NATURAL RIGHTS AS ‘NONSENSE UPON STILTS’: ASSESSING BENTHAM

This paper critically assesses Bentham’s view that the idea of natural rights is nonsensical. Bentham’s repudiation of natural rights is fundamentally premised on his conviction that rights are the creation of the law and law is a command of the sovereign. Thus, there are no laws and rights without government. Natural rights according to Bentham do not emanate from government and so, are not properly rights. In fact, they have no source and are anarchical. Contrary to Bentham’s view, this paper argues that there are rights (natural rights) which exist prior to the formation of the government, and hence, not dependent on government. Thus, without government, these rights exist. They are not anarchical as claimed by Bentham. On the contrary, it is their non-recognition by the government that may engender a state of anarchy. The paper argues strongly that natural rights are the sine qua non for human development. Consequently, their denunciation constitutes an impediment to human development. The paper observes that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of Independence, and the French Revolution which have contributed enormously to human development, hinge on the idea of natural rights. The paper concludes, therefore, that the very idea that persons have natural rights (non-legal rights) is sensible, contrary to Bentham’s view that it is nonsensical