Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Asker of Questions

The right to one's life: where does it come from?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

DA:  You are using the term "social laws" to denote something arbitrary and subjective.

 

Precisely because they are subjective they cannot be valid laws of a correct society nor can they inform objectively defined rights.

 

Such is the nature of democratic life, and why I look to physical laws instead to provide a more objective basis for the right to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in the most correct society, objectively defined rights will still subsume some degree of minority dissent in the form of social expectations like those discussed by softwareNerd.  These might be likened to a moral sense of guilt that the majority won't accept as the way things ought to be.  The transformation of today's government from being the securer of a right to pursue happiness, to a provider of happiness is one case in point.
 
My point remains that the metaphysical basis for an inalienable right to life is derived from physical (natural) laws that posit objectively correct behavior, i.e., that natural rights are implied by natural abilities.  I also believe a social context creates more confusion than clarity on this issue, given that one is ever aware of the presence of others in terms of moral judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... in the form of social expectations like those discussed by softwareNerd.  These might be likened to a moral sense of guilt that the majority won't accept as the way things ought to be.  

I hereby disavow authorship of any concept of "social expectations" that is based on subjective expectations. That was not the point of distinction in my post.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hereby disavow authorship of any concept of "social expectations" that is based on subjective expectations. That was not the point of distinction in my post.

 

...

 

Consider when someone says: "he had no right to lie to me". They often do not mean this in a legal/political way, but more broadly as a social expectation. Given our relationships and understanding with other people, we have certain legitimate expectations of them, even though these are not (and should not be) legally enforceable. These two concepts of "right" are closely related (unlike the concept of right in "right vs. wrong"). Possibly, one is a sub-set of the other.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood some objective right to lie you were suggesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I misunderstood some objective right to lie you were suggesting?

Perhaps you did. 

 

Added: It would be a digression to explore it within this thread, though. We have enough on the plate just sticking to the usual concept of rights, as things that ought to be enforceable by law.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that all rights are consequences of the fundamental right to one's own life. But how does Objectivism justify the right to one's life itself? I'm scanning through OPAR and the Ayn Rand lexicon and not finding an explicit answer. The only answer I can think of is that, if one wishes to live, he needs a moral code based on the requirements for life. Is there any deeper an explanation than that?

I agree with this "only answer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×