that we all agree in Human Rights for moral reasons even
if our moral reasons are different (It does not matter our religion or
culture → We all have to agree in human rights) → This moral
agreement is called overlapping consensus
➢ Theory of justice → He creates a philosophical debate based on the
following experiment (The veil of ignorance) in order to create a political
system for multicultural societies (And in this way leave behind the relativism
and utilitarianism of Mill)
■ Imagine a group of people that do not know anything about the
particular talents, abilities, tastes, social class, and positions they have.
What type of rights (justice) would they assure in a society?
In hierarchical order:
● Freedom of expression, association, freedom to vote…
● Equality of opportunities and, at some point, of resources
He defines this two types of rights as the definition of justice (Justice
= Freedom + Equality of opportunities)

He believes that all societies (even the multicultural ones) can live
together if this principle of justice is preserved → It does not matter
how many points of their culture do not match, if everyone accepts
doctrines following the justice principle, the society will work
(Overlapping consensus) (Multicultural social groups + Justice =
Equilibrium)

However, if the cultural value goes against the concept of justice, it

would not fit
Ex: Muslim fundamentalism → As it goes against the concept of
freedom
➢ Anti-perfectionism: States can not force a moral ideology
➢ Critics to other authors:
■ Mill:
● Utilitarianism says there are no absolute rules (Which means
that there are no absolute rights) → Rawls believes that there
 are absolute rights such as freedom and equality of
opportunities (Justice), and not having justice will make the
society fail
● The end justifies the means → If everyone achieves their goals
without caring about the means the society will be a chaos:
◆ Sometimes while not caring about the mean you can
cross the boundaries of your freedom and affect
someone else
◆ Sometimes while not caring about the mean you can
contribute at making the world less equal in terms of
opportunities for all the ones that decide that the mean
does not justify the ends

The end justifies the means = No justice

■ Locke:
● Too close to the natural law tradition: As Rawls believes there
is nothing morally established → In a society where a lot of
cultures and moral points live with each other
● Rationalism: As Locke defends that reality is something
objective → Rawls defends that the more objectively and truly
reality comes with a mix of different perspectives and
experiences that allow us to explain reality better

Marx
General information:
❖ Book: The Holy Family
❖ Release: 1845
❖ Movement: Marxism/Communism
❖ Historical context:
Industrialization → There was a class struggle as the working class was being
oppressed by the bourgeoisie (As they were treated as means in the productive
process with the only objective of making money for the bourgeoisie), and they
needed to be liberated. In this context he wrote with Engels the Communist
Manifesto.
❖ Main points:
➢ Main idea → The actual society is not working (society, as the bourgeoisie
abuses the proletariat; the economy, as the bourgeoisie alienates the work
from the proletariat for obtaining and income (Liberalism); and the politics,
as they promote this hierarchy), and it is through this conflict between the two
classes that the society moves forward → The proletariat has to revolt against
it to achieve a new society in which everyone is equal → The communist
society
➢ Structure: The economic and social productive relationship (The base of
society) → Even though the relation between politics and society has
importance too, it does not shape us as much as the economic one, as all the
social interactions and relations are reduced to economic interactions (Idea
for which he is criticized)
■ Elements:
 ● The owners of the means of production (Bourgeoisie: The
owners of capital $)
● The workers (Proletariat: The ones who work for owning a
salary)
➢ Superstructure: The privilege class has created these ideologies to control
and manipulate the lower classes (As they know the lower classes are enough
to revolt against them if they didn’t fool them → They use ideologies to
control them without using violence by shaping our consciences) → (Culture,
religion, law, politics, social morality…)
■ Human rights → They are a social construction (Especially the
individual ones) → Ideas such as privacy and dignity are ideas created
by the bourgeoisie in order to benefit themselves
● Ex: Privacy → That’s a moral conception created by the people
of resources to create the concept of property so they could
keep the money
● Ex2: Freedom → We’re not choosing what to believe in, we are
actually choosing who to serve → We should be able not to
believe in anything (Ex: Freedom of religion → Freedom from
religion)

“We should not have ‘the freedom’ to choose what to believe in

[we are actually choosing who to serve], true freedom would be
the right to choose not to believe in anything. We should be
freed from religion, not of religion”
■ God → Religions are a way of justifying all the other ways of
controlling created by the bourgeoisie
■ Constitutional modern State:
● The division of powers is a way that liberal man had to assure
they get a minimum of power (It is better for them if a few
people have power than only one person getting all the power)
● The elimination of the private laws back in the feudal times →
As in that moment they were created by many (Gremios,
church, state…) → But they decided to monopolized the
creation of laws to make it easier to control the working class
➢ He identifies with Hobbes → The solution to the state of nature is to install an
absolute state with no right to privacy
​
Aristotle
General information:
❖ Book: Politics
❖ Release: S. IV B.C
❖ Movement: Natural law tradition
❖ Historical context:
Alexander the Great → He was lucky enough to live in a period with such important
figures such as the Persian king (Alexander the great), to whom Aristotle tutored and
Plato, Aristotle’s tutor → This was strongly related with Aristotle as the death of
Alexander the Great forced Aristotle to moved out from Athenas to avoid being killed
(As Socrates)
❖ Main points:
➢ The first political institution was the family (Family → Village → State), and
as the state is an extension of the family, its creation is something natural

■ Family → “The family is the association established by nature for the

supply of men’s everyday needs and wants”
■ Village → “when several families are united, and the association aims
at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to
be formed is the village”
■ State → “when several villages are united in a single complete
community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state
comes into existence”

He goes against the social contract defended by many authors before (Hobbes,
Locke, Mill…) → Aristotle believes that the state is something natural and that
men is for nature a political animal
➢ Man is by nature a political animal:
■ The gift of speech and reason
■ Capacity of differentiating just and unjust (Animals can only
distinguish pleasure from pain, and they act in consequence: looking
for pleasure and avoiding pain = Instinct) → This capacity is what help
them to order the society
■ Social by nature → When he is isolated, he can not be self-sufficient
(He needs others) → Oblies them to live in society → Men working
perfectly in society is the best of all animals, while men separated is
the worst of all animals
➢ Forms of government: Depends on the qualities of the government (If it is
good or corrupt) and quantity (One ruler, a few…)

ONE MAN FEW MEN MANY MEN

GOOD Kingship/Royalty Aristocracy Constitution

BAD Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

➢ Democracy: Both Plato and Aristotle did not trust democracies → As it led to
the death of Socrates → It was dangerous for people with no criteria no
formation to vote
■ Rich people: They should not vote as they always want more
■ Poor people: They should not vote as they have:
● Lack of formation (Influenceable)
● Tendency to rebel and provoke violence
■ Middle class: The best choice as it is not an extreme point (The
extremes are never good), so they have the good points of the previous
two and not that many of their negative points

They are the ones who respect the law the best and, therefore, the ones
that should have that right (Aristotle defended that not all humans are
 holders of rights, only the citizens, as the aim of securing those rights
is to live virtuously in community → If you do not live in that
community, there’s no reason for securing those rights)

Aquinas
General information:
❖ Book: Summa Theologica
❖ Release: 1485
❖ Movement: Natural law tradition
❖ Historical context:
Scholasticism (beginning about XIth or XIIth century)
This era was characterized by events such as:
➢ Translation of Arabic and ancient Greek works which opened Europe to tons
of new philosophy
➢ The foundation of universities leads to more philosophical debates rather
than just “learning and repeating”
➢ There was a need to justify God’s existence through reasoning (It was not
something absolute as it was before)
❖ Main points:
➢ Main concept → He went back to the Ancient Greek Philosophy and mixed it
with Christianism
➢ Main statement → “Do good and avoid evil” (Basic moral task)
➢ Law: Rational rule and measure of acts (A rational and objective way of
measuring acts that has to lead to the common good) → But, as each
community has different final common goods (Different main objectives) →
Different types of law:
■ Eternal law: It is the law granted by God’s reason, which is not
variable, and which governs all things in the universe (Divine part)
■ Natural law: It is the rational creatures’ law, a part of the eternal law
which is accessible to reason and which states what is good and what is
bad (Moral part)
■ Human law: It is the law made by human leaders, which seeks to
pursue common good and virtue. It cannot contradict the natural law
nor prejudice the common good; else, it is unjust and not worth
obeying

If the law is unjust, it does not have the power to blind the natural
conscience of differentiating the good and evil → By nature we know
what is right and wrong and we are able to know when a law is unjust
and, in consequence, when we should not follow it
■ 3 final questions:
● Who’s a holder of rights?
All human beings
● What rights do we hold?
We hold rights regarding our property (The right above
everything that is ours)
● Should these rights be limited?
No, only if they go against the natural law
 ● Are rights absolute or relative?
Absolute rights

Gómez Lobo
General information:
❖ Book: Morality and the Human Goods
❖ Release: 2001
❖ Movement: Natural law tradition
❖ Historical context:
American liberalism → He was born in the 20th century, a period in which
America was the key country in terms of political importance. He lived
through the Second World War and the Cold War, and he could see all the
damage wars could cause on human rights. However, his main influence are
the classical authors
❖ Main points:
➢ Human goods:
■ He has some questions:
● Which are those good things?
● How do we know they are truly good?
● Good for whom?
■ He has some obstacles:
● The first one → What is good for us? Uncertainty and
ignorance about our future
● The second one → How do we differentiate apparent goods and
real goods? → Something that seems good but it is not and
something that is really good (Subjectivist Theory)

We need a criteria as an instrument to separate good from bad

→ He thinks of a mathematical method → “X is a human good,
Y is an instance of X, then Y is good'' → (My interpretation is
that once we know or distinguish a human good (X), all its
derivations (Y) will also be good”)
■ He differentiates 7 human goods:
● Human life: Death appears to be the worst of all → If death is
the ultimate evil → life has to be the ultimate good.

Some people may see life as something bad: poverty, illness,

sociallive, Euthanasia… But life is something neutral, as life
happens, both bad and good things take place.
● Family: There is a huge controversy as so many marriages fail
nowadays. (Single parent families, abusive parents…)
However, it is still a human good

Is it better for a child to be brought up in an orphanage?

Is it better for a man to be alone rather than having a wife with
whom to have lots of savage sex, sons to love...
● Friendship: Three basic ingredients for a friendship to be long
and lasting:
 ◆ Affection
◆ Reciprocity
◆ Wishing the best to each other

Taking into account these 3 ingredients it is even absurd to ask

if friendship is something good.
● Work and play: We may see work as something good because
of the income it provides, but the true reason why working is a
human good is because it help us to:
◆ Foster our capacities
◆ Feel useful
◆ Relax (In the case of playing)
● Religion: If God does not exist then religion is an illusory good
→ It is pretty relative

Bad:Religion might be seen as something bad as it may lead to

intolerance, segregation and fanaticism.
Good: Religion needs God's existence to be proved and
consider something positive
● Knowledge: We may know many things, but we always tend to
focus on those that interest us more (Practical knowledge).
Even more nowadays, with the explosion of information that
has taken place (internet).

On the other side → Theoretical thinking → We could consider

theoretical thinking as something bad as it is never pleasant to
know you have a deadly illness or that your wife is being ridden
by other guys when she “goes to church”. But, is ignorance
better? Sometimes reality may turn out to be a
disappointment.
● Integrity: This term can be considered as bringing practical
thinking to our actions. For instance renouncing a higher goal
just to spend more time with your family, that’s why it is
considered to be good.
➢ Citations:
■ Moral philosophy: “The “original setting”, then, is is this imaginary
conversation in which we try to justify to each other certain moral
claims by means of objective reasons”
■ Golden Rule: “An interesting corollary (...) of the suggestion that
moral discussions can establish general claims is the so called “Golden
Rule”: Do not do to others what you would not like to have done to
you”
■ Animals and morality: “Animals are not moral agents and so can have
none of the duties moral agents can have”
■ Formal Principle: “One should pursue what is good, and one should
avoid what is bad”
■ Real Human Goods: “X is a basic human good, and if Y is an instance
of X, then Y is a real good”