Talk:Inalienable right

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (2 Sept 2005 and 11 Nov 2005):

Origins section

What is the source for claiming that inalienable rights are derived from freeborn rights (as claimed by John Lilburne)? It seems like the description given here ("rights that every human being is born with") sounds more like "natural rights" or "human rights". --JW1805 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In what work of John Locke does he reference inalienable rights? The term is not used in the 2nd Treatise.--JW1805 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JW1805: Locke doesn't use the term "unalienable," but he's clear: "Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property- that is, his life, liberty, and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it." --Getaaron 15:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section Cleanup

User:FRS first put the cleanup-section tag on the Criticism section in October 2005 "re lack of cites, POV/NOR." [1]

As per the comments of User:FRS and as per Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, the facts assumed and assertions made in this section must be cited in order for it to be "cleaned-up." I have copied the section below to assist in adding the required content to bring this section up to the minimum standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability. If an editor has information as to who asserted any part this critique, please fill in that information in place of the {fact} tags below. If the assertions and facts assumed in the criticism section cannot be cited, they are in violation of Wikipedia policy. --Peter McConaughey 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fill in the needed citations

^{[citation needed]} has criticized the concept of inalienable rights for being largely groundless, since ^{[citation needed]} contends that no explanation is given as to where these rights come from. ^{[citation needed]} says that the Declaration of Independence claims that these rights are endowed by the "Creator". If they based on theological principles (as in "God-given rights"), ^{[citation needed]} asks which theological principles those are. Since ^{[citation needed]} contends that none of the major religions of the world confirm the existence of inalienable rights, ^{[citation needed]} also questions 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 Natural Law, then ^{[citation needed]} says that this argument can easily be criticized for being a non sequitur and an example of the naturalistic fallacy. Jonathan Wallace??, in his book "Natural Rights Don't Exist??" contends that the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is simply a more elegant version of "Because we said so"??.

^{[citation needed]} says that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's?? "The Social Contract??," the idea of a social contract – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely recognized alternative??.

At this point, the only statements not sourced in comments appear to be the theological claims: that no major religion asserts inalienable rights (which in any case probably needs qualification; rights coeternal with God are inalienable enough for me) and that it may be questioned that religion-based inallenable rights are binding on non-believers. This is a link to Jonathan Wallace which should be added to the text. Septentrionalis 05:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is notoriously difficult to prove that someone didn't say something. Rather than requiring some proof along the lines of someone having gone through the holy texts of every major world religion in order to make sure that none of them contains references to inalienable rights, wouldn't it make more sense to place the burden of proof on the affirmative claim and make the article say something like "However, no quotes are provided from the holy texts of any religion in support of this claim." [that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights] -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that in principle, if that is what those "Critics, however, argue ..." After we have a citation to the critics who argue that, we will be better able to tell exactly what they are arguing. Certainly we ought not to argue on their behalf. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by User:Doctor Nicetan were reverted without comment by User:Carbonite, presumably because of the conclusion that User:Doctor Nicetan is a sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark. But on the merits, I prefer [[User:Doctor Nicetan]'s version because it more clearly attributes the sources of the various "criticisms" --FRS 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wallace?

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but it's not clear to me that Jonathan Wallace is greatly more qualified than me or anyone else to be cited for his opinion on natural rights. Is he in fact a notable scholar? Not being snarky, I ask to know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is what he says about himself: [2]. He's also the co-author of at least one book available at Amazon.com [3] (There are several other titles authored by a Jonathon Wallace but I'm not sure they're his) --FRS 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

I regard the recent request for a citation of the text of the Declaration (which is in aNy case quoted immediately above) as displaying a certain frivolity. I have supplied a link anyway. But I trust this will not recur. Septentrionalis 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant to request a citation for "Critics, however, argue that use of the word "Creator" signifies..." I would like to know exactly who argues this. I bracketed the request with a comment to date the request, so if nothing is forthcoming in a week or two the statement can be removed as uncited. Sorry if that was unclear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]