Inherent and Inalienable Rights

Yes. You have a right to do and take what you can. I can choose to kill someone, and I have that right - assuming I succeed, other people have the right to do something about it. The laws aren't god, but neither are we.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Sofia wrote:
My basic argument is that you can possess inalienable rights, rights which are born and die with you, which you may be prevented from practicing. But your right to life, freedom and self-determination cannot be morally denied--though they may be legally denied.

A worthwhile distinction. But where do those inalienable rights come from?
Your humanity. Your creator. Your wiring. Your innate, inborn drive. Whatever made you human. Just like babies ALL cry for comfort, food, the necessities of life from birth. Our first uninstructed, unintelligible voices are a demand. The Terrible Twos are our next step toward self-determination. ALL human children make a stand for independence around the same age. No one told them their rights. They come from within. There are other stages in life when people step up the challenge to determine for themselves. Because, instinctively, we know we have a right to fight for our lives, to live free and to choose our paths.
Sofia wrote:
This infuriated masses of people last time, and I don't want to wreck the thread...

Oh, go ahead. What's the worst that can happen?
Stand by... :wink:

0 Replies

I completely disagree with rufio.
An innate Right is not the same as ability.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

.........But where do those inalienable rights come from?......

'Human rights' evolve out of the wisdom of society; they are 'discovered', so to speak by those who would assist the journey from savagery into the 'light' of 'civilization.
Frequently there is a huge lapse in time from the definition of a right, to its inception, but never the less, once into the psyche of a society, the concept of these 'rights' will be born forward on the shoulders of the idealists; and shall not die!

and i agree Sofia, the ability to choose, has nothing to do with 'rights'. Rights are a contractual agreement with society.

0 Replies

I agree with BGW's assessment of 'human rights'; but not that rights are a contractual agreement with society.

The founding document states, I think, ..."we recognise" these rights....not "we create" them.

The rights are internal, endowed and inalienable.

0 Replies

Then who determines what "innate right" is?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

.......The founding document states, I think, ..."we recognise" these rights....not "we create" them.......

er, who's 'founding document' would that be??

my contract is with the Canadia/en Government, and we have a special little booklet - The Canadian Bill of Rights - where everything is written out in black on white; and signed by the "Government of Canada", and countersigned by me!

Canadian Bill of Rights

0 Replies

truth
Joe is right; the central here must be the source of our rights. To say that they are innate and internal doesn't quite do it for me. On what basis does one know this to be so?

0 Replies

BGW--
You are correct that I was using my country's founding doc, as an example--not as proof, however.

JNL poses a very good question. I guess it is central to our discussion. What is the source of innate rights?

I guess since most here don'tseem to believe they are innate, and instead think they arelegal, we won't go much further in that area.... Too bad.

0 Replies

Why was slavery wrong?

0 Replies

Quote:

All Men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life - if you are able to read / hear this, you were endowed with life, depends on you and those around you
Liberty – you are at liberty to do as you see fit, others are at liberty to react as they see fit.
Pursuit of Happiness – every one may pursue happiness, from one in the lap of luxury, to one under the boot heels of oppression, they are free to pursue happiness, even if it is in there own mind.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Why was slavery wrong?

No one answered me...

0 Replies

Well, Sophia/Lash Goth/Lash, the Declaration be damned . . . according to the Constitution, them boys and girls was only 60% people . . .

0 Replies

The innateness of our rights is declared when we make up a "sacred document" like our Constitution. But absolutism has nothing to do with the fact that we CONSTRUCT such rights as reflections of our feeble but growing nobility. As BoGoWo put it (where is he?), it results from our social evolution, from our gradual transformatikon from "primitive" to "civilized" social beings.
Our "virtues" are virtuous because we have created/authored them, not because we found/stumbled upon them.

0 Replies

I don't believe rights are automatic, since the same force that brought us into existence is capricious, and can end any life, all in an instant, at any point during one's life span. We are born with needs, that cause us to grant rights to ourselves and others, and the "rights" are subject to change at almost any time. I just wanted to say this, but I am not about to read the whole thread to learn where I have gone wrong in my thinking.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, Sophia/Lash Goth/Lash, the Declaration be damned . . . according to the Constitution, them boys and girls was only 60% people . . .

Laughing. This is my sticking point on inalienable rights.

How do we instinctively know slavery is wrong without giving credence to inalienable rights?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Sofia wrote:
Why was slavery wrong?

No one answered me...

was slavery wrong?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

How do we instinctively know slavery is wrong without giving credence to inalienable rights?

There certainly are ways of arguing that slavery is wrong without resorting to a defense of inalienable rights. A utilitarian, for instance, would argue that slavery is wrong because it is disutile, and wouldn't rest that position on inalienable rights (for utilitarians, there really are no such things).

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Lash wrote:
How do we instinctively know slavery is wrong without giving credence to inalienable rights?

There certainly are ways of arguing that slavery is wrong without resorting to a defense of inalienable rights. A utilitarian, for instance, would argue that slavery is wrong because it is disutile, and wouldn't rest that position on inalienable rights (for utilitarians, there really are no such things).

I have to go to work---but would you make that argument?
Does "disutile" mean it wasn't a good economic practice? (Dictionary doesn't have it)

I'd like to have a go with you (or someone) on this.

0 Replies

disutile=useless

0 Replies

Inherent and Inalienable Rights

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know