洛克关于自然权利“天赋性”的三种论证

Locke's three arguments about the naturality of natural rights

洛克对自然权利的"天赋性"提出了三种论证:一是自然法论证,认为自然权利是自然法之规定;二是神学论证,认为自然权利是上帝意志之体现;三是理性主义论证,认为自然权利是人类理性自身之内在要求。这三种论证既相互独立又相互关联,在本质上是一致的,其不同缘于对自然法的不同理解。三种论证都存在一定的问题:神学论证中,没有解决好上帝的普遍存在问题;自然法论证中,自然法观念非常含糊不清,既包含不证自明的超验成分,也包含有待证明的经验成分;理性主义论证中,其理性是"超历史的",脱离了社会发展的具体情境。

John Locke presents three arguments on the naturality of rights: one is the natural law argument, which claims that right is the provision of the natural law; another is theological argument, which claims that right is a manifestation of the will of God; the last is the rationalist argument, which claims that the right is the inherent requirement of human rationality itself. These three arguments are both independent from and interrelated with each other, but in essence they are the same. The difference on the surface should be due to the different understanding of the natural law. There are some problems about all the three arguments: in theological argument, there is no final solution to God’s omnipresnece; in natural law argument, the concept of natural law itself is ambiguous in that ist includes both some self-evident and transcendential ingredients and experiential ingredients which need to be proven; in rationalist argument, its rationality is “super-historical”, which is far away from the certain context of social development.