Philosophy: Do inalienable rights exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cpayne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Locke himself did argue that his theory of rights was derived from the Bible. However, I do not think he knew very well, or respected, the traditions coming out of medieval Christian philosophy.
Any rights we have, if they are truly inalienable, must stem from revelation and not according to natural philosophy. How is that for a snippy attitude on a Saturday afternoon?
 
Any rights we have, if they are truly inalienable, must stem from revelation and not according to natural philosophy. How is that for a snippy attitude on a Saturday afternoon?
Natural philosophy has traditionally been considered a FORM of revelation: “natural” or “general” revelation, as opposed to the “supernatural” or “specific” revelation we get in the Bible. But I’m not sure of what you mean. If we know of rights as characteristic of human beings based on our natural powers of reasoning, they would still be inalienable, would they not?
 
Natural philosophy has traditionally been considered a FORM of revelation: “natural” or “general” revelation, as opposed to the “supernatural” or “specific” revelation we get in the Bible. But I’m not sure of what you mean. If we know of rights as characteristic of human beings based on our natural powers of reasoning, they would still be inalienable, would they not?
Let me invoke The Motto.
 
Natural philosophy has traditionally been considered a FORM of revelation: “natural” or “general” revelation, as opposed to the “supernatural” or “specific” revelation we get in the Bible. But I’m not sure of what you mean. If we know of rights as characteristic of human beings based on our natural powers of reasoning, they would still be inalienable, would they not?
double-dipped, chocolate covered YES. I’m always trying to stop people from skipping over nature and going straight to supernature. I find it, frankly, a protestant tendency. Grace Builds On Nature! Of course, grace couldn’t build on nature if nature is totally corrupted by the Fall–you can’t build on a dung hill, the best you can do is cover it up.

An inalienable right (good) would be a right (good) which belongs to us by the very fact that we are constituted thus and such. To alienate that right would be to disintegrate the entity. The entity would not be that which it is.
 
An inalienable right (good) would be a right (good) which belongs to us by the very fact that we are constituted thus and such. To alienate that right would be to disintegrate the entity. The entity would not be that which it is.
We have dominion over things, don’t we? What are those things?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top