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that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).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 repealed or restrained by human laws).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.