Jeremy Bentham’s critique of natural rights constitutes one of the most formidable challenges to the foundational assumptions of Enlightenment liberalism. His famous characterization of natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts” reflects his radical empiricism and utilitarian rejection of metaphysical or a priori moral claims. Bentham’s assault on the doctrine of natural rights must be situated within the broader philosophical framework of utilitarianism, legal positivism, and his commitment to legislative reform. His opposition to natural rights is not merely rhetorical but grounded in a systematic epistemological and normative argument about the nature of law, authority, and human welfare.
I. Epistemological Foundations: Rejection of A Priori Moral Claims
Bentham’s empiricism—shaped by the legacy of British empiricists like Locke and Hume—led him to reject abstract, unverifiable metaphysical claims. He viewed natural rights as grounded in speculative “law of nature,” lacking any empirical basis. For Bentham, rights are not discovered through reason or nature but are the product of positive law—explicitly conferred by sovereign authority.
Thus, when theorists like Thomas Paine or the French revolutionaries invoked “natural and imprescriptible rights” as self-evident truths, Bentham found such language mystifying and dangerous. He viewed these formulations as “anarchical fallacies”—not only theoretically incoherent but socially destabilizing. His claim that natural rights are “nonsense upon stilts” exposes their lack of grounding in observable facts or codified law.
II. The Legal Positivist Conception of Rights
Central to Bentham’s critique is the legal positivist axiom that rights can only exist where there is a law that creates and protects them. As he writes, “right is the child of law; from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature… come imaginary rights.”
This view rejects the Enlightenment idea—rooted in Locke, Rousseau, and others—that individuals possess inherent rights in a pre-political “state of nature.” For Bentham, such a state is fictitious; society is not founded upon the realization of natural rights but on the creation of legal institutions designed to maximize happiness. Rights, therefore, do not precede the state; they are creations of it.
III. Critique of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789)
Bentham’s “Anarchical Fallacies” (1796), written as a critique of the French Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, is where his attack on natural rights is most trenchant. He condemns the Declaration for proclaiming rights as antecedent to law and constitutive of political legitimacy. In his view, such proclamations engender rebellion by undermining existing legal orders, especially when rights are declared in absolute terms such as liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
He warns that declaring natural rights against established laws implies that individuals can appeal to a higher, extralegal morality to justify resistance—a recipe, in his judgment, for anarchy. Thus, natural rights were not only intellectually flawed but politically subversive: they encouraged “every man to rise in arms against the laws of the land.”
IV. Utilitarian Alternative to Natural Rights
Bentham replaces the theory of natural rights with a consequentialist doctrine rooted in the “principle of utility”—the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Rights, in this framework, are meaningful only insofar as they are instruments of social utility. He favors legal rights that are rationally designed by legislators to promote collective well-being rather than those allegedly discovered in nature or reason.
In this light, Bentham’s critique is not anti-rights per se, but anti-“natural rights.” He is not opposed to civil rights but insists they must be created and justified through legislative processes based on utilitarian calculations. Rights must be legally defined, empirically grounded, and socially useful.
V. Critique of Abstract Liberties
Bentham is especially critical of abstract, absolutist conceptions of liberty. For instance, the notion of “unqualified liberty” or “freedom from interference” is, in his view, inherently contradictory to the rule of law. If liberty is understood as unregulated freedom, then every law is a restriction on liberty, and legal order becomes tantamount to oppression. Therefore, Bentham insists that liberty must be understood in terms of security, where laws protect individuals from harm and enable stable expectations.
Moreover, he considers natural rights claims to property and resistance as potentially regressive. Claims of a natural right to property, for instance, are unhelpful in adjudicating disputes or justifying redistribution, because they fail to clarify which allocations of property serve the common good.
VI. Political Implications and Historical Context
Bentham’s polemic was not merely philosophical—it was shaped by the political upheavals of his time. The French Revolution, with its invocation of natural rights to justify radical social transformation and violent rupture with existing institutions, reinforced his suspicion of natural law rhetoric. He feared that revolutionary ideology, cloaked in the language of sacred rights, would destabilize society and open the gates to tyranny under the guise of liberty.
Bentham thus offered a more conservative, legalistic conception of reform: rights are important, but they must be framed within a calculative, institutional framework aimed at maximizing happiness, not as moral absolutes that stand above positive law.
VII. Legacy and Contemporary Relevance
Bentham’s critique remains foundational for legal positivism and modern jurisprudence. His views foreshadow the positions of legal theorists such as H.L.A. Hart, who similarly argue that law and morality must be analytically distinguished. However, critics of Bentham argue that his utilitarian framework lacks adequate safeguards for individual rights, particularly in the face of majoritarianism. The Rawlsian revival of rights as prior to the good, and human rights discourse in international law, stands in sharp contrast to Bentham’s instrumentalism.
Yet, in contexts where rights are invoked without institutional backing or are used to justify violence, Bentham’s warning about “nonsense upon stilts” remains a powerful caution against the dangers of rights discourse detached from legal and political realities.
Conclusion
Bentham’s denunciation of natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts” encapsulates his deeper critique of metaphysical moralism in political theory. For him, rights must be the product of human legislation, not derived from fictitious natural orders. His challenge reshaped debates on the source, function, and justification of rights, anchoring them in the pragmatic logic of utility and the institutional structure of law. While his rejection of inherent rights has been widely contested, his insistence on legal clarity, empirical grounding, and utilitarian justification continues to influence contemporary political and legal theory.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.