One of the primary criticisms leveled against the concept of natural rights is that they are inherently abstract and lack empirical evidence. Unlike scientific principles that can be observed, measured, and validated, natural rights rest on philosophical, ethical, or theological assumptions that are subjective and difficult to substantiate through objective analysis. This abstract nature leads to disputes over their legitimacy and practical application in modern society, as they cannot be empirically proven or universally agreed upon.

Prominent critics, such as the 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, famously dismissed natural rights as “nonsense on stilts.” Bentham’s critique centered on the idea that rights do not exist in a natural state independent of human society. According to Bentham and other legal positivists, rights are not inherent or self-evident but are instead social constructs that derive their authority from legal and political frameworks. In this view, rights are created, defined, and enforced by legal systems, which are subject to the changing needs and values of societies.

Bentham argued that the notion of natural rights was not only unfounded but also potentially dangerous. He believed that appealing to abstract, unverifiable rights could lead to anarchy and conflict, as differing interpretations could justify nearly any course of action. From this perspective, rights must be rooted in the tangible laws of a governing body, making them enforceable and adaptable through legislative processes.

Critics also point out that natural rights theories often rely on the assumption of a “state of nature” — a hypothetical, pre-political condition in which humans inherently possess these rights. This construct, famously used by philosophers like John Locke, has been challenged as an unrealistic and speculative idea that lacks empirical evidence. As a result, the philosophical foundation of natural rights is seen by some as an idealistic but impractical model that does not translate easily into the realities of law and governance.

However, one can argue that the abstract nature of natural rights does not diminish their significance but rather underscores their foundational role in shaping ethical and political thought. The concept of natural rights provides a moral framework that transcends human-made laws and legal systems, offering a higher standard against which the legitimacy of such laws can be measured. While natural rights may not be empirically provable in the same way as scientific phenomena, their value lies in their capacity to establish a universal benchmark for justice and human dignity.

First and foremost, the assertion that natural rights are purely abstract overlooks their practical impact throughout history. The philosophical underpinnings of natural rights have been instrumental in inspiring profound political and social changes. For instance, the Enlightenment era’s emphasis on natural rights laid the groundwork for the development of democratic ideals and movements such as the American and French Revolutions. Foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen invoked the concept of inherent rights to challenge tyranny and promote individual freedom and equality. These historical examples demonstrate that, even if natural rights cannot be empirically proven, they have had real and transformative effects on societies.

Natural rights are based on the intrinsic worth and dignity of human beings. The claim that all individuals possess certain inalienable rights by virtue of their humanity provides a powerful moral basis for resisting oppression and unjust laws. Without the concept of natural rights, there is no objective standard to determine whether a law is just or unjust, as legal systems could justify any number of abuses under the guise of legality. Natural rights thus act as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power, ensuring that governments remain accountable to fundamental ethical principles.

The critique that natural rights are not empirically provable misses the distinction between moral and scientific truths. While scientific truths are based on empirical evidence, moral truths are rooted in philosophical reasoning and shared human experiences. Just as we accept certain moral axioms—such as the belief that murder or slavery is wrong—without needing empirical proof, natural rights can be recognized as essential principles for maintaining human dignity and social order. This is not to say that natural rights are beyond critique or interpretation; rather, it suggests that their importance lies in providing a universal language for discussing justice and human value.

Furthermore, the argument that rights are merely constructs of legal systems overlooks the possibility that legal rights can derive their legitimacy from natural rights. In this view, laws and legal rights are not the ultimate source of authority but are instead reflections of deeper, pre-existing moral truths. Legal systems that align with natural rights can be seen as just, while those that violate them can be challenged as illegitimate. For instance, the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movements drew heavily on the belief in inherent human rights that supersede existing laws. This demonstrates that natural rights serve as a guiding force for progress and reform, pushing societies toward greater justice and equity.

In response to Jeremy Bentham’s critique that natural rights are “nonsense on stilts,” it can be argued that dismissing these rights as mere fictions neglects their vital role in advancing human rights and moral progress. While Bentham viewed rights as utilitarian constructs, the history of human rights advocacy shows that the belief in intrinsic, universal rights has been a powerful tool in mobilizing people to challenge injustice and fight for freedom.

In conclusion, while natural rights may not be empirically provable, their strength lies in their role as a moral compass and a standard for justice that transcends legal systems. They provide a framework for evaluating the fairness of laws and empowering individuals to advocate for change when laws fall short of ethical ideals. The enduring influence of natural rights on democratic movements and human rights campaigns highlights their profound importance, suggesting that their abstract nature is a feature, not a flaw, in their capacity to inspire and sustain the pursuit of justice.