Misplaced Pages

Inalienable right: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:34, 19 October 2005 editZephram Stark (talk | contribs)1,402 edits What authoritative source criticizes the Declaration of Independence as being groundless? Cite this specific source in discussion before adding this sentence back. No original research.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:37, 23 September 2019 edit undoXqbot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,319,594 editsm Bot: Fixing double redirect to Natural rights and legal rightsTag: Redirect target changed 
(393 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
The term '''inalienable rights''' (or '''unalienable rights''') refers to a set of ] 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 ]s is derived from the freeborn rights claimed by the ] ] in his conflict with both the monarchy of ] and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by ]. 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 ]. Inalienable rights played important roles in the justifications for both the ] and ]s. ] ] ] discussed the idea of inalienable rights in his work, and identified them as being "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". The ] ], written by ], famously asserts:
:''"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."''

== Criticism ==
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==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

==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

]
]
]

Latest revision as of 23:37, 23 September 2019

Redirect to: