Journey Toward Justice 19

The title of this chapter is 'Does Scripture Imply a Right Order Conception of Justice?' There was a brief discussion on the difference between right order conception of justice and inherent right conception of justice in chapter 5. In this chapter, Nick gives little more detail between the two. 

Ambrose, Basil and John all based their idea about rights in the Scripture/Bible. They believed that human person possesses certain sort of natural right. Well, proponents of right order conception of justice as well as inherent right conception of justice can both endorse natural right; the difference lies deeper. Nick does not say this, but it seems to me that he is implying that whether Ambrose, Basil and John were all in the former camp -- right order conception of justice -- or in the latter camp -- inherent right conception of justice -- one cannot ascertain; they were not providing a theory of justice and they all assume natural right, which both the camps can endorse. The question, however, is which view fits better with that idea which is explicitly or implicitly there in the Scripture. 

But before a note on the difference between the two conceptions of justice. The former camp holds that having a dignity is not enough to generate right; there has to be an external agent that confers right to a person. This right could be natural right! The latter camp holds that being a human generates certain right. The former camp would say something to the effect that a captain in the army has right to issue command because he has been conferred authority/right to issue command; without an external agent having conferred that authority/right, he would have no right to command and even if he commands, it would mean nothing if he was not given the authority/right to issue command. The latter camp would say to the effect: of course, that example holds true there; but take other instance. Does a parent have authority/right to issue command to her child because of being conferred the position/status by an external agent? No. Does God have authority/right to issue command to human kind because he has been conferred the position  by an external agent? No. God has that right to issue command by virtue of being the creator; and that right is inherent right. 

Nick does not develop an account of inherent right of a human person here; possibly he will do that in later chapter. But his account shows that God has inherent right. And this plausibly suffices to show the inadequacy of right order conception of justice who would insist that rights always must be conferred by an external agent. After all God does not need to be conferred right to possess a right; the right in inherent!