Peoples Rights

[Veritas]

Why do people have rights and why should they be respected?

To be more specific, why is it immoral to rape someone in the Objectivist view?

[DavidOdden]

Why do people have rights and why should they be respected?

See Man's Rights -- '"Rights" are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.'...'A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life'...' 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. To violate man's rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force.'

[softwareNerd]

Veritas, Since you appear to have read some of Rand's work, you should elaborate on what aspects (around the idea of rights) you already understand and agree with, and the exact point at which you're stuck. That will let people address your issue better.

I assume you can see why you need your rights respected? To take your example, I assume you understand why allowing someone to rape you hinders your ability to live your life in a rational manner. If so, then why does that not answer your question?

[DMR]

I assume that Veritas is confused by the typical objectivist presentation of rights. In western academic philosophy, rights are often presented as things which we have an intrinsic moral duty to respect. But in objectivism, rights grow out of human nature and the requirements of survival. For example, the right to private property grows out of the fact that humans need to produce stuff to survive and prosper. Someone who was used to the typical academic approach naturally might ask: "Why are the requirements of your survival are binding on me?"

The answer I would give is that in objectivism, rights are not binding in the academic sense. Instead, they are things which you ought to bind yourself to for your own good.