"Inalienable rights" original source

[kentuckyliz]

I remember reading that the concept of “inalienable rights” was the idea of a Spanish Inquisition priest theologian and was footnoted as such by Locke in his dissertation.

I can’t remember where I read that, but I suspect that it was from a magazine that I think was edited by Ralph McInerny, that I used to subscribe to. There was a whole issue devoted to the “Black Legend” of the Spanish Inquisition, with lots of articles referencing historians who aren’t apologists for the Church tracing the history of the overblown Reformation era pamphlet wars, and the Inquisition itself. (It’s a whole subject area in the discipline–Inquisition Studies.)

One thing that struck me and stuck with me was the finding that the concept of inalienable rights was the idea of a Spanish Inquisition priest-theologian whose name escapes me. Locke referenced it in his dissertation–but Locke gets all the credit for this idea as if he came up with it himself.

I shared the magazine issue with my Dad years ago and it’s disappeared into the mists of history.

So…does anyone know who this theologian was who was the source of this idea? And have a citation I can refer to to prove it? I have found it useful in conversations several times–and people are always surprised and disbelieving. It is too cognitively dissonant with their firmly embraced notions of the Black Legend.

Thanks in advance.

 

[marty1818]

Francisco Suarez is the priest.

 

[greylorn]

I remember reading that the concept of “inalienable rights” was the idea of a Spanish Inquisition priest theologian and was footnoted as such by Locke in his dissertation.

I can’t remember where I read that, but I suspect that it was from a magazine that I think was edited by Ralph McInerny, that I used to subscribe to. There was a whole issue devoted to the “Black Legend” of the Spanish Inquisition, with lots of articles referencing historians who aren’t apologists for the Church tracing the history of the overblown Reformation era pamphlet wars, and the Inquisition itself. (It’s a whole subject area in the discipline–Inquisition Studies.)

One thing that struck me and stuck with me was the finding that the concept of inalienable rights was the idea of a Spanish Inquisition priest-theologian whose name escapes me. Locke referenced it in his dissertation–but Locke gets all the credit for this idea as if he came up with it himself.

I shared the magazine issue with my Dad years ago and it’s disappeared into the mists of history.

So…does anyone know who this theologian was who was the source of this idea? And have a citation I can refer to to prove it? I have found it useful in conversations several times–and people are always surprised and disbelieving. It is too cognitively dissonant with their firmly embraced notions of the Black Legend.

Thanks in advance.

The notion of “inalienable rights” is a false notion. How can it be cognitively dissonant with other false notions, including the legitimacy of any aspect of the Inquisition?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The notion of “inalienable rights” is a false notion. How can it be cognitively dissonant with other false notions, including the legitimacy of any aspect of the Inquisition?

Oh, so all rights that we possess are granted to us through the State? Please, you are smarter than this (I hope). We all have the free right to live and breathe without somebody in the Government writing it down explicitly.

 

[Sair]

Oh, so all rights that we possess are granted to us through the State? Please, you are smarter than this (I hope). We all have the free right to live and breathe without somebody in the Government writing it down explicitly.

The notion of rights, regardless of who coined the phrase, consists in our innate and evolved sense of fairness - something several other species also exhibit in their social interactions. There are certain behaviours that we more or less instinctively perceive as unjust - or, to put it more bluntly, there are ways others can treat us that cause us to become angry and incensed. This is why many people at least pay lip service to the idea of inalienable rights, because it makes sense from an immediate personal perspective. We can imagine others treating us in certain ways, and that gets our hackles up, so to speak.

Actually, it doesn’t surprise me that an Inquisition priest should have coined the phrase “inalienable rights” - sometimes you have to violate your own values to realise that you possess them.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The notion of rights, regardless of who coined the phrase, consists in our innate and evolved sense of fairness - something several other species also exhibit in their social interactions. There are certain behaviours that we more or less instinctively perceive as unjust - or, to put it more bluntly, there are ways others can treat us that cause us to become angry and incensed. This is why many people at least pay lip service to the idea of inalienable rights, because it makes sense from an immediate personal perspective. We can imagine others treating us in certain ways, and that gets our hackles up, so to speak.

Actually, it doesn’t surprise me that an Inquisition priest should have coined the phrase “inalienable rights” - sometimes you have to violate your own values to realise that you possess them.

So you agree with me that there are rights that we possess that are not explicitly written down by the State?

 

[Sair]

So you agree with me that there are rights that we possess that are not explicitly written down by the State?

We do certainly feel that we have rights, or at least ways in which we would prefer to be treated - and if we allow our capacity for empathy to express itself, we can see the obvious fact that others have, in general, similar preferences, which we do well to acknowledge if we want others to acknowledge our own. This necessary balance is what gave rise to the silver and golden rules.

The fact is, though, that there will always be those who either do not possess empathy to begin with (psychopaths) and those who have had their capacity to empathise mutilated by experience, and also those who simply don’t care as long as their own sense of entitlement is not violated. Because of this, we still stand in the position of needing to assert - at times violently - such rights as we feel we have, in order to ensure that others respect them.

So I would say that whilst our sense of having rights certainly does not have its origin in law, the laws and their enforcement are often very necessary to compel respect for others’ rights from those who would not readily bestow it.

 

[tonyrey]

We do certainly feel that we have rights, or at least ways in which we would prefer to be treated - and if we allow our capacity for empathy to express itself, we can see the obvious fact that others have, in general, similar preferences, which we do well to acknowledge if we want others to acknowledge our own. This necessary balance is what gave rise to the silver and golden rules.

The fact is, though, that there will always be those who either do not possess empathy to begin with (psychopaths) and those who have had their capacity to empathise mutilated by experience, and also those who simply don’t care as long as their own sense of entitlement is not violated. Because of this, we still stand in the position of needing to assert - at times violently - such rights as we feel we have, in order to ensure that others respect them.

So I would say that whilst our sense of having rights certainly does not have its origin in law, the laws and their enforcement are often very necessary to compel respect for others’ rights from those who would not readily bestow it.

It is unjust to compel others to respect rights based solely on our feelings. What we feel is not a sufficient reason for inflicting our will on others by force. Otherwise we would be entitled to oblige everyone to conform to our tastes in art, music, politics and cookery!