Inalienable or Inviolable rights of Man

[Cam42]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 27 2005, 03:35 PM']By the way, inviolable and inalienable are synonymous.

inviolable
[quote name='WordNet 2.0']not capable of being violated or infringed; "infrangible human rights"[/quote]

inalienable
[quote name='WordNet 2.0']incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"[/quote]

Inviolable is often used as the religious terminology and inalienable the secular, but the meanings are synonymous.
[right][snapback]801671[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here we start.

[argent_paladin]

yes

[Laudate_Dominum]

yessum

[Laudate_Dominum]

btw, is this a survey or do you wanna debate?

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 04:42 PM']btw, is this a survey or do you wanna debate?
[right][snapback]801768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Right, like Cam usually just wants to chat in the Debate Table...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]"The Church proclaims the rights of man."
- Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.[/quote]


I think that applies here

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 04:42 PM']btw, is this a survey or do you wanna debate?
[right][snapback]801768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Have at it.

[Era Might]

I think it depends on how literally you apply the terms.

The right to life is, in one sense, inalienable, but it is not absolutely so. Life can be taken with legitimacy in certain circumstances.

Other rights (such as the right to respect proper to the dignity of man) ARE absolute.

So long as we recognize the flexibility of the concept, it can be said that man has inalienable rights.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 27 2005, 04:56 PM']I think it depends on how literally you apply the terms.

The right to life is, in one sense, inalienable, but it is not absolutely so. Life can be taken with legitimacy in certain circumstances.

Other rights (such as the right to respect proper to the dignity of man) ARE absolute.

So long as we recognize the flexibility of the concept, I would agree that man has inalienable rights.
[right][snapback]801791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is exactly right. And has been my point on several threads discussing several things......

[Laudate_Dominum]

alright, I'll make a snide comment for the sake of playing devil's food cake advocate.

The concept of "rights" and rights language in general is foreign to historical christianity and is the product of secular enlightenment philosophy.
Also, the idea of what constitutes an inalienable right changes from culture to culture and is essentially relative and not absolute. The ideals of the declaration of independence are hardly compatible with the implied social ideals of St. Paul.
Also, the ideological underpinnings of rights language presuppose certain relationships between government and citizens which are foreign to the medieval and certainly ancient social order. For example bi-lateral social contract theory.
And it is possible to conceive of scenarios in which an individuals supposedly inalienable rights can be infringed upon for the sake of the common good. This seems to make the concept itself somewhat of an exaggeration or perhaps simply a fiction. More than likely the product of 17th and particularly 18th century revolutionary propaganda intended to provoke revolt against the hierarchical social order of the time including to some degree the Catholic Church herself.
So I assert, that there is no such thing as "inalienable rights", this concept is simply bombastic rhetoric used by propagandists to provoke secular revolution; it is a masonic rallying cry which has carried over into the contemporary western ethos and is not an authentic part of Christian morality.

Once again, I'm playing devil's food cake advocate.. let the games begin.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:10 PM']And it is possible to conceive of scenarios in which an individuals supposedly inalienable rights can be infringed upon for the sake of the common good. [/quote]
you mean like the difference between personal dominion and eminant domain right?

Those are both present in Catholic moral theology, but should be understood in the context of rights to property other than internal property( that is body and soul).

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:20 PM']you mean like the difference between personal dominion and eminant domain right?

Those are both present in Catholic moral theology, but should be understood in the context of rights to property other than internal property( that is body and soul).
[right][snapback]801830[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I more had in mind scenarios in which citizens can be locked in cages for 40 years or have their brains fried out of their noses in an electric chair. I can't think of a single "inalienable" right that cannot be forfeited, therefore the concept itself seems superfluous.

But this is often the case with ideological propaganda. Marxism for example has its own facades and contradictions.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:25 PM'] I can't think of a single "inalienable" right that cannot be forfeited, therefore the concept itself seems superfluous.
[right][snapback]801837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I mentioned one above: the right to respect and treatment as a human person. No matter what a person has done, we cannot violate this right.

Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are subsumed under this fundamental right. Although particular specific rights can have exceptions, the first right of human dignity cannot. Kind of like how vowels are fundamental in the English language. Although there is a variable in "Y", depending on the context of a specific vowel, the first obedience to vowels cannot be violated. Unless you first obey "I before E", "except after C" will not matter.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:28 PM']I mentioned one above: the right to respect and treatment as a human person. No matter what a person has done, we cannot violate this right.

Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are subsumed under this fundamental right. Although they are flexibile, this first right is not. Kind of how vowels are fundamental in the English language. Although there is a variable in "Y", depending on the context of a specific vowel, the first obedience to vowels cannot be violated, or else the "Y" variable will not be legitimate.
[right][snapback]801842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But you've yet to convince me that such a statement has any real content. (again, devil's food cake advocate) First, what is the basis of such an assertion, and then what is the nature of this respect? I fail to see how the electric chair or a blast of napalm on a village reflects this truth. I still say that this concept of rights is fundamentally relative. If a person can be licitly destroyed what more fundamental rights can we discuss? And if it is possible to morally destroy people, how can one speak of "inalienable" rights in any meaningful sense of the word?

I'd still suggest that the social morality of the middle ages, while perhaps not being quite as fluffy and emotionally appealing, is more realistic and honest.

[photosynthesis]

yes, people have inalienable rights... although I don't think the Church's idea of inalienable rights is the same as American society's....

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:39 PM']But you've yet to convince me that such a statement has any real content. (again, devil's food cake advocate) First, what is the basis of such an assertion, and then what is the nature of this respect? I fail to see how the electric chair or a blast of napalm on a village reflects this truth. I still say that this concept of rights is fundamentally relative. If a person can be licitly destroyed what more fundamental rights can we discuss? And if it is possible to morally destroy people, how can one speak of "inalienable" rights in any meaningful sense of the word?

I'd still suggest that the social morality of the middle ages, while perhaps not being quite as fluffy and emotionally appealing, is more realistic and honest.
[right][snapback]801852[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To convince me, you would have to provide an example where it would be legitimate to violate the dignity of a human person.

Although we can, as you say, blow someone up, you must ensure that the first right is not violated. For example, you can't blow someone up if they are an innocent civilian.

Although we can arrest people, we cannot treat them in such a way that their human dignity is violated. We cannot torture them, for example.

Etc.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:42 PM']To convince me, you would have to provide an example where it would be legitimate to violate the dignity of a human person.

Although we can, as you say, blow someone up, you must ensure that the first right is not violated. For example, you can't blow someone up if they are an innocent civilian.

Although we can arrest people, we cannot treat them in such a way that their human dignity is violated. We cannot torture them, for example.

Etc.
[right][snapback]801857[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, if the morality is evaluated from the point of view of inalienable rights, I fail to see how you can make a distinction between soldiers and civilians. Because a person is of the militant class they suddenly don't have the same dignity or inalienable rights?
My point is that the logic of ethics or moral theology required to evaluate and explain these situations has nothing to do with inalienable rights. This concept is political propaganda which appeals to the emotions of the lower classes and originally served to fuel secular revolutions and persists because it helps to keep the masses pacified in a delusional state, viewing the government of somehow benevolent.
And in practice, the government has never been consistent with such lofty ideals. Even the founders of this country, which is the self proclaimed highest expression of these ideals, is guilty of attrocities from day one. The native americans, africans and chinese were hardly the benficiaries of such "inalienable rights"; nor was there any discernable intention to make them so when this nation was founded. The entire ideology was a tool to undermine the existing social order and nothing more.

btw, we probably agree, I'm just assuming the role of antagonist to give this thread some energy.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:39 PM'] First, what is the basis of such an assertion, and then what is the nature of this respect?
[/quote]
Well to begin with you have imago Dei...then you also have the fact that man is ordered towards an eternal end. Granted both of these presoppose God, but that is the difference between morality (concerned with human conduct in relation to revelation) and ethics (human conduct as known by natural reason).

[quote]And in practice, the government has never been consistent with such lofty ideals.[/quote]Are we discussing secular practice or ecclessial teaching? There is a stark difference I believe.

[quote]btw, we probably agree, I'm just assuming the role of antagonist to give this thread some energy.[/quote]Oh yeah...and we are engaging it until those for whom this thread was created appear.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Paphnutius

[journeyman]

well, if "rights" (and I was thinking these might be "natural rights" under the natural law - does that open the door for Aquinas?) are not the basis for the Church's "pro-life" position - what is?

[qfnol31]

Dignity I should think.