One objection to the theory of inherent rights is that this concept is based on religious dogma. This argument runs as follows:
- The theory of inherent rights is based on the concept of the sanctity of life.
- The sanctity of life is a concept derived from religious dogma.
- Religious dogma is rationally indefensible.
- Any philosophically sound system of ethics must be rationally defensible.
- Therefore inherent rights are invalid.
Peter Singer is one of the most influential proponents of this argument. He makes the argument as part of his contention that infanticide is morally acceptable and that human newborns should have less rights than some animals. He argues that one should overcome the concept of all humans having a right to life because it is not based on rational argument:
The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is, like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part, a product of Christianity. Perhaps it is now possible to think about these issues without assuming the Christian moral framework that has, for so long, prevented any fundamental reassessment.
- Practical Ethics by Peter Singer
Stephan Kinsella asserts that the only possible justification for inherent rights is a religious one:
Only religious theories that assume a soul inhering in the individual from conception can really justify attributing rights to humans from day 0, i.e. from conception. For they believe the soul is both necessary and sufficient for rights; and since we have it from day 0, we have rights from day 0.
This objection to inherent rights is invalid for the following reasons:
- The philosophical argument from inherent rights is entirely independent of Christian or any other religious belief.
- Therefore, the fact that Christianity (or any religion) holds human life to be sacred is immaterial to the philosophical question of whether rights are inherent.
- Just because Christians conclude that it is immoral to kill unborn children based on religious dogma, this does not invalidate the secular argument that unborn children have rights.
There is an entirely secular justification for inherent rights. The argument is as follows:
- Property rights are required to prevent conflict over scarce resources.
- Only certain property rights are valid. The criterion for determining if a right is valid is whether it conforms to the meta-ethical rules derived from the logic of argumentation and the requirements of non-contradiction.
- These meta-ethical rules include (a) the requirement that no rule is conflict-promoting and (b) the requirement that there must be an objective and inter-subjectively ascertainable link between specific individuals and all scarce goods at every moment in time. An unborn child's body is an example of a scarce good.
- The theory of acquired rights violates numerous meta-ethical rules, including (a) and (b) listed above.
- The theory of inherent rights does not violate any meta-ethical rules.
- Therefore, the correct rights theory is the theory of inherent rights.