Rights for the non-rational

[Iudicious]

*** Mod's note: Split from another thread. -sN ***

You are wrong. Rights are a fact of man.

How do you define man?

The way I define it, the defining characteristic of man is his mind and thus his ability to think rationally. So the defining characteristic of man is his ability to think rationally. Man's rights extend from his ability to think rationally.

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life." - Galt's speech.

One thing you can take away from this is the focus put on the fact that the reason man needs rights is because he is a rational being, because "it is right for him to use his mind."

Rawls, no pun intended, was right: the defining characteristic of a man with rights is his ability to think rationally, because rights are a necessity for the rational mind and extend from it. Does that mean that a man who chooses not to be rational does not have rights? No, because he has the ability to think rationally. Does that mean that a man who lacks a rational faculty does not have rights? Yes, because without it, there is nowhere from which rights can extend. He is little more than a two-legged mammal without his rational faculty.

Edited February 18, 2010 by softwareNerd
Split notice

[JMeganSnow]

How do you define man?

The way I define it, the defining characteristic of man is his mind and thus his ability to think rationally. So the defining characteristic of man is his ability to think rationally. Man's rights extend from his ability to think rationally.

What, exactly, is a "defining characteristic"? From the way I usually hear this term used, it means that characteristic is a sine qua non (a "without which not"). For example, in the case of an automobile, you might declare that the defining characteristic is that it must have a motor in order to qualify as an automobile. Other characteristics, such as possession of a windshield, catalytic converter, or bucket seats, are not essential.

However, the fact that a certain characteristic is essential in this way does NOT mean that you can replace the concept with this characteristic. You can't say that, because an automobile MUST have a motor to qualify as an automobile, therefore anything with a motor thus qualifies AS an automobile. This would result in airplanes, boats, and washing machines being classified as automobiles.

Anyway, it is not man's possession of a rational faculty that means man needs rights, it is the fact that this rational faculty operates in a certain way (volitionally) and is necessary for man's survival.

You need to read the rest of what Rawls has said in this thread before you go around making assertions about him being "right".

[Iudicious]

"You need to read the rest of what Rawls has said in this thread before you go around making assertions about him being "right"."

He was right in that instance.

"Anyway, it is not man's possession of a rational faculty that means man needs rights, it is the fact that this rational faculty operates in a certain way (volitionally) and is necessary for man's survival."

Does that change the fact that something without a rational faculty does not need rights?

"What, exactly, is a "defining characteristic"?"

When I use the term, I mean some characteristic that, without it, that thing would not be that thing anymore. For example, a table without legs would not be a table anymore - it would be a flat plank of wood. Similarly, a man without a rational faculty would hardly be a many anymore. It would, instead, be a two legged mammal who closely resembles us. For most intents, we could call him a man, simply because he looks like us and it would be a nuisance to refer to him otherwise, but what separates us from other animals is primarily the fact that we have a rational faculty. All the other things, such as opposable thumbs and the ability to stand on two legs, are secondary.

On a side note, does anyone else have to click the "reply" button in this thread to be able to see the rest of the posts? When I open this thread, I can only see the first post. All the other posts can only be viewed by pressing "Reply."

[softwareNerd]

Does that change the fact that something without a rational faculty does not need rights?

Please, don't mind me playing devil's advocate. ...

Why do rational animal need rights? To what end? For what purpose? Do they need rights to be protected from other people (say) killing them? If so, doesn't a (say) cow also need rights to protect it from men killing it?

[DavidOdden]

How do you define man?

The way I define it, the defining characteristic of man is his mind and thus his ability to think rationally. So the defining characteristic of man is his ability to think rationally. Man's rights extend from his ability to think rationally.

Correct, and I underlined the crucial word. In contrast, Rawls implies that possession of rights is separate from being "man", that rights only pertain to some men. In fact, the notion of a "defining characteristic of a person who is in possession of rights" in Objectivism is ridiculous, since definitions only pertain to concepts and not qualified instances (as in "person who is in possession of rights").

The logic of man, rights and rationality in Objectivism is:

Man is the animal with a rational faculty.

Force and reason are mutually exclusive.

Rights are those social conditions (exclusion of force) that are necessary for man to exist qua man.

Rawls, in contrast, inverts the logic (and later demonstrates that he really meant "unerringly and consistently exercises that faculty").

[Craig24]

Here are the questions I would have:

Is it permissible to prohibit irrational behavior even if it does not violate the rights of another?

When is it permissible to do so?

Why is it permissible to do so?

Take the example of using a harmful drug.

Is it permissible to prohibit harmful drugs?

When and why?

[DavidOdden]

Is it permissible to prohibit irrational behavior even if it does not violate the rights of another?

When is it permissible to do so?

It is, when one person has a custodial relationship to another, for example a parent and child. The presumption is that the person's rational skills are not sufficiently developed that they can be presumed to be following reason. Therefore, the custodial must make a rational choice on behalf of the custodee (is that even a word?)

[Dante]

It is, when one person has a custodial relationship to another, for example a parent and child. The presumption is that the person's rational skills are not sufficiently developed that they can be presumed to be following reason. Therefore, the custodial must make a rational choice on behalf of the custodee (is that even a word?)

What is your opinion on stopping a suicide? If I come upon someone about to jump off a bridge and tackle them down, have I violated their rights?

[Iudicious]

Correct, and I underlined the crucial word. In contrast, Rawls implies that possession of rights is separate from being "man", that rights only pertain to some men. In fact, the notion of a "defining characteristic of a person who is in possession of rights" in Objectivism is ridiculous, since definitions only pertain to concepts and not qualified instances (as in "person who is in possession of rights").

Rawls, in contrast, inverts the logic (and later demonstrates that he really meant "unerringly and consistently exercises that faculty").

That is what I meant, and I realized what Rawls was implying after I got to reading his other posts. A problem that was just resolved made it impossible for me to see his other posts.

Why do rational animal need rights? To what end? For what purpose? Do they need rights to be protected from other people (say) killing them? If so, doesn't a (say) cow also need rights to protect it from men killing it?

In order to exercise their faculty of a reason, a rational animal must have a choice. The hallmark of reason is volition; a choice made rationally is not a choice made at the point of a gun, and for that reason, rights are necessary in order to defend such choices that a rational animal would make that don't involve breaching the right to choose of another person. The right to live (to have the choice to live or not), the right to liberty (the right to have a choice), the right to property (the right to the product of such choices), are all necessary in order for man to exercise his faculty of reason, and thus to survive. An animal that does not exercise reason does not need any of these rights. The functions that they go through to ensure their survival do not require that they be guaranteed the choice to live or not (and for them, that choice is automatic), nor do they require that they have any choices at all (the maintenance of their survival is, for the most part, automatic). It is only a rational animal that needs those rights in order to survive, and in order to survive in a specific context: society.

[DavidOdden]

What is your opinion on stopping a suicide? If I come upon someone about to jump off a bridge and tackle them down, have I violated their rights?

Well-intentioned initiation of force is still initiation of force, and initiation of force is a violation of a man's rights. You can reason with them, and if they still insist that there are no longer any possible values, why would you want to force them to continue to exist?

[Grames]

Well-intentioned initiation of force is still initiation of force, and initiation of force is a violation of a man's rights. You can reason with them, and if they still insist that there are no longer any possible values, why would you want to force them to continue to exist?

When they are not reasonable about dying, merely in the throes of some passing emotional fit perhaps aggravated by drink, then stop them. That is assuming the role of guardian temporarily, analogous of parent to child. A person who sincerely and with considered intention wants to kill himself won't make a public spectacle of himself, or overly draw out the last moment.

[Dante]

Well-intentioned initiation of force is still initiation of force, and initiation of force is a violation of a man's rights. You can reason with them, and if they still insist that there are no longer any possible values, why would you want to force them to continue to exist?

I would not want to force someone to continue to exist who truly did not want to, of course. However, I would be concerned, witnessing a suicide about to happen, that the person might be not in their right mind, under the influence of drugs perhaps, and/or deeply depressed, and that their desire to die is not a well-thought-out, reasoned conclusion. Most attempters do not end up committing suicide, and many are incredibly grateful to those who earlier restrained them. I have a hard time seeing that stopping them to see whether they are beyond help or not is a rights violation, although I recognize that I have no obligation to help them.

I guess my concern is when you would have to initiate force in order to even get the chance to reason with them, because they will be dead if you don't.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Dante

[DavidOdden]

I guess my concern is when you would have to initiate force in order to even get the chance to reason with them, because they will be dead if you don't.

Consider the situation where a person (listening to his Ipod) is standing right next to the highway, facing away from traffic, with their butt sticking out too close to an oncoming truck which is just a bit too wide -- the guy is gonna get creamed in a couple of seconds. Now maybe you could decide that this is a fitting end for an Ipod ear-bud moron, but I'd probably initiate the required amount of force to drag him from harm's way. I don't actually know for absolute certain that he has chosen to get destroyed or de-butticated this way, but a completely normal assumption to make is that the guy does in fact want to live. Under that assumption, then he would consent to being dragged away. I might be wrong, and maybe he has an irrational religious aversion to being touched when he's faced away from traffic. If so, I will apologize and back off totally -- once I know what his real, actual choice is. The situation with an apparent suicide is basically the same. If the guy really wanted to kill himself, he would already be dead, in private, as Grames pointed out. I would not assume that a person acting recklessly by threatening to blow their heads off or splatter themselves on the sidewalk actually wants to die: I assume they want drama and need help. It's not that hard to calmly make it clear that you will kill yourself (or, simply, just do it). The key question is, how certain is it that the person wishes to die?

[Dante]

If the guy really wanted to kill himself, he would already be dead, in private, as Grames pointed out. I would not assume that a person acting recklessly by threatening to blow their heads off or splatter themselves on the sidewalk actually wants to die: I assume they want drama and need help. It's not that hard to calmly make it clear that you will kill yourself (or, simply, just do it). The key question is, how certain is it that the person wishes to die?

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

[hokken]

You can reason with them, and if they still insist that there are no longer any possible values, why would you want to force them to continue to exist?

Deciding that somebody cannot be brought back to reason over time does not seem to me like a rational choice, therefore it seems to me we are in the same case than the one mentioned above "The presumption is that the person's rational skills are not sufficiently developed that they can be presumed to be following reason. Therefore, the custodial must make a rational choice on behalf of the custodee ..."

Edited April 11, 2010 by hokken

[Dante]

Deciding that somebody cannot be brought back to reason over time does not seem to me like a rational choice, therefore it seems to me we are in the same case than the one mentioned above "The presumption is that the person's rational skills are not sufficiently developed that they can be presumed to be following reason. Therefore, the custodial must make a rational choice on behalf of the custodee ..."

The fact that someone makes an irrational choice does not indicate in any way that the person's rational faculty was not developed, only that they did not use it properly.

[Steve Wolfer]

What, exactly, is a "defining characteristic"? From the way I usually hear this term used, it means that characteristic is a sine qua non (a "without which not"). For example, in the case of an automobile, you might declare that the defining characteristic is that it must have a motor in order to qualify as an automobile. Other characteristics, such as possession of a windshield, catalytic converter, or bucket seats, are not essential.

However, the fact that a certain characteristic is essential in this way does NOT mean that you can replace the concept with this characteristic. You can't say that, because an automobile MUST have a motor to qualify as an automobile, therefore anything with a motor thus qualifies AS an automobile. This would result in airplanes, boats, and washing machines being classified as automobiles.

Anyway, it is not man's possession of a rational faculty that means man needs rights, it is the fact that this rational faculty operates in a certain way (volitionally) and is necessary for man's survival.

Your points about the defining characteristic and about the conflation of concept and characteristic were well said.

I would add that the engine might be out of the automobile for repair, Yet it remains an automobile. Just as a man in a coma is still a man. Rights are derived from human nature (all men) and therefore the existence of the conditions that give rise to rights do not need to be re-established for each instance of man. (i.e., We do not need to say, "This is a man, and this man is exercising a rational faculty, therefore this man has rights.")

And for that reason, all who are humans have rights even if they, as individuals, can't exercise choice (babies, people in comas, when one is asleep, etc.)

[m082844]

That is what I meant, and I realized what Rawls was implying after I got to reading his other posts. A problem that was just resolved made it impossible for me to see his other posts.

In order to exercise their faculty of a reason, a rational animal must have a choice. The hallmark of reason is volition; a choice made rationally is not a choice made at the point of a gun, and for that reason, rights are necessary in order to defend such choices that a rational animal would make that don't involve breaching the right to choose of another person. The right to live (to have the choice to live or not), the right to liberty (the right to have a choice), the right to property (the right to the product of such choices), are all necessary in order for man to exercise his faculty of reason, and thus to survive. An animal that does not exercise reason does not need any of these rights. The functions that they go through to ensure their survival do not require that they be guaranteed the choice to live or not (and for them, that choice is automatic), nor do they require that they have any choices at all (the maintenance of their survival is, for the most part, automatic). It is only a rational animal that needs those rights in order to survive, and in order to survive in a specific context: society.

I hope this topic isn't dead. I wanted to start a topic about this, but I found one already created. That's never happened before. Normally I get pointed to an old topic. It feels nice to do my part successfully.

Anyway. The initiation of force hinders the animals ability to live. Why isn't freedom from force a right for animals?

I'm going to change rands quote a bit to attempt to apply it to animals: the source of animals' rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- an animal is animal. Rights are conditions of existence required by animal's nature for its proper survival. If an animal is to live on earth, it is right for it to be free from force, and it is right to react freely to natural stimuli. If it desires to live on earth, it has the right to live as an automatic animal; nature forbids it lethal force. Any gang or nation that attempts to negate animal rights is wrong, which means evil, which means : anti-life.

Why are rights limited to required conditions of existence for rational animals only? Automatic responding animals have required conditions too; what do we call them?

[RationalBiker]

Animals don't need rights because they don't understand the concept of rights, and they certainly don't understand how to respect them of their fellow animals. What animals respect, within the animal kingdom, is might. If my teeth and muscles are bigger than yours, I'm going to eat you if you are on my dietary palette. If animals had rights, would you go arrest a cheetah for chasing down a gazelle and eating it? It violated it's "rights".

[Eiuol]

The initiation of force hinders the animals ability to live. Why isn't freedom from force a right for animals?

What advantage would it serve to you to extend rights to animals like wolves? Rights aren't merely conditions of existence.

[Trebor]

Anyway. The initiation of force hinders the animals ability to live. Why isn't freedom from force a right for animals?

But in fact, the initiation of the use of force is exactly the means that animals (other than man in relation to man) require to live. For animals, including man, that survive by means of hunting and killing and eating other animals, they must, by their nature, initiate the use force against other animals.

I'm going to change rands quote a bit to attempt to apply it to animals: the source of animals' rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- an animal is animal. Rights are conditions of existence required by animal's nature for its proper survival. If an animal is to live on earth, it is right for it to be free from force, and it is right to react freely to natural stimuli. If it desires to live on earth, it has the right to live as an automatic animal; nature forbids it lethal force. Any gang or nation that attempts to negate animal rights is wrong, which means evil, which means : anti-life.

Why are rights limited to required conditions of existence for rational animals only?

Because rights are required conditions for rational animals only, not for non-rational animals, animals that do not have a rational faculty, that do not have to identify, conceptually, what is good and bad for themselves, what is right or wrong, true or false, etc. All issues among non-rational animals, all conflicts, are settled by force, by "might makes right." (Not that might actually makes right, but that might wins in a context of might.)

Automatic responding animals have required conditions too; what do we call them?

How about: "the conditions that their survival depends upon"? Initiating the use of force is one of those conditions. So too is their use of force to defend their lives.

You might find Dr. Peikoff's reply to a related question, in his latest podcast, helpful.

Episode 180 — September 5, 2011

07:26: "What is your opinion about vegetarianism? I'm an Objectivist but also a vegetarian. I don't eat meat. Is that irrational? I believe that farm animals are no different than dogs or cats, but they are just not as cute. I don't want to be a cause of their suffering."

Another of his replies, to a related question, in another podcast may be helpful as well:

Episode 120 -- July 12, 2010

06:40: "'Why not move towards a vegan world whenever possible?' He's talking about your own private actions; he doesn't mean the government. 'You can still live as a vegan healthily, and I wonder whether the taste of meat is really more valuable than the animal's freedom in life.'"

And another:

Episode 135 -- October 25, 2010

10:44: "'Am I being irrational when I refuse to eat veal because the animal was treated horribly before it died? Do you eat veal?'"

And:

Episode 115 -- May 31, 2010

00:44: "'Animals don't have rights, but does a moral man then have to stand idly by and allow a dog to be tortured by its owner?'"

If you're interested, you can search the entire Unofficial Index to Dr. Peikoff's Podcasts, in the form of a single, long html document here. You may find other related questions and replies that are helpful as well.

I do not remember where it was, but from memory Dr. Peikoff made the following point: When a mugger says "Your money or your life!" and you surrender your money to him, you are not thereby convinced that your money now belongs to the mugger. If force were able to convince a mind, there would be no argument against the initiation of the use of force in dealing with other men.

However, force is not an argument; force does not address a mind, force does not convince a mind of what is true or false, right or wrong, etc. Force however does settle any conflicts among non-rational animals and between man and those non-rational (having no rational faculty) animals. There's no other means of settling such conflicts. With non-rational animals, force does "convince" them in the sense that force determines the outcome.

Edit: clarity

Edited September 10, 2011 by Trebor

[m082844]

Eiuol, What are the conditions of rights then?

Rationalbiker, A cheeta may violate rights of other animals [but] what about herbivores -- they seem to live just fine without the initiation of force, unless I'm mistaken about that. Most men do not understand the concept of rights, so I don't think understanding is a factor.

Edited September 11, 2011 by m082844

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Herbivores initiate force against the plants they eat, or are you valuing the plant's life less than that of an animal?

That's the logical end of the logic you are following in your response to Rational Biker

Only people, who have a rational faculty and volitional judgement, are moral agents (leastwise until we meet space aliens), and only people have rights.

[m082844]

But in fact, the initiation of the use of force is exactly the means that animals (other than man in relation to man) require to live. For animals, including man, that survive by means of hunting and killing and eating other animals, they must, by their nature, initiate the use force against other animals.

Because rights are required conditions for rational animals only, not for non-rational animals, animals that do not have a rational faculty, that do not have to identify, conceptually, what is good and bad for themselves, what is right or wrong, true or false, etc. All issues among non-rational animals, all conflicts, are settled by force, by "might makes right." (Not that might actually makes right, but that might wins in a context of might.)

How about: "the conditions that their survival depends upon"? Initiating the use of force is one of those conditions. So too is their use of force to defend their lives.

You might find Dr. Peikoff's reply to a related question, in his latest podcast, helpful.

Episode 180 — September 5, 2011

07:26: "What is your opinion about vegetarianism? I'm an Objectivist but also a vegetarian. I don't eat meat. Is that irrational? I believe that farm animals are no different than dogs or cats, but they are just not as cute. I don't want to be a cause of their suffering."

Another of his replies, to a related question, in another podcast may be helpful as well:

Episode 120 -- July 12, 2010

06:40: "'Why not move towards a vegan world whenever possible?' He's talking about your own private actions; he doesn't mean the government. 'You can still live as a vegan healthily, and I wonder whether the taste of meat is really more valuable than the animal's freedom in life.'"

And another:

Episode 135 -- October 25, 2010

10:44: "'Am I being irrational when I refuse to eat veal because the animal was treated horribly before it died? Do you eat veal?'"

And:

Episode 115 -- May 31, 2010

00:44: "'Animals don't have rights, but does a moral man then have to stand idly by and allow a dog to be tortured by its owner?'"

If you're interested, you can search the entire Unofficial Index to Dr. Peikoff's Podcasts, in the form of a single, long html document here. You may find other related questions and replies that are helpful as well.

I do not remember where it was, but from memory Dr. Peikoff made the following point: When a mugger says "Your money or your life!" and you surrender your money to him, you are not thereby convinced that your money now belongs to the mugger. If force were able to convince a mind, there would be no argument against the initiation of the use of force in dealing with other men.

However, force is not an argument; force does not address a mind, force does not convince a mind of what is true or false, right or wrong, etc. Force however does settle any conflicts among non-rational animals and between man and those non-rational (having no rational faculty) animals. There's no other means of settling such conflicts. With non-rational animals, force does "convince" them in the sense that force determines the outcome.

Edit: clarity

thanks. This helped a bit. I was trying to explain the derivation of rights to someone and they asked if my (not so good) explanation justified rights for animals. I didn't have a good answer. So I came here to get clarification.

It seems that volition is the key, which allows for reason, which allows a means to deal with one another without the use of force. Since our means of survival is not automatic, and requires reason, then force actually goes against our means of survival; while animals live by means other than reason, which means the use of force.

So the right to life never arises in an animal's mind (or for a plant) because they are preprogramed to further it -- humans are not programed is that same regard. Man must choose amongst alternatives, which is why a rational moral code is necessary. Rights is the bridge between ethics and politics. Relationships between men, not only can be handled without force, but it's better for everyone involved if relationships are not handled that way.

Moreover, life exists by devouring other life starting from a blade of grass to the most complex life form -- i.e., man if he's not careful. So, Until and unless we find a way to deal with animals on a rational [level], and find a better means to gain value from them besides nourishment, then they will remain within our chain of food.

Please clear up any [] misunderstandings I may have. I want a solid understanding of this.

Edited September 11, 2011 by m082844

[m082844]

Herbivores initiate force against the plants they eat, or are you valuing the plant's life less than that of an animal?

That's the logical end of the logic you are following in your response to Rational Biker

Only people, who have a rational faculty and volitional judgement, are moral agents (leastwise until we meet space aliens), and only people have rights.

I think you're right, but I want to continue the logical progression for a bit. What about plants, they only absorb sunlight, water and nitrogen (dead organic cells?)?

I guess at that point, who the heck cares about plants -- they have no mind.