We’ve previously looked at the Interest Theory of Rights and explained how some goods are basic to human flourishing.
Here, we go further. We’ll explain the difference between legal and moral rights, how basic goods limit what counts as a right, and why we need an impartial legal authority to protect real rights.
Not All Rights Are Created Equal
Some rights are legal, while others are moral or natural. But just because something is a legal right doesn’t make it a moral one.
Suppose the law forces mentally impaired men to serve National Service. It may be a legal right, but it would be clearly absurd and unjust.
So while anything can be called a right today, not everything should be one.
But how do we know what should be a right? That’s where basic goods come in.
What Makes A Right?
Natural law theorist John Finnis identifies seven basic goods that reflect core parts of life:
- Life
- Knowledge or truth
- Marriage
- Aesthetic experience
- Excellence in work and play
- Friendship
- Practical reasonableness
These aren’t just preferences or useful tools. They’re fundamental to what it means to flourish as a human being.
Because they’re so essential, real rights are those that protect these goods.
Basing our rights on basic goods rules out certain modern ‘rights’ claims that threaten them like abortion and assisted suicide, both of which destroy the basic good of life.
That’s also why conscripting mentally impaired men is no moral right: it violates the basic good of practical reasonableness, or one’s ability to make sound decisions and act wisely.
Why Speech Has Limits Too
The same reasoning applies to free speech.
Truth is a basic good, so we have a strong interest in the liberty to speak truthfully.
But that doesn’t mean all speech is protected. Some forms of speech can harm other basic goods. That’s why no one can truly claim a right to these things, since rights protect basic goods, not threaten them.
For example, lies and defamation distort truth and can destroy reputations. That undermines the basic good of truth and should be promptly dealt with. After all, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
Meanwhile, speech that incites violence threatens the basic good of life itself.
But discomfort isn’t the same as harm. Just because a topic is controversial doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. Speech should only be limited when it causes real harm or directly attacks another basic good.
This is why we can say: free speech is a right, but not an absolute one.
Why We Need the State
Moral rights exist even before governments do. But in a lawless world, a “state of nature”, they’re impossible to enforce. Here’s why:
- You can say you have a right, but others don’t have to recognise it.
- Even if you’re right, who decides when your right is violated and who enforces it?
That’s why we need the state as an impartial legal authority – not to invent rights, but to protect the ones we already have.
What the State Is For
The state does three main things:
Ensuring Fair Judgement
To protect the basic goods of truth and practical reasonableness, we need fair laws and impartial courts. Clear rules define our rights and honest judges ensure they are applied consistently.
This allows natural rights to be enforced evenly, such as by punishing harmful speech like defamation. After all, rights only benefit us when they can be enforced.
Defining Property
To protect what’s yours, the state first has to define what’s yours. It sets the rules of ownership so people know what they can use, protect, and pass on. This guards our basic interest in agency and stewardship, which is rooted in the basic good of practical reasonableness.
But this doesn’t mean others owe you things. Property rights stop others from taking what’s yours. They don’t force others to give you what you want.
That’s where modern rights-talk goes wrong: it often makes others responsible for providing your needs, as if these were owed by right. But rights are not blank cheques drawn on someone else’s labour.
Upholding Public Morality
People don’t live in isolation. We live in community and are shaped by what we find beautiful.
This shared interest in community and beauty comes from the basic goods of friendship and aesthetic experience. That’s why the state has a duty to protect these goods by restricting disgusting aesthetic experiences that degrade and harm the public, like pornography.
This isn’t about imposing private values. It’s about defending the shared moral environment we all depend on.
Rights and the State
A closer look at basic goods doesn’t just show us what out rights are, it limits what can count as one.
And because real rights need to be recognised and protected, we need a state that applies them evenly and justly.
That’s how we protect what’s real, fair, and worth defending.