Are there really unalienable rights?

[Eudaimonist]

What is an "inalienable right"?

It means that government cannot simply legislate what is or isn't the ethical treatment of its citizenry. They can't just pass a law saying that slavery is legal, and declare that because it is legal it is a proper treatment of people. Even legal slavery still violates rights.

It also means that rights can't be bought or sold. You can't sell your rights away. You can't sell yourself into slavery, and have that be justifiable on the grounds of rights.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

It means that government cannot simply legislate what is or isn't the ethical treatment of its citizenry. They can't just pass a law saying that slavery is legal, and declare that because it is legal it is a proper treatment of people. Even legal slavery still violates rights.

It also means that rights can't be bought or sold. You can't sell your rights away. You can't sell yourself into slavery, and have that be justifiable on the grounds of rights.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So inalienable right are pure values. They are not "out there" in the natural world to be discovered, except that they are perhaps what human beings naturally want......?

 

[Chicken Little]

(yes to the original question.. )

Are there really unalienable rights?

for freedom to exist , the freedom of choices has to exist thus there must be rights, God gave all people those rights in the garden , but people sell them or even gave them away in exchange for something and continue too exchange them for something they want more at the time.(like Esau and his bowl of stew ) they don't think of them or care until they are gone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

(yes to the original question.. )

for freedom to exist , the freedom of choices has to exist thus there must be rights, God gave all people those rights in the garden , but people sell them or even gave them away in exchange for something and continue too exchange them for something they want more at the time.(like Esau and his bowl of stew ) they don't think of them or care until they are gone.

If they're gone, they weren't really unalienable.

 

[Chicken Little]

If they're gone, they weren't really unalienable.

wrong all things legal are property.. and because if they are property they can be auctioned off to the highest bidders , that doesn't mean they were given to them in the first place and not valued by them .
but eventually they will rise up and try to steal them back .. usually.

 

[Ana the Ist]

wrong all things legal are property.. and because if they are property they can be auctioned off to the highest bidders , that doesn't mean they were given to them in the first place and not valued by them .
but eventually they will rise up and try to steal them back .. usually.

No...I'm not wrong. "Unalienable" is another form of the word "inalienable". The definition of inalienable is...

http://i.word.com/idictionary/inalienable

"impossible to take away or give up"

So, therefore, inalienable rights are those which cannot be taken from someone or given up. If you're interested in an example of an inalienable right, look at my first post.

 

[Chicken Little]

No...I'm not wrong. "Unalienable" is another form of the word "inalienable". The definition of inalienable is...

http://i.word.com/idictionary/inalienable

"impossible to take away or give up"

So, therefore, inalienable rights are those which cannot be taken from someone or given up. If you're interested in an example of an inalienable right, look at my first post.

oh say what.... and your not selling that to the highest bidders?

 

[Ana the Ist]

oh say what.... and your not selling that to the highest bidders?

I don't know what you mean by that...

So I'll say it again, inalienable rights cannot be taken or given away.

 

[SkyWriting]

People are affording rights to animals all the time with new legislation etc. Its an incremental process of change. Others don't need to wait for legislative measures and choose not to kill and eat animals, they feel an animal does have a right to live.

When you start rooting for germs, you've finally made it. Enjoy the slime. Be the slime.

 

[AtWhatCost]

Yes, I think that we do have inalienable rights, by which I mean that there are certain ways in which it is unethical for governments to treat their citizenry, and the defense of rights justifies the institution of government.

Right have zilch to do with the Bible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And you base that on what? I'm asking because there have been/are nations that believe it was fine and dandy to turn children into slaves, to trade children, to rape a bunch of young women, stick them in a hut for nine months until they have their babies, and then gather together for a dinner of baby legs, and a variety of other crappy things to do to people all in the name of If-I-Want-That-I-Deserve-That. So exactly why do you believe there are certain rights? And where is your base to believe that?

I can believe trees are really giant aliens, but I can't defend that belief.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And you base that on what?

A complex philosophical investigation into the nature of human beings and the necessary conditions for flourishing on Earth. People need individual rights protected in order to be free to live rational and productive lives, which is how they achieve their personal good.

The point here is that when governments try to alienate the inalienable rights of the citizenry, it is mistreating its citizens. The government loses its ethical justification as a government.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If they're gone, they weren't really unalienable.

Governments don't grant rights, at best they merely secure them. Rights are ethical principles, not something government create simply through enforcement.

It is unfortunate that moderns tend not to realize that distinction. They think that rights are merely voted into existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So inalienable right are pure values. They are not "out there" in the natural world to be discovered, except that they are perhaps what human beings naturally want......?

Rights are much like ethical principles. They are discovered by understanding human nature and needs. It's not about what people want, but rather but rather about the legal conditions they need to flourish in society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Governments don't grant rights, at best they merely secure them. Rights are ethical principles, not something government create simply through enforcement.

It is unfortunate that moderns tend not to realize that distinction. They think that rights are merely voted into existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You say "merely voted into existence" like its a small thing. I have a hard time understanding a right that isn't recognized by law..., or least by the will of the individual and what they're willing to do.

Could you possibly elaborate on your view using a practical example?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You say "merely voted into existence" like its a small thing.

It's an empty thing. But of course legitimate rights need the support of voters.

Could you possibly elaborate on your view using a practical example?

You have a right not to be enslaved. A government decides that slavery is a-okay and enslaves you. You have been wronged, and the government (as it currently exists) is no longer justified. Feel free to take George Orwell's Big Brother government as a fictional example.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AtWhatCost]

A complex philosophical investigation into the nature of human beings and the necessary conditions for flourishing on Earth. People need individual rights protected in order to be free to live rational and productive lives, which is how they achieve their personal good.

The point here is that when governments try to alienate the inalienable rights of the citizenry, it is mistreating its citizens. The government loses its ethical justification as a government.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Then there is no such thing as inalienable rights, because there is no such thing as a government that doesn't read on someones freedom?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then there is no such thing as inalienable rights, because there is no such thing as a government that doesn't read on someones freedom?

That doesn't make logical sense. At best, what you are suggesting is that no governments are legitimate.

However, I don't think that anything so dire is true. A government that restricts itself to securing individual rights would be fully legitimate. If this is impossible, one could at least argue that a government that sincerely limits itself as much as it can is more legitimate than those that don't, so one could tolerate that for the time being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AtWhatCost]

That doesn't make logical sense. At best, what you are suggesting is that no governments are legitimate.

However, I don't think that anything so dire is true. A government that restricts itself to securing individual rights would be fully legitimate. If this is impossible, one could at least argue that a government that sincerely limits itself as much as it can is more legitimate than those that don't, so one could tolerate that for the time being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Contraire. This is what you said, " to be free to live rational and productive lives." Since no one person can determine what that means for everyone, I drew the logical conclusion.

And, sure we can argue about anything, but then we lose site of my original question.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

We've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist?

No.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is what you said, " to be free to live rational and productive lives." Since no one person can determine what that means for everyone, I drew the logical conclusion.

Yes, it can be determined what this means for everyone. However, this is done in the abstract, not by telling each and every individual how they should judge their individual situations. That job is left to individuals.

Since rational activity is free, not compelled, there is no need for a government to force people into its own specific views of what they should be doing. Government is only there to enforce laws that secure rights that preserve the freedom to be rationally self-directed. That freedom may be called "individual liberty".

Examples are laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, kidnapping...


eudaimonia,

Mark