We live in a world where all sorts of demands are framed as “rights.”
But what actually qualifies as a right? Not everything we desire or fight for can or should be called one.
To cut through the noise, we need one crucial distinction, and three simple rules.
One Distinction: Natural vs Legal Rights
Natural rights apply to everyone and cannot be taken away from anyone. They exist regardless of the laws or customs of any culture or government. Hence, they can’t be repealed, though their enforcement can be forfeited by violating the rights of others.
As Joseph Kral, president of the Society of St Sebastian, explains:
“Natural rights come from the moral duties of others. So I say my right to life is a natural right. Why? Because there is a universal moral duty of others not to kill innocent human life.”
In contrast, legal rights are given by law. They can be modified, repealed, or restrained.
A just society exists when legal rights reflect and protect natural rights. Injustice occurs when they contradict or deny them.
For example, slavery is unjust because it legally denies the natural right to liberty, family, and property, while racial discrimination is unjust because it legally withholds recognition of someone’s natural rights based on irrelevant traits.
So how can we tell if something is a natural right?
Three Rules That Make It A Right
We can apply three rules.
- It existed before government
A natural right doesn’t exist because of government. It exists regardless of government.
For example, the rights to life, speech, conscience, and self-defence have existed since the dawn of humanity. Governments don’t invent these rights. They either respect them, or they violate them.
- It doesn’t need to be provided
A natural right doesn’t need to be produced, supplied, or delivered by someone else. It just exists. If it requires another person’s labour, money, or time, it’s not a natural right, it’s a service.
You don’t have a right to a house, degree, or salary. You may seek those things, but not demand them as rights.
Calling goods and services “rights” makes slaves of those who must provide them. It also cheapens real rights. As Andrew DeLoach of Trinity Law School warns:
“New, spurious rights proliferate—and core rights are subverted—not only when we allow rights to be redefined, but also when we do not distinguish them from one another precisely.”
When everything is a right, nothing is.
- It is equally distributed
A natural right is held by everyone in the same measure. You either have the right to speak or you don’t. You don’t get more freedom of speech than your neighbour.
In contrast, commodities vary. Some live in HDBs, others in GCBs. Some stop at PSLE, others get PhDs. If something can vary in size, extent, or quantity, it’s not a natural right.
Applying The Rules: Children And Their Rights
To illustrate how these rules work, let’s apply them to two key issues: a child’s right to life, and a child’s right to their parents.
Children’s Right To Life:
- Life existed before government. No government invented it.
- Life doesn’t need to be provided: It begins at conception. Governments don’t provide life, but they should protect it.
- Life is equally distributed: Everyone has one life, no more and no less.
Children’s Right To Their Parents:
- The parent-child bond existed before government: It’s as old as humanity itself.
- Biological parents don’t need to be provided: If a child exists, so do their biological mother and father.
- Biological parents are equally distributed: Everyone gets two, one mother and one father, no more and no less.
Hence, these rights are natural rights that should be recognised as legal rights. Even if governments deny them, they remain true.
Adults must defend these rights because children cannot do so themselves. Failing to do so either ends their existence through abortion or denies them what they most need to thrive in a mother and a father.
Applying The Rules: Counterexamples
Now let’s test these rules against a few common rights claims:
Euthanasia:
- Euthanasia didn’t exist before government: It is an invented, state-regulated practice.
- Euthanasia needs to be provided by law, doctors, drugs, and medical procedures.
- Euthanasia access isn’t equally distributed: It depends on medical criteria and subjective judgments about suffering or consent.
Therefore, euthanasia is not a natural right, but a legal right that governments grant. It denies a person’s natural right to life, so it is unjust.
Abortion:
- Abortion didn’t exist before government: It too is a manmade, medically regulated procedure.
- Abortion needs to be provided by law, doctors, drugs, or surgery.
- Abortion access isn’t equally distributed: Only women can obtain abortions.
Therefore, abortion is not a natural right, but a legal right. It denies an unborn child’s natural right to life, so it is unjust.
Same-sex Marriage:
- Same-sex marriage didn’t exist before government. It was invented through legislation.
- Same-sex marriage needs to be provided through legal systems.
- Same-sex partners aren’t equally distributed. Not everyone gets one, nor is one owed.
Therefore, same-sex marriage is not a natural right, but a legal right. It ultimately denies a child’s natural right to their mother and father, so it is unjust.
What About Heterosexual Marriage?
Even heterosexual marriage isn’t a natural right. It existed before government, rooted in the complementarity of male and female, but it must be formally recognised and isn’t equally distributed – not everyone gets a spouse.
Yet governments recognise heterosexual marriage, not because it is a natural right but because it protects something that is: a child’s right to their parents.
Only heterosexual unions can produce new life. Governments recognise them to provide stability for the life they produce through social and legal benefits, not to celebrate love.
Now, arguing that people should be free to pursue same-sex marriage like with healthcare, housing, or heterosexual marriage is to compare unlike things. Healthcare and housing meet basic needs, while heterosexual marriage produces children and affirms male-female complementarity. Same-sex marriage does none of these. Even if people are free to pursue same-sex relationships, freedom to pursue isn’t a right to possess.
Thinking Clearly About Rights
In an age where everything is called a right, clarity matters. Not every want is a right, and not every legal option is morally sound.
Natural rights are those that existed before government, don’t need to be provided, and are equally distributed. Legal rights should recognise natural rights.
When we fail to distinguish real rights from man-made ones, we risk eroding the very foundation of justice. Calls for rights become political slogans, not moral truths. And the vulnerable, especially children, pay the price.
So let’s think carefully. Let’s call rights what they are, not what we wish them to be.
Because real rights don’t need to be invented. They just need to be recognised and upheld.