We hold these truths...

[setarcos]

"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..."

I presume most people on here are familiar with these words from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
I propose this question, Is there actually such a thing as an unalienable right as defined and how do/can we determine what actually should be an unalienable right? What might present the best path to determining such things, cultural practices, simple opinion, nature/science, philosophy, religion?

 

[Heyo]

"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..."

I presume most people on here are familiar with these words from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
I propose this question, Is there actually such a thing as an unalienable right as defined and how do/can we determine what actually should be an unalienable right?

Let's start with the right to life. There is no such thing in the laws or constitution of the US.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's the first part of that sentence which is key; these truths are self-evident, they are axiomatic, they are absolutely fundamental to the ideals which inspired that declaration. That neither individual nor institution has been able to live up to them subsequently, is irrelevant imo. Ideals are something to be aspired to, even and especially if they are not acheivable in reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's the first part of that sentence which is key; these truths are self-evident, they are axiomatic, they are absolutely fundamental to the ideals which inspired that declaration. That neither individual nor institution has been able to live up to them subsequently, is irrelevant imo. Ideals are something to be aspired to, even and especially if they are not acheivable in reality.

It was written at a time slavery was legal. I agree with you that they are more ideals than a statement of reality, but I've also wondered how strictly the author's actually meant the words.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It was written at a time slavery was legal. I agree with you that they are more ideals than a statement of reality, but I've also wondered how strictly the author's actually meant the words.

Yeah, the signatories to that document certainly fell well short of the stated ideals. And there is a tragic irony in that, for sure.

The ideals themselves remain valid, and the declaration inspirational, imo. And I say that as a citizen of the country they were declaring independence from, btw.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, the signatories to that document certainly fell well short of the stated ideals. And there is a tragic irony in that, for sure.

The ideals themselves remain valid, and the declaration inspirational, imo. And I say that as a citizen of the country they were declaring independence from, btw.

Makes sense to me!
My country (Australia) has similarly fallen short of stated ideals at times, but they remain valid signposts to where we should be heading.

 

[setarcos]

Let's start with the right to life. There is no such thing in the laws or constitution of the US.

Sorry for the delay...they wouldn't let me near a computer in the psych ward.
Any who... Why do we have a right to life? What does that mean? Do we acquire all rights meritoriously? If so how? Seems to me you can't do anything to acquire a right before you exist but we seem to be saying that we have the right to exist before we even do. So who gives us those rights? Those that already exist? But then by what criteria do we award a non existent thing rights before it even exists to gain those rights? And what gives those that exist the right to give rights to others? Obviously people disagree on who should have what right so by what objective criteria can we use as a guiding reference?
Do evil people, and they do objectively exist in my opinion, have the same rights that good people have? Should they?

 

[Heyo]

Sorry for the delay...they wouldn't let me near a computer in the psych ward.
Any who... Why do we have a right to life? What does that mean? Do we acquire all rights meritoriously? If so how? Seems to me you can't do anything to acquire a right before you exist but we seem to be saying that we have the right to exist before we even do. So who gives us those rights? Those that already exist? But then by what criteria do we award a non existent thing rights before it even exists to gain those rights? And what gives those that exist the right to give rights to others? Obviously people disagree on who should have what right so by what objective criteria can we use as a guiding reference?
Do evil people, and they do objectively exist in my opinion, have the same rights that good people have? Should they?

Rights are a subject of jurisprudence. I am not a lawyer, so take the following with a grain of salt, it's how I understand it.

Rights are granted by a body that has the power and inclination to enact and preserve them, or at least to punish those who violate them. In monarchies, it was the Queen or King, in democracies it is usually "we, the people".
Human rights are granted to all people who are in the jurisdiction of the declaring body. Citizen rights are granted to people living as citizens in the country.
Some rights are declared "unalienable", which means they are cemented in the constitution and can't be taken away from anyone, short of a change of the constitution.

 

[setarcos]

It's the first part of that sentence which is key; these truths are self-evident, they are axiomatic, they are absolutely fundamental to the ideals which inspired that declaration. That neither individual nor institution has been able to live up to them subsequently, is irrelevant imo. Ideals are something to be aspired to, even and especially if they are not acheivable in reality.

I'm not sure about the self-evident portion. What exactly makes a right self evident? For instance I look at some individuals and I'm thinking that they should have absolutely no right to exist. Their destructive, self serving, and negative in nearly all mutually beneficial criteria one might think of. Still, I suppose one has to start somewhere. But who should decide what makes a right axiomatically apply to everyone? I mean if rights are simply the ideals of those who decide they apply then they would hardly be objectively axiomatic for everyone.
Do you think that perhaps rights are subjectively recognized because they are innate within human nature? Or are rights given to individuals relative to the cultural environment...the human mental landscape so to speak?

 

[setarcos]

It was written at a time slavery was legal. I agree with you that they are more ideals than a statement of reality, but I've also wondered how strictly the author's actually meant the words.

Why does a person have the right not to be enslaved? I would presume most peoples idea of enslavement is the total control of one person/people over another. Yet we are all born into enslavement even if not by others of like kind. The natural tendency is towards enslavement of one form or another. Why is that? We are enslaved to our needs, our addictions, our wants. We are enslaved because we aren't complete in self sufficiency. So if enslavement of one form or another is self-evidently natural in what sense is the right to not be enslaved a right? And why should we believe it should be a right if such rights are not natural? Where do you think we get the ideas for what the ideals of human rights should be? What might be the criteria for determining such things?

 

[setarcos]

Rights are a subject of jurisprudence.

Are they though? For instance, how do you enforce the right to life when incalculable possibilities of things which could have had life but didn't remain unknown? You cannot enforce an unknown. What we can attempt to enforce is the right for an existent living thing to continue to live and develop but even then we cannot enforce its continuance but only our involvement in its potential discontinuance.
So...is there any actual substance to "the right to life" if nature itself indicates no such thing?

Some rights are declared "unalienable",

I think that these types of rights are the main concern I'm discussing. In other words...those rights which should be fundamentally applied to everyone everywhere.
The fundamental question we should ask ourselves is are there unalienable rights that naturally apply to everyone everywhere, regardless of individual or cultural or humanly enforceable preferences? If so, how do we determine what they should be?
Shouldn't our rights be tethered to some form of absolute morality?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

"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..."

I presume most people on here are familiar with these words from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
I propose this question, Is there actually such a thing as an unalienable right as defined and how do/can we determine what actually should be an unalienable right? What might present the best path to determining such things, cultural practices, simple opinion, nature/science, philosophy, religion?

Rights do not inherently exist.

They are a social contract between two or more individuals.

A right to live doesn’t exist until another acknowledges that you have it.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

"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..."

I presume most people on here are familiar with these words from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
I propose this question, Is there actually such a thing as an unalienable right as defined and how do/can we determine what actually should be an unalienable right? What might present the best path to determining such things, cultural practices, simple opinion, nature/science, philosophy, religion?

The right to Welcome the Stranger.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not sure about the self-evident portion. What exactly makes a right self evident? For instance I look at some individuals and I'm thinking that they should have absolutely no right to exist. Their destructive, self serving, and negative in nearly all mutually beneficial criteria one might think of. Still, I suppose one has to start somewhere. But who should decide what makes a right axiomatically apply to everyone? I mean if rights are simply the ideals of those who decide they apply then they would hardly be objectively axiomatic for everyone.
Do you think that perhaps rights are subjectively recognized because they are innate within human nature? Or are rights given to individuals relative to the cultural environment...the human mental landscape so to speak?

Well the statement “We hold these rights to be self evident” allows, presumably, for the possibility of dissent. But as you say, we have to start somewhere; ethically, epistemically, logically, we need axioms before we can make declarations of any kind.

Edit: To answer the question in your last sentence, I’d say yes, rights are given to humans in the context of their cultural environment - and it’s precisely that cultural and historical context, which makes that declaration genuinely revolutionary.

 

[Stonetree]

We decide......whether enforcible or not. I say you have a right to life. I respect that....WE are a social species and our responsibilities to each other are self-evident. Do you respect that?......I know most do respect an obvious right.