The Philosophy of Right from a Legal Perspective

Abstract

The concept of "right" is one of the oldest and most complex concepts discussed by philosophy and law together. Right cannot be understood in isolation from the social, political, and value-based system; rather, it is the cornerstone of building relationships between individuals and society, and between the ruler and the ruled. Hence, the philosophy of right emerged as a field of knowledge that intersects with ethics, politics, and legal jurisprudence, where philosophers and jurists have sought to define the nature, source, scope, and limits of right.

This article therefore aims to explore the dialectical relationship between the philosophy of right and law, as one of the central problems in philosophical and legal thought. The research proceeds from the premise that right represents a supreme human value rooted in freedom and justice, while law constitutes the institutional tool that translates these values ​​into binding, enforceable rules. Hence, the central question arises: Does right precede law and grant it legitimacy, or does law create right and determine its content?

The study explores the philosophical roots of the concept of right throughout the ages, beginning with Aristotle, who linked right to justice; Kant, who considered it an external sphere of freedom; Hegel, who viewed law as an objective embodiment of right; and contemporary philosophies focused on human rights and social justice. The article also demonstrates how justice represents a fundamental criterion for assessing the legitimacy of laws, and that law may lose its legitimacy when it is detached from the spirit of right and transformed into a tool of domination or discrimination.

The study concludes that the philosophy of right gives law its value-based and normative dimension, while law grants right its binding and regulatory power. Therefore, the relationship between the two is simultaneously complementary and dialectical: right is the goal, and law is the means that embodies this goal in social reality. The article emphasizes that integrating the philosophy of right into law remains necessary to achieve a balance between individual freedom and the public interest, and between moral standards and positive norms, especially in light of the contemporary challenges facing societies. Moreover, the scope of rights in laws is only a private right, with no public or joint right recognized, which is the position of individualism. If they had advocated public right (societal right), this would have undermined their philosophy, which holds that this right is not, for them, as ancient as private right. Rather, its existence is linked to the existence of society, and law is necessary for the existence of organized societies. Therefore, right exists subsequent to the existence of society and law, and thus its source is either society or law, which contradicts their philosophy. Since public right is not recognized, joint right is also not recognized, because it is the product of the recognition of the existence of two rights, public and private. As for social law, it does not contain private right, but rather a public right, and private rights are costs and duties incumbent upon the individual for the benefit of all. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that the source of right is human will and nothing else. In individualist philosophy, the individual is its source, in social legal philosophy, society is its source, and in legal philosophy, the ruler is its source. Even in the philosophy of natural law, with its religious orientation, we find that the individual is the source of right. He is the one who expresses his self, which is his self-image, laden with a particular culture, built on specific morals and beliefs as a result of his influence within a particular environment. He is the one who expresses natural law. Consequently, the individual will construct his law in accordance with his self-image. Therefore, natural law is consistent with social objectives, based on the premise that law is only known within a social milieu. If human will is the source of right, then it is even more appropriate for it to be the source of law, which is nothing more than a set of general, abstract, and binding social behavioral discourses.