By: Daniel Greene

Daniel Greene — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:15:06 +0000

Thank you, Kent, for your comment. I was beginning to wonder whether or not anyone read my post or had any thoughts or feelings about it!

Of course I believe that it is in society’s best interests to provide accommodations to deaf people and people with disabilities in general. I don’t believe that “fairness” is a permanent entitlement or in/unalienable right, though. I suppose you could argue: IF rights must be given to all people, AND rights are given to hearing people, THEN rights must be given to deaf people. My point is that “fairness” is a virtue, not a “given.” Yes, it is financially and morally in society’s best interests to give deaf people accommodations that allow them to be fully involved in society. I just don’t see “should” as equivalent to “must.”

My question is: why couldn’t the language in the CPC be simpler and more verifiable, such as, “American deaf people have the legal right to equal communication access via qualified American Sign Language interpreters”? I believe it should be stated in a straightforward and unassuming way, rather than invoking the lofty but dubious conceit of “inalienable rights.”

By: Kent Munro

Kent Munro — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:48:18 +0000

You present an interesting viewpoint regarding the meaning of “inalienable right(s).” The technical definition you provided was correct; i.e., “cannot be taken away.” However, when one considers the context of this phrase (albeit “unalienable”) within the Declaration of Independence, it is obvious that the founding fathers were expressing “inalienable rights” that were capable of being taken away by force or opposition. They found themselves asserting a set of rights believed granted by a Creator, which the king of England was trampling upon. I recognize that you are speaking strictly within the scope of a society; however, there is little doubt that the vast majority of, if not all, societies, consider a sense of fairness to be paramount to their integrity. In other words, fairness can be viewed as a universal right. As such, optimal societal equilibrium, as it were, would reflect fairness, i.e., in/unalienable rights to all its members. Obviously, different societies find themselves in varying states of social equilibrium, depending on the level of fairness that exists for each of its members. Where fairness is denied to the dissatisifaction of a subset of its members, that society faces increasing social imbalance which, in turn, leads to some kind of price to be paid, i.e., suffering, financial cost, etc. Yet, fairness, even when absent to some degree in a particular society, remains in/unalienable in the sense that it’s a permanent entitlement. Whether it’s realized or not is entirely a different ballgame.

Comments on: There Are No "Inalienable Rights"!

By: Daniel Greene

By: Kent Munro