Derivation of Man's Rights

[Sumantra Roy]

Hi All

I am a new fan of objectivism, having read many of Ayn Rand's books (both fiction and non-fiction) in the last few months. I am currently trying to improve my understanding of how Rand logically derived individual rights (like the right to property) from man's basic right to live and why any taxation is a violation of individual rights.

I am going to outline my current understanding of this here. Please let me know if I am mistaken in any way:

From my understanding of objectivism so far, the basic premise behind objectivism (i.e. the unquestioned primary) can be outlined in the following statement:

Each human being has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, provided that in doing so, he does not violate the right of other human beings to live. A human being's right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it's something that he possesses simply because he exists, simply because he is a human being.

Now, any philosophical system needs a standard of value, i.e. an objective basis for determining what is "good" and what is "evil".

Under objectivism, the standard for good and evil is whether a particular thing supports the above fundamental, inviolable premise or detracts from the above premise. If a particular decision upholds the above basic premise, it's a good. If a decision destroys in any way the above premise, it's evil.

Taking this basic premise as a given, here is how the absolute right to property is derived from this premise:

1) Human beings, in order to live, must think and use reason. Human beings, unlike animals, are not pre-programmed by nature to search for food and to survive - we must actively THINK in order to survive by using REASON.

2) If a human being must use reason to live, and if he has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, it follows that he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason.

3) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason, it follows that he also has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason. Because without having a fundamental, inviolable right to the product of the reason, there is no point in having a right to use the reason itself, because the very purpose of using reason in order to live is to produce. Since property is a product of his reason, therefore, he has an inviolable right to his own property.

4) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason, and given that this right is derived from his right to live, and further given that his right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it follows that society or other men have no automatic right to the product of his reason. This means that imposition of any taxes is a violation of a man's right to live.

Please let me know whether my understanding above is correct.

Thanks,

Sumantra.

[VECT]

From my understanding of objectivism so far, the basic premise behind objectivism (i.e. the unquestioned primary) can be outlined in the following statement:

Each human being has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, provided that in doing so, he does not violate the right of other human beings to live. A human being's right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it's something that he possesses simply because he exists, simply because he is a human being.

The only unquestionable primary in Objectivism is the metaphysical axioms (because the act of questioning it must automatically assume them). The right to life is just the means to the end of supporting an individual's life in a social context. Anyone can question the right to life all they want, but none has found any rational flaw in this right, in that it somehow does not promote an individual's life in a society, and there are no reasons so far suggesting anyone ever will

Under objectivism, the standard for good and evil is whether a particular thing supports the above fundamental[right to live], inviolable premise or detracts from the above premise. If a particular decision upholds the above basic premise, it's a good. If a decision destroys in any way the above premise, it's evil.

Well, very close but not exactly. Under Objectivism the standard for good and evil is an individual's life, that which acts to support one's life is good, and that which destroys it is evil. The right to life is not an individual's life, they are two different things (although closely connected). An individual's life is the ultimate end, the right to life is not. The right to life is the political means to the ultimate end of promoting an individual's life (and therefore, good). So yes, it is correct to say that in a political context, if a particular decision upholds the right to life, it's good, if the decision destroys it, it is evil; not because the right to life is the ultimate end, but because by either promoting or destroying the right to life in politics, that particular decision is either promoting or destroying an individual's life.

Taking this basic premise as a given, here is how the absolute right to property is derived from this premise:

1) Human beings, in order to live, must think and use reason. Human beings, unlike animals, are not pre-programmed by nature to search for food and to survive - we must actively THINK in order to survive by using REASON.

2) If a human being must use reason to live, and if he has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, it follows that he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason.

3) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason, it follows that he also has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason. Because without having a fundamental, inviolable right to the product of the reason, there is no point in having a right to use the reason itself, because the very purpose of using reason in order to live is to produce. Since property is a product of his reason, therefore, he has an inviolable right to his own property.

4) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason, and given that this right is derived from his right to live, and further given that his right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it follows that society or other men have no automatic right to the product of his reason. This means that imposition of any taxes is a violation of a man's right to live.

Pretty much perfect.

Edited December 4, 2009 by VECT

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Now, any philosophical system needs a standard of value, i.e. an objective basis for determining what is "good" and what is "evil".

Under Objectivism, the standard for good and evil is whether a particular thing supports the above fundamental, inviolable premise or detracts from the above premise. If a particular decision upholds the above basic premise, it's a good. If a decision destroys in any way the above premise, it's evil.

Individual rights are not a primary, since they only hold true in a social context. If you were out in the wilderness or on an isolated island, good and evil would still apply, but rights would not. One's primary orientation should be towards existence, and not to others. Man's life as the standard for the good is more fundamental than politics, and you need to understand that in order to grasp the Objectivist politics. Once you understand that which is for man's life qua man is the good and that which is against man qua man, then you can move into the realm of society and what laws are proper. Taking man's life as the standard, then yes, reason is man's basic means of survival and it is right and good for him to be rational and to be free to be rational in order to live his life.

What I'm trying to point out is advising not to make the mistake of starting in mid stream. Politics is mid-stream when it comes to philosophy, in fact politics is the concluding part of the integration of reason, not the beginning. In the hierarchy of knowledge, it is: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. So one has to make sure the metaphysics and the epistemology, and the ethics are understood thoroughly before making statements about politics as if they are a fundamental. Individual rights are derived from a certain view of existence and man's place in it and what he ought to do about it. Rights are a moral concept developed from a rational ethics, and cannot stand without that foundation of metaphysics and epistemology. In other words, individual rights are not the standard of what is right or wrong, what is right or wrong is the standard for politics, and leads to individual rights, if followed rationally.

[rtaylortitle]

Very well stated. You are, in my book, one of the new intellectuals that could help turn this nation around.

Hi All

I am a new fan of objectivism, having read many of Ayn Rand's books (both fiction and non-fiction) in the last few months. I am currently trying to improve my understanding of how Rand logically derived individual rights (like the right to property) from man's basic right to live and why any taxation is a violation of individual rights.

I am going to outline my current understanding of this here. Please let me know if I am mistaken in any way:

From my understanding of objectivism so far, the basic premise behind objectivism (i.e. the unquestioned primary) can be outlined in the following statement:

Each human being has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, provided that in doing so, he does not violate the right of other human beings to live. A human being's right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it's something that he possesses simply because he exists, simply because he is a human being.

Now, any philosophical system needs a standard of value, i.e. an objective basis for determining what is "good" and what is "evil".

Under objectivism, the standard for good and evil is whether a particular thing supports the above fundamental, inviolable premise or detracts from the above premise. If a particular decision upholds the above basic premise, it's a good. If a decision destroys in any way the above premise, it's evil.

Taking this basic premise as a given, here is how the absolute right to property is derived from this premise:

1) Human beings, in order to live, must think and use reason. Human beings, unlike animals, are not pre-programmed by nature to search for food and to survive - we must actively THINK in order to survive by using REASON.

2) If a human being must use reason to live, and if he has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, it follows that he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason.

3) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason, it follows that he also has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason. Because without having a fundamental, inviolable right to the product of the reason, there is no point in having a right to use the reason itself, because the very purpose of using reason in order to live is to produce. Since property is a product of his reason, therefore, he has an inviolable right to his own property.

4) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason, and given that this right is derived from his right to live, and further given that his right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it follows that society or other men have no automatic right to the product of his reason. This means that imposition of any taxes is a violation of a man's right to live.

Please let me know whether my understanding above is correct.

Thanks,

Sumantra.