By claiming the repression of inalienable rights means they are conditional privileges, the author’s admitting their ignorance of moral philosophy & the purpose of the word inalienable in it.
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy.
The premise is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them.
Violations are unjust.
They don’t imply a legal system can’t violate ethics.[1]
They’re for arguing a system shouldn’t & to demand a more just one.
It’s still up to the people to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought is a naturalistic fallacy.
The Enlightenment thinkers who developed these ideas were completely aware that they can and do, so for the author to treat that as not the exact problem they were addressing is awfully special.
They were devising a definition for legitimate authority based on moral philosophy & not on divine right to rule. ↩︎
Needs alt text or link to source.
By claiming the repression of inalienable rights means they are conditional privileges, the author’s admitting their ignorance of moral philosophy & the purpose of the word inalienable in it.
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy. The premise is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them. Violations are unjust.
They don’t imply a legal system can’t violate ethics.[1] They’re for arguing a system shouldn’t & to demand a more just one. It’s still up to the people to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought is a naturalistic fallacy.
The Enlightenment thinkers who developed these ideas were completely aware that they can and do, so for the author to treat that as not the exact problem they were addressing is awfully special. They were devising a definition for legitimate authority based on moral philosophy & not on divine right to rule. ↩︎