Why it is necessary to define the term RIGHTS--The right in
itself defined to be _the good_--The doctrine that the will of
God is the origin of the right considered--The will of God not
the origin of the right, but an expression of _the right_ which
is the good--Natural rights and acquired rights, each defined.
There are questions which lie back of this discussion--errors, as I
think, which underlie the popular ideas of both government and rights.
We should not consider that we had fully met the difficulties of the
subject if we passed them by.
Domestic slavery, it is said, is an abridgment of inalienable rights;
and legitimate government is a voluntary concession of certain
alienable rights.
Natural rights are, of course, such as are inherent in the
constitution of man: inalienable, because in point of fact he cannot
be substantively deprived of them. The law which in any case provides
to do this, treats him as though he were not a rational, but a mere
sentient being--and therein alienates his rights. Domestic slavery is
said to treat the slave as a mere chattel, a thing, not an entity, and
hence deprives him by provision of law of the right of being treated
as a rational being as he is, and not a mere thing. This is said,
because it places his time and labor at the disposal of another man.
How far this reproach is just, turns upon a definite answer to the
question--_What are rights?_
“_Government is a voluntary concession of certain alienable rights._”
If this concession be made by the majority of the citizens, the
government is called republican; if otherwise, it is called despotic.
In this theory of government, certain rights are assumed to be given
up, in order to secure other and more important rights. I have shown
government to embody, of necessity, two great abstract principles in
harmonious operation--though, in their essential nature, the one
antagonizes the other. Now the principle of slavery--_control by the
will of another_--certainly operates an abridgment of the exercise of
_self-control_, which is the principle of liberty. And so far as the
principle of slavery operates, in any given instance of government, is
that, in such instance, a giving up, to that extent, of the right of
_self-control_, in order to secure a _right_ to the _self-control_
which remains ungiven up? Is this so? This question also turn upon
the solution of that other question--What are rights?
And again, _self-control_, we say, is the principle of liberty.
Practical freedom is the exercise of the _right_ of self-control. How
far does the right of self-control extend? I say that an instance in
which a body of men emerged from a state of nature, (so called,) and
formed a government by an original act, is unknown to history. It
never occurred. Man was placed originally by Jehovah himself under
political law. The very moment that he placed the first being in a
relation to another by giving him a “_helpmeet_,” he gave him a law to
govern that relation, as we have seen; and all the subsequent acts of
men in the matter of government-making, have been such modifications
of the existing form of government as they supposed would better suit
their circumstances. But it is said that when society meets in
convention to agree upon certain principles called a constitution,
under which the laws shall be made, men do virtually, for the time
being, resolve themselves into their original position or state
without government; and that the constitution so formed is virtually
an original formation. Well, for the sake of the argument, let it be
so. When, therefore, society thus falls back upon its original
position, men stand upon the basis of what are supposed their
_original rights_! What is that? Why, the right that each man has to
do as he may please. They form a government: that is, give up a part,
more or less, of their _original right_. Of course a part remains
ungiven up, and the giving up cannot be to secure the possession of
that which is already in possession! What is it that invests these
questions with difficulty? Is it not the ambiguity of the term rights?
Let us then define _rights_, if we would not be for ever entoiled by
these absurdities.
And still again: Is liberty the right of self-control? Is not
man--accountable man--free in virtue of his very humanity? Does this
freedom imply absolute liberty? If so, absolute liberty is inherent in
his very constitution--it is inalienable. What right, then, can he
have to give it up, or any part of it? If so, he has the right to do
that which subjectively he cannot do. If, then, government be a
concession of the _right_ of self-control in this sense, it is the
concession of an inalienable right, and should be abandoned as a piece
of folly.
It is entirely obvious, therefore, that we cannot advance in these
inquiries at all without first settling the question, _What are
rights?_
The English language is allowed to be one of great power, compass, and
accuracy, and therefore eminently adapted to reasoning. It derives
this quality in a good degree from its flexibility, the different
varieties of idea, and often the different shades of meaning in these
varieties that may be expressed by one word. No language is supposed
to compare with it in this respect. But whilst this adapts it to the
purpose of correct reasoning, it opens also a wide field for errors in
argument. Men usually differ widely in _opinion_, but they do not
often differ in sentiment. All intelligent and good men _feel right_,
and _mean right_. They often differ in opinion because they differ in
the meaning they attach to the language, the same language, which is
the medium through which each views the same subject. Different men
use the same word in different senses. The same man often uses the
same word by habit in different senses in the same connection. They
come to different conclusions, of course, and the same man often
entoils himself by his own argument. Now, there are few words with
which men have more to do in discussions and opinions about liberty
and government--the next most important matters to personal
religion--than with the word _rights_; and there are few words which
are capable of more varied application, and which are in truth oftener
applied to express different shades of meaning, than this word
_rights_. Webster gives correctly some forty different meanings of
this term, together with several subordinate senses in which it
occurs, all of which are in common use. _Our_ language--and of what
language is not the same true?--our literature, our theology, our
politics--society on all sides--is bristling with _rights_! Now, is it
not obvious that there must be some generic idea which classifies all
the different meanings and applications of this term, and which has
its foundation in the common sense, the common reason of all mankind?
If, then, we inquire what are our rights in any given case, this
question directly involves that other and ultimate question, What is
_the right_ in itself? the solution of which solves at once the
general question in regard to all cases. And although the case in
which our _rights_ may appear must be first in point of time before
our minds, to call up our idea of _the right_, still our definite
antecedent idea of the right is the logical condition on which we
determine whether the right appears in that case.
Call then, to your mind, an instance of justice, and one of injustice:
a case of virtue and a case of crime: an example of heroism and an
example of weakness: does not each of these cases embody, the one
class your idea of the _right in itself_, and the other your idea of
the _wrong in itself_? But your conception of the cases in which your
antecedent idea of the _right_ and the _wrong_ appears, and your
antecedent idea of _that right_ and of _that wrong_, are very
different ideas: that is, the case itself and your idea of the
principle are distinct: the one a thing, the other an idea of
something real. What, then, is your idea of the _right_, which is so
distinct in your mind from the case in which it appears? Interrogate
your reason and consciousness. Interrogate the reason and
consciousness of all mankind.
Take this example: “The father of _Caius Toranius_ had been proscribed
by the triumvirate. _Caius Toranius_, coming over to the interest of
that party, discovered to the officers who were in pursuit of his
father the place where he concealed himself, and gave withal a
description by which they might distinguish his person when they found
him. The old man, more anxious for the safety and fortunes of his son
than about the little that might remain of his own life, began
immediately to inquire of the officers who seized him, whether his son
were well, whether he had done his duty to the satisfaction of the
generals. ‘That son,’ replied one of the officers, ‘so dear to thy
affections, betrayed thee to us: by his information thou art
apprehended, and diest.’ The officer, with this, struck a poniard to
his heart, and the unhappy parent fell, not so much affected by his
fate as by the means to which he owed it.”[3] Here is an example of
the greatest filial impiety, and of the highest parental affection.
The one fulfils our idea of _the right_, the other our idea of _the
wrong_. Now, what is this idea of the right and the wrong in which all
are supposed to agree? We would not ask, with the disciple of Paley,
of Condillac, or of Helvetius, what the “wild boy, caught years ago in
the woods of Hanover,” would have thought of this case; nor what the
savage, without experience and without instruction, cut off in his
infancy from all intercourse with his species, would think of it. No:
“the savage state offers us humanity in swaddling-clothes, so to
speak--the germ of humanity, but not humanity entire. The true man is
the perfect man of his kind: true human nature is human nature arrived
at its development.”[4] We utterly deny that, in order to arrive at
the judgment of human nature, we need consult a savage in such
circumstances, or indeed to consult a savage at all. And yet we say
that even a savage of good mind, who has lived long enough in society
to get the idea of the relation of parent and child--such as even
savages have--would pronounce the conduct of the one to be right, and
of the other to be wrong, and have a definite idea of that _right_ and
that _wrong_, each in itself. And we furthermore say, that human
nature cultivated to the highest degree bears the same testimony to
the difference in the conduct of this father and this son, and
attaches essentially the same ideas to that difference. In calling the
one _right_ and the other _wrong_, men say, and they mean to say, that
_the one is good and the other is evil_. This is the uniform judgment
of human reason--the permanent belief of mankind. To this _common
sense_ bears ample testimony. Grammarians have not invented languages.
Government itself dates back of legislators--they have only modified
it. Philosophers have not invented beliefs: without concert, without
conventions, the world has fallen upon certain beliefs, and certain
signs to express these beliefs. In the secret chambers of the soul,
not of any one individual man, but of all men individually,
consciousness bears testimony that such and such is the belief of all
men, and this we call the judgment of common sense; and such is also
her testimony in all languages as to the thing that is _right_, and
that the _right_ in any given case is the idea we have of the _good_
in that case. _The right, then, is the good._
[3] Paley’s Philosophy.--Moral Science.
[4] M. Cousin.
“Right, _rectus_,” says Webster, “straightness, rectitude;” which he
explains to be conformity to rule or law, and that the _will of God_
is the ultimate rule or law which determines the _right_ or the
_wrong_ in all cases. Hence conformity to this rule is the generic
idea of the _right_ in itself, according to Webster. In this view,
Horne Tooke, in his Diversions of Purley, concurs. As his criticism is
ingenious, instructive, and generally truthful, I quote the more
material portion of his article on rights. After telling us in his
dialogue that Johnson only informs us that _right_ is not _wrong_, and
_wrong_ is not _right_, he adds:
“H. RIGHT is no other than RECT_um_, (_regetum_,) the past participle
of the Latin verb _regere_, etc.
“In the same manner, our English word JUST is the past participle of
the verb _jubere_.
“DECREE, EDICT, STATUTE, INSTITUTE, MANDATE, PRECEPT, are all past
participles.
“F. What then is law?
“H. It is merely the past tense and past participle of the Gothic and
Anglo-Saxon verb which means something or any thing laid down as a
rule of conduct. Thus when a man demands his RIGHT, he asks only that
which it is ordered he shall have. A RIGHT conduct is that which is
_ordered_: a RIGHT reckoning is that which is ordered: a RIGHT line is
that which is _ordered_ or _directed_, (not a random extension, but)
the shortest between two points: the RIGHT road is that ordered to be
passed (for the object you have in view:) to do RIGHT is to do that
which is ordered to be done: to be in the RIGHT is to be in such
situation or circumstances as are _ordered_: to have RIGHT or law on
one’s side is to have in one’s favor that which is ordered or laid
down: a RIGHT and JUST action is such an one as is _ordered_ and
_commanded_: a JUST man is such as he is commanded to be--_qui leges
juraque servat_--who observes and obeys the things laid down or
commanded; and the RIGHT hand is that which custom and those who have
brought us up have ordered or directed us to use in preference, when
one hand only is employed; and the LEFT hand is that which is
_leaved_, left, or which we are taught to leave out of use on such
occasions. So that left, you see, is also a past participle.
“F. Every thing, then, that is _ordered_ and _commanded_ is RIGHT and
JUST?
“H. Surely; for that is only affirming that what is _ordered_ and
_commanded_, is _ordered_ and _commanded_.
“F. Now what becomes of your vaunted RIGHTS of man? According to you,
the chief merit of man is obedience; and whatever is ordered and
commanded is RIGHT and JUST. This is pretty well for a _democrat_. And
those have always been your sentiments?
“H. Always; and those sentiments confirm my democracy.
“F. Those sentiments do not appear to have made you very conspicuous
for obedience. There are not a few passages, I believe, in your life,
where you have opposed what was _ordered_ and _commanded_. Upon your
principles, was that RIGHT?
“H. Perfectly.
“F. How now! Was it _ordered_ and _commanded_ that you should oppose
what was _ordered_ and _commanded_! Can the same thing be at the same
time both RIGHT and WRONG?
“H. Travel back to Melinda, and you will find the difficulty easily
solved.” (The people of Melinda are all _left-handed_, i. e., _their
right_ is _our left_. But they are as _right_-handed as we are; for
they use that hand in preference which is _ordered_ by their custom,
and is therefore _their right hand_, and leave out of employ the
other, which is, therefore, their _left_ hand.) “A thing may be at the
same time both RIGHT and WRONG, as well as RIGHT and LEFT. It may be
_commanded_ to be done and _commanded_ not to be done. The law--that
which is _laid down_--may be different by different authorities.
“I have always been most obedient when most taxed with disobedience.
But my RIGHT hand is not the RIGHT hand of Melinda. The RIGHT I
revere is not the right ordered by sycophants: the _jus vagum_, the
capricious command of princes or ministers. I follow the LAW _of God_,
(what is _laid down_ by him for the rule of my conduct,) when I follow
the laws of human nature: which without any human testimony we know
must proceed from God; and upon these are founded the RIGHTS of man,
or what is _ordered_ for man. I revere the constitution and
constitutional laws of England, because they are in conformity with
the LAWS of _God_ and _nature_; and upon these are founded the
rational rights of Englishmen. If princes, or ministers, or the
corrupt sham-representatives of the people, _order_, _command_, or
_lay down_ any thing contrary to that which is _ordered_, _commanded_,
or _laid down_ by God, human nature, or the constitution of this
government, I will still hold fast by the higher authorities. If the
meaner authorities are offended, they can only destroy the body of the
individual, but never can affect the RIGHT, or that which is ordered
by their superiors.”[5]
[5] See his whole article on Rights.
Thus he is found to agree with Webster, that the _will of God_ is the
ultimate _genus_ of the RIGHT. That is RIGHT, which conforms to the
will of God as _laid down in law_--whether that law be a _written
revelation_, nature, or the customs of society, (as in the case of
the _right_ and _left_ hand,) as the exponent of that will--they are
what is ordered in the case, and make the RIGHT. Hence he condemns as
“wretched mummery” the distinction admitted by M. Portalis, between
obedience to a command, and obedience to what is RIGHT and JUST in
itself, and, on the same ground, pronounces it “highly improper” to
say, with Mr. Locke, “God has a RIGHT to do it: we are his creatures.”
For truly if his will be the ultimate _genus_ of RIGHT, then he can
have no _rights_, for there is certainly no superior to whose
_commands_ he conforms in the acts of his will. But precisely at this
point let us take our stand. I affirm on the authority of Scripture,
no less than sound philosophy, (always in harmony,) that _God has_
RIGHTS, and that the distinction of M. Portalis is in many instances
correct; and that hence Tooke, Dr. Paley, (who also concurs in this
view--see his article Rights, in his Moral Philosophy,) Dr. Webster,
with many others of great distinction, strangely err, not in their
etymology of this word, but in that hypothesis by which they make it a
significate of the _will of God_. We cannot agree with them that
RIGHTS and DUTIES which are reciprocal, are resolvable only into the
will of God--have his will alone for their ultimate foundation. I take
ground back of this. True, I say with them--and I claim full credit
in the declaration--that the volitions, the acts of God, are always
RIGHT; but I do not say that his will makes the essential or true
distinction between _right_ and _wrong_. We dare not assume that God,
could, by an act of volition, make the _right_ to be the _wrong_, and
the _wrong_ to be the _right_--good evil, and evil good! It is absurd
to assume that God can do things that are in themselves contradictory.
Omnipotent, we know, he is; but such things are not the objects of
power, any more than things which _are_ the objects of power, are, in
the same sense, the objects of Omniscience. To affirm that he could
make the _right_ to be the wrong, is as _false_ as it would be impious
to affirm that he _would_ do it, if he could--false, because, if he
can, he has not deposited the truth in that great master-work of his
hand, the mind of man; for, by the power of the intuition he has given
us, we are assured that the idea is in itself a gross absurdity. And
if this be not decisive of the question, then neither intuition nor
the deductions of intuition are of any authority. Man is the victim of
a false guide within! He may “eat and drink, for to-morrow he dies!”
There will be no more of him; or, what is worse, he is but a link in a
chain of sentient beings who are governed by a cruel fate, which
regards not the distinctions of _right_ and _wrong_; and he may be
the sport of wickedness in the world to come, as he has been the
victim of deception in this! I think it more than error to reason
thus! I think it profane!
We may take ground back of this--ground as honorable to God as it is
exalting to man and encouraging to his hopes. It is true, that both
rectitude and duty, together with liberty, are resolvable into the
essential good. Or, in other words, _freedom_, _rectitude_, and _duty_
are the modes of thought in which we conceive of the good as existing
in the soul of man, and that they are, each of them, in their distinct
nature and harmonious union, the true ideal of the good--the modes of
thought, also, in which the intuition of man perceives the good in the
case of every moral action which is good. And concerning the good in
itself, which is thus in an humble degree perceived by us, it is
certainly a reality which is immutable and eternal. God did not make
it--nor was it made. It is of the essential nature of God, and
eternal. He is the great impersonation of the good. His will, his
volitions, in all cases, are but the expressions of this high
attribute. His will, therefore, always conforming to the essential
good, is a perfect rule of what is right in itself, and proper to be
observed by us, as a rule of duty or conduct. Such a rule, it will be
seen, is eminently adapted to the wants of humanity; but, at the same
time, his will and the good are different realities. The one is an
essential quality of his holy nature, and the other is, to a certain
extent, an expression of this attribute in the form of volitions. That
the will of God did not make the right in itself, will readily appear.
Is it to be conceived that there ever was a period in eternity past,
when truth was not truth, or when truth did not exist? when _the good_
was not the _good_, or when the good did not exist? But does it not
accord with the clearest teachings of reason, that the truth always
was the truth, and ever will be the truth? that the good always will
be the good? That two and two are equal to four; that to affirm a
thing to be and not to be at the same time is an absurdity and a
contradiction; and that things equal to one and the same thing are
equal to one another, we say are all intuitive truths--we cannot be
mistaken about them. So also in morals: that the truth is good; that
virtue is good; that a good action is not an evil action; and that to
affirm that a good action is not a good action is an absurdity, a
contradiction, we say, _are all intuitions_--_we cannot be mistaken
about them_. But is it not equally intuitive that these things were
always so--that these truths were always truths--the good was always
the good, just as certainly as that they are so now? Then the
_eternity_ of these things is just as certainly an intuition, as that
they exist now is an intuition. Hence the eternity of God, who is the
great impersonation of this high quality, or whose attribute it is, is
an intuitive truth. Hence his will did not make it, for it is absurd
to say that he made himself. His will, therefore, which, in given
cases, is his volition, is but the expression of this essential
quality of his holy nature. Hence his will is a rule of right, because
in all cases it conforms to the good, but it did not make the good.
Therefore the RIGHT, as it conforms to the essential GOOD, is of the
nature of the GOOD. It is properly a significate of the good, and not
a significate of the _will of God_. Things agreeing with one and the
same thing agree with each other. Hence it coincides with the will of
God. But such coincidence does not constitute any thing _right_ in
itself; but it is because, like the will of God, it conforms to, or is
of the nature of, the ESSENTIAL GOOD, _that it is right_. The RIGHT
then, in itself, is the GOOD. The GOOD is the true generic idea which
classifies all the different applications of this term. So far as any
thing is of the nature of the GOOD, it is in itself RIGHT. So far as
any thing, to which the idea of the RIGHT applies, is negative of the
_good_, i. e., is evil, it is WRONG.
The GOOD, therefore, as an ultimate _genus_, is much more extensive in
meaning than the RIGHT. It extends to all _physical_ as well as
_moral_ good. Our subject requires us to consider it only so far as it
applies to humanity. And how far is this? When Jehovah created man, he
pronounced him to be “very good,” i. e., essentially good in the
attributes of his nature. He was created in “his own image: in the
image of God created he him.” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
_man became a living soul_.” That is, he was created a pure spiritual
intelligence. He had a clear and correct perception and judgment of
pure abstract truth, and of the relations of truth; with the
corresponding feelings of obligation to duty, and a power of will
sufficient to control the mental states within the sphere of its
operations. Now, as a pure intelligence, thus endowed, he is within
the limits of his capacity a cause within himself--strictly a
self-acting agent, and hence accountable. And as he was created with a
feeling of obligation to observe the good as a rule in all his
conduct, he was created a subject of duty--he was under obligation to
do, to act; and as in each of these respects, and in all others, he
was created in conformity with the essential good, he was _rectus_,
_right_. All this is implied in that declaration of his essential
nature, as a pure spiritual intelligence, (who was therein made in the
image of God,) which defined him to be “_very good_.” Nor can we think
of this good as a quality or attribute of humanity, without being
conscious, if we reflect closely, of associating in our minds the idea
that the being who personates it is for that reason _free_; that for
that reason he is _rectus_, _straight_, conformed to the good as the
rule, that is, _right_; and that for the same reason he is under
obligation--it is his _duty_ to act according to that rule. Every
instance of moral action that is good implies these ideas: it is
_free_, it is _rectus_, _straight_, and it is done in accordance with
_duty_. In the same sense in which _life_, _sense_, and _motion_ enter
into and so form the comprehension of the creature, animal; so
_liberty_, _rectitude_, and _duty_ form the comprehension of moral
good, so far as it applies to humanity. These are distinct ideas.
Still they coincide, and either implies the others as correlatives.
Hence we say of a _free_ action that it is _good_, implying that it is
at the same time _rectus_, and done in accordance with duty; and of an
action in conformity to a proper rule, that it is _good_, implying at
the same time that it is _free_, and done in accordance with _duty_;
and also of an action in compliance with _duty_, that it is _good_,
implying that it is also _free_, and straight, i. e., conformed to
rule: thus in each case we imply the correlative ideas.
Now, whatever is in my possession by natural endowment is _mine_, in
the strictest sense. Hence, _freedom_ is mine, _duty_ is mine, and
_rectitude_ is mine, because the _good_ is mine, and those are the
elements of the good, each one implying the others.
Hence arises the idea of _natural right_: that is, the _right_ with
which I am endowed by the constitution of my nature as a rational
being. But what is that RIGHT? Evidently, the _good_. The good as an
attribute is in my possession. I am constituted with it and by it.
Hence it is inalienable. Divest me of the good as an attribute of my
nature, i. e., liberty, rectitude, and duty, and I sink at once in the
scale of being: I cease altogether to be a rational or accountable
being.
Let no one imagine that this position conflicts with the well-known
fact that man is a fallen being. For although fallen, he is still
accountable. True, his moral nature is in ruins, but still it is a
moral nature. Though disordered, it is not eradicated. Hence the
restoration by grace is called a conversion; but if the essential
moral nature of man had been destroyed by the fall, and an attribute
of essential evil had taken the place of it, his restoration could not
be called, as it is, a _change_, but should be called in the
strictest sense an _original_ creation. Hence, although man is fallen,
depraved--and we need not object to the strong terms in which this
depravity is usually expressed--still we find that the sentiment of
all mankind is on the side of virtue, on the side of the good; and
that men, though unchanged by sovereign grace, are still required to
be honest, gentlemanly, and in all things regardful of each other’s
rights. We admit of exceptions or modifications of this only in the
case of those in whom humanity has not been fully developed, as before
noticed, and those in civilized life who have so far abused their
moral nature as, in the language of Paul, to fit themselves for
destruction. Therefore, it still remains that the _good_ in the form
of rectitude, _right_, is in some modification an endowment of my
nature: the _right_, in itself, is mine by nature.
But the good, as an attribute, is an _active_ principle. We were
endowed with it for the purpose of movement--for results. It is my
duty to act _right_--straight, or in accordance with the _good_ as a
rule. Hence, whatever is a necessary _condition_ of the operation of
this active principle, the essential good, is in itself a good which
is either in my possession, and hence is mine by possession; or it
_ought_ to be in my possession, and hence is mine by just title.
Hence, to breathe, under all circumstances, together with all physical
motion and the sustenance of the body, which involves the right of
property to a certain extent, each in given circumstances, is the
natural right of every one. So also the right of the embryo-man, the
idiot, the imbecile, the uncivilized, or the savage, to protection and
defence, is a natural right; and for the same reason, to be protected
and defended from certain helpless conditions by others, is the
natural right of every one in all states of humanity. Because each of
these, and of all similar things, is in itself good, being a necessary
condition of the operation of the essential good, and is either in our
possession or ought to be in our possession; each one is also a
_natural right_, the good that is or ought to be in our possession.
But there are _acquired rights_.
It is the _duty_ of man to act, from the very fact that he is endowed
with the attribute of the _good_, which envelops the idea of duty. He
also has _power_ to act from the very same natural constitution. Now,
if he use this _power_ as duty and rectitude indicate that he should
do, all nature teaches, what the Bible confirms, that he will glorify
God, i. e., exemplify his goodness, and therein promote his own
happiness and the happiness of those with whom he is associated; or,
in other words, he will secure for himself and confer upon his
fellows eminent benefits resulting from the performance of his duty.
Now, whatever results to him in this way is certainly his by
possession, or by Divine grant, as much so as any natural _right_; but
these _benefits_, being of the nature of the essential good, (for the
reason that they are _benefits_, are in themselves _right_,) result to
him in the performance of his duty, and therefore are _his rights_.
But the acquisition is made to depend upon the exercise of his
_arbitrary_ volition. If he use this in pursuance of duty, they
follow. If he use it in violation of duty, they do not follow. Hence,
if he realize them at all, either by possession or by title, they are
_acquired_, and therefore are acquired _rights_ or benefits.
Therefore, _acquired rights_ may be defined, such good, in the form of
benefits or privileges, as results from the performance of duty.
Logically, they belong to the class of the essential good called
benefits or privileges, with the “_essential difference_” that they
are such as result from the performance of duty. Any other result,
though in itself of the nature of the essential good, yet, as it
conferred no benefit, could not be said to be _our right_. Capital
punishment, for example, when in accordance with the Divine will, is
in itself of the nature of the essential good; still, it would be an
abuse of language to say, in any ordinary case, that it was the right
of the criminal to be hung! because for no reason that we can imagine
does it confer any benefit or privilege upon the criminal. To be
_acquired rights_, therefore, they must not only be of the nature of
the good--that is, actual benefits--but this good must result from the
performance of duty, and not from the non-performance of duty, as in
the example given.
The definition corresponds with the language of common sense. All men,
in speaking of cases which are supposed to involve the question of
_rights_, employ the term in this sense. You say, of a farmer in a
given case, that he had no _right_ to an abundant harvest: why?
because he neglected his farm: his lands were not properly prepared,
and the growing crop was left open to depredations from stock: that
is, he neglected his duty; he had no _right_ to the benefit of an
abundant harvest. And again, you say to a neighbor, You should have
paid a certain sum of money to A., in a given case. He had a _right_
to the money, because he complied with the conditions on which the
money was to be paid. _He did his duty_, and therefore had a _right_
to the money. Thus, the neglect of duty negatives _right_ in the one
case, and the performance affirms it in the other, according to the
common usage of language.
Another idea which clearly enters into the common and correct use of
this term is that it is reciprocal with _obligation_: that is,
wherever there is a right in one person, there is a corresponding
obligation, _duty_, upon others. If one man has a _right_ to an
estate, others are under obligation, that is, it is their _duty_, to
abstain from it. If the letting of it alone be the result of duty on
the part of others, the enjoyment of it by him must also result from
duty on his part, or the ideas do not coincide: that which was duty in
one set of men would not be duty in another, in regard to the same
thing, and in correlative circumstances. This would be absurd:
therefore, the duty of one set of men to let another alone in the
enjoyment of a certain benefit, implies the correlative idea that they
enjoy the benefit in virtue of doing their duty. Hence, those benefits
which are our rights result to us from the performance of our duty.
The points established in this discussion are:
1. That conformity to what is _ordered_ or commanded is not the true
generic idea of _the right_ in itself. What is ordered or commanded
can only interpret _the right_, when the command itself conforms to
the essential good, as in the case of the Divine will. This is always
_right_, because it so conforms, or is always an expression of the
essential good.
Hence, the _good_ is the true generic idea of _the right_. This alone
can interpret _the right_ in any case. Therefore, although man, in
virtue of his constitution as a pure intelligence, has the _power_ to
do _wrong_, he has not, and never can have, _the right_ to do wrong.
For wrong is the negative of right; and any thing, whether attribute,
quality, opinion, doctrine, or act--every thing, whether moral or
physical--to be _right_, must be of the nature of the _good_: all else
is _wrong, not right_. And it further follows, that the only true
subjective _right_ which any man has to exercise his power of
self-control, is in doing that which is good, and not in doing that
which is evil.