Heinlein vs. the Framers

Americans often use the term “natural rights,” or “unalienable rights,” usually referring to the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. However, there has always been a dispute over what natural rights actually are or even whether they exist at all. Robert A. Heinlein stated in one of his novels that human beings have no natural rights of any kind, especially not the three listed in the Declaration of Independence. Other scholars, though, defend the idea of natural rights. However, I think that this debate amounts from nothing more than a confusion in terms.

We must begin by defining the terms “natural” and “right.” I believe this to be the root of the problem, so we must proceed carefully. Webster’s defines natural as “not made or caused by humankind,” and right as “a moral or legal entitlement.” These definitions, though not perfect, should be good enough for now. 

Next, we should figure out if natural rights (as we just defined them) exist. I believe the answer is no. As Heinlein states succinctly, nature guarantees nothing. He then goes on to disprove the Framers' notions of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since his definitions are similar to the ones above, I’ll use his proofs for a moment:

Life: What “right” does a person drowning in the ocean have to live? Or, if two people are stranded on an island and their only way to survive is to eat each other, which person’s right is unalienable? 

Liberty: Simply put, freedom isn’t free. The Framers of the Declaration obviously knew this, since they knew that it was going to be necessary to fight for liberty.

The pursuit of happiness: According to Heinlein, this is a trait of all human beings, not a right. (I’ll ignore this for the moment.)

Now, how is it that the founders of the US did not think of this, great philosophers that they were? They certainly knew these things—so why did they use the words “natural rights” in the Declaration? The answer is that they were using the terms in a different way. They defined a “natural right” as a civil liberty that all people should have, not one that everyone automatically does have. Why, then, did they define them this way? They did so mostly because philosopher John Locke, whose ideas greatly influenced their thinking, used them in this context (though his “natural rights” were life, liberty, and property). In this context, it is much clearer what the framers meant: they wanted the new nation to always ensure that all people would have these civil liberties. Thus, Heinlein does disprove the concept of natural rights by his definition, but he does not refute the Framers’ ideas because he does not even discuss natural rights as they define the term.

Finally, let’s settle the issue of the pursuit of happiness. This, too, is a problem of definition. Heinlein defines it as follows:

“…simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that he is using the phrase differently than the Framers. They meant that government should not hinder people on their path to pursue happiness—i.e., government should not make people unhappy. Again, Heinlein is not disproving the Framers because he is not using their definitions.