ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

The problem is, you simply declare you have a right, you don't back it up in any meaningful way. As the definition of inalienable is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" and we both agree that there isn't a single right which fits that definition, we both agree that inalienable rights, the subject of this thread, don't exist.

That was easy, wasn't it?

Yes, but I thought the same when I posted the 2nd post here.

Yes - sort of fixed the argument right then and there, I thought. Nemmind, it's been a fun trip...

I had to bring in a smarter guy to share my opinion. I hadn't ever read the first draft of Jefferson's Declaration line re: inalienable rights.

Anyhoo,...I'm sure most of us know some of this by heart, but I didn't edit it from the other text. I would have really liked Jefferson.

1. Inalienable Rights


The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people. To Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, these ideas were not just a passing intellectual fad, but a recognition of something inherent in the nature of man itself. The very foundation of government, therefore, rests on the inalienable rights of the people and of each individual composing their mass. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, is the fundamental statement of what government is and from what source it derives its powers. It begins with a summary of those inalienable rights that are the self-evident basis for a free society and for all the powers to protect those rights that a just government exercises.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to 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." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:8

"Of distinction by birth or badge, [Americans] had no more idea than they had of the mode of existence in the moon or planets. They had heard only that there were such, and knew that they must be wrong." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:89

"[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809. ME 16:336

Analysis of "inalienable rights"

Whatever definition of "inalienable" you prefer--the link will answer Frank's question about what Jefferson thought about "Creator." Enjoyable quotes from Jefferson.

But are we talking about equality of rights or inalienable rights? They are two very different things, and in this country, neither has ever been applied. All men are created equal... except blacks, who were slaves and the Japanese who were rounded up and put in internment camps during WWII. In fact, the only people who were equal at the time of the founding fathers were wealthy, white, male land-owners.

And of course, we've already dealt with inalienable rights.

Just because someone wishes something to be so doesn't necessarily make it so. The US was built on some wonderful concepts, unfortunately none of them are more than just concepts, they simply don't exist in reality.

Cephus--
You might want to scroll me then.

One of Jefferson's quotes: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:211, Papers 1:135


Cephus said:

Cephus--They are the same. Inalienable means these rights are interwoven into each life. They cannot be separated.

<Frank--God did show up in this one. "Nature" gets center stage in most of his comments.>

Again, that's a quote, not objective evidence. Jefferson's beliefs aren't in question, but the reality of his claims are. He believed the above, that doesn't make it so. All the quotes and claims and beliefs in the world don't make the existence of inherent rights real, only the demonstration of rights across culture and across time.

Heck, I could say I was the king of the world, I could believe it with all my heart, but it wouldn't be long before I was in one of those white coats with the arms that tie in the back. Just saying something doesn't make it so.

But Sofia -- no matter who says we have "rights" given us by "God" -- does that make it so????

Neither Jefferson -- nor any other of the founding fathers (as far as we know) even KNEW there was a God, let alone what that God has given us.

It is a guess being expressed -- that's all.

And I have mentioned many times that the founding fathers had a logical reason for wanting to assert DIVINE BLESSINGS on their demand for certain rights -- becuase, in effect, they were battling against the DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS. (Which also was a guess that there was a God but that the God wanted Kings to tell people what rights they had and didn't have.)

The argument, no matter how well documented, always reduces to: Well they guessed we have rights because a divine being gave us those rights.

To which a reasonable response is: Who cares what they guessed?

Well. Maybe we should take a poll. I thought all people believed that we were all created equal.

Who believes, at the moment of their birth, they were superior to others born at the same moment--by virtue of nothing other than what was incased in your skin? If you will, please tell what made you superior. I'd like to see how you judge yourself and others.

All of this seems beside the point. The "founding fathers" wanted to guarantee us the right of self-determination within the limits of a remarkable legal structure. They, I'm sure, would have been the first to admit that their society, the world they knew, would change, would make demands on people they couldn't anticipate. The unalienable rights derive from the idea of a free society, protected by law. The god-concept was unknowable. God-language was and is everywhere. (Hey -- I say things like "god willin'" and "aw, for god's sake." without believing in a god.) All that said, inalienable rights are still a concept in this country. We are not a "free country." We are a country in which some are freer than others; we are in a country where people attain power in order to curtail others' rights; we are in a country in which, if we believe in freedom, we'll do our damnedest to make the concept of inalienable rights a reality, knowing that there are many who don't want inalienable rights extended to others, and that it's human nature to want freedom guaranteed.... to me, but maybe not to you.

What on Earth do you mean by this?

Do you honestly think that George W. Bush and Charles Manson were born equals at birth?

What about a baby born with with a severe heart impairment -- or brain defect. Do you see that baby being born equal to a baby born healthy and with good genes?

What kind of definitiion are you using of equals that would allow that to be?

Don't get me wrong, I could wiggle and squirm and come up with a notion of equality that would put Manson and Bush on an equal footing at birth -- and perhaps if I tortured the definition I could show the baby with defects to be "equal" in some way to the healthy baby -- but to what end?

We are not born equal in almost any sense of the word!

Our formative years are not equal in almost any sense of the word!

What is your point, Sofia?

Thanks, finally, we arrive at a necessary improvement to my theory! (Like I wrote previously, if I got it right the first time every time, I wouldn't bother to be posting at able2know.)

Main Entry: in·alien·able
...
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
...

Once one declares an inalienable right for himself, he declares it for everyone else also, AND cannot thereafter surrender or transfer it. The presumption will thereafter always be that he has exercised that right at least once and therefore there is no going back.

("Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.")

So, playing it safe, I DECLARE (OR DEMAND, if Frank insists) that all human beings are endowed by me with certain rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'll go further. Included in, but not limited to my declaration, are the rights IMPLICIT in the following amendments to our Constitution as amended:
I; II; III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV SECTION 1, XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI.

SECURING these rights is a necessary order of business. While I have the right to DECLARE anything I want, I lack the power to alone SECURE those rights. We must do that together.

In SECURING these rights, one must of necessity DE-SECURE the right of anyone who has deprived another of that SECURED right.

truth
Being equal at birth is not as simple a statement as it first appears. Equal in what respect, legal rights, I.Q., predisposition to disease, beauty(and by what standard?), wealth & class of family, etc.? Two individuals may out rank each other in terms of some criteria and not in others. Are we to determine a "net" difference, averaging the advantages by means of some artificial scale of values?
I think we must take note that Sophia (and others) are basing their propositions on values, not identifiable facts. As such their positions are ideological rather than philosophical--and here I am defining philosophical in terms of empirical data logically organized. This is a bit naive I know, but at least one can say that philosophical notions, such as those of Frank and Joefromchicago are much LESS ideological than those of Sophia, Ican and Maligear. Frank and Joe can argue meaningfully with each other, but they cannot cross the bridge separating their perspectives from that of the ideologues. One cannot bridge paradigms (e.g., philosophy vs. ideology, facts vs values, science vs mythology, etc.). As such, the two groups are arguing past each other, something very frustrating to behold.

Re: truth


Yes, legal rights: that is, inalienable rights made secure by law.



As one member of one of those two groups, I would like to report that I also find it "something very frustrating to behold."

Been observing this thread and I get the impression that I am reading a box of corn flakes and only chicagojoe is getting to the corn flakes themselves.

Repeatedly on this thread the "inherent rights by their God" side has alluded to that because their god grants rights to humans and since we are human we have rights.

The "inalienable rights" derived from their god side has not yet explained why humans have rights except to tell us that their god said so.

That's not enough. It's too shallow.

Genesis 22:……. Yahweh told Abraham to sacrifice his son, but stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac and told him to sacrifice a ram instead. Why? It was not simply a test of faith. There was more meaning to it than that.

What was different about Abraham's kid and a sheep's kid that the "God of Abraham" saw?

Remember, according to orthodox Jewish kosher dietary laws, derived from the Torah, itself the Word of this god also demands that non-human life be killed in the most painless, compassionate manner possible so the human can gain sustenance from the death of this animal.

Obviously this god has decided that it is moral to kill the animal for human survival but this god also shows concern about the manner of the death of the animal. This indicates that this god values all life itself while, admitting that human life has greater value, otherwise, there would be no admonition against cannibalism, even if the person is slaughtered "kosherly."

What is it in the human that is not in the animal that this god sees? It is this property which this god considers the mitigating property that raises "man" above the "beast" and is the property seen by this god in humans, which is deserving of rights above that of being slaughtered painlessly.

What is different about humans and other animals that raise humans in the eyes of this god that this god allows the former subjugation over the latter?

A soul? From whence the soul? Free will? How does free will exist in humans but not cats and dogs and certainly was not present in Abraham's sacrificed ram?

I would like to know what this difference is and why it is important, so important in fact that this god allows for the killing of the animal to sustain the human.

I will give you a hint……."we are made in God's image."

Now, what is that property found in God's image that deserves rights (especially that right not to be eaten by other humans?).


As to the secular side's arguments:

It has been stated repeatedly that all rights are derived from social convention, because rights require interactions between humans. Otherwise, a human's rights are but possible actions derived wholly by the boundaries of its mere physical environment.

Social convention can enforce or deny a common set of human rights, and base distinctions on applicability of such rights on things as mentioned earlier on this thread, IQ, an unconscious person in a coma, or a even a human fetus sitting in a woman's womb.

These are arbitrary and socially derived dictates. There is nothing inherent in them, and it is exactly what the Nazis said too as they carted off millions of inferior "sub-humans" to their deaths.

Is that too harsh?

I don't think so, because for an intellectual position to be held honestly one must account for the reality of its actual and historical applications. It is not sufficient to say that "we" are different than the Nazis and would never kill other humans, while accepting the basic thesis the Nazis employed too, viz., that social convention is wholly the root of human rights. After all, the Nazis used social convention to promulgate their theories that some humans had the rights of Isaac and other humans had only rights equivalent to the aforementioned ram of Abraham. The Nuremberg Laws of 1934 are pretty good evidence of the latter.

So, I think there has to be an additional factor, beyond mere social convention, and while not siding with the "Godists," who seem to say that their god bonked them on the head with a magic wand and thereby granted them human rights, I find the "secular" argument inadequate to the task when stating that human rights are solely derived from social conventions.

And again, I leave for another the task of discussing whether the idea of freedom and rights are wholly derived from language thus merely social convention and have no basis in the individual.

I stand with a Third Way, the "ich" of Fichte chigacojoe mentioned.

Kuvasz, when secular humanists argue that civilized rules can be instituted as convention, there IS something else involved--as you require. That is that this process must be instituted and conceived by civilized people. Now the question of what constitutes a civilized (and humane) human being must be answered lest I beg the question. Nevertheless, the argument that God or gods have instituted the rules of inalienable rights that social conventions merely secure them is also begging the question but in a manner that cannot be overcome. At least we CAN, in principle, decide on the nature of civilized and humane people and behavior.

You're still making the same mistake. Belief doesn't matter. There was a point in time where most people believe the earth was flat. They were wrong. Belief doesn't make something true. All the polls, opinions and quotes in the world won't make something true, only objective, logical, rational evidence.

Half of the guys who signed that Declaration about inaliable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were slaveowners.

So they evidently didn't mean to include everbody.

Speaking for myself (and probably many others brought up in this country in the same manner), I grew up with genuine reverence for the Constitution and for our rights -- knew what they were from an early age, treated them as a kind of cornerstone of my life.

This was the same family which brought me up to be polite to people about their eccentric belief in "God," recognizing that kids were bound to encounter, in school and elsewhere, this old-fashioned stuff like singing hymns in assembly, friends who went to church on Sundays, got married in churches.

This same family got whatever small fame some of its members have had over a couple of centuries because of those among its members who fought tenaciously for the rights of others.

Repeat, the rights of others -- as opposed to spending a lifetime resenting the rights of others, which so many (including these so-called Christians) appear to do. In my view, this is the highest form of civilization: allowing others to be who they are while fighting tenaciously for equal (and unalienable) rights for all who have their feet planted on this land -- and on this planet.

That many who have worked to ensure the rights of others have also outgrown most religious beliefs shouts something to me about the gradual development of higher civilization in man, how it depends on toleration and veers away from religious institutions. Above all, it veers away from proselytizing and pride -- including the insistence on others' "need" for god for all in our public, secular institutions.

Yeah, "they" eventually did! They reasoned it was more important to have one government to secure rights for some than to have 13 governments to secure rights for some.

Finally, in 1865, (see the 13th Amendment) new guys began to correct the previous errors of the older guys. The tactic worked! Be Happy!

"You ain't seen nothin' yet."

Or as that famous American Philosopher once said: "It ain't over 'til it's over". :wink: