Primacy Of Rights Theories example essay topic

Charles Taylor, a philosopher opposed to the "Primacy of Rights" theories, describes such theories as those which place individual rights above those of society. In other words, he would disagree that the rights of man as an individual supersede the rights of man as a member of a society. Taylor believes that these theories are part of a larger heading that has become known as "Atomism", which he believes characterizes all doctrines pertaining to and based upon the social contract theories of the seventeenth century. This paper will outline Taylor's strategy for arguing against these primacy-of-rights theories, taking into account the importance of the thesis that "man is a social animal".

Taylor begins his argument against primacy-of-rights by defining it as he sees it. He says that "theories which assert the primacy of rights are those which take as the fundamental, or at least a fundamental, principle of their political theory the ascription of certain rights to individuals and which deny the same status to a principle of belonging or obligation " What he means here is that those who promote the primacy of rights theories believe that the right of the individual come before his obligations to society. Or, the rights pertaining to an individual should not take into account his relationship to society. Rather than aiding us, these theorists believe that society is "derivative" to our ultimate goals.

In defining primacy of rights so thoroughly, Taylor is successful in allowing us to see loopholes in its theories. Thus, by stating the stance of the opposition first, he strategically enables us to see his point of view more clearly. This is not ordinary amongst philosophy papers, most of which bring up possible objections to their claims after there argument has concluded. Taylor, however, has already stated all the objections to his claim from the start, thus enabling him to move quickly into his stance against primacy of rights.

To solidify his argument, Taylor utilizes "the term of the opposed thesis - that man is a social animal " It was Aristotle who made the most concrete usage of this view, that man seeks out and creates society because it is in his nature, and it was he who first stated that man is not self-sufficient alone. Taylor believes that "atomism affirms the self-sufficiency of man alone". However, he definitely does not agree. Here he introduces us to the man who is "dropped north of Great Slave Lake with only a hatchet and a box of (waterproof) matches". We can conclude that Great Slave Lake is in a remote area with no civilization or township.

Taylor believes that if a man were dropped here alone, with no means of creating nor locating society, he would not survive. Here Taylor calls upon the philosophy of Hobbes, who believed that in a state of nature (such as would be found north of Great Slave Lake) life is "nasty, brutish, and short". By calling upon the resources of Aristotle and Hobbes, Taylor is able to bring strong evidence to support his claims. Were he to use philosophers without such depth and reverence, he may not have been as successful in backing up his claims.

Thus Taylor claims that "living in society is a necessary condition of the development of rationality". He believes that by living in a state of nature we go against our human nature which requires us to be social and to create society. Furthermore, if we were to live in nature, outside of society, we would not even realize our "specifically human potential". Here Taylor brings a resolution to the arguments of atomist's by stating that the "justification of political authority ought to start from a foundation of individual rights". Or, in other words, to justify our need for society and political leadership we must look to the foundations of our human nature and the supremacy of individual human rights.

Here Taylor seems to combine the two theories set out by the opposing parties. However, looking closer at this statement gives us more depth. Taylor believes that a society and political structured civilization must be based on individual rights first and foremost. Any other structure, such as one which places society before individual, is not only wrong, but would also not work. Thus we see that individuals act in accord with their human nature when they seek out societies which place their individual rights first. Taylor goes on to talk about how animal rights fit into this equation, but concludes by coming back to this issue, which is the heart of his argument.

Here Taylor first says That developed freedom requires a certain understanding of self, one in which the aspirations to autonomy and self-direction become conceivable; and second, that this self-understanding is not something we can sustain on our own, but that our identity is always partly defined in conversation with others or through the common understanding which underlies the practices of our society. Thus Taylor concludes with what proves to be the strongest point in his argument. This argument proves to be successful because of the way Taylor presents it to us. Rather than state the position of his opposition last, Taylor does it first, allowing us to raise possible objections on our own.

He then uses revered philosophers from the past to solidify and provide support for his argument. In doing this, his argument is successful in its efforts to gain more supporters, which is a direct result of Taylor's strategic presentation..