Concept of inalienable, innate and fundamental rights
The terms for the above mentioned rights are used synonymously referring to rights that every human individual should have based solely on being a member of the human race / species i.e. biologically possessing a 'human nature', and so being a rational and social animal / creature of equal dignity with all other human persons. Such rights are universal, objective, not conferred, revocable or dependent on any human law, convention or authority, but derived directly from 'Natural law'.
Historically and philosophically these rights include at their base the rights to life, liberty (as to the pursuit of truth, moral perfection and happiness, including freedoms of conscience, belief, expression and association), and property. That historically some of these rights had been mistakenly or unjustly, omitted or disregarded does not negate their existence. These rights have been included and elaborated in nations Constitutions, Bills of rights and international Declarations and Conventions.
Individuals should have all the same, equal, natural rights and duties derived from Natural law as all other persons in society. If persons or groups professed ideas or actions that were directly contrary to Natural law - such as killing, lying, stealing, or the common good that involves public health, morality, order or their institutions- the State would have an obligation to limit or revoke such persons rights to freedoms of expression and association promoting such ideas or actions.
KATI associates much in the Lithuanian Constitution to be derived from Natural law & natural rights, and where precisely such fundamental rights are to be found.
'Natural law' is a theory of law and morality whose precepts, perpetuated since the Ancients, are said to arise from the very nature of man - who being a rational, free and social being - has by nature an appropriate rational and social first principle or inclination to 'seek and do good and avoid evil'. The authority by which man is obliged to follow this principle or inclination is his rationality by nature and the appropriate personal and collective goods to be gained (together known as 'common good'), if duties with respect to public order, health and morality are also fulfilled. For believers in God, Natural law is also a participation in the Eternal law of God. Secondary principles of how this 'doing good and avoiding evil' are attained are also knowable to human nature alone by reason and conscience, for example not to steal, kill or lie; and have been revealed also in the Decalogue. All promulgated human or 'positive' laws in as much as they comply with or are derived from these principles of Natural law, right reason and the personal and common goods to be attained and appropriate to man's nature, are considered 'just' laws binding in conscience to be followed.
Right to 'Freedom of conscience'
Freedom of conscience, enshrined in Art. 26 (1) of our Constitution along with thought, belief and religion, is also included in provisions of a right to one's convictions (Art. 25), person, dignity and privacy (Arts. 21; 22), the possibility of an alternative to compulsory military service (Art. 141), and a guide Seimas Members in their duties are to follow (Art. 59). Freedom of conscience is among so called fundamental inviolable rights, which may not be restricted more than provided in Art. 26 even during state of war or emergency (Art. 145). On the other hand, such rights and freedoms are not to justify criminal actions, non-compliance with the Constitution or passed laws, or the hampering of other people’s rights and freedoms (Arts. 27; 28). The basis of such rights is stated they are natural, or innate (Preamble; Art. 18), equal for all persons (Art. 29), and their respect and more effective guarantee thereof Lithuania’s expressed conviction why join the European Union (2004 Constitutional Act on Lithuania’s access to the EU).
According to classical theory of natural law (enshrined in Art. 18), 'freedom of conscience' rights to freedoms of thought, conviction, belief and religion are natural or innate rights due to man by right of his or her possessing human nature alone, they are universal, not conferrable or deniable by any human authority. Since the Ancient times man’s nature has been recognized to have the characteristics and dignity of a rational, free-willed and social being, orientated by his rationality and conscience to appropriate truths and goods for such a nature. At their base they are rights and freedoms to seek the truth and moral perfection (or good) in the pursuit of happiness for both oneself and others (common good). 'Freedom of conscience' then also includes the right to make 'objections based on conscience.' These are rational judgements motivated by deep-seated, fundamental, core beliefs about what is true and good (including precepts of Natural rights), so as not to do serious harm to one's or others moral integrity or wholeness by the performance of an action one judges to be seriously 'morally' bad or harmful. Such judgements are rationally defensible and known to be held in society by other persons of good repute.
Objections based on conscience
‘Objections based on conscience’ may be either 'objections of conscience' or 'conscientious objections.' The difference between the two is that the former are recognized by the law, for e.g., to object to workers receiving different pay on the basis of race or sex for the same work done), while the latter are to compulsory military service, or to a passed law itself. The latter situation is problematic for by the very idea of rule of law it cannot be legal to not follow a law, and so legal penalty is likely to be incurred for doing so. The possibility that laws may be unjust or against Natural rights and be passed motivated by political, ideological, economic or personal reasons is the very rationale why conscientious objections may need to be made. Historically the making of such objections have contributed to the abolition of slavery, determent of or cooperation in war crimes, genocide, and killings based on age, sex, disability, illness, utility, looks, race, social or economic reasons. Post WWII Nuremberg trials remind of one’s responsibility to a higher law, such as international law, rather than follow orders of superiors or Governments when a moral choice is in fact possible (Principle IV of Nuremberg), and the right to make ‘conscientious objections’ has been recognized by the European Court of Human Rights and other international institutions.
'Objections based on conscience' are also important rights individuals have who are members of professions – who serve and enrich society by working to a particular ‘Code of ethics’ or professed missions - and so 'not-have-to-perform or cooperate' in actions that may be legal for political, ideological, or economic reasons, but their members recognize contrary to their professional ethics. This is particularly so of the professions of medicine, law, teaching, journalism and pastoral care, as they require a degree of autonomy to provide their services to benefit society and individuals, and not just be an arm - or at the total disposition of - the State.* *'Objections based on conscience' may arise for the different professions regarding issues that include:
'Objections based on conscience' are also important rights individuals have who are members of professions – who serve and enrich society by working to a particular ‘Code of ethics’ or professed missions - and so 'not-have-to-perform or cooperate' in actions that may be legal for political, ideological, or economic reasons, but their members recognize contrary to their professional ethics. This is particularly so of the professions of medicine, law, teaching, journalism and pastoral care, as they require a degree of autonomy to provide their services to benefit society and individuals, and not just be an arm - or at the total disposition of - the State.*
*'Objections based on conscience' may arise for the different professions regarding issues that include:
For medics: abortion, euthanasia, IVF, motivations for prenatal screening, attempts at gender-altering using medical / surgical procedures, obtaining true 'informed consent' (vs its legal fiction), recreational drug-use prescribing, sharing of confidential information, discrimination based on biological information/ differences, involvement in human experimentation, executions, torture, lying, bribe taking, whistle-blowing;
For lawyers: following unjust political, ideological, business or judicial pressures or bias; use of bribes, lying, document / post falsifications; divorce case handling;
For teachers: teaching ideologies, morals or ideas they believe wrong, harmful, or against parents’ wishes; discriminating students on the basis of such ideas;
For journalists: not being able to resist unjust editorial / media owners pressures, bias or conflicts of interests (& their adequate disclosure) for balanced reporting, the omission of important facts or viewpoints; respect for rights of 'presumption of innocence', good name & character; handling of errors and responses; responsibility for minimizing risk of harm to persons and society by publishing harmful ideas, images, viewpoints, interests, comments and advertisements of such products or services;
For pastors: not resisting unjust State, or other politico- ideological or economic interests or pressures that may affect teachings, morals or pastoral care.
Prepared by: Richard Cervin