I have been hearing for over a decade the phrase that our rights come from God. One also hears the phrase "God given rights" a lot. The more I think about this kind of remark the more I am convinced it is bravado and ritual -- everything has to come from God somehow, so this is just a ritual remark, like the remark that love comes from God, or babies, or the weather.
One often hears this kind of thing restricted so that it talks only about inalienable rights, not all rights. It is this narrower claim, the claim that inalienable rights come from God that I want to address.
Occasionally one hears an actual argument for this position which goes something like this:
1 Either Inalienable Rights (IR) come from God or from Government
2 IR cannot come from Government
3 Therefore, IR come from God
This is an admirable argument that takes the form of eliminative disjunction, which is a valid deductive form. If these premises are true, this conclusion follows necessarily from them.
An argument can go wrong in only two ways, either it has a false premise, or its premises fail to support its conclusion. Because this is a valid form, its premises fully support its conclusion. So, the only thing that could be wrong here is a false premise. If we are to defend ourselves against this argument, we will need to find a false premise.
The first premise is a disjunction, which is true as long as at least one of its disjuncts is true. The second premise is a straight forward declarative statement. One often hears an argument for this second premise. It goes something like this:
4 IR are rights that cannot be taken away
5 Rights granted by Governments are rights that can be taken away
6 Therefore, rights granted by Governments cannot be IR
Line 6 is the same as line 2. If we accept this argument, we are accepting line 2. I suggest that we accept it.
By accepting lines 6 and 2 we are left with line 1 as our only defense against the first argument. If there is a falsehood to point out, this is were we will have to find it.
Line 1 is a disjunction, it says that IR either come from God or Government. That is true as long as one of the alternatives is. If both alternatives are false, then line 1 is false. We have already accepted that one of the alternatives is false when we accepted the second argument and line 2 above.
The two alternatives are IR come from God, and IR come from Government. We have rejected the second of these as false. What about the other alternative, IR come from God. Is that true?
I would say no, because it if a God granted a right, he or she can take that right away. So, the reason Gods cannot be the source of IR is the same reason that Governments cannot be their source.
Theists might argue that God would not take them away, but that is no better than arguing that governments would not. The point is not about would, it is about can. If a God can create your rights, he or she can uncreate them. If rights flow to us from a God, they can cease to do so. If rights come from somewhere, they can always go back there.
So, the argument I insist on is this:
7 IR are rights that cannot be taken away
8 Rights given by a God can be taken away.
9 Therefore, rights given by a God cannot be IR.
If there are IR they do not come from anywhere, because they could go back there. They are not generated or started, because things that have to be generated or started typically have to come to an end. Discussing our rights in any causal context like that is dangerous because our rights are then an effect, and effects do not last. Nor do they remain constant.
And since line 9 and line 6 together disprove both disjuncts in line 1, the first premise is false. Inalienable rights come neither from God nor from Government.
Line 1 is false and the first argument above is defeated because it is based on a false premise.
Nonetheless, the concept of human rights makes sense. It's a concept that can be made clear via contrast. Humans have special rights that we do not accord to non-humans. By the same token, parakeet rights, in our eyes, are not the same as dog rights, or cat rights, or horse rights, or sheep rights, etc. Children understand that kind of talk. People of all ages can have long, insightful discussions of these differences in rights, which proves my point that the concept of human rights makes perfect sense.
If that is the case then what about this concept of human rights, what is its status and content? Are the rights involved inalienable?
As a matter of fact, they are inalienable, because they are rights that belong to things based on what they are, and they cannot cease to be those things. You cannot cease to be human, and so your human rights, which you have by virtue of being human, cannot be taken away (alienated) from you. Human rights are logically inalienable.
They are not inalienable because of how they were created or bestowed or given or thought up or invented. No. They are inalienable because all of us know that humans are human and that nothing else is.
