Who’s going to stop you?
The is-ought problem is a well-known one in philosophy.
A rich society certainly ought to provide a certain level of care toward its citizens. But the is is not always possible. One should not confuse the two.
Rather late, I should clarify that in the OP I was asking for examples, not a broader definition of what makes something an inalienable right, although the latter is a valid and perhaps inevitable related topic.
So, (sincerely not intending snark and genuinely curious) how are your inalienable rights any more than those of the squirrels and pigeons I see out my back window?
Yeah, you’re right, forget I said that – for the record, I was not at all referring to providing a platform.
They aren’t, mostly. That’s the whole point of being inalienable. Or God-given, if you’re inclined to go that way (I’m not, but I don’t think it matters). I’m a little smarter than a typical squirrel so I’d suggest I have a broader range of rights I can make use of, but nevertheless the squirrel can chitter away without interference, just as I can speak freely.
My own sense of ethics and morals?
And indeed the controversy over platforms like Twitter X is where you draw the line between “suppressing” and “refusing to give” a platform.
There are a lot of subtle problems there. If the government asks a platform nicely for someone or some views to be suppressed, is it censorship? Last I checked, that was a “no”, but it probably would be if they were a little less nice about it. And then there are the questions of how to handle speech as it crosses international boundaries with different laws.
For the record, my desert island analogy isn’t meant to be absolutely perfect. There is obviously some gray area here. I just find it a useful starting place to reason about.
The problem IMO with most of the things in this list is it means a person has a right to the labor of others. If I have a right to food, then why in the heck am I paying for it? Now your response might be, “Well, if you have the money to buy it, you must buy it.” But that doesn’t make sense. If every person has a right to food, then I don’t need to pay for it, dammit - I have a right to it!
IMO, inalienable rights must apply equally to all, regardless of wealth, and should not require the money or labor of others for them to exist. (One that might be an exception is the right to a “free” lawyer. I’ll have to think about that more.)
Fundamentally the right to try to survive as long as one can or desires to and also the right to take their own life are the only true inalienable right we seem to truly have in this world. That has really defined the world on so many levels.
Besides that we have societal rights that evolve based on the society and morality. But I would not say they are inalienable, such as a totally feral child can not even begin to expect heath care or food stamps. Those are based on society, removed society and you alienate that right, thus such rights are not inalienable.
And on a soul level, those who know me know my faith in Jesus, and in that I do believe there is an inalienable right to salvation after bodily death to eternal life and a way to access it regardless of where you are and what time period you are in and what you have access to.
Negative rights are inalienable. Positive rights are a fantasy, and can’t be inalienable.
Fundamentally, the only rights are the rights to private property and the right to be free of violence. All other rights stem from these. Perhaps we could add a few more, but this is a good start.
There are no inalienable rights. All rights are created by man and can be taken away by man.
I’m not suggesting that everybody gets free filet mignon, pheasant under glass, or fresh lobster on a regular basis. However, I’ve seen enough broken people, many of whom are mentally ill without care and who are panhandling at intersections regularly. I believe that we as a society have a responsibility to treat them (medically and psychiatrically).
Many of them are also homeless because there isn’t enough money devoted to provide shelter that is clean and safe, to the extent that many feel safer living on the street.
Nonetheless, I presume there are things you would be very unhappy to see taken away by man; that you might even feel wronged by. Such as?
And why not? I have letters from my Nutritionist and Naturopath documenting that those three items are the only things I can eat or my inflammation will skyrocket!
I get it. Try as I might I can’t get my dr to prescribe daily meat-lovers’ pizza and dry red, full bodied wine.
I agree. But that doesn’t mean access to food should be an inalienable right.
And there’s a lot of questions about the subjective aspects as well. There are a lot of nutritionally complete and cheap diets that are far from delicious or interesting. Where is the line drawn of nutritionally complete food with adequate calories vs. stuff with variety, etc…?
Similarly, where is the line drawn vs. someone’s inalienable right to health care versus being a daredevil or smoking two packs a day? As a taxpayer in this hypothetical state, I’m not very enthusiastic about paying for a bunch of Jackass wannabees or heavy smokers.
I think usually that sort of thing is where the arguments ultimately bog down, because there’s always scope creep- someone’s inalienable right to food means that a sack of potatoes, some milk, and some oatmeal, while nutritionally adequate, doesn’t actually fulfill that right.
But you understand that all these “rights” need to be provided at the expense of someone else’s labor and resources? THAT’s the problem. You can’t force employers to hire people for jobs they don’t need, even if they are all qualified. Homes, food, and healthcare all require labor and infrastructure as well.