Understanding the terms unalienable and inalienable can be tricky, especially because they are often used interchangeably in both legal and philosophical discussions. At first glance, they might seem like synonyms. But if you dig deeper, you’ll discover that there’s more nuance to their usage, especially in the context of American history and founding documents like the Declaration of Independence.
In this post, we’ll explore the origins, usage, and significance of these two terms. By the end, you’ll have a clear understanding of what they mean, how they’ve been used in historical documents, and how they influence modern legal and philosophical thought.
Definitions and Etymology
Unalienable
The word unalienable comes from the root word “alienate,” which means to transfer or surrender something, often with the implication of loss. In the context of rights, unalienable refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, transferred, or taken away under any circumstances. These rights are inherent to a person simply by virtue of being human. They are permanent and cannot be stripped away, even by a government or other authority.
The term unalienable was famously used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, where he wrote about “unalienable Rights” that include “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The implication here is that these rights are absolute and inherent to human beings. The word unalienable emphasizes the impossibility of transferring or separating these rights from the individual.
Inalienable
Inalienable is derived from the Latin root “alienus,” meaning “belonging to another” or “foreign.” In legal terms, inalienable refers to rights that cannot be transferred or surrendered because they are essential to human dignity and freedom. While this is very similar to unalienable, it has a slightly broader meaning, often extending to concepts of natural law and human rights in a more international or philosophical sense.
The core difference between unalienable and inalienable lies primarily in linguistic preference rather than in actual legal distinctions. Both terms share a similar meaning but come from different linguistic roots, with inalienable being more commonly used in modern legal and human rights discourse.
Root Words and Meaning
The root word “alien” — used in both unalienable and inalienable — suggests a concept of “ownership” or “belonging.” The difference between unalienable and inalienable hinges on whether the right can be taken or transferred (in the case of unalienable) or whether it is permanently bound to an individual (in the case of inalienable).
| Term | Origin | Meaning | Context |
| Unalienable | From Latin “alienare” | Cannot be transferred or surrendered. Often associated with individual human rights. | Commonly used in the Declaration of Independence. |
| Inalienable | From Latin “alienus” | Cannot be transferred, taken, or surrendered. Linked to natural law and universal rights. | More common in modern legal and human rights discourse. |
The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable or Inalienable Rights?
One of the most famous uses of unalienable rights comes from the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. In the document, Jefferson wrote that all people are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” This phrase has become a cornerstone in American political philosophy and has influenced numerous legal frameworks around the world.
But why did Jefferson choose unalienable instead of inalienable? Historical accounts suggest that unalienable was preferred because it had a stronger, more forceful connotation in the context of rights that could not be “alienated” or transferred by anyone, including the government.
Jefferson’s choice was not accidental. He, along with the other Founders, was deeply influenced by the philosophy of natural rights that was gaining prominence during the Enlightenment. The idea was that certain rights were fundamental to human existence and could not be taken away by any government or external authority.
John Locke, whose theories on government and human rights heavily influenced Jefferson, argued that rights like life, liberty, and property were natural and could not be alienated. This idea resonated deeply with Jefferson and is reflected in his wording.
Historical Usage and Shifts Over Time
18th-19th Centuries: Early American Legal Documents
In the 18th century, especially during the drafting of foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, unalienable was the preferred term. Its usage signified the indivisibility of human rights, which were to be protected under the new government system.
However, the term inalienable began to appear more frequently during the 19th century, especially as the concepts of human rights and natural law gained prominence. As the world entered a period of international diplomacy and human rights advocacy, inalienable became the more common term in global discussions.
20th Century: The Rise of “Inalienable”
In the 20th century, especially after the World Wars, inalienable emerged as the more common term in international legal texts and the discourse around human rights. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, uses inalienable to describe rights that cannot be taken away from any individual.
The shift towards inalienable reflects broader legal and philosophical developments, where the focus moved from a purely national understanding of rights to a global understanding. The term’s inclusivity and universality made it more suited for the language of international law.
Are “Unalienable” and “Inalienable” Truly Interchangeable?
While unalienable and inalienable are often used interchangeably in everyday language, especially in reference to human rights, there are important subtle differences to consider:
- Unalienable is more commonly associated with American political documents, especially the Declaration of Independence, where it emphasizes individual rights that cannot be taken away by the state.
- Inalienable, on the other hand, is more frequently used in the context of international human rights and natural law, and it often conveys a broader universal concept of rights that transcend borders.
Legal scholars sometimes debate whether there’s a meaningful distinction between the two terms, but most agree that in modern discourse, the terms are often used to mean the same thing.
The Influence of Jefferson, Adams, and Other Founders
Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams played crucial roles in shaping the philosophical language around rights. Jefferson’s writing, particularly in the Declaration, set the tone for how Americans would think about unalienable rights for generations to come.
Adams, too, contributed heavily to the development of the country’s ideas on liberty and justice. His thoughts on natural rights aligned with Jefferson’s but had a more cautious tone regarding how these rights should be protected under the rule of law. His perspective helped form the basis for early American legal systems.
Drafting the Declaration: A Closer Look
The drafting of the Declaration of Independence provides insight into the careful choice of language by the Founders. The first drafts of the Declaration used the word “inalienable”, but Jefferson and his colleagues ultimately decided on “unalienable”. The reason for this change remains a subject of debate among historians, but it seems likely that Jefferson wanted to convey the strongest possible assertion of human rights that could not be alienated under any circumstances.
How Language Reflects the Era’s Sentiments
In the 18th century, the language of rights was deeply tied to Enlightenment ideals. Philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that governments existed to protect the natural rights of individuals. The use of unalienable in the Declaration of Independence reflects this rhetorical emphasis on inviolable rights that cannot be compromised or taken away by any authority, including the government.
The founders’ language was also shaped by their fear of tyranny and oppression. They believed that by declaring these rights as unalienable, they were ensuring that no future government could infringe upon the personal liberties of individuals.
Presidential and Legal Usage Over Time
Both unalienable and inalienable have been referenced in presidential speeches, especially those discussing civil rights, freedom, and justice. Presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt made strong appeals to these concepts during moments of national crisis.
For example, in his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln invoked the idea of a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” referencing the inalienable rights of all people, including those of African descent.
Synonyms, Nuances, and Related Terms
While unalienable and inalienable are often used interchangeably, there are several other terms that are closely related to them, especially in legal and philosophical discourse:
- Fundamental Rights: Rights that are basic and essential to human dignity.
- Absolute Rights: Rights that cannot be restricted or altered, even by governments.
- Natural Rights: Rights that every individual is entitled to by virtue of being human.
Each of these terms touches on slightly different aspects of rights theory but is often used in tandem with unalienable and inalienable.
Conclusion
The debate between unalienable and inalienable rights is not merely academic; it speaks to the very foundation of how we understand freedom, human dignity, and the role of government in safeguarding individual liberties. Both terms have played pivotal roles in shaping American political philosophy and continue to resonate in global discussions about human rights.
Whether you prefer unalienable or inalienable, understanding the history and philosophical underpinnings of these words helps us appreciate the sacredness of human rights that must never be compromised. And as we move forward in our global society, keeping the language of liberty precise and powerful remains more important than ever.
FAQs About Unalienable vs. Inalienable Rights
What is the main difference between unalienable and inalienable?
Both terms mean that rights cannot be taken away or transferred. However, unalienable was the preferred term in the 18th century, especially in American legal and political documents like the Declaration of Independence. Inalienable became more common in the 20th century, especially in international human rights law.
Why did Thomas Jefferson use “unalienable” instead of “inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence?
Jefferson originally wrote “inalienable” in his early drafts, but the final printed version used “unalienable.” The reason is unclear, but historians believe it was either a stylistic choice or simply the preferred spelling at the time. Some argue that unalienable had a stronger legal connotation in the 18th century.
Are unalienable rights truly absolute?
In principle, unalienable rights (such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) cannot be surrendered or taken away. However, in practice, governments sometimes restrict rights for legal or security reasons—such as when a person is imprisoned for committing a crime. This raises philosophical and legal debates about whether any right is completely absolute.
Which term is more commonly used today—unalienable or inalienable?
Inalienable is more commonly used today, especially in international law and human rights discussions. Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) use “inalienable” rather than “unalienable.” However, unalienable remains historically significant due to its use in the Declaration of Independence.
Can a government violate unalienable or inalienable rights?
By definition, these rights cannot be taken away. However, history has shown that governments do violate fundamental rights through oppressive laws, authoritarian rule, or legal loopholes. This is why legal frameworks and human rights organizations exist—to hold governments accountable when they infringe on people’s unalienable or inalienable rights.
Leave a Comment