Are there really unalienable rights?

[Eyes wide Open]

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

Really. Are you feeling ok? Random comments irrelavant to what was said always concern me.

 

[Gracchus]

unalienable
adjective un·alien·able \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə-\
: impossible to take away or give up

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unalienable

inalienable
adjective in·alien·able \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
: impossible to take away or give up

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

There are no rights except those allowed. They can be withdrawn at any time. They can be given up. Jefferson, the slave-owner, was a victim of cognitive dissonance. The change of a syllable without a change in meaning just reflects that his mind wasn't functioning rationally. His rhetoric was high sounding but really just so much bushwah. The concept of "rights" is a fairy tale for the gullible. The concept of "unalienable/inalienable rights" is a delusion for the weak-minded and insane.

 

[SkyWriting]

Really. Are you feeling ok? Random comments irrelavant to what was said always concern me.

That was so long ago...I don't recall the context.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

That was so long ago...I don't recall the context.

Hence my asking. No probs.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I believe that the answer is simply no. Biblically speaking we have no rights. Think about it. Who are we to tell almighty God that we have the right to anything? Who will judge God if we feel that our rights are violated? To say that we have rights is in essences prideful. It tells God that "you owe us something" or "we deserve something". The truth is that the only thing thing we deserve is being thrown into hell for being sinners. It is only by God's grace and mercy that we are not. Everything that God gives us is through his grace and mercy not because we have a right to anything.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Politially maybe, but cosmically no. They depend on human and social will etc.

Would that not then make them privleges?

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are no rights except those allowed. They can be withdrawn at any time. They can be given up.

No, they can't be. Rights are not just another type of law. They are an ethical principle that underlies the justification of laws.

A government does not have to honor rights, but it can never erase the ethics of good governance. Big Brother still violated the rights of its subjects even though it tried to erase the idea of rights completely.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

unalienable
adjective un·alien·able \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə-\
: impossible to take away or give up

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unalienable

inalienable
adjective in·alien·able \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
: impossible to take away or give up

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

There are no rights except those allowed. They can be withdrawn at any time. They can be given up.

No, they can't be. Rights are not just another type of law. They are an ethical principle that underlies the justification of laws.

A government does not have to honor rights, but it can never erase the ethics of good governance. Big Brother still violated the rights of its subjects even though it tried to erase the idea of rights completely.

Oh?! So the rights are un(/in)alienable in some metaphysical fairyland, but not in the real world. I understand: People engage in wishful thinking and fantasies and then claim these are more real than a rock up aside the head, because they can't be disproved being "metaphysical" or "divine".

It is that kind of deluded thinking that makes political "revolutions" useless, because people are fighting for mystical (unreal) ends.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Oh?! So the rights are un(/in)alienable in some metaphysical fairyland, but not in the real world.

Only if you think that ethics only exists in "some metaphysical fairyland", and not in the real world. To me, rights fully apply to the real world. When governments misbehave, they misbehave in the real world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

Oh?! So the rights are un(/in)alienable in some metaphysical fairyland, but not in the real world. I understand: People engage in wishful thinking and fantasies and then claim these are more real than a rock up aside the head, because they can't be disproved being "metaphysical" or "divine".

It is that kind of deluded thinking that makes political "revolutions" useless, because people are fighting for mystical (unreal) ends.

Only if you think that ethics only exists in "some metaphysical fairyland", and not in the real world. To me, rights fully apply to the real world. When governments misbehave, they misbehave in the real world.

Let us be clear:

Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, “custom”).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EthicsWikipedia

Ethics noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. (used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. (used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics

We see then that ethics is about general or particular opinions. You may want to believe that your opinions are correct and all others are incorrect. You probably believe that God shares your opinions, but then, so also do all those religious folks that happen to disagree with you. "Rights" are whatever the general or personal opinion chooses them to be, and they are revocable at any time.

 

[durangodawood]

Only if you think that ethics only exists in "some metaphysical fairyland", and not in the real world. To me, rights fully apply to the real world. When governments misbehave, they misbehave in the real world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So rights are basically a certain type of human values, right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So rights are basically a certain type of human values, right?

Yes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

Yes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Thats what I think too.
So "unalienable" doesnt quite make sense, as these values can shift.

 

[Gracchus]

So "unalienable" doesnt quite make sense, as these values can shift.

And values have shifted overtime, and still differ from place to place.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So "unalienable" doesnt quite make sense, as these values can shift.

No.

Whether opinions about values shift or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not those values actually are supportive of human flourishing or not. That doesn't depend on opinion so much as reality.

In George Orwell's 1984, opinions about values shift dramatically. Big Brother is still an evil government in reality, no matter how much Winston Smith comes to love "him" in the end.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

Whether opinions about values shift or not is irrelevant.

Well, of course, because values are not rights.

What matters is whether or not those values actually are supportive of human flourishing or not.

And what constitutes "flourishing" is a matter of opinion.

That doesn't depend on opinion so much as reality.

Reality is what is. But people do disagree about it. Not everyone can be right about what is real, but everyonc could be wrong.

In George Orwell's 1984, opinions about values shift dramatically. Big Brother is still an evil government in reality, no matter how much Winston Smith comes to love "him" in the end.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” --- Winston Churchill
It might not be a utopia, but it might, indeed, be the best government possible. I would not like to think so, but that is a matter of taste and opinion.

Still, life, liberty, property, and the ability to "pursue happiness" can be, and are, routinely denied or revoked by government.

 

[durangodawood]

...And what constitutes "flourishing" is a matter of opinion....

Yes and no.
For certain aspects of human life, there seems to be consensus: health, friendship, material security, etc.

 

[Neochristian]

God gave the right to reproduce to fertile people, but witheld that right from sterile people. Rights are like that. The blind have no right to see, only the sighted do. No right is inalienable by nature. Anything can be taken away. That phrase usually refers to law. In our country we have many rights that cannot be taken away by law, even though they can always be taken away by nature.

 

[david rodriguez]

It would be nice if people used their unalienable rights to NOT cause other people headaches and heartaches.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No.

Whether opinions about values shift or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not those values actually are supportive of human flourishing or not. That doesn't depend on opinion so much as reality.

In George Orwell's 1984, opinions about values shift dramatically. Big Brother is still an evil government in reality, no matter how much Winston Smith comes to love "him" in the end.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well thats why I call myself a relativist you have to ask evil for whom? Its agent relative. If 99 lose and one wins, as opposed to 99 win and one loses, aren't we supporting collectivism as opposed to individualism if we go with the majority option? So, if Big brother wins at everyone elses expense, and value is agent centred, is he personally obliged to change his political philosophy...? And be trodden by the horse and chariot of free society.

Om.