Talk:Inalienable right

Move

• There is nothing on Wikipedia with that title. You could've moved it yourself. --Apostrophe 05:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The renaming will probably be controversial, and it's always best in those circumstances to gauge consensus rather then being bold. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't imagine that it would have been problematic. Of course, I'm the kind of person who moves articles indiscrimately and deals with possible outcry afterwards. Perhaps not a good trait, but alas. Support, regardless. --Apostrophe 16:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy Disputed

Someone needs to go through this article, and examine these claims about the person named John Lilburne. This info was put here by MPLX, who has constructed a series of questionable articles with the seeming purpose of inflating Lilburns's place in history. See: John Lilburne Research Institute, Four Freedoms Federation, Self-incrimination, and the extremly questionable Province of the Carolanas. --JW1805 03:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming

As the term "unalienable" is an archaic variant of "inalienable", and not to be found outside historical documents and descendants or discussions thereof, shouldn't this article be Inalienable rights? In all the political philosophy/theory books at which I've looked, the term used is "inalienable", so normal Wikipedia:Naming conventions presumably apply here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Inalienable" is used in all modern texts on political theory and philosophy, and in ordinary English; "unalienable" is archaic, and only survives because of its use in certain important historical documents. As the article is about the rights in general, it should use the most common term. (And it should, of course, be singular in line with normal Wikipedia naming conventions.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support for the reasons given above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that this article should be moved to Inalienable rights (and redirect "Unalienable rights" to that article). --JW1805 02:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose This may be another Anglo-American question; but I believe Jefferson's usage is still current. (and isn't more important to be bold to the article?) Septentrionalis 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The two words have different spellings and completely different meanings in modern usage (and as more fully detailed below in discussion). --Zephram Stark 14:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. In my dictionaries unalienable appears as a variant of inalienable. – AxSkov (☏) 16:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Provide a reference and you're fine. Unalienable rights should at least still redirect here, of course. (because it's historic :-) ) Kim Bruning 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the U.S. Declaration of Independence contained the word "inalienable" as defined by John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. Locke's version of the word was changed in the signed version of the D.O.I. to "unalienable" in order to delineate that it was defined by Thomas Paine's less controversial pamphlets, which often used the word "unalienable." Both words referred to properties of mankind that could not be relinquished, but "unalienable" was the preferred usage in the D.O.I. because it was associated with literature that had a higher acceptance. Over the years, "inalienable" has become the preferred usage of the term in normal speech. According to my dictionary, it still means rights that cannot be relinquished, even by choice or through coercion. "Unalienable" has become controversial for one reason: some people can't figure out how it fits with its original definition in the Declaration of Independence. For that reason, some dictionaries have confused the meanings of one or both of the words. They didn't have to go through all that trouble, because "unalienable" actually does make sense in the D.O.I. in its originally intended usage.

The D.O.I. doesn't say that "life" in unalienable. It says that the "right" to "life" in unalienable. In other words, while it is possible to kill someone, it is not possible to take away that person's sense of self-preservation. Taken in its entirety, the D.O.I. is saying that a person will keep fighting, regardless of other considerations, any government that does not recognize his right to live, and his right to pursue happiness in the way that he or she sees fit. The D.O.I. is a statement about the self-evident nature of man, how government can best work with that nature, and what recourse man has when it doesn't.

The D.O.I. is the most important and influential document in the history of my country. Every citizen of my country takes a whole day of every year to honor its anniversary. The entire meaning of the document hinges around the definition of the word "unalienable." The D.O.I. loses its sense of being a logical conclusion to the failure of an exact set of principles if "unalienable" is defined merely as "things that shouldn't be taken away." The meaning must always represent what Thomas Jefferson intended: rights that cannot be relinquished or taken by any means. --Zephram Stark 01:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The definitions of words in current usage can get confused. Take "terrorism" for instance. For two hundred years, the term meant "the systematic use of terror for the purpose of coercion." Now the idiots over at that article are arguing over whether to change the definition to mean "violence for the purpose of evil" or to make "terrorism" so ambiguous that nobody knows what it means. I don't want that to happen to the critical meaning of "unalienable." It's better that "unalienable" has become archaic because then we can only refer to it in its historic usage. I say, leave it alone. Define it separately even if it means the same thing right now. I don't want anyone to argue that some clown president used it incorrectly so that means we have to redefine it. --Zephram Stark 02:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. There aren't two concepts, there are two versions of the word. When modern political theorists talk about rights, they use "inalienable"; see, for example:

• D.D. Raphael Problems of Political Philosophy (revised edition) p.105
• Flew & Priest [edd] A Dictionary of Philosophy (includes entry on "inalienable" but not "unalienable")
• Simon Blackburn Dictionary of Philosophy (includes entry on "inalienable" but not "unalienable")
• [1] (a U.S. source that explicitly translates "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable")
• [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc.

Even if the article were about the U.S. political system, or even about the Declaration of Independence (and it's of course about neither), many of the sources above are also about those things. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that is the issue that needs to be decided. If the two really are the same thing and will always remain so, of course they should be united. I will research those articles and see if they are used in exactly the same context as the U.S. Declaration of Independence. However, because the definition of 'unalienable' is forever locked to this historic document, I know that it will never change. Can you say for certain that the definition of 'inalienable' will never change? If not, how can we say that the two spellings will always have the same definition? Thanks for the links. --Zephram Stark 23:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading these articles, it appears to me that "inalienable" and "unalienable" mean completely different things. Can we really compare our unalienable need for self-preservation (right to life, [D.O.I]) to "an inalienable right held by any and all refugees that entitles them to return at any time to their homes?"

"Unalienable" refers to those things that cannot be relinquished. It is impossible for human beings to give up our sense of self-preservation or the desire to benefit self and society as we see fit. These rights are so integrated with human nature that they can be neither taken, nor given up, regardless of the level of coercion exerted. When England decided to "shock and awe" the backwards colonies into submission, they entered a war that could not be won while there was a single colonist standing. Human nature prevented the colonists from giving up their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The truth of this being part of the human psyche is self-evident—-you can see it in every interaction of the human species without fail. Unalienable rights cannot be relinquished by any means.

"Inalienable," on the other hand, as used in the above articles, is merely an argument that something should not be taken. Many of the arguments state that the "right" in question has already been taken and should be given back. Obviously it can be taken if it already has been taken.

The meanings of the two words may seem similar on the surface, but the underlying principles are completely different. A claim that an inalienable right should not be taken is nothing more than a pleading with the audience to be fair. Unalienable rights, on the other hand, have nothing to do with what is fair, what is equitable, or what another person can grant the petitioner. Unalienable is a statement of fact; it cannot be taken, nor relinquished. It puts all of the rights and responsibilities squarely in the hands of the people. --Zephram Stark 13:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the origin of your claims here. Apparently the most recent citations of "unalienable" in the OED are nineteenth century; I've failed to find any modern use of the term, and I've given a number of citations showing that "inalienable" is merely the modern favoured spelling. It's true that the concept has changed over the centuries, but that's irrelevant to the word. Do you have citations showing the modern use of "unalienable"?

Note, too, that your distinction doesn't hold; you're sliding from talking about the use of the term (with either spelling) to refer to rights in a philosophical sense to talking about its use when talking about practice. One can say that the right to freedom is inalienable while accepting that in factsometimes people enslave each other; that just means that the right isn't lost, it's violated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "unalienable" is archaic. I don't know of anyone who uses it any more except in reference to the United States Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, "inalienable" is used all the time today to mean "something that should not be taken away" as per your examples. Whereas, "unalienable" is based of observable truth, "inalienable" is based only on the constructs of society.

Your articles that speak of one group or another having the "inalienable" right to the land east of the Mediterranean Sea, for example, are certainly not talking about observable components of the human psyche. There is no innate requirement for humans to possess a particular patch beachfront property on a choice inlet. They like it because it is green, prime land—-not too hot like the desert all around, and not too cold like the German/Saxon land farther north. If the Mediterranean dried up—-turning Jerusalem into a sand dune—-you can bet your booties nobody would be fighting over that "holy land."

The bottom line is that some truths are self-evident. Anybody can see that we all have a need for self-preservation, for instance, and that there is no way to strip that need from the definition of a human. Other things, like land disputes, are not self-evident, nor are they truths (as universally determined by the scientific method). Instead, they are constructs of human society. If we adopt Plato's view of reality—-a combination of truth, goodness, and beauty—-we can argue that one group or the other deserves the land east of the Mediterranean, but that argument would be based solely on goodness and beauty. There is no inherent truth that can be universally proven via the scientific method binding that land to any particular group. Therefore, when people talk about an "inalienable" right to a particular stretch of land, they are only talking about the beautiful social acceptance of that claim and the goodness that claim will bring to society. They are not talking about "truth" in a provable or universally observable sense. The term "inalienable" is referring quite specifically to good and beautiful constructs of our society. "Unalienable," on the other hand, refers to truth that can be universally proven via the scientific method and is also obviously present for all to see in the human psyche. The two words sound alike, but refer to polar opposite components of reality.

I can think of only one reason why anyone would want to combine the two terms: because they are trying to show that today's vague and subjective use of "inalienable" has anything to do with the exact and provable "unalienable" in the United States Declaration of Independence. If the two words are combined, the resulting definition will only be as strong as the weakest link—-Middle Eastern land dispute arguments will not become more powerful. The effect will only bring the meaning of the most important document in the history of the United States of America down to that level. I would suggest, instead, that you simply create a definition of “inalienable” that you like and leave it at that. Thomas Jefferson certainly never intended his choice of words to be stretched to justify both sides of a Middle Eastern land dispute. --Zephram Stark 16:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)