This chapter completes the testing of the Sceptical Tradition’s objections to natural rights, by examining the thought of a selection of contemporary thinkers, in addition to that of John Finnis (in Chapter 4). Those selected are Onora O’Neill (and in relation to her, John Tasioulas, Elizabeth Ashford, and Henry Shue), Nicholas Wolterstorff, and James Griffin (and in relation to him, Allen Buchanan). From this examination the conclusion is drawn that the arguments made by Shue, Tasioulas, Ashford, and Griffin fail to dislodge O’Neill’s ‘radical’ critique, namely, that where capable holders of feasible correspondent duties have not been identified, universal human rights are illusory. This implies that rights are contingent on the circumstances of feasibility and capability, and that there is no constant natural right. The chapter then proceeds to draw general conclusions from the testing of natural rights-talk in Chapters 2 to 5. One seminal conclusion is that the paradigm of a right is positively legal, commanding the support of such institutions as police and courts. This is what explains its distinctive authority vis-à-vis other claims. It follows that a natural right, existing apart from civil society and so lacking institutional support, is, at best, analogous to a proper, legal right. However, since the very concept of a right connotes the stability and security of a legal right, natural rights-talk misleads and is best avoided. Therefore, while there is natural right or law or morality, and while there are legal rights justified by natural morality, there are no natural rights.