Are There Innate Rights?

[Strike For The South]

There are no innate rights. They must be constantly fought for and protected

[Rhyfelwyr]

Innate rights don't exist, but its practical for different cultures to form their own ideas of 'human rights' to ensure people get a decent quality of life. They are guidelines, and breaking them isn't the end of the world.

[Furunculus]

Innate rights don't exist, but its practical for different cultures to form their own ideas of 'human rights' to ensure people get a decent quality of life.

They are guidelines, and breaking them isn't the end of the world.

doesn't that go rather against the grain of the concept of inalienable human rights as enshrined in law across the world?

i think rights should be guidelines too, to be judged through the prism of justice, as judged by the people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

doesn't that go rather against the grain of the concept of inalienable human rights as enshrined in law across the world?

i think rights should be guidelines too, to be judged through the prism of justice, as judged by the people.

Yes, there's no such thing as inalienable human rights. But generally speaking, its good for people to have rights which are treated like guidelines. However, when they become absolute, things start to get a bit silly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Inalienable: Inseparable, can't be given or taken away
Innate: Present from birth, natural

Yes?

[Askthepizzaguy]

We are born with innate freedoms and human dignity, and natural rights. These can be trodden upon by another individual or the state, but these things exist and can only be denied to an individual. If they can be denied to an individual, then they must have had those rights to begin with by default.

Not the most scientific argument, but I don't have time to get into a big thing right now. I have another thing down at that other thing that I have to do things in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Sigurd]

Inalienable: Inseparable, can't be given or taken away
Innate: Present from birth, natural

Yes?

In my language there are no distinction between the two. It is called "medfødte rettigheter" which is translated directly as: congenital rights.

You have this in your Deceleration of Independence:
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.

We have something like this:
The constitution builds on a thought that all mankind have congenital rights that no government can interfere with. The individual shall be protected against encroachment. Encroachment can be; detention and imprisonment without law and judgment, or governments taking private possessions without payment.

[Vuk]

My dictionary says that inalienable (unalienable was a mistake on his part :P) means something that comes from birth and is "unassailable" (meaning that they cannot be attacked). Looking at the wording that the framers used (UNLAWFUL imprisonment, etc) I think they were saying that people had rights from birth which SHOULD not be infringed on. Think of it, you have the right to defend yourself from UNLAWFUL and UNREASONABLE imprisonment, punishement, etc. That does not mean that if you broke a law though, that you have the right to 'defend' yourself from being arrested. Likewise, just because you have the right to speak your mind, that is not the same thing as actively organising criminal or militant groups that will infringe on the rights of others, or give you the right to infringe on the rights of others by destroying their property in 'protest'. No one has the right to infringe on someone else's rights, but that does not mean that a murder cannot or should not be arrested or excecuted, because a murderer has no right to 'protect' himself from lawful and just arrest when he has murdered someone.

My

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In my language there are no distinction between the two. It is called "medfødte rettigheter" which is translated directly as: congenital rights.

You have this in your Deceleration of Independence:
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.

We have something like this:
The constitution builds on a thought that all mankind have congenital rights that no government can interfere with. The individual shall be protected against encroachment. Encroachment can be; detention and imprisonment without law and judgment, or governments taking private possessions without payment.

Well, if you have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe upon someone else. But if you say they are inalienable then nothing you can do can separate your rights from you. The problem with that statement to me is that you end up saying that people who are in prison still have the right to liberty.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

An extremely difficult question to answer, but I am inclined to agree with this to a certain extent:

There are no innate rights. They must be constantly fought for and protected

[rory_20_uk]

No. All rights are earnt, and therefore can be lost.

[Kralizec]

The thing is that right you have is not: liberty. It is: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights. While it of course was not worded that way, if you pay attention to the founder's wording, they make it clear that the rights are not meant for breaking the law and infringing on other's rights. They are for the lawful. A criminal still keeps his right to: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights, but it just does not apply to him.

So:
1) everyone has unalienable rights
2) to some the above does not apply?


As for my view:
Freedom, rights etc. are products of civilization and therefore can't be innate or unalienable.

[Furunculus]

not very logical, lol.

[Strike For The South]

If someone wants to take away your rights they can. It happens everyday. You're rights are only there if you can defend them.

The DOI is a great document but means nothing if we can't put our money where our mouth is.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You have an innate right not to have aggression carried out against you. This right does not disappear if someone overpowers you - it is merely infringed upon.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If someone wants to take away your rights they can. It happens everyday. You're rights are only there if you can defend them.

The DOI is a great document but means nothing if we can't put our money where our mouth is.

This is true in a sense, and it's certainly important to protect our rights. But I think you're misusing the word "rights". The slaves in the south had the right to freedom, even if they didn't possess freedom itself. Having the right to something and having it are two different things.

[Strike For The South]

This is true in a sense, and it's certainly important to protect our rights. But I think you're misusing the word "rights". The slaves in the south had the right to freedom, even if they didn't possess freedom itself. Having the right to something and having it are two different things.

You have an innate right not to have aggression carried out against you. This right does not disappear if someone overpowers you - it is merely infringed upon.

See that's where I get lost. The slaves had no rights. It doesn't matter what they deserved, it matters what the law says. If we all have these rights why make laws?

I think yall are splitting hairs saying well they have that right they just can't exercise it. They are one in the same

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See that's where I get lost. The slaves had no rights. It doesn't matter what they deserved, it matters what the law says. If we all have these rights why make laws?

I think yall are splitting hairs saying well they have that right they just can't exercise it. They are one in the same

Don't you think it's an important distinction? I mean, why did we free the slaves?

[Brenus]

“No one person is born with their "freedom"(however that is defined, exactly)”: I agree. Social determinism is one of the heaviest weights to start with.

There are no “natural” rights as such. All rights are determined upon cultural and social links.
You have slaves when the slaves are not seen as humans, or if you considered slaves as genetically inferior, the good old separation between Greeks and Barbarians…
If a population doesn’t share your faith, it can be enslave or killed, or used as you wanted.

The big step forwards in human rights was a UNIVERSAL definition of human rights, not based on gender, race, colour and religion. It took some time for implementation mind you, and it is still not perfect. But the principles are there…

Now what freedom or rights have a person staving in Africa? What are the right of the kids born in the favelas in Brazil?

“You have whatever rights you are willing to die for.” That is pillaging of war, not rights.
Did you face this choice? It is a nice sentence but what does it means?
Freedom or death is not a choice. Death to the oppressor is more an option.

What about people who can’t fight: The elderly, the disables?
Put 2000 men with bows in front of a platoon of modern soldiers, they have no chance. So they have no right? Or they will be dead.