Inalienable or Inviolable rights of Man

[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.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Do most of the People here have EIther a theology or philosophy degree or are working on it currently?

[qfnol31]

I'm working on a philosophy degree.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:58 PM']Do most of the People here have EIther a theology or philosophy degree or are working on it currently?
[right][snapback]801928[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Some of us even have both.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

are you one of those people?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:54 PM']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.
[right][snapback]801869[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The distinction is not made between persons as such, but between the situations those persons place themselves in. An enemy soldier, for example, is trying to kill you; hence, it is not a direct assault on his human dignity to kill him; (I say direct because the fullest dignity of man, to be immortal, was lost in Adam). Circumstances are essential in evaluating certain moral actions.

John Paul II upheld the concept of an inalienable right, while also challenging the world not to distort it.

[quote]Another observation needs to be made: the international community, which since 1948 has possessed a charter of the [b]inalienable rights of the human person[/b], has generally failed to insist sufficiently on corresponding duties. It is duty that establishes the limits within which rights must be contained in order not to become an exercise in arbitrariness. A greater awareness of universal human duties would greatly benefit the cause of peace, setting it on the moral basis of a shared recognition of an order in things which is not dependent on the will of any individual or group.

--Message for the World Day of Peace, 2003

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20021217_xxxvi-world-day-for-peace_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...r-peace_en.html[/url][/quote]

Edited November 28, 2005 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:39 PM']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?
[right][snapback]801908[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The rights language of modern politics is based upon naturalism and forms of rationalism at odds with Catholicism. The meaning of inalienable rights in the context of modern ideology is quite far removed from the natural law tradition. According to Leo XIII this "new conception of rights" is at variance with natural law.

Our government is based on a notion of freedom and liberty which is intrinsically disconnected from the Catholic conception of freedom and liberty as being ordered toward God. Otherwise the radical individualism, pluralism and relativism of our age would not be possible. These are precisely the fruits of the farce we call "inalienable rights" that this country was supposedly founded upon.

And if we're talking rather about the Catholic tradition, there is an extreme variance between the teachings of Leo XIII, Pius IX, etc. regarding the discussion of "rights" and the teachings of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II. In particular the declaration on religious freedom which is a complete reversal of Vatican I's position.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 27 2005, 07:44 PM']John Paul II upheld the concept of an inalienable right, while also challenging the world not to distort it.
[right][snapback]801961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Trent does the same with "Justification" (still makes me uncomfortable to use).

[Laudate_Dominum]

And if you look at the philosophical roots of this liberal ideology the agenda is precisely the deconstruction of religion and the liquidation of the Church as a power or influence on society. The success of this endeavor has been staggering.

Some have strongly argued that the Church in more recent history has passively allowed this poison to enter into her veins.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:59 PM']Oh yeah...and we are engaging it until those for whom this thread was created appear.
[right][snapback]801870[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, if someone comes along as I hope, who honestly disputes inalienable rights, I will gladly stop playing Socrates.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 07:45 PM']The rights language of modern politics is based upon naturalism and forms of rationalism at odds with Catholicism. The meaning of inalienable rights in the context of modern ideology is quite far removed from the natural law tradition. According to Leo XIII this "new conception of rights" is at variance with natural law.

Our government is based on a notion of freedom and liberty which is intrinsically disconnected from the Catholic conception of freedom and liberty as being ordered toward God. Otherwise the radical individualism, pluralism and relativism of our age would not be possible. These are precisely the fruits of the farce we call "inalienable rights" that this country was supposedly founded upon.

And if we're talking rather about the Catholic tradition, there is an extreme variance between the teachings of Leo XIII, Pius IX, etc. regarding the discussion of "rights" and the teachings of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II. In particular the declaration on religious freedom which is a complete reversal of Vatican I's position.
[right][snapback]801962[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh, and it is this metaphysically disconnected conception of the rights of man that makes possible statements such as, "everyone has the right to determine reality for themselves". Which a member of the U.S. supreme court declared with regard to whether the unborn child is a person or not.