Constitutional governments round the world have paid homage to the enlightenment idea of "rights." these rights have been modified by adding and/or subtracting the words "Natural", "God given", "Inalienable", and "Civil", among countless other modifiers. These other words can completely change what is meant by the word "rights." Natural rights imply that rights are derived from nature, but, can artificially be taken away. God given rights sounds a little more permanent because no mortal has the power to seize someone else's rights, but the implication is that "God giveth and God Can taketh away." Inalienable comes with the sense that rights cannot be aggressed against, but not that they cannot be enlarged or forgotten. Civil rights imply that rights only exist when their is a civil power to uphold them, and that no rights exist without the state.
None of these definitions and modifiers of "rights" really capture the idea of what a right actually is. Rights should be thought of as "innate rights". In other words, if a man lacks these rights, he must not be a man because innate rights are what define him. If, then, happiness, liberty, and life can be removed, can these truly be said to be innate rights? This question cannot be answered without immortalizing man by giving him a soul and defining who the different parties are.
Person A, the first party, has an immortal soul, Person B, also has an immortal soul, and God, who is both Infinite and Immortal, are all the parties involved, and each have their just rights. Person A lives on the earth with his liberty and property and is happy. Person B can come along and still from person A. While this is an unjust towards person A, person A is still a person. God could also remove property from man without obliterating person A, therefore, property must not be innate.
Likewise Person B could kill Person A, but because person A is immortal, only life is taken; life must not be an innate right either. But suppose that God destroys man's soul, is that possible? No, man cannot be, and not be; the self therefore, and not life, must be innate. Person B could shackle person A, enslaving him, but this can only be an assault upon person A's body; his soul is untouchable by person B. Can God, on the other hand completely obliterate the liberty of person A? No, to do this would turn person A into an automaton, and he'd no longer be a man. Liberty must be an innate right. Happiness is always a choice of liberty, therefore if liberty is always an innate right, and happiness is apart of liberty, then happiness is an innate right as well.
In conclusion, the innate rights are self and liberty. To obliterate either of these rights would obliterate man. these rights, however, can only be innate if man is innate, if man can enter oblivion, these rights go with him. If man is strictly mortal, no rights are innate: man dose not even have a right to himself.
None of these definitions and modifiers of "rights" really capture the idea of what a right actually is. Rights should be thought of as "innate rights". In other words, if a man lacks these rights, he must not be a man because innate rights are what define him. If, then, happiness, liberty, and life can be removed, can these truly be said to be innate rights? This question cannot be answered without immortalizing man by giving him a soul and defining who the different parties are.
Person A, the first party, has an immortal soul, Person B, also has an immortal soul, and God, who is both Infinite and Immortal, are all the parties involved, and each have their just rights. Person A lives on the earth with his liberty and property and is happy. Person B can come along and still from person A. While this is an unjust towards person A, person A is still a person. God could also remove property from man without obliterating person A, therefore, property must not be innate.
Likewise Person B could kill Person A, but because person A is immortal, only life is taken; life must not be an innate right either. But suppose that God destroys man's soul, is that possible? No, man cannot be, and not be; the self therefore, and not life, must be innate. Person B could shackle person A, enslaving him, but this can only be an assault upon person A's body; his soul is untouchable by person B. Can God, on the other hand completely obliterate the liberty of person A? No, to do this would turn person A into an automaton, and he'd no longer be a man. Liberty must be an innate right. Happiness is always a choice of liberty, therefore if liberty is always an innate right, and happiness is apart of liberty, then happiness is an innate right as well.
In conclusion, the innate rights are self and liberty. To obliterate either of these rights would obliterate man. these rights, however, can only be innate if man is innate, if man can enter oblivion, these rights go with him. If man is strictly mortal, no rights are innate: man dose not even have a right to himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment