Aleteia logoAleteia logo
Sunday 13 June |
Saint of the Day: St. Anthony of Padua
home iconNews
line break icon

Catholic Economics, Part 3: Natural Rights or Inalienable Duties?

Val Kerry

Daniel Schwindt - published on 04/16/14 - updated on 06/08/17

Without this outward aim toward God, goodness, and neighbor, rights become a collection of purely subjective determinations. We are free to do with them what we will, irrespective of any objective standard; and no one should dare tell us otherwise, lest our liberties be infringed.

Is this not precisely our situation today? Not only do we accept this twisted notion of rights, but we often vehemently defend it. To use a familiar example, we’ve all heard the saying: “I may not believe in what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Is this not absurd? Why on earth would a man die for what he believes to be a lying opinion? To die for the sake of truth is noble, but to die defending a lie is a terrible waste of precious life. Such strange notions are the result of promoting rights to the point of absolutes—goods in themselves—free of any moderating context.

So when did we lose the counterbalancing obligation toward neighbor, truth, and justice, thereby causing rights to lose their moral validity? If we look at the genesis of this transformation, we can also understand why this conception is so deeply rooted in the American psyche.

Rights, as they are today commonly understood, were popularized by a liberal Enlightenment philosopher named John Locke, who was quite possibly the single largest influence on the thought of the Founding Fathers. Locke, in opposition to Aquinas, formulated a humanistic and hyper-simplified version of rights: humanist because, in his view, rights derived from man’s nature rather than divine law; reductionist because now rights had to be considered as purely “individual” rather than social.

Whereas the traditional view had taught that rights were simply duties from another point of view, in Locke they became privileges—inborn and without any obligations attached. It was on this basis that the liberal state we know today evolved. The State, which from Aristotle to Aquinas existed to reinforce the good and virtuous life, now would have no other purpose than “securing individual rights.” The State became a petty referee in the arbitrary exercise of a thousand liberties to which all are entitled. Thus, in a strange way, we might say that Locke was the original author of the entitlement state.

Locke represents an unprecedented promotion of rights, removing them from the larger context of relational justice in which they had previously been kept. Freedom of speech, the press, and religion, even the right to bear arms, were thenceforth removed from any clear framework of limits—for if something is considered an absolute truth, how can that truth be given boundaries?

The popes new better and tried to warn of the danger. Leo XIII, writing against just this sort of liberalism, had the following to say about the “right of free speech”:

“It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation…For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice…lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State…If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate…Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail.” (
Libertas, 23)

Here we see the vital connection between rights and truth—between rights and justice—which is absolutely necessary in order to keep things coherent. John Paul II summarizes the teaching:

“Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known.” (
Veritatis Splendor, 34)

Each one of us is called to seek the good life, to walk ceaselessly in the direction of truth. We can choose not to pursue that truth, of course. People do it all the time—criminals, for example. But, as with thieves and murderers, the rejection of the “prior moral obligation” logically implies the rejection of the right. You cannot have your philosophical cake and eat it too.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Support Aleteia!

If you’re reading this article, it’s thanks to the generosity of people like you, who have made Aleteia possible.

Here are some numbers:

  • 20 million users around the world read every month
  • Aleteia is published every day in seven languages: English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Slovenian
  • Each month, readers view more than 50 million pages
  • Nearly 4 million people follow Aleteia on social media
  • Each month, we publish 2,450 articles and around 40 videos
  • We have 60 full time staff and approximately 400 collaborators (writers, translators, photographers, etc.)

As you can imagine, these numbers represent a lot of work. We need you.

Support Aleteia with as little as $1. It only takes a minute. Thank you!

Daily prayer
And today we celebrate...

Top 10
Lucandrea Massaro
This 3D “carbon copy” of Jesus was created using the ...
Philip Kosloski
Padre Pio’s favorite prayer of petition
Philip Kosloski
Miracle prayer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Philip Kosloski
Offer your heart to Jesus with this prayer
Daniel Esparza
Were Jesus and Joseph really carpenters?
Bret Thoman, OFS
What Padre Pio saw in the Spanish Flu of 1918
Kathleen N. Hattrup
3 three-word prayers to turn your day around
See More
Get Aleteia delivered to your inbox. Subscribe here.