Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Inalienable rights

Rate this topic


Egosum—
 Share

Recommended Posts

If no one has the right to enslave, then no one has the right to free? Why do we have the right to freedom, but no one has the right to enslave? Slavery is called immoral by consensus, and is therefore collective. Aren't these "inalienable rights" just a consensus between a majority rather than self-evident?

Edited by Egosum—
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If no one has the right to enslave, then no one has the right to free? Why do we have the right to freedom, but no one has the right to enslave? Slavery is called immoral by consensus, and is therefore collective. Aren't these "inalienable rights" just a consensus between a majority rather than self-evident?

Enslaving is preventing freedom. Your question is not rational.

Inalienable rights are neither of those. But they are required for human survival and rational pursuance of goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If no one has the right to enslave, then no one has the right to free? Why do we have the right to freedom, but no one has the right to enslave? Slavery is called immoral by consensus, and is therefore collective. Aren't these "inalienable rights" just a consensus between a majority rather than self-evident?

Egosum, the issues that you included are important, vital. But it seems from how you wrote out your questions that you do not understand the basics. Perhaps it is a language problem. Either way, it is not clear what you want to ask or what you understand. It might help if you talked about your background or why you want to talk about these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have the right to freedom, but no one has the right to enslave?

Huh? Having the right to freedom MEANS nobody is entitled to enslave another.

Rights originate in a moral code, applicable to individuals independent of any connection to others. When that code is applied to the question of dealing with others in the context of a broad society the result is identificiation of certain principles that a society is morally obliged to enshrine in its laws. That is what rights are. We have the right to liberty because it is wrong for man to begin the use of force against others, and this ought to be centre-stage in the laws of a nation.

A people discussing the matter and trying to nut it out is no more a collective decision-making than legitimate scientists having a debate at a conference and the audience members drawing their own conclusions and deciding how they will act together in some joint project. The fact remains, for politics and morality just as for the physical sciences, is that what is is, and isn't a matter of opinion.

Slavery is called immoral by consensus, and is therefore collective.

No, slavery is immoral because its practice requires the use of force against someone. In turn, the beginning of the use of force is wrong because it is attempting to wipe out the free exercise of their minds and follow-through of actions upon judgement while simultaneously relying upon that exercise when barking orders. The collective opinion has absolutely nothing to do with these facts.

Rights are not a collective whim, and the immorality or otherwise of slavery is no matter of consensus. It came to be known as immoral over the course of time when people began realising there was something wrong with it. Some had a god inkling as to why (though didn't know the full answer), others because it happened to conflict with their religious beliefs (and hence their opposition to slavery was accidental rather than solidly based). Objectivists oppose it because we recognise the facts about why it is wrong and why it wont work.

Aren't these "inalienable rights" just a consensus between a majority rather than self-evident?

Rights are inalienable, not because of a collective opinion, but because they are bound up with inescapable facts about human beings and the operation of the mind. A man or a society ignores this fact at his and its peril.

I recommend you read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Virtue of Selfishness," and if you're up for it then try "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Also, the search function on this forum is very useful.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have the right to freedom, but no one has the right to enslave?

The word "free" or "freedom" is contextual, meaning depends on the context the word it is used in (depending on the answer to "free, from what?"), it will mean completely different things.

The freedom that's talked about in politics is political freedom, meaning the freedom to conduct certain act without retaliation from the government. You have will have all the freedoms and rights proper to a human begin in a free capitalistic society. But the freedom to enslave other individuals is not one of them, because the physical nature of human doesn't give him the right, the justification, to enslave other humans. The physical nature of human does give him the right and justification to have the right to his own life, the right to own inanimate objects, the right to self-defense..etc. in a society.

Slavery is called immoral by consensus

That's right, it is called immoral by consensus in our day and age. But that's not the reason why it is wrong. Public consensus doesn't make something morally right or wrong. Whether something is morally right or wrong to human is determine solely by the physical nature of human. If the public consensus coincide with what human nature demands, like in this case of condemning slavery as wrong, then the public consensus is correct. If the public consensus deviate with what human nature demands, like in the case of condemning selfishness as immoral, then the public consensus is wrong.

Slavery is called immoral by consensus, and is therefore collective. Aren't these "inalienable rights" just a consensus between a majority rather than self-evident?

And that's one of the biggest flaw in politics today. The politicians thinks the justification for the any political right is the majority consensus, that whatever the majority votes on is right.

However, humans are objects with set physical nature just like trees or animals. If you want to grow a plant, whether an action is wrong or right in the path of achieving that goal is solely determined by the nature of that plant. One million people telling you it is right to grow that plant in salted soil doesn't make that action right.

The same goes with humans, with people. If you want to create a society proper to humans, it's the same when you want to create an environment proper to a plant. You base what you do on human nature, and human nature is the sole factor in determining whether something is right or wrong.

The inalienable rights SHOULD be justified under human nature, by the self-evident. But, the politicians today practice their trade, do it with disgrace and don't.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...