This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
English to Portuguese: Natural Rights General field: Law/Patents Detailed field: Law (general)
Source text - English OER Services
Ch. 20 The Age of Enlightenment
Natural Rights
19.1.3: Natural Rights
Natural rights, understood as those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government,(and therefore, universal and inalienable) were central to the debates during the Enlightenment on the relationship between the individual and the government.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
Identify natural rights and why they were important to the philosophers of the Enlightenment.
KEY POINTS
• Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). They are usually defined in opposition to legal rights, or those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.
• Although natural rights have been discussed since antiquity, it was the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment that developed the modern concept of natural rights, which has been critical to the modern republican government and civil society.
• During the Enlightenment, natural rights developed as part of the social contract theory. The theory addressed the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.
• Thomas Hobbes’ conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a “state of nature.” He objected to the attempt to derive rights from “natural law,” arguing that law (“lex”) and right (“jus”) though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refers to the absence of obligations.
• The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke, who argued that the natural rights include perfect equality and freedom, and the right to preserve life and property. Other Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers that developed and complicated the concept of natural rights were John Lilburne, Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, and Thomas Paine.
• The modern European anti-slavery movement drew heavily from the concept of natural rights that became central to the efforts of European abolitionists.
KEY TERMS
Natural rights
The rights that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Some, yet not all, see them as synonymous with human rights.
natural law
A philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and can be universally understood through human reason. Historically, it refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature in order to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, like nature itself, is universal.
Legal rights
The rights bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
social contract theory
In moral and political philosophy, a theory or model originating during the Age of Enlightenment that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. It typically posits that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
Natural Rights And Natural Law
Natural rights are usually juxtaposed with the concept of legal rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Natural rights are closely related to the concept of natural law (or laws). During the Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government (and thus, legal rights) in the form of classical republicanism (built around concepts such as civil society, civic virtue, and mixed government). Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
The idea of natural rights is also closely related to that of human rights; some acknowledge no difference between the two, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.
Natural Rights And Social Contract
Although natural rights have been discussed since antiquity, it was the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment that developed the modern concept of natural rights, which has been critical to the modern republican government and civil society. At the time, natural rights developed as part of the social contract theory, which addressed the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
Thomas Hobbes’ conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a “state of nature.” He argued that the essential natural (human) right was “to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life.” Hobbes sharply distinguished this natural “liberty” from natural “laws.” In his natural state, according to Hobbes, man’s life consisted entirely of liberties, and not at all of laws. He objected to the attempt to derive rights from “natural law,” arguing that law (“lex”) and right (“jus”) though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refer to the absence of obligations. Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional, and people will not follow the laws of nature without first being subjected to a sovereign power, without which all ideas of right and wrong are meaningless.
Portrait of Thomas Hobbes by John Michael Wright, National Portrait Gallery, London Thomas Hobbes’ 1651 book Leviathan established social contract theory, the foundation of most later western political philosophy. Though on rational grounds a champion of absolutism for the sovereign, Hobbes also developed some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the individual; the natural equality of all men; the artificial character of the political order (which led to the later distinction between civil society and the state); the view that all legitimate political power must be “representative” and based on the consent of the people; and a liberal interpretation of law that leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid.
The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke in his Second Treatise, when he introduces the state of nature. For Locke, the law of nature is grounded on mutual security, or the idea that one cannot infringe on another’s natural rights, as every man is equal and has the same inalienable rights. These natural rights include perfect equality and freedom and the right to preserve life and property. Such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) argued for level human rights that he called “freeborn rights,” which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law. The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson, who argued that “Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations in all Governments.” In the German Enlightenment, Georg Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of the inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, he based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. According to Hegel, the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person. Consequently, the question of whether property is an aspect of natural rights remains a matter of debate.
Thomas Paine further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked, and under such circumstances, they would be reduced to privileges.
Portrait of John Locke, by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Britain, 1697, State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia
The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke in his Second Treatise. For Locke, the natural rights include perfect equality and freedom, and the right to preserve life and property.
Natural Rights, Slavery, And Abolitionism
In discussion of social contract theory, “inalienable rights” were those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. Some social contract theorists reasoned, however, that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Thus, people form an implicit social contract, ceding their natural rights to the authority to protect the people from abuse, and living henceforth under the legal rights of that authority.
Many historical apologies for slavery and illiberal government were based on explicit or implicit voluntary contracts to alienate any natural rights to freedom and self-determination. Locke argued against slavery on the basis that enslaving yourself goes against the law of nature; you cannot surrender your own rights, your freedom is absolute and no one can take it from you. Additionally, Locke argues that one person cannot enslave another because it is morally reprehensible, although he introduces a caveat by saying that enslavement of a lawful captive in time of war would not go against one’s natural rights.The de facto inalienability arguments of Hutcheson and his predecessors provided the basis for the anti-slavery movement to argue not simply against involuntary slavery but against any explicit or implied contractual forms of slavery. Any contract that tried to legally alienate such a right would be inherently invalid. Similarly, the argument was used by the democratic movement to argue against any explicit or implied social contracts of subjection by which a people would supposedly alienate their right of self-government to a sovereign.
Attributions
• Natural Rights
o “Classical republicanism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Age of Enlightenment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “John Locke.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Social contract.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Thomas Hobbes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Natural and legal rights.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Natural law.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “800px-Thomas_Hobbes_portrait.jpg.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#/media/File:Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg. Wikipedia Public domain.
o “JohnLocke.png.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#/media/File:JohnLocke.png. Wikipedia Public domain.
Translation - Portuguese OER Services
Ch. 20 The Age of Enlightenment
Natural Rights
19.1.3: Natural Rights
Natural rights, understood as those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government,(and therefore, universal and inalienable) were central to the debates during the Enlightenment on the relationship between the individual and the government.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
Identify natural rights and why they were important to the philosophers of the Enlightenment.
KEY POINTS
• Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). They are usually defined in opposition to legal rights, or those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.
• Although natural rights have been discussed since antiquity, it was the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment that developed the modern concept of natural rights, which has been critical to the modern republican government and civil society.
• During the Enlightenment, natural rights developed as part of the social contract theory. The theory addressed the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.
• Thomas Hobbes’ conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a “state of nature.” He objected to the attempt to derive rights from “natural law,” arguing that law (“lex”) and right (“jus”) though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refers to the absence of obligations.
• The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke, who argued that the natural rights include perfect equality and freedom, and the right to preserve life and property. Other Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers that developed and complicated the concept of natural rights were John Lilburne, Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, and Thomas Paine.
• The modern European anti-slavery movement drew heavily from the concept of natural rights that became central to the efforts of European abolitionists.
KEY TERMS
Natural rights
The rights that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Some, yet not all, see them as synonymous with human rights.
natural law
A philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and can be universally understood through human reason. Historically, it refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature in order to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, like nature itself, is universal.
Legal rights
The rights bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
social contract theory
In moral and political philosophy, a theory or model originating during the Age of Enlightenment that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. It typically posits that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
Natural Rights And Natural Law
Natural rights are usually juxtaposed with the concept of legal rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Natural rights are closely related to the concept of natural law (or laws). During the Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government (and thus, legal rights) in the form of classical republicanism (built around concepts such as civil society, civic virtue, and mixed government). Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
The idea of natural rights is also closely related to that of human rights; some acknowledge no difference between the two, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.
Natural Rights And Social Contract
Although natural rights have been discussed since antiquity, it was the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment that developed the modern concept of natural rights, which has been critical to the modern republican government and civil society. At the time, natural rights developed as part of the social contract theory, which addressed the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
Thomas Hobbes’ conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a “state of nature.” He argued that the essential natural (human) right was “to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life.” Hobbes sharply distinguished this natural “liberty” from natural “laws.” In his natural state, according to Hobbes, man’s life consisted entirely of liberties, and not at all of laws. He objected to the attempt to derive rights from “natural law,” arguing that law (“lex”) and right (“jus”) though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refer to the absence of obligations. Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional, and people will not follow the laws of nature without first being subjected to a sovereign power, without which all ideas of right and wrong are meaningless.
Portrait of Thomas Hobbes by John Michael Wright, National Portrait Gallery, London Thomas Hobbes’ 1651 book Leviathan established social contract theory, the foundation of most later western political philosophy. Though on rational grounds a champion of absolutism for the sovereign, Hobbes also developed some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the individual; the natural equality of all men; the artificial character of the political order (which led to the later distinction between civil society and the state); the view that all legitimate political power must be “representative” and based on the consent of the people; and a liberal interpretation of law that leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid.
The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke in his Second Treatise, when he introduces the state of nature. For Locke, the law of nature is grounded on mutual security, or the idea that one cannot infringe on another’s natural rights, as every man is equal and has the same inalienable rights. These natural rights include perfect equality and freedom and the right to preserve life and property. Such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) argued for level human rights that he called “freeborn rights,” which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law. The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson, who argued that “Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations in all Governments.” In the German Enlightenment, Georg Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of the inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, he based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. According to Hegel, the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person. Consequently, the question of whether property is an aspect of natural rights remains a matter of debate.
Thomas Paine further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked, and under such circumstances, they would be reduced to privileges.
Portrait of John Locke, by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Britain, 1697, State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia
The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke in his Second Treatise. For Locke, the natural rights include perfect equality and freedom, and the right to preserve life and property.
Natural Rights, Slavery, And Abolitionism
In discussion of social contract theory, “inalienable rights” were those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. Some social contract theorists reasoned, however, that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Thus, people form an implicit social contract, ceding their natural rights to the authority to protect the people from abuse, and living henceforth under the legal rights of that authority.
Many historical apologies for slavery and illiberal government were based on explicit or implicit voluntary contracts to alienate any natural rights to freedom and self-determination. Locke argued against slavery on the basis that enslaving yourself goes against the law of nature; you cannot surrender your own rights, your freedom is absolute and no one can take it from you. Additionally, Locke argues that one person cannot enslave another because it is morally reprehensible, although he introduces a caveat by saying that enslavement of a lawful captive in time of war would not go against one’s natural rights.The de facto inalienability arguments of Hutcheson and his predecessors provided the basis for the anti-slavery movement to argue not simply against involuntary slavery but against any explicit or implied contractual forms of slavery. Any contract that tried to legally alienate such a right would be inherently invalid. Similarly, the argument was used by the democratic movement to argue against any explicit or implied social contracts of subjection by which a people would supposedly alienate their right of self-government to a sovereign.
Attributions
• Natural Rights
o “Classical republicanism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Age of Enlightenment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “John Locke.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Social contract.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Thomas Hobbes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Natural and legal rights.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “Natural law.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
o “800px-Thomas_Hobbes_portrait.jpg.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#/media/File:Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg. Wikipedia Public domain.
o “JohnLocke.png.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#/media/File:JohnLocke.png. Wikipedia Public domain.
Simple English to Portuguese: Tool advertisement - From Fine Woodworking Magazine - Aug/2019 - p.18 General field: Tech/Engineering Detailed field: Mechanics / Mech Engineering
Source text - Simple English ACCESSORIES
Handy tool roll
WHEN I TRAVEL to teach wood carving, I always bring my favorite carving gouges with me. Carrying my precious cargo safely and securely is very important to me. After all, these are my babies.
Recently, I tried the Asabeing 14 Pocket Toll Roll when I flew to teach a wood-carving class. The roll technically has 16 pockets, but the company doesn’t count the two where the rope is attached because they’re rather small. Still, I found them useful. Ten of the pockets fit full-size carving gouges, and the six smaller pockets of various sizes can hold pencils, rulers, small rasps, or smaller-handled gouges. A 19-pocket version is available for $5 more.
I placed my gouges into the pockets handle-first and they fit tight enough so they did not fall out, and loose enough so I could remove them without much effort. I was also able to fit two gouges with smaller handles into one of the larger pockets.
The thick hemp canvas was strong but lightweight, and here were no cuts in the fabric from sharp gouges. The top of the pockets also have a hemmed edge that prevents this area form fraying. For carrying a set of ten gouges and a few smaller odds and ends, I would highly recommend this tool roll. When I rolled up my tools and secured them with the double hemp rope tie, I was confident my babies were safe.
Mary May, woodcarver and instructor
Translation - Portuguese ACESSÓRIOS
Estojo de ferramentas prático
QUANDO EU VIAJO para ensinar entalhe em madeira, eu sempre trago minhas goivas favoritas comigo. Transportar minha carga preciosa em segurança é muito imporetante para mim. Afinal, esses são meus bebês.
Recentemente, eu experimentei o Estojo de Ferramentas de 14 Bolsos Asabeing quando viajei para ministrar uma aula de entalhe em madeira. Tecnicamente, o estojo tem 16 bolsos, mas o fabricante não conta os dois onde o cadarço é fixado, porque eles são relativamente pequenos. Ainda assim, eu os achei úteis. Dez dos bolsos comprtam goivas grandes, e os seis bolsos menores, de tamanhos variados, podem acomodar lápis, réguas, pequenas grosas, ou goivas de cabos menores. Uma versão de 19 bolsos está disponível por mais US$ 5.
Eu posicionei minhas goivas nos bolsos com os cabos para dentro e elas ficaram justas o suficiente para não caírem e folgadas o suficiente para que eu pudesse removê-las sem muito esforço. Eu também consegui acomodar duas goivas de cabos menores em um dos bolsos maiores.
A grossa lona de cânhamo era grossa, porém, leve, e as goivas afiadas não causaram cortes no tecido. O topo dos bolsos também têm uma bainha que evita que essa área se desfie. Para carregar um conjunto de dez goivas e algumas pequenas miudezas, eu recomendaria fortemente esse estojo de ferramentas. Quando eu enrolei minhas ferramentas e as prendi com o cadarço duplo de cânhamo, eu me sento confiante de que meus bebês estavam seguros.
Mary May, entalhadora em madeira e instrutora
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 1. Registered at ProZ.com: Jan 2023.
Get help on technical issues / improve my technical skills
Learn more about additional services I can provide my clients
Learn more about the business side of freelancing
Stay up to date on what is happening in the language industry
Help or teach others with what I have learned over the years
Buy or learn new work-related software
Improve my productivity
Bio
I've been working as a judge assistant at de Federal Court of Justice (Justiça Federal) since 1995 and have great exprience with legal texts. I've also worked as an Industrial Designer (both employee and freelancer), therefore, I have also experience with technical teminology.
My professional backgound allied to my taste for reading varied subjects, including social sciences, technology, medicine, music, literature, etc. provides me the ability to translate material of the most diverse areas.
Expertise