Theories of Rights: Must know 8 important theories of rights

1. Theories of Rights

Human rights are an essential part of our world today. They configure the legal, social, and political systems that govern how people interact with each other and how they are treated by the state. But what exactly are these rights? And how do we know that they are universal, inalienable, and fundamental to every person, regardless of where they live or what their background is?

The discourse on human rights has always remained crucial for the protection of the rights of individuals and groups. When it comes to the question of why human rights are important and necessary, there is broad consensus on their role in upholding human dignity, fostering the development of the human personality, and promoting peace and coexistence. However, there is no consensus on the origin and nature of human rights.

There is considerable disagreement regarding the nature of these rights, their foundations, and their practical implications. More specifically, there are significant controversies about the content, scope, force, and interpretation of particular rights. Different theories of rights, thinkers, religions, and belief systems have repeatedly offered their own distinct explanations of the concept of rights, often diverging in their definitions. These differences primarily revolve around whether human rights are inherently natural and universal, whether they are legally granted by the state, whether they arise from historical contexts, or whether they are religiously sanctioned.

Over the years, several theories of rights have emerged to answer these questions. These theories of rights provide different perspectives on why human rights exist and how they should be protected. The article will explore some of the key theories of rights, highlighting their origins, their key principles, and the ways in which they influence international human rights discourse.

2. Theory of Natural Rights

One of the oldest and most fundamental theories of rights is theory of natural rights based on the notion of natural law. This theory argues that human rights are inherent in nature and part of the natural order of the universe. According to this theory, human rights are not granted by governments or societies—they exist because they are grounded in human nature and reason.

Natural law theory has its roots in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle and was later developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke. These thinkers believed that certain rights—such as the right to life, liberty, and property—are natural to all human beings. These rights cannot be taken away by governments or institutions because they are part of the fundamental fabric of humanity.

Theory of natural rights treats rights of persons as the outcome of natural law. It maintains that certain rights were enjoyed by man in the state of nature, which must be recognised and protected by the State.

3. Theory of Legal Rights

Unlike natural law theorists, theory of legal rights/legal positivism posits that human rights are not inherent in human nature but are instead created by laws and enforced by legal systems. Legal positivism focuses on law-making processes and state authority. The theory argues that rights are valid only if they are formally recognised by the legal systems of a given society.

Jeremy Bentham and John Austin were prominent figures in the development of legal positivism. They argued that rights are social constructs, and their validity comes from being recognised and enforced by law. Essentially, legal theorists believe that human rights exist because governments have passed laws that recognise and protect them.

Theory of legal rights provides that rights are recognized and guaranteed by the State and change with time and space. This theory depends on the premise that rights came into being with State itself and there were no rights prior to the State. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the greatest advocate of the legal rights theory called rights as the creatures of law and denied the theory of natural rights as unreal and ill-founded.

4. Theory of Moral Rights

Theory of Moral Rights believe that rights emanate from human reason i.e. his sense of right and wrong, good and evil. Rights should be based on principles and values that are believed to be righteous and acceptable in society. Advocates of moral rights believe in the convergence of law and morality and held the separation between law and morality as impossible in the sphere of rights.

Moral rights are generally conceived as inherent to individuals, meaning they exist independently of whether or not they are legally recognised or enforced by a government. This theory posits that certain rights—such as the right to life, liberty, and property—are essential to an individual’s moral standing and cannot be legitimately taken away.

The natural rights tradition, as articulated by philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, underscores the idea that these rights arise from human nature and reason. For Locke, for instance, the right to property was seen as an extension of one’s labor, while Rousseau believed that moral rights were central to human freedom and equality in a social contract.

One of the key distinctions between moral rights and legal theories of rights is that moral rights are not dependent on state recognition or the enforcement of laws. A legal right exists only insofar as it is codified into law and protected by a government system.

5. Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory, proposed by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posits that human rights arise from an implicit agreement between individuals and the state. There is also a difference of opinion among the three Social Contractualists- Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on different questions like life of human in the state of nature. According to this theory, people enter into a social contract where they agree to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection and security provided by the state.

Social contract theorists argue that rights are based on the mutual consent of individuals to create a society where they agree to respect each other’s rights. In return, the state has a responsibility to ensure the protection of those rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property.

6. Historical Theory of Rights

Historical theory of rights views that long historical processes gave birth to rights. The historical theory of rights asserts that rights are not abstract or universal concepts as in other theories of rights but are products of historical development and social evolution. This theory emphasises that rights emerge as a response to changing political, social, and economic conditions over time. Rather than being inherent or created by laws, rights are seen as evolving, shaped by historical events, cultural shifts, and the needs of societies at different points in time.

According to this perspective, the rights we recognise today have developed through long historical processes, influenced by struggles for equality, justice, and freedom. Therefore, understanding the history behind the emergence of specific rights is essential to appreciating their significance and context.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is the greatest advocate of historical theory of rights. He supported the Glorious Revolution (British Revolution) of 1688 for it uphold the customary rights that the English society had possessed for centuries and found in old documents like Magna Carta 1215, Petition of Rights 1628, and so on and so forth.

7. Social Welfare Theory of Rights

Social welfare theory of rights departs from the traditional theories of rights and hypothesise that in essence rights are essential requirements for social welfare. Roscoe Pound (1870-1964) and Zechariah Chafee (1885-1957) are the greatest promoters of theory of social welfare. They propose that State should only recognise the rights promoting social welfare and that rights should be determined by the balance of interests under the established social conditions.

Social democratic perspective on rights aspires to reach the target of individual liberty and social justice together which is best advocated by Laski. He made an essential observation explaining the importance of rights by saying that, “every State is known by the rights that it maintains….” Suggesting a socialist solution, he appealed to institute a service State to meet the social needs.

The social welfare theory of rights is grounded in the belief that rights should be seen not only as protections from state interference but also as entitlements to the basic conditions necessary for a dignified life. According to this theory, rights are not limited to civil and political freedoms but must also include a range of economic, social, and cultural rights that ensure individuals can live in conditions of equality and well-being.

Advocates of this theory argue that without access to healthcare, education, housing, and adequate income, individuals cannot truly exercise their fundamental freedoms. In this view, rights are not merely about non-interference but about the state’s obligation to actively contribute to the welfare and development of its citizens.

8. Marxist Perspective of Rights

The Marxist perspective on rights offers a distinct and critical view compared to more conventional theories of rights. Marxists argue that the concept of rights is inherently tied to the structure of society and the prevailing economic system. In the capitalist framework, rights are seen as instruments used by the ruling class to maintain their power and privilege, rather than as universal protections for all individuals.

According to Karl Marx and other Marxist thinkers, the state itself is not neutral but serves the interests of the capitalist class by enacting laws that protect private property and the status quo. From this perspective, rights in a capitalist society are not genuine human rights but are shaped to uphold the economic interests of the bourgeoisie (the ruling capitalist class) at the expense of the proletariat (the working class).

Marxists view rights, particularly civil and political rights, as part of the ideological superstructure that serves to legitimise and perpetuate the existing capitalist order. For example, while rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote may appear to provide individual freedom, Marxists argue that these rights are limited in scope and are often ineffective in achieving real social and economic justice. In a capitalist society, even the most fundamental rights can be undermined by economic inequality.

The Marxist critique emphasises that freedom of speech, for instance, does not guarantee true political participation if economic power remains concentrated in the hands of a few. Likewise, the right to vote may be rendered meaningless if the working class lacks the means to organise, protest, or influence government policy due to systemic class inequality.

The Marxist perspective fundamentally challenges the liberal theories of rights/conception, which tends to emphasise individual freedoms and formal equality. Marxists argue that such rights, as they are conceived in capitalist societies, serve to reinforce the dominance of the capitalist class. According to Marx, the liberal framework of rights fails to address the material conditions of life and economic inequalities that are central to understanding true human freedom.

For Marxists, political rights like the right to vote and civil rights like freedom of speech do not adequately challenge the economic foundations of power in society. Marxist theory posits that unless the material conditions of workers are addressed—such as access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, and education—political and civil rights are rendered ineffective in achieving true liberation.

Marxist perspective of rights propounded by Marx and Engels felt that the rights have nothing to offer to men as such, but are made to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie i.e. the capitalist class who owned the means of social production. Marxist perspective sought to protect the rights of man from injustices and exploitation from the bourgeoisie.

The socialist order, according to Marxism, which is socialisation of means of production, established by proletariat by toppling the capitalism in a violent revolution, is more promising to establishing equality in a social organisation. Real equality and justice are attainable only under a communist system where class is abolished and the State is disintegrated.

9. Utilitarianism and Human Rights

Jeremy Bentham, a key figure in the development of utilitarian philosophy, offered a distinctive view on the theories of rights, which is often at odds with traditional theories of rights. Utilitarianism, as articulated by Bentham, is a consequentialist theory that holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its outcomes.

The “greatest happiness principle” is the cornerstone of Bentham’s theory, which asserts that the most ethical action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure and the least amount of suffering for the greatest number of people. This perspective significantly shapes his views on human rights and the role they play in society.

Bentham was highly critical of the concept of natural rights, a theory advanced by philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Paine, which posits that certain rights are inherent to individuals by virtue of human nature, independent of laws or governments. In his famous work, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780), Bentham famously dismissed natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts.” He argued that rights are not inherent or pre-existing but rather are social constructs, created by societies to serve the public good.

For Bentham, the concept of rights should be understood purely in terms of utility. Rights exist only to the extent that they contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. If a particular right does not lead to a positive outcome for society, then it can be justifiably overridden. In this sense, Bentham’s utilitarianism emphasises the pragmatic nature of rights—they are not intrinsic but are justified only insofar as they promote collective well-being.

While utilitarianism offers a practical approach to rights, it has faced several criticisms, especially in its application to human rights. Critics argue that utilitarianism can justify the violation of individual rights if doing so benefits the majority. For example, in a society where the majority benefits from a certain policy, the rights of a minority could be ignored or overridden, a concern particularly relevant in contexts like discrimination or political repression. In such cases, the utilitarian focus on aggregate happiness might justify harmful actions that infringe upon the rights of marginalised groups.

Moreover, utilitarianism’s tendency to prioritise the greatest good for the greatest number may undermine the protection of minority rights, as the well-being of smaller groups could be sacrificed for the benefit of the larger society. Critics point out that this approach could legitimise practices that deprive individuals of fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression or privacy, if these rights are deemed to be less beneficial in a particular context.

10. The Capability Approach: Expanding Human Freedom

One of more recent and influential theories of rights comes from the capability approach, developed by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum. Unlike previous theories of rights that focus on what rights people should have, the capability approach focuses on what people are actually able to do with their rights—essentially, their ability to live the life they value.

The capability approach argues that human rights should be framed in terms of human flourishing and real freedoms. For example, the right to education is not just about access to schooling, but about having the capability to live a fulfilling life, participate in society, and pursue one’s personal goals. It focuses on expanding people’s opportunities and freedom of choice.

Sen and Nussbaum’s approach emphasises equality of opportunity, arguing that society should not only ensure that people have rights on paper but that those rights lead to tangible opportunities to achieve well-being.

The capability approach has influenced both human development policies and the design of human rights frameworks that focus not just on formal equality but on the actual conditions that enable people to exercise their rights. It also contributed to the Human Development Index (HDI), which evaluates countries based on life expectancy, education, and income.

11. Conclusion: The Evolving Landscape of Theories of Rights

Theories of rights have evolved over centuries, reflecting changes in political, social, and philosophical thought. From natural law to legal positivism, utilitarianism to the capability approach, and the social contract, theories of rights provides a unique perspective on why human rights are necessary and how they should be protected.

Besides the well-known Western theories of rights, there are other rich traditions of thought on rights, such as those found in Indian, Chinese, African, and Islamic cultures. These traditions also emphasise the importance of rights but often place a significant focus on an individual’s duties towards others, fellow beings, and society as a whole. These theories of rights enrich the global discourse on rights by presenting a more holistic and community-focused understanding that integrates individual entitlements with social responsibilities.

In Indian tradition, the concept of Dharma underscores the balance between personal rights and societal obligations, where duties toward family, community, and the environment are prioritised. Chinese tradition, especially through Confucianism, highlights the idea of harmony and mutual respect, where rights are not seen in isolation but as part of the greater social fabric. Similarly,

African philosophy, particularly in the form of Ubuntu, stresses interconnectedness and communal living, asserting that one’s rights are intrinsically linked to the well-being of the community. In Islamic tradition, the notion of rights is deeply intertwined with responsibilities, emphasising that individuals must uphold not only their own rights but also their obligations toward justice, compassion, and the welfare of others.

As our world continues to change, these theories of rights will continue to shape the way we think about human rights and how we ensure that dignity, freedom, and equality are upheld for all people. The challenge ahead is to reconcile these diverse theories of rights to address new global challenges, such as technological advances, climate change, and global inequality, while ensuring that human rights remain at the forefront of the moral and legal landscape.

Ultimately, the goal is not just to recognise rights but to create a world where all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, can fully enjoy their human rights and live a life of dignity and opportunity.