Natural Rights and the Purpose of Government: Unpacking the Declaration
The Declaration of Independence makes a bold claim: Human beings have rights—natural rights—that exist prior to government and laws. According to the Declaration, all human beings are “endowed by their Creator” with these unalienable natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—which means they do not come from government or any human institution.
They’re rooted in our nature, not granted by kings or parliaments or any other human lawmakers. Let’s unpack what this means and where it leads.
Life and Liberty
Our right to life is inseparable from our nature: We are living beings. We’re supposed to live. By nature, we have all the internal organs and metabolizing processes of living creatures. It is right, fitting, proper for us to be alive. We do not have the nature of rocks. We have the nature of living human beings. We have life.
But what kind of life? Not the life of a slug or a snail. We’re human, with rational, free minds. We think, we choose—choice defines freedom. Only free beings make choices; only choosing beings are free. So, we have the of beings that live freely; we think for ourselves; we form opinions; we choose how to live; we govern ourselves; each human being is responsible—morally, legally—for his or her own choices and actions.
That’s our natural right to human liberty—tied to life, inseparable from our human nature.
The Pursuit of Happiness
With life and liberty, what’s next? What do we do with our freedom, our capacity for choice? Every day, we make choices—small ones like what to eat for lunch, big ones like careers or marriage and what kind of person to be. Hundreds of choices, maybe thousands, daily.
And all the choices each person makes aim, ultimately, at one thing: happiness. Picture a high school student dragging out of bed as the alarm goes off early in the morning. Why? To get to school on time. Why? To get better grades. Why better grades? To get into a better college. Why a better college? For a better job. Why a job? More money. Why money? To buy a car, a house—and to have more options in life.
Each choice we make points toward a goal higher than the choice itself. No one chooses to set an early morning alarm simply for the experience of setting an alarm; we choose to set the alarm for a higher purpose: To get to school on time. Setting the alarm is a means to a higher end. Getting good grades is a means to a higher end.
The big question, then: Is there an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that is never a means to something higher? Is there some highest good at which all other choices aim? Yes—happiness. In every choice we make, big or small, we are aiming for happiness, even though many of us are not very accurate in our aim.
Even people who struggle with addictions—drugs, alcohol, gambling—are chasing happiness. They’re mistaken in what they assume happiness is; they are wrong to equate happiness with a fleeting high or buzz. Yet, if asked, they will say they want happiness, not misery. We’re wired to pursue happiness; it’s what free, thinking, choosing beings do.
By nature, it’s right to live, to be free, and to seek happiness. Or, put another way, each human being has natural rights to his or her own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happiness as Virtue
What is happiness? George Washington, in his First Inaugural Address—a short, stunning speech worth reading—offers a clue. He said, “There exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.”
Echoing classical moral philosophy, he ties happiness to virtue. The happy person is a virtuous person who consistently chooses well and does what is just and right. This isn’t some license to chase indulge fleeting pleasures—like stealing or hurting others or ingesting drugs and alcohol until losing consciousness.
Our natural right to pursue happiness operates within virtue’s moral frame; it’s not an open-ended free-for-all. To cite an extreme example: The child rapist might find pleasure in raping children; still, his natural right to pursue happiness does not include raping children. The natural right to pursue happiness is the natural right to exercise the intellectual and moral virtues.
According to the Declaration of Independence, these natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—are endowments, gifts from our Creator. Like a college endowment—or an endowment for a church or a hospital—they are gifts with a purpose. Just as it’s wrong for a college to squander endowment donations on parties and orgies held on the campus quad; so too it is wrong for human beings to squander their natural rights engaged in moral depravity, injustice, or violating the rights of others.
Our natural rights, too, have a purpose: to live well, virtuously, within the moral boundaries of our human nature.
Unalienable Rights
The Declaration calls these rights “unalienable”—they can’t be taken away.
Picture a grim scene: a slave in 1850s America, bound to a tree, whipped by a master. Flesh torn, blood dripping—not for any crime, just to flex power and send a threatening message the other slaves on the plantation.
Here is a good question to ask students: Does that slave, who is being unjustly and cruelly beaten, have natural rights to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Some students will say no—the slave is chained, tortured, after all. How can he have any rights, they will ask.
You, the teacher, should then ask your students: Is it wrong what the plantation master is doing to the slave?
At least some students will respond immediately: Yes, it’s terribly wrong!
You, the teacher, should ask a follow-up question: If the slave has no natural rights to his own life or liberty—of he has no rightful claim to his own body—then why is it wrong for someone else to whip him?
As your students think about this, remind them: The slave absolutely has natural rights to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness—that is what makes slavery wrong. That is what makes the unjust beating and whipping, unjust.
Slavery is WRONG because life, liberty, and the free pursuit of happiness are RIGHT. The master violates the natural rights of the slave, brutally, cruelly, but the master does not because he cannot erase them.
Without rights, there’d be no wrongs—no theft, murder, or tyranny to judge. All moral wrongs are moral wrongs because they violate the natural rights of others. Unalienable means inherent, in us by nature, beyond anyone’s power to strip away—government, law, or the whip.
No person can take away your natural rights; no government can take them away; no law can take them away. A person, a government, a law can violate the natural rights of some people; and, when that happens, the person, the government, or the law violating the natural rights of others is wrong. In the case of the Declaration of Independence, the Americans will conclude that when a government violates rather than protects the natural rights of its own people, those people have the natural right to revolution—to throw off that unjust government, and establish a new one—which is exactly what the Americans end up doing.
Government’s Role: Securing Rights
The Declaration continues: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Rights come first—life, liberty, happiness—then government.
Our natural rights don’t come from government; they’re ours by nature, vested in individuals by virtue of being human. Government are “instituted” or created for one and only one legitimate purpose: to secure our natural rights.
For a government to be legitimate, according to the Declaration, it must not only protect the natural rights of the citizens who create the government, it must do so with the consent of those people. That is the goal at which we should aim: Combining consent with justice—the just powers of government, which are powers that protect the natural rights of We The People who create our own government.
Why Government Exists
To repeat: Government’s purpose is simple and narrow: to secure these (natural) rights. Not to provide free health care, housing, or jobs—just protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Why do we need government? We’re not perfect. We have rational minds, yes, but we are also tempted by our appetites and passions. People hurt each other—steal, assault, oppress. Government is supposed to protect our rights from those threats.
It’s a stoic, almost harsh teaching in the Declaration: it doesn’t promise perfect happiness or success, just the freedom to pursue it. No one should violate your rights or take what rightfully belongs to you—government should stop them.
But if you fail or hit bad luck, that’s on you; the best you can do is ask your family, friends, and neighbors for help. According to the Declaration, you have a right to try; you don’t have a right to the outcome you want.
Consent of the Governed
Government’s powers must be “just” and come from “the consent of the governed.” Why consent? Because all men are created equal—no one’s born to rule another without the other’s permission.
A benevolent king might claim our good, but without consent, it’s illegitimate. Equality demands we agree to be governed. Consent’s necessary—but not enough. The Declaration specifies “just powers,” not unjust ones. Good government needs both: consent and justice.
The Tension of Consent and Justice
In theory, it’s easy: people consent to a just government with equal laws protecting everyone’s rights. In practice? Thorny.
What if people won’t consent to justice? You’ve got two ideals—consent and justice—and if they clash, one gives. Either you keep consent and accept injustice—like slavery’s compromise, which we’ll explore later—or impose justice without consent, ruling “savages” who won’t agree.
Neither is fully morally satisfactory. The Declaration aims higher: consent plus justice; equal protection for the equal individual rights of all citizens, and a government that is elected (directly or indirectly) and authorized by the people, no exceptions.
The Right—and Duty—of Revolution
The Declaration gets radical: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” If government fails to secure rights—violates them instead—people can change it: new policies, leaders, constitutions. Or abolish it entirely.
A Revolutionary Act
This isn’t abstract. The Declaration’s authors were revolutionaries, waging war against their government—King George III’s regime, and Army, and Royal Navy. They grabbed muskets, aimed at British soldiers, and fired. That’s revolution—raw, real, radical. They claimed this right because no one, no government, can justly trample natural rights. It’s why the Americans fought.
New Government, Old Wisdom
They add: people can “institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Government has two ends or goals: safety—armies against foreign foes, police against domestic predators—and happiness.
But prudence—practical wisdom—cautions restraint. “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” Experience shows people endure “sufferable evils” rather than upend what’s familiar. Small gripes don’t justify rebellion—elections and laws can fix those.
When Revolution Becomes Duty
But when “a long train of abuses and usurpations” shows a government bent on “absolute Despotism,” it’s not just a right—it’s a duty to “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
No peaceful fix? When tyranny is the clear goal—rights of the people crushed systematically—revolution becomes an obligation. Our rights—endowments for living well—demand it.
Slavery’s wrong because it treats humans as beasts; kingship is wrong because it exalts one person as a god. Both are wrong. The Declaration rejects both slavery and kingship, insisting we resist tyranny in all forms, not just as a right, but a moral must.
Grievances and Resolve
The Declaration lists King George III’s wrongs: troops without consent, property seized, taxation without representation.
Post-French and Indian War (1763), Britain—broke from global victory—taxed colonies to refill its treasury. Americans, untaxed by London before, lived free, paying only local levies they approved. “No taxation without representation” wasn’t about amounts—it was principle. George Washington, a rich landowner, could’ve paid and stayed cozy under British rule. Instead, he led the Continental Army, risking all for these ideas.
Petitions Ignored
“We have petitioned for redress in the humblest terms,” the Declaration says, “our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” As subjects, they begged; as a “free people,” they saw a tyrant unfit to rule them—a prince defined by tyranny.
The Final Stand
It ends: “We… the Representatives of the United States… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world… declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”
Absolved from Britain, they pledge “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”—not to God or the masses, but to each other. Around a table, these men staked everything, knowing betrayal meant death as traitors. Their trust forged a free America.