| Revision as of 03:33, 19 October 2005 editJW1805 (talk | contribs)8,263 editsm rvv← 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 | ||
| (381 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 == | |||
| 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== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==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: