Despite its claims of universality, the application of natural rights throughout history has been marred by exclusion and selective interpretation. During the Enlightenment period, which greatly influenced the development of modern democratic states, natural rights were largely restricted to a narrow segment of society: white, land-owning men. Philosophers and political leaders of the time, while championing the idea of equality and individual liberty, often failed to challenge deeply ingrained societal hierarchies and prejudices. As a result, women, enslaved individuals, Indigenous peoples, and non-Europeans were systematically denied these proclaimed “universal” rights. The selective enforcement of these rights exposed a stark contradiction between Enlightenment ideals and societal realities.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence, drafted in 1776, is a seminal example of this paradox. It famously asserted that “all men are created equal” and endowed with “unalienable Rights,” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, the signatories and framers of this document predominantly benefited from a system that disenfranchised women and upheld slavery. African Americans, for instance, remained enslaved for nearly a century after this declaration, and their basic human rights were not acknowledged until the post-Civil War amendments. Similarly, women were excluded from political participation and denied property rights, experiencing significant legal and social subordination until the women’s suffrage movement achieved the 19th Amendment in 1920.

The selective application of natural rights also extended beyond the United States. European colonial powers, while espousing the rhetoric of Enlightenment values, subjected colonized populations to oppression and exploitation, justifying these actions through distorted interpretations of cultural or racial superiority. Thus, while natural rights theory advanced powerful ideas of freedom and equality, its practice was paradoxically constrained by a web of systemic biases that reinforced social hierarchies.

It wasn’t until successive social movements—including abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and civil rights struggles—challenged these inconsistencies that more inclusive interpretations of natural rights began to gain legal and cultural traction. These efforts underscored the inherent tension between Enlightenment philosophies and the actual structures of power that controlled who could claim such rights. The evolution of these movements demonstrated that while the language of natural rights was revolutionary, its true universality required persistent advocacy to move from theory to reality.

However, while critics point out the selective enforcement of natural rights during pivotal eras such as the Enlightenment and the formation of modern democracies, these failings do not negate the intrinsic value or universal potential of the theory itself. Instead, these shortcomings highlight the challenge of aligning human behavior with ideal principles and underscore the progress made toward achieving a more comprehensive application of these rights.

Natural rights theory is grounded in the belief that certain rights—such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—are inherent to all individuals by virtue of their humanity. This belief transcends cultural, religious, and political boundaries, proposing a moral framework that exists independently of government mandates or societal constructs. The universality of natural rights provides a standard by which to measure the justice and legitimacy of laws, shaping powerful legal and moral arguments against tyranny and oppression. For example, the philosophical basis of natural rights has been pivotal in arguing for the abolition of slavery, the advancement of women’s rights, and the decolonization of oppressed nations.

Critics often cite the selective application of natural rights throughout history, particularly during the Enlightenment, to undermine the theory itself. It is true that, in practice, these rights were initially restricted to specific groups, such as white, male property owners. However, this selective application reflects human fallibility and societal norms rather than a flaw in the theory. The principles themselves were sound; it was the execution by imperfect societies that fell short. The history of human rights is marked by incremental progress where ideals that were once narrowly defined have expanded to become more inclusive over time.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence, despite its initial limitations, illustrates the enduring power of natural rights. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal,” he articulated a principle that would eventually resonate beyond its immediate, limited context. Abolitionists, civil rights leaders, and women’s suffrage advocates drew upon this foundational idea to fuel their movements. The assertion of natural rights has functioned as both an inspiration and a yardstick by which to hold nations accountable to higher standards of justice.

Moreover, natural rights theory underpins the philosophical bedrock of democratic governance. Without such a moral framework, the justification for protecting freedom and opposing authoritarian rule would be weakened. If rights are perceived as granted by governments rather than inherent to individuals, they can be revoked as easily as they are bestowed. The theory affirms that no government or power can rightfully infringe upon these rights without violating an individual’s inherent dignity. This notion has provided the ideological foundation for numerous revolutions and movements that have expanded liberty and equality across the globe.

In conclusion, while history has witnessed periods where natural rights were applied inconsistently, this does not diminish the theory’s truth or potential. Instead, it underscores the need for vigilance and continual advocacy to ensure that these rights are recognized for all. The progress toward universal human rights demonstrates that natural rights theory is not only defensible but indispensable for advancing justice. It reminds us that the path from principle to practice is gradual, demanding effort and courage to close the gap between what is promised and what is realized.