AP Syllabus focus: ‘Philosophers developed political ideas about the individual and natural rights that shaped arguments for liberty and equality.’
Enlightenment political thought recast people as individuals with inherent rights rather than subjects defined by status. These ideas challenged absolutism and privilege, supplying new justifications for liberty, equality, and legitimate limits on power.
Core Idea: Natural Rights and Individual-Centered Politics
Natural rights theories argued that certain rights exist prior to government and do not depend on tradition, church authority, or a ruler’s will. Enlightenment thinkers used these claims to critique hereditary privilege, divine-right monarchy, and legal systems that treated social estates differently.
Natural rights: Rights believed to belong to all humans by virtue of their humanity, not granted by governments, and therefore not legitimately removable without violating moral law.
A key shift was treating political authority as accountable to individuals’ rights rather than individuals being obligated primarily to established hierarchies. This made the individual a central unit of moral and political analysis.
John Locke and the Language of Rights
Unlock the rest of this chapter with a free account
Sign up for a free account to keep reading notes and practice questions.
FAQ
Privileges were tied to estates, guilds, or birth. Natural rights were framed as universal entitlements of individuals, making inherited exemptions and special legal status harder to justify.
Property linked rights to independence and security. It also provided a concrete standard for judging tyranny, such as arbitrary seizure, forced labour, or unequal taxation.
No. Some prioritised civil liberties; others emphasised economic rights or legal equality. Disagreements often turned on who qualified as fully independent and therefore fully rights-bearing.
Restrictions pushed writers toward careful phrasing, anonymous publication, and foreign presses, while patronage could protect or steer authors—affecting which rights claims circulated widely.
Critics argued it was too abstract, threatened social order, or ignored tradition and community obligations, warning that “universal rights” language could legitimise destabilising resistance.
