| Revision as of 03:13, 19 October 2005 editJW1805 (talk | contribs)8,263 editsm rvv← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:15, 19 October 2005 edit undoZephram Stark (talk | contribs)1,402 edits Misplaced Pages does not allow for original research. It's really simple. I've created a category in discussion. Just cite a source that links the Declaration of Independence to Naturalistic Fallacy.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :''"We hold these ]s to be ], that ], that they are endowed by their ] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are ]. That to secure these rights, ]s are instituted among Men."'' | :''"We hold these ]s to be ], that ], that they are endowed by their ] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are ]. That to secure these rights, ]s are instituted among Men."'' | ||
| The two most common foundations for a ] are ] and ]. | |||
| == Criticism == | |||
| The concept of inalienable rights has often been criticized for being largely groundless, since no explanation is given as to where these rights come from. If they are based on ] principles (as in "God-given rights"), one may ask which theological principles those are (since none of the major ]s of the world confirms the existence of inalienable rights), or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived. | |||
| If, on the other hand, inalienable rights are said to be based on ], then this argument can easily be criticized for being a '']'' and an example of the ]. The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" has been accused of being simply a more elegant version of "Because we said so". | |||
| The existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a ] or a set of laws and rights. The idea of a ] – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely recognized alternative. | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 03:15, 19 October 2005
The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. Several sets of inalienable rights have been suggested by philosophers and politicians.
Origins
It has been argued that the idea of inalienable rights is derived from the freeborn rights claimed by the Englishman John Lilburne in his conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by Oliver Cromwell. Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) defined freeborn rights as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.
The concept of inalienable rights is central to the ideology of liberalism. Inalienable rights played important roles in the justifications for both the French and American Revolutions. 17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed the idea of inalienable rights in his work, and identified them as being "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". The 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, famously asserts:
- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
The two most common foundations for a constitution are natural rights and social contracts.
See also
- Civil rights
- Natural rights
- Human rights
- Moral universalism
- Moral relativism
- Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
Sources & further reading
- Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. 1690 (primarily the second treatise)
- Lloyd Thomas, D.A. Locke on Government. 1995, Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09533-6
- Waldron, Jeremy Theories of Rights 1984, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-875063-3