Denying the right to life

[brian0918]

I'm debating with an individual about the role of government, and it inevitably led to the discussion of individual rights. Specifically, by my assertion of the right to life as the basis of all other rights, he attempted to refute my entire argument by labeling the right to life as an "arbitrary construct", saying that he can deny the existence of that right, and that he can formulate a "right to life" that excludes the right to property:

I also challenge that "life" is a right. It's a condition, one that we all instinctively wish to preserve, but that alone doesn't make it a "right". A right is still an arbitrary construct, no matter how you put it. Your definition is good and convincing. Nevertheless I can create a definition of a "right to life" that excludes property and would work, e.g. for slaves.

[in response to my statement that it's right for someone on a deserted island to survive and exploit his resources:]

I don't think it's "right", I'd just say it's natural, pre-programmed, instinctive, whatever.

I'm not sure how best to respond to this, although it seems like he's contradicting himself - ie, he denies that moral systems are possible, but then says that he can make one contrary to the one I have presented.

Edited September 9, 2008 by brian0918

[Chops]

It's important to note that rights are not axiomatic, but instead are derivative from the requirements of man. Man, to live as a man (rationally), must not live under constant threat of force (which is how animals live). Without rights, man must live as an animal, killing when it benefits the short term. Anarchy is the distinct lack of rights.

Rights, however, ONLY exist as a derivative of the requirements of man's life, by his nature. I'm going to post a brief summary of the Objectivst Ethics that deals with the nature of man, and the derivation of rights (I had written this up for another forum, in a debate about animal rights, but it rather neatly addresses your issues).

But before I do this, I'll briefly answer your second thing:

[in response to my statement that it's right for someone on a deserted island to survive and exploit his resources:]

I don't think it's "right", I'd just say it's natural, pre-programmed, instinctive, whatever.

What, then, is "right" (in the right/wrong sense)? By my definition, "right" means "moral" which means "live affirming." If life is the choice, survival by exploiting resources is right - the alternative is death.

So here's my brief essay. Keep in mind his is my attempt at a brief summary of "The Objectivist Ethics" (I also cut out the bits about animal rights, since that's irrelevant to the current discussion).

Every creature in existence has a number of automatic and nearly mechanical systems designed for a sole purpose: self-preservation. Pain is an automatic response informing you that something is very wrong. Hunger means you need to eat. Thirst means you need water. Sweating is your body's self-cooling mechanism because your internal systems require a highly regulated and consistent temperature. Emotion is a life-promoting and self-preserving mechanism as well. An automatic evaluation based on one's premises, which provide a reasonable heuristic for determining if something is life-affirming, or life-threatening. Fear tends to mean life-threatening, joy tends to me life-affirming. Sadness tends to mean that something life-retarding has happened. The very nature of life is self-reliance and self-preservation by one's own action.

All objects, including living beings, have an identity � a nature � they are what they are, an attribute of which is that they act the way they must. Plants absorb water from the ground and will stretch to reach sunlight. Animals, however, cannot remain still, passively waiting to be fed. Animals must hunt or gather. An animal that attempts to survive by the same mechanism as a plant will quickly find itself starving. An animal that attempts to survive by the same mechanism as another animal (say, a squirrel trying to hunt like a wolf, or a wolf trying to climb a tree to harvest nuts like a squirrel) will also find itself starving (or killed) rather quickly. Animals must act according their nature or they die. Luckily for them, their systems are nearly completely automatic, and their responses are primarily mechanical � they don't think about what they do, they just act (instincts).

A human, on the other hand, lacks those unique traits that allow an animal to survive without the capacity to reason. A human who attempts to survive by running down a dear and biting it like a wolf will find itself himself starving (or stabbed in the chest with antlers or hooves). We don't have powerful jaws and pointy teeth. We don't have powerful muscles and an extreme sense of hearing, smell, or sight. If we attempt to break open nuts with our teeth, we're likely to break our teeth, rather than the shell of the nut. A human who attempts to survive as an animal will not live long.

To survive, a human has a single option: use its mind. Develop abstractions and concepts from observation and formulate plans for survival. The simplest form is the development of tools. Tools are created from nature (harvested resources) and then applied to reality to acquire or produce that which is needed for survival. In order for an individual to survive and advance his life, he needs to be able to keep those tools, and keep the products he creates. Creating products only to have them forcibly taken deprives you of your means to life. Having one's tools taken results in the deprivation of one's means to life. If you forcibly take someone else's products, thus depriving that individual of their means to their life, you've demonstrated yourself as a threat, and for that individual to survive and flourish, the only defensive or retaliatory action is force. When stolen from, your only options are death, or force (which itself may result in death). Thus it is in your own self interest to respect the products of the other individual � anything else, and force must be applied in one degree or another, deadly force, if necessary.

This is what gives rise to rights. To violate an individual's sovereignty can only result in the application of force. Thus, rights come into existence. Not as a mystical revelation, nor as a social convention, but as a necessary condition for the life of a rational being in a society (rights on a desert island make no sense). The most fundamental right is the right to one's life. The main corollary right (which is required to fulfill the fundamental right) is the right to one's mind � that is, the right to think and judge. However, a mind without a body is useless, which gives rise to the next corollary right: the right to the products of your mind. Your mind controls your body to create a product that will sustain and/or advance your life. Restated, this is the right to property � the right to rationally acquired or produced products (in this context, �rationally� implies �without violating rights�). The body is an extension of the mind. It is the tool by which the mind interacts with reality. To enslave the body is the enslave the mind. To steal the products of the the mind is to steal a part of the mind itself. The alternative of a society of rights is a society of force, at which point rational existence ceases, and man is forced to live as an animal.

So what, then, is the moral? Because life exists with a nature -� that of self-preservation �- morality is merely the decision to live, and it is a choice only capable to man (or other rational being). Animals, incapable of reason, are incapable of contemplating the choice of life or death � their actions are automatic. To hate (one's) life is to abandon morality. To love life is to embrace morality. From that foundation, morality derives from rational decisions made to enhance and support one's life. Violating another's rights (via theft, murder, fraud, etc) is a violation of morality because, in the long run, it is detrimental to one's life. Deciding to eat poison is a violation of morality because poison is almost certainly a decision to die. Socialism is immoral because it violates an individual's right to the products of his mind -� it is an explicit promoter of forced sacrifice, and therefore of death. That which advances one's life is the moral (implied in �"advances"� is �rational�); that which detracts from one's life is immoral. Restated, morality is absolute adherence to rationality.

In summary, morality is the decision and the actions to promote one's life. Rights are a requirement of a rational being for survival in society.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Chops

[KendallJ]

I'm debating with an individual about the role of government, and it inevitably led to the discussion of individual rights. Specifically, by my assertion of the right to life as the basis of all other rights, he attempted to refute my entire argument by labeling the right to life as an "arbitrary construct", saying that he can deny the existence of that right, and that he can formulate a "right to life" that excludes the right to property:

I'm not sure how best to respond to this, although it seems like he's contradicting himself - ie, he denies that moral systems are possible, but then says that he can make one contrary to the one I have presented.

hmmm. You could take him into ethics, and see where his fundamental error is, but I'm betting even if you find it there, the logic to get you back to the discussion of government is bound to let him some out to wiggle away.

I think my first tack would be to challenge the assertion that rights are arbitrary, ask him to show you how they are, and then back him into a corner by following his definition to it's logical ends. Rights come from the objective requirements of man's life, but that is a pretty abstract statement. Better to see if you can concretize it without using something so abstract.

Beyond that, if he thinks rights are arbitrary, seems like you could also challenge any number of common rights that most people think are valid, and see if he is a true subjectivist. If he really is consistent in his belief then he'll allow that any of those are also arbitrary, and then you simply need find his standard by which he's arguing. If he is actually taking some stand it is probably on pragmatic or utilitarian basis.

[JMeganSnow]

His argument reminds me a bit of the ontological "proof" of the existence of god. "I can imagine a scenario where your statement might not apply, therefore it's arbitrary".

It sounds very much as though he's using the term right to mean something that is automatically granted by nature--which it isn't. That's a distinction that you need to make. Rights are only necessary in the social realm, meaning they require a specific context, but that doesn't make them arbitrary. So, as Kendall said, you may be well served by asking him to define "arbitrary".

[hunterrose]

I'm debating with an individual about the role of government, and it inevitably led to the discussion of individual rights... he attempted to refute my entire argument by labeling the right to life as an "arbitrary construct"

What then is this individual saying about the role of government?

Because if the right to life (and by extension all rights) are arbitrary constructs, wouldn't the idea of a "role of government" also be an arbitrary construct?

[brian0918]

What then is this individual saying about the role of government?

Because if the right to life (and by extension all rights) are arbitrary constructs, wouldn't the idea of a "role of government" also be an arbitrary construct?

That's the common ploy of subjectivists: show that everything is arbitrary, and therefore majority rule dictates reality. Because nobody can ever fundamentally agree on anything, nobody can say that anyone is right or wrong in their moral principles. We can only say that our moral principles don't agree. So when it comes to the government, majority view dictates the proper role...

It's a way of side-stepping the entire discussion, and then saying, "oh, how convenient, the current majority agrees with me, so I've got nothing to worry about!"

The religious do the same thing: "sure, my beliefs are a leap of faith, but so is your adherence to reason!" What's implicit in this is that therefore the majority decides reality, and it just so happens that in this case the majority is on their side.

Edited September 10, 2008 by brian0918