Representing the shield of justice for communal living. The importance of unalienable rights to society. |
What are unalienable rights?
In our learning example, the technicalities of law were manipulated to shield misconduct rooted in a lack of respect for unalienable rights. In other words, certain individuals claimed entitlements that were never theirs to claim—rights that cannot be erased or overridden for the sake of friendship, clan, politics, religion, or ideology. Philosophical reflection allows us to consider what happens when these rights are disregarded and replaced by lower-order beliefs.
In the story, clan members engaged in behaviors most people would consider deeply harmful and immoral. They manipulated the sick for profit, used positions of power to sexually exploit others, mishandled money, allegedly engaged in underage sexual rape, endangered children, targeted others based on religion or race, manipulated clan-aligned courts to protect friends, and retaliated against witnesses, concerned citizens, and whistleblowers. Basically the really bad stuff.
There were no backstops, no accountability, and no meaningful correction. Even discussing issues of basic morality can come with extreme aggressions and protections thereof. Over time it became clear: victims could have been protected, lives could have been saved, and institutions (decision makers) could have fulfilled their purpose. Instead, they were misused for personal gain, allowing some to place themselves above the law while dehumanizing others in direct violation of unalienable rights.
This kind of corruption often grows when people convince themselves that “others”—representing large portions of society (out-group)—are less worthy than themselves, and when no checks and balances exist to curb intentional misuse of power. (The good news is that the vast majority of people do believe in the deeper purpose of law but if that tide turns there could be increasing incidents of defaults. The advice, promote those with good values and promote less those with lower order values. Typically if someone really really wants something, an office, position, authority, etc. see it as a red flag. These roles are duties with a heavy responsibility. The wrong type of personalities mixed with positional power should be avoided. This is also why you remove bad actors.).
While abuses can occur in any society, they are typically corrected once exposed and known. But when hate and corruption are so deeply embedded that correction seems impossible, serious philosophical questions arise:
-
Should there be both a moral and legal obligation to uphold unalienable rights, and if not upheld, to pursue system improvement?
-
What does it mean when these rights lose practical meaning, or when lower levels of moral consciousness take precedence?
-
What happens when open violations of these rights shift the root assumptions of society? Consider that in our example, confronting corruption ultimately improved social and economic cohesion. There are assumptions we all live by and those are important to foster healthy exchange.
-
Do unalienable rights apply universally—to all people, all religions, all races, all speech, all politics, and all beliefs? How far does that extend and to whom does it apply?
-
If raising concerns, filing complaints, or challenging corruption places individuals on secretive lists for retaliation, does that constitute a violation of the social contract itself? Is it even important or a concern? Have times changed so much since the founding that social contracts are seen as relative useless pieces of paper?
-
How might the promotion of leaders/officials with integrity and values help preserve institutional trust and protect society from systemic decay? Think of this as community generated value and power to positively influence outcomes through awareness and voting. In other words, think for yourself and what is most important to society.
*The Story of the Clan is a hypothetical, philosophical learning thought experiment so take with a grain of salt. We will write in a positive ending but it is ok to disagree. The key point is that you thought about it either way.