Rights and Grights

[Hotu Matua]

I am far from being a philosopher, or even from having a deep understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

However, from what I have managed to grasp, I would like to share with you my thoughts on the theory of "special rights extended as a courtesy to other sentinent beings", compatible with Objectivism.

These are what I call GRIGHTS (the "g" standing for "given")

This is my thesis and I would like to read your thoughts about it

Rights are inherent to beings able to properly say "I am. I think. I choose". Generally, men are able to say that. Therefore, as a shorthand, we usually say that men have rights for the fact of being men.

However, there are beings who:

1) are in the process of saying "I am. I think. I choose", or

2) were able to say so but no longer, or

3) are pretty close to saying that (but will never say it, though), or

4) seem to to fit into some of the previous three categories, but we are not sure.

For case 1, we can recall babies. For case 2, people with profound Alzheimer or other neurological diseases. For case 3, chimps, gorillas, dolphins, and beings we might encounter in other planets. For case 4, late-stage fetuses and severilly retarded people awaiting some therapeutic breakthrough in the future.

Regardless of whether we consider these beings "men" or not, rights are not inherent to their condition. Rights are not recognized in concepts, but in referents, concrete entities. Rights are recognized in entities from what they ARE, not from what we think they should be or they might be.

Ayn Rand developed a theory of rights but never had the time, interest or focus to develop a systematic thinking about the role of the State in protecting from society beings that correspond to any of the four categories above.

However, she considered torturing or destroying the life of these beings as evil, even if she could not work out a defense for State intervention to ensure protection of these beings. There is some evidence that she had some vague notions or interest about the issue. When asked in an interview about the right of severilly retarded people, she explained that these people did not have rights as normal adults had, but that they had a sort of rights "extended as a courtesy" from rational adults. In addition, Barbara Branden suggests that she was honestly interested in someone coming up with a sound theory of rights for animals... a theory that she could not formulate herself.

I propose the concept of "GRIGHTS", as a way the State protects beings displaying certain objetive criteria from the action of fully rational beings, on the grounds of considering a destructive behavior toward these beings as an indication that a similar behaviour towards fully rational men is very likely (i.e. in other words, such behaviour represents a THREAT to human rights, in the same way that a drunk driver, even before he has violated any right, is considered a threat to other's rights).

An entity has a gright to live because the nature of his life is objectively so close to the nature of a fully rational man, that all actions directed to thwart their life can easily lead to actions directed against men. (e.g. a person who kills a gorilla to use their hands as ash trays will very likely be willing to kill a child to sell his kidney. A person who tortures a severily retarded man will very likely torture any other vulnerable person.)

Edited December 23, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Hotu Matua]

I transcribe here Ayn Rand's answer to the question "Do severily retarded individuals have rights?"

"Not actual rights-- not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones. But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to retarded person, beacuse he's unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights"

(as quoted in "Ayn Rand Answers", page 4)

From this answer I learned that

1. Ayn Rand distinguished between "actual rights" and other kind of "rights" that are "not the same possessed by normal individuals"
   
2. A right that cannot be exercised is a right that doesn't exist. The exercise of a right is the right. So, people who cannot excercise rights do not, in fact, have them.
   
3. "Non-actual rights", different than "actual rights", are a COURTESY. They are EXTENDED to the subjects of non-actual rights.
   
4. They are extended on the premise that the subjects of such "courtesy rights" may improve some day, to some extent.
   
5. Ayn Rand is also placing children under these "courtesy rights". Children are in the process of becoming rationally functional.
   
6. These "courtesy rights" entail protection from the State.
   

I am calling these "courtesy rights" grights. I am using a new word because, as we have seen, a "right" refers to a different concept. A right could never be extended as a courtesy. It is inherent to the ability to function rationally. So I think we need a word for a new concept.

In addition to severily retarded people and children, I am also proposing to include as subjects of GRIGHTS animals who come very close to having a human sort of conciousness and that, in fact, exhibit a rational faculty similar to small children: chimps, gorillas, dolphins.

I am also proposing the inclusion of Late-stage fetuses with full developed brains, who show in premature births the ability to develop the meaning of "SELF" as well as full-term babies. Ayn Rand never made a definite statement over late-stage fetuses. In talking about abortion, all her statements about the not-human nature of the entities referred explicitly to embryos.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[volco]

First of all I thank you for this daring post.

An entity has a gright to live because the nature of his life is objectively so close to the nature of a fully rational man, that all actions directed to thwart their life can easily lead to actions directed against men. (e.g. a person who kills a gorilla to use their hands as ash trays will very likely be willing to kill a child to sell his kidney. A person who tortures a severily retarded man will very likely torture any other vulnerable person.)

Define "so close". I believe you have two arguments here, one trying to apply "griths" to sentient beings not recognized as normal Humans. The other, the one you make explicit, is that these creatures deserve protection preemptively. This does not grant the protected beings rights. Just as a drunk driver might kill a deer, or hit a post, the fact that both deers and property are protected doesn't grant either the deer or the inanimate object, rights. So that argument can be used for Animal Protection which is very valuable, but not a matter of rights (other than property rights).

In your example I can see how you might be mixing two different things. The man who uses a gorilla as furniture (I believe my mom's piano keys are made from ivory) is not more a risk than any other person.

On the other hand, a person who tortures a retarded human not only is a risk for any other person, but has already committed a punishable crime. A person who maybe even just tortures any animal for the sake of drinking ITS pain, might indeed constitute a risk to society, but we have no proof of it and definitely can't be punishable (unless one lives in a new purely contractual society where by contract one has to abide by many arbitrary rules that you accept or not in advance).

A human fetus has the possibility to exercise its rights if properly nurtured.

A child is begginning to do so, and I'd be interested to know what Ayn Rand thought, or might have thought about early emancipation of children. I can deduce it though from the early life stories of Howard Roark and John Galt (no family known, worked since childhood)

In addition to severily retarded people and children, I am also proposing to include as subjects of GRIGHTS animals who come very close to having a human sort of conciousness and that, in fact, exhibit a rational faculty similar to small children: chimps, gorillas, dolphins.

One perceived contradiction: A severily retarded or otherwise handicapped person is as AR says a perennial child. If the rights of children and specially babies, depend on their chance of becoming able to exercise their rights, then the case of a perennial baby becomes to leak. Does he have rights because he's human or because he could have developed rational though? Do they deserve rights for being genetically human or for being "close" to rational thought?

I believe many dogs I've met (and I've never met a chimp or a parrot) are far smarter than many retarded humans I had the misfortune to encounter. Do dogs deserve rights? No. But we owe them and, most of us, give them "entitlements". That's the basic point. You can't confuse a Right with an Entitlement, and certainly it's difficult to think of a middle ground, such as a Grith, other than to rationalize and harmonize the Objectivist origin of Rights with natural human compassion and curiosity (as in A.I.)

If I had to make a guess, I believe that Ayn Rand talked and wrote so much about reason because she had common sense (sorry for the wording). And that "common sense", in the time, is what made her extend the Rights of Man to the Rights of deformed men. I believe she chose genetics or "Speciesism" (Otherwise the case for abortion wouldn't have been so far from clear cut compared to other Objectivist stances).

While I still believe you are mixing concepts, which is fine since you are DEVELOPING this theory, I at the same time believe this is a question that will need to be dealt with:

Can a sentient non human being have Rights? or Griths? not entitlements, as that's another thing and can be applied to just about anything.

Can a piece of software, an uploaded mind, an enhanced chimp, have Rights?

And a very different question:

Fetuses Babies Permababies and Children: Should the first three have a different sort of right, or as you, or AR says, extended rights? Should the latter have the right emancipate?

[Hotu Matua]

First of all I thank you for this daring post.

Define "so close".

I wouldn't dare to define it, as I wouldn't date to define when exactly the drunk driver becomes a threat.

What are the exact serum levels of alcohol that make him a threat? How his driving skills or the particular condition of the highway make him more or less a threat?

This would be the matter of scientists and law-makers.

In the meantime, I would dar to say that...

• In the case of members of our species, the very fact of having a developed brain (even if the connections are not right) would suffice.
  
• In the case of members of other species, the fact of exhibiting an ability for logical thinking smilar to that of human small children (I've heard that chimps display cognition resembling a 3 year old boy) and, over all, the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror (a basic notion of "self").
  

Again, this is just a first approach and it would be a matter of other experts to look into the matter.

I believe you have two arguments here, one trying to apply "griths" to sentient beings not recognized as normal Humans. The other, the one you make explicit, is that these creatures deserve protection preemptively. This does not grant the protected beings rights. Just as a drunk driver might kill a deer, or hit a post, the fact that both deers and property are protected doesn't grant either the deer or the inanimate object, rights. So that argument can be used for Animal Protection which is very valuable, but not a matter of rights (other than property rights).

Well, my proposal is to grant protection to these beings independently of stewardship or property rights.

An old man with severe dementia would be protected, regardless of the existence of a caregiver or family who wants to protect them.

A gorilla would be protected, regardless of living within a territory that is privately owned.

A late-stage fetus (say, from 7 to 9 month of pregnancy) would be protected regardless the desires of the mother.

Grights would entail, therefore, protection from the State to all those referents unable to function rationally but meeting specific standards for quasi-rationality.

The debate about on which grounds these beings deserve protection from the State would be resolved, because we would not be discussing rights, but grights.

In your example I can see how you might be mixing two different things. The man who uses a gorilla as furniture (I believe my mom's piano keys are made from ivory) is not more a risk than any other person.

Is a person who bears in his body a foreign kidney, knowing that it was obtained from a kidnapped child, co-responsible for the crime? Or is she innocent?

In my viw, people purchasing gorillas hands, as well as those purchasing kidneys from kidnapped children, would be found co-responsible of a crime, even if they are otherwise nice to their own children and pets.

A person who maybe even just tortures any animal for the sake of drinking ITS pain, might indeed constitute a risk to society, but we have no proof of it and definitely can't be punishable.

Again, what is the proof that a drunk driver constitutes a risk to all other drivers?

Are we basing our judgment in a statistical probability? The drunk driver MAY kill other people, but nothing ensures he will in fact do it. Many drunk drivers just arrive safe at home without hitting anyone or anything.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Eiuol]

Rights are inherent to beings able to properly say "I am. I think. I choose". Generally, men are able to say that. Therefore, as a shorthand, we usually say that men have rights for the fact of being men.

That's pretty vague, and I think oversimplifies rights in the first place. That's fine for shorthand for your own understanding, but that tells us very little here.

I propose the concept of "GRIGHTS", as a way the State protects beings displaying certain objetive criteria from the action of fully rational beings, on the grounds of considering a destructive behavior toward these beings as an indication that a similar behaviour towards fully rational men is very likely (i.e. in other words, such behaviour represents a THREAT to human rights, in the same way that a drunk driver, even before he has violated any right, is considered a threat to other's rights).

An entity has a gright to live because the nature of his life is objectively so close to the nature of a fully rational man, that all actions directed to thwart their life can easily lead to actions directed against men. (e.g. a person who kills a gorilla to use their hands as ash trays will very likely be willing to kill a child to sell his kidney. A person who tortures a severily retarded man will very likely torture any other vulnerable person.)

Those points don't necessarily follow. Or at least, that's pretty much the whole basis of people saying drugs should be banned, because an addict is generally destructive towards the people around them.

Of course, threats should be taken into consideration, but your argument for the need of these so called grights seem to be of the sort where you need to prevent rights violations before they could occur. Something has rights or it doesn't, I see no need to split that further. I would agree that the severely mentally handicapped don't have rights in the *same* sense as anyone with normal cognitive functioning, but do have rights specifically because of what kind of entity they are. When you try to split the concept of rights like this into two distinct categories, it leaves room for saying that any kind of mental dysfunction means the person doesn't have "full" rights. Grights I think could only apply to property, which is redundant, because the destruction of property is still seen as a violation of the property holder's rights. And for the entity itself, why *should* it have its rights protected by the government? If something has rights, that's all that matters I think, and if it doesn't trying to use a special category only confuses what rights actually mean.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Eiuol

[volco]

What strikes me most is

1) the comparisson between a gorilla ashtray (?) or an ivory piano and a stolen kidney.

2) (Actually the same thing)putting at the same level an alzheimer patient, a retarded person, a almost 9 month old fetus, with a dolphin.

The first three are already protected by law. Maybe the discussion about late stage abortion is "open" but it belongs to another thread.

Animal protection or rights? Unless you make a difference between rights and entitlements I can't understand the concept of "griths" but if you are going to put it at the same level with a handicapped human being, then you are going to enter the debate of speciesism as a forn of discrimination.

Maybe you are "right", in the sense that humans value almost rational creatures, and we are in the process of creating even smarter AI. But for now you aren't backing it up philosophically.

[asherwolf]

I would stress that rights are being based on "I choose" and NOT on what choices are being made. You still have rights when you have the ability to choose rational choices, but unfortunately choose not to do so. I think to reach a state in which there are no possible choices in an adult would require more extreme examples than those given. Also, there are other considerations, for example, does a person who is in a long term coma with little brain activity have no rights because they've lost their ability to choose? I would be ready to say not, as they could awaken, and because of the nature of what they are regardless of their current state.

[Hotu Matua]

That's pretty vague, and I think oversimplifies rights in the first place. That's fine for shorthand for your own understanding, but that tells us very little here.

Thanks for your remark, Eiuol.

But what can be a more specific description of who is a subject of rights?

If the statement "men have rights" were specific enough, we wouldn't need to debate on the rights of the severily mentally retarded or the infants.

It is because "men have rights" gets pretty vague when examining these cases that we need a better understanding of the situation.

Something has rights or it doesn't, I see no need to split that further. I would agree that the severely mentally handicapped don't have rights in the *same* sense as anyone with normal cognitive functioning, but do have rights specifically because of what kind of entity they are.

Well, if you agree that the severily mentally handicapped don't have rights "in the same sense" you are already considering at least two "senses", two meanings, two concepts.

If I am deaf and can't hear, I am deaf and can't hear. It would be meaningless saying "Yes, I can hear, but in a different sense: I hear with my heart" or "I hear with my imagination" or "I can feel the vibrations". Unless we are writing poetry, to hear means to hear.

Beings who can't say "I am. I think. I choose" are not functionally rational and hence cannot have rights. However, we want to protect some of them. Why? Because we recognize that by protecting them we are honoring and protecting our nature, our life in society, our rights.

When you try to split the concept of rights like this into two distinct categories, it leaves room for saying that any kind of mental dysfunction means the person doesn't have "full" rights.

I don't understand your point. How could the concept of grights open the door for saying that ANY kind of mental dysfunction leaves the subject devoid of rights?

How the concept of grights, for example, makes a person with bipolar disorder devoid of rights?

Grights I think could only apply to property, which is redundant, because the destruction of property is still seen as a violation of the property holder's rights.

A baby or an old woman with severe Alzheimer, as well as many chimpanzees in the wilderness are not property. We would protect them for what they are: in the case of babies, entities developing the capacity of reason. In the case of the old woman with AD, an entity who could reason and, hopefully, could benefit from a future treatment and get their ability restored. In the case of the chimps, beings with an intelligence and "self" recognition who parallels that of small children.

And for the entity itself, why *should* it have its rights protected by the government? If something has rights, that's all that matters I think, and if it doesn't trying to use a special category only confuses what rights actually mean.

The confusion is already here with us. The very fact that we are discussing these topics thread after thread shows that things have not been clear.

If severily retarded people had rights, Ayn Rand would have asnwered "Yes" right away. End of story. All debates around the rights of fetuses, babies, mentally retarded, people in coma, other animal species, etc. would be pointless.

Ayn Rand answered "Not actual rights".

What did she mean? What are there rights that are not "actual"?

I think Ayn was meaning another category, another concept, but did not have a definition for it. Her whole theory of rights rests on the fact that rights are never extended as a courtesy. They are not earned or given. They arise from the reality of man's mind when living in society. So, how could she now be speaking about rights extended as a courtesy?

Under my model there is no contradiction between the concept of rights and the protection extended by the State to beings that fail to perform conceptual reasoning.

Rights are rights and grights are grights.

Rights are recognized and protected by the State, based on the nature of the holder of rights, for the sake of the holder of rights.

Grights are recognized and protected by the State, based on the nature of the holder of grights, not for the sake of the holder of grights, but for the sake of the holder of rights. The State protects severily mentally retarded for the sake of the rational citizens.

The model also doesn't contradict the proper role of the goverment. In protecting grights, the State is ultimately protecting rights by eliminating threats posed by specific destructive behaviour.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Hotu Matua]

Unless you make a difference between rights and entitlements I can't understand the concept of "griths" .

You are right, volco.

I have a semantic problem here.

In Spanish, my mothertongue, the word for "rights" and "entitlements" is the same.

I have been reading dictionaries on the web, and it seems that an "entitlement" is a "granted right", opposed to "right" which is not granted, but only recognized as inherent to human beings. Is this correct?

If this distinction is correct, the issue remains pretty much the same.

On what basis an entitlement is given by the State? On purely whimsical, subjective basis? Once given, can it be taken back?

Could the government say "Today late-stage fetuses are protected. Tomorrow who knows... it depends of who is running for the Democrats or Republicans"?

My position is that there are objective facts in the nature of some beings (babies, severily retarded people, chimps)that, coupled with objetive needs of adult rational citizens for ensuring protection of their own rights, that make a case for these "entitlements".

Since rights arise from a specific fact of reality, and severily mentally retarded do not exhibit that specific fact, rights could not arise from the nature of these people. Hence the need to "extend rights as a courtesy" if we want to protect them. Hence the phrase Ayn Rand used. But this is obviously a contradiction with her fundamental conception of rights.

By using the concept of grights, we do not need to extend rights as a courtesy. (What is, after all, the meaning of courtesy?) We just recognize what is already there.

The term "Grights" contains itself a contradiction: it stands for "given rights". Rights cannot be given. But, according to Sciabarra, Ayn Rand herself was amused to forge titles that enclosed a redundancy or contradiction, so that the explanation of the term or title would reveal and solve it out. For example, "rational selfishness" or "the virtue of selfishness" or "The Collective".

If the term "Entitlements" implies that they can be taken back by a deliberate act of authority, then "entitlements" is not the concept I am proposing.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[volco]

In Spanish, my mothertongue, the word for "rights" and "entitlements" is the same.

You know we share our mother tongue. I anticipated this problem because it's true we don't have that concept. The wiki page for Entitlement only translate to Bulgarian and Japanese. It says a lot about the cultural uniqueness of England and their "Common" Law. I believe the word for entitlement would be privilegios.

Entitlement is a very English concept that I believe derives from a very mobile Aristocracy. A alguien que le daban un título nobiliario, lo estaban "entitulando" (knighting), y supongo de ahí viene.

In any case, this is a matter of Positive vs Negative Rights and the possibility of a third category. Negative Rights (LIFE: The Right not to be killed, to search for food, etc) were thought and written with able men in mind. Those are the Rights than we contemplate. Positive Rights (right to shelter) are basically no different from entitlements (are they?).

The dependants (like children, for some time women and even slaves) enjoyed legal (Religious or secular) protection and an acknowledgement of their humanity, or even when they were really misled and didn't think them human: of their sentience.

How are Griths different from Entitlements? They have to be inherent. How are they different from Rights? They don't apply to able men or women, but to.... who? if you apply it to children and old neurodegenerated people then as Eiuol was, I believe, trying to say, would be dangerous to dehumanize already human being and bundling them with dolphins and chimps!

Human Beings already enjoy rights. That X% (probably <2%) could enjoy normal Rights as an extended courtesy but as you, daringly, point out, that would mean either an exception, or a reformulation of the concept of rights.

When you extend it to animals and possibly Software, then I have to ask: What grants Rights: Being able to say I am, I think, I chose or Having a Human genome?

This is a very fascinating and disturbing issue.

I have been reading dictionaries on the web, and it seems that an "entitlement" is a "granted right", opposed to "right" which is not granted, but only recognized as inherent to human beings. Is this correct?

(yes)

If this distinction is correct, the issue remains pretty much the same.

On what basis an entitlement is given by the State? On purely whimsical, subjective basis? Once given, can it be taken back?

Could the government say "Today late-stage fetuses are protected. Tomorrow who knows... it depends of who is running for the Democrats or Republicans"?

My position is that there are objective facts in the nature of some beings (babies, severily retarded people, chimps)that, coupled with objetive needs of adult rational citizens for ensuring protection of their own rights, that make a case for these "entitlements".

Since rights arise from a specific fact of reality, and severily mentally retarded do not exhibit that specific fact, rights could not arise from the nature of these people. Hence the need to "extend rights as a courtesy" if we want to protect them. Hence the phrase Ayn Rand used. But this is obviously a contradiction with her fundamental conception of rights.

By using the concept of grights, we do not need to extend rights as a courtesy. (What is, after all, the meaning of courtesy?) We just recognize what is already there.

The term "Grights" contains itself a contradiction: it stands for "given rights". Rights cannot be given. But, according to Sciabarra, Ayn Rand herself was amused to forge titles that enclosed a redundancy or contradiction, so that the explanation of the term or title would reveal and solve it out. For example, "rational selfishness" or "the virtue of selfishness" or "The Collective".

If the term "Entitlements" implies that they can be taken back by a deliberate act of authority, then "entitlements" is not the concept I am proposing.

An entitlement is State Giveth, State Taketh, it's as far as I understand, a bargain tool. Definitely if you want to protect late stage fetus or embryos ( I read your post on the other thread babies... and you convinced me that embryos and fetus should have some sort of inherent right) you need to either apply the concept of Right or of Extended Rights (Griths). Or open the aforementioned discussion of speciesm: does a being enjoy Rights for being genetically something, like homo sapiens sapiens (that sounds awfully chauvinistic!) or for being able to grasp and exercise those Rights (that sounds awfully meritocratic!)

not an easy answer

not a central concept of Oism either (haha, if I may, accordingly)

[asherwolf]

I don't understand your point. How could the concept of grights open the door for saying that ANY kind of mental dysfunction leaves the subject devoid of rights?

How the concept of grights, for example, makes a person with bipolar disorder devoid of rights?

I'll take the example of bipolar disorder specifically. Psychosis can be a symptom of bipolar disorder whether atypical or acute and mania induced. When an individual decompensates into a fully psychotic state they are unable to act rationally, and it could be argued then that they are unable to choose their actions like an unaffected individual would. Acute states are usually not permanent, but in the case of atypical psychosis the psychotic symptoms, both emotional and intellectual, can be chronic. In these chronic cases it can be difficult to impossible for the individual to choose to think or behave rationally at all times as they may have mild delusions, or disturbed emotional reactions, or even psycho-somatic physical symptoms. They can be successful in being able to choose to act rationally most of the time, but not all of the time.

Since these individuals ability to say "I choose" is affected, in some cases briefly and in others constantly, should they be philosophically afforded the same rights?

[Eiuol]

But what can be a more specific description of who is a subject of rights?

Something with a rational faculty, any sort of consciousness that requires independent evaluation of reality. That applies to babies just as much as those with severe mental handicap, I only say different sense because the requirements for the existence of those kinds of people in social settings are different than someone who is for the most part normally functioning or fully cognitively developed.

How could the concept of grights open the door for saying that ANY kind of mental dysfunction leaves the subject devoid of rights?

I put “full” in quotes because grights are as you are describing it is a lot like partial rights. My point really is that you are saying some reduced capacity means a whole different kind of rights that imply something less than normal rights. How reduced are we going, though? You say severely mentally handicapped, by that's a fuzzy line. Why can't you say bipolar people only have grights, rather than rights? Basically, how do you draw the line besides some fuzzy intuition?

I could address more, but these are the points I'm interested in talking about.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Eiuol

[Hotu Matua]

I'll take the example of bipolar disorder specifically. Psychosis can be a symptom of bipolar disorder whether atypical or acute and mania induced. When an individual decompensates into a fully psychotic state they are unable to act rationally, and it could be argued then that they are unable to choose their actions like an unaffected individual would. Acute states are usually not permanent, but in the case of atypical psychosis the psychotic symptoms, both emotional and intellectual, can be chronic. In these chronic cases it can be difficult to impossible for the individual to choose to think or behave rationally at all times as they may have mild delusions, or disturbed emotional reactions, or even psycho-somatic physical symptoms. They can be successful in being able to choose to act rationally most of the time, but not all of the time.

Since these individuals ability to say "I choose" is affected, in some cases briefly and in others constantly, should they be philosophically afforded the same rights?

Hi, asherwolf

Well, the person with compensated bipolar disorder would enjoy rights, while the person experiencing a "fully psychotic state", as you mention, would enjoy grights during that period.

We alredy recognize that people in acute psychotic states cannot excercise rights. This is the reason, for example, of asking a legal representative to sign informed consent for the patient in order to enter a clinical trial when the subjet is going through a psychotic state.

While enjoying grights, the psychotic person is being protected from anybody who can harm his body or property.

Please, examine carefully what is happening when person A, who is a legal representative of person B, who is in a psychotic state, signs on behalf of person B.

Most of us, Objetivists or fans of Objetivism, would simply describe the situation like this: "Person A is excercising the rights of person B on her behalf". But what the heck does this mean?

How another person can take decisions over my life? It is nonsense. Or, to put it in a wider context, it is just a shorthand expression derived from the lack of interest of Ayn Rand to approach the issue.

Nobody can excercise rights on behalf of you.

If person A is making decisions over the life of person B on a moral and legal basis, it simply means that person B does NOT have the rights being excercised by person A. It means person A is excercising her own rights of stewardship over person B.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Hotu Matua]

Something with a rational faculty, any sort of consciousness that requires independent evaluation of reality.

"Rational faculty" is too loose as a term. It may serve well as a shorthand, but we need a better definition.

If you were to ask a handicapped person who depends on a wheelchair to move around: "Do you have the faculty to run?"

Which of the following two ansers would be reasonable?

1. "Of course I have the faculty to run. I have a pair of legs, a nervous system, muscles, bones, don't you see? It is just that I cannot excercise that faculty"

2. "No, I don't have that faculty."

The phrase "I am. I think. I choose." was not invented by me. I read it somewhere in an Objectivist publication. Maybe on a Ayn Rand's writing, I can't recall.

"I am" refers to the fact that I recognize my own existence.

"I think" refers to the fact that I recognize myself as a concious existent.

"I choose" refers to the fact that I recognize my conciousness as a volitional conciousness.

I only say different sense because the requirements for the existence of those kinds of people in social settings are different than someone who is for the most part normally functioning or fully cognitively developed.

You're right. The requirements for their existence are different. That's exactly my point.

Since ethics and politics arise from the requirements of rational men for their existence, it follows that a theory of rights that applies to rational beings cannot just be extrapolated to quasi-rational beings. Since their requirements for existence differ, the basis for their protection also differ.

That's why I am introducing the concept of grights.

My point really is that you are saying some reduced capacity means a whole different kind of rights that imply something less than normal rights. How reduced are we going, though? You say severely mentally handicapped, by that's a fuzzy line. Why can't you say bipolar people only have grights, rather than rights? Basically, how do you draw the line besides some fuzzy intuition?

Please see my answer to ashwolf in regards to this point. People with bipolar disorder would only enjoy grights over the period of psychosis, not over the long periods of compensated, functional mental status. We already do that in medical settings, by asking legal representatives to make decisions "on their behalf"

Edited December 24, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Eiuol]

"Rational faculty" is too loose as a term. It may serve well as a shorthand, but we need a better definition.

Bad comparison. Babies have that faculty, the severely mentally handicapped do too. I would say if that faculty is gone/destroyed/absent, the entity has no rights. I would say a person that has fallen into a vegetative state where the brain is effectively *dead* doesn't have rights, that's it, nothing more complicated. Same for chimpanzees. Really the point is, like I said before, what counts is if something has rights or not. Rather than multiplying concepts needlessly here, I'd suggest figuring out first if you can develop a further understanding of an Objectivist position on rights. Rights aren't something temporary that someone loses in states of psychosis for example, people still possess rights out of the same reasons you have rights. A person might not be functioning in entirely normal ways for various reasons, but you still respect their rights because of the productive value that could be provided, even if minuscule. That sort of mutual trade of value isn't even possible with a chimpanzee or a person in a permanent vegetative state, simply because there is NO rational faculty whatsoever.

You're right. The requirements for their existence are different. That's exactly my point.

They are *quite* different, hence the use of the word disability/handicap, but core requirements of survival like reason are still there, even if help using reason is required. The faculty of reason is still there and working. Because caretakers are required in these circumstances, rights protections work a little different, just like with 13-year-olds. The person has rights of the same kind just like anyone else though, not some kind of special granted rights. Individual application can vary (just like your example of others acting on your behalf), but the concept is the same.

Keep in mind that the Rand quote you gave is unedited, Rand surely would have elaborated considerably on the point she was making, and altered wording.

Please see my answer to ashwolf in regards to this point. People with bipolar disorder would only enjoy grights over the period of psychosis, not over the long periods of compensated, functional mental status. We already do that in medical settings, by asking legal representatives to make decisions "on their behalf"

I think that kind of turns rights into something temporary that you lose if you are functioning in abnormal ways. Kind of dangerous I think if adopted as a policy. The whole kind of mess that happens when differences between people are seen as different rights. Rights for the blind, rights for the deaf, rights for people with super high IQs. The needs of these people can vary, some claim that this indicates a need for "special" rights. Truth is people are people, they all have the same sort of rights, simple as that.

[asherwolf]

If person A is making decisions over the life of person B on a moral and legal basis, it simply means that person B does NOT have the rights being excercised by person A. It means person A is excercising her own rights of stewardship over person B.

I don't think you can have rights over someone. You can't have a right to their life, which is what stewardship would be in this case. So it's impossible for person A to have rights of stewardship over person B. I think finding the reason for this would illuminate why your "given rights" seem to have some fundamental problems or are meeting resistance.

Truth is people are people, they all have the same sort of rights, simple as that.

I'm inclined to agree with Eiuol. I have experienced altered psychotic states, and my reasoning doesn't allow me to presume I had less rights at that time. In fact, I would hope and reason that I had all my rights as derived from being a man especially at those vulnerable times for the particular purpose of protecting me. I'm however not inclined to agree that these rights might only exist because there is potential of productivity, but instead propose that these rights exist as there is potential for someone to be human enough to act in a valuable way. Individuals can be valued for various qualities, one of which is their productivity.

[Eiuol]

....instead propose that these rights exist as there is potential for someone to be human enough to act in a valuable way. Individuals can be valued for various qualities, one of which is their productivity.

Ah, that's a better way of saying what I was thinking, that was just the most immediate word that I thought of.

[Hotu Matua]

Bad comparison. Babies have that faculty, the severely mentally handicapped do too.

Why is my comparion bad?

A faculty is not a potentiality. It is an actuality. A man has a rational faculty if he can choose to think (and think to choose). If he can't choose to think he does not have it.

A first-grade Medicine student does not have the faculty to make an appendectomy, even if we know he will, eventually and hopefully. That is why we do not grant him permission to make an appendectomy.

That is why Ayn Rand warned us about not confusing potentialities with actualities.

JMeganSnow, in a very clever comparison, told us in other thread that if we were to treat people as they WILL be someday, based on potentialities, we will treat them all as corpses, because someday we all will be corpses. In fact, we could consider our fellowmen as "corpses in the making".

Therefore, a person dependent on a wheelchair does not have the faculty to run, and a baby in his crib does not have the faculty to think conceptually.

Both have the potential to do it, if certain conditions are met (if a new therapy rescues the handicapped, or if the child survives and grows long enough).

A person might not be functioning in entirely normal ways for various reasons, but you still respect their rights because of the productive value that could be provided, even if minuscule. That sort of mutual trade of value isn't even possible with a chimpanzee or a person in a permanent vegetative state, simply because there is NO rational faculty whatsoever.

Can you tell me what kind of "trade of value" is possible with a baby?

They are *quite* different, hence the use of the word disability/handicap, but core requirements of survival like reason are still there, even if help using reason is required.

Can you tell me how a baby uses his mind as a tool of survival?

There is perhaps a greater chance for a chimp to use his mind to make a tool to get to the termites he needs to eat.

Because caretakers are required in these circumstances, rights protections work a little different, just like with 13-year-olds.

Just a little different? It is your uncle/son/nephew/wife making decisions on behalf of you, in matters that affect you!

How different can they still get?

Keep in mind that the Rand quote you gave is unedited, Rand surely would have elaborated considerably on the point she was making, and altered wording.

I keep it in mind, and that's why I am considering this a development of something she left untouched.

Bioethics, as well as a theory of induction and political theory are topics that Ayn Rand didn't have the time or interest or knowledge to approach in depth.

Maybe it is up to us to build on her foundations. David Kelley would agree with me on this last point, I guess.

Something that I think Ayn Rand would have never changed is her notion that rights are based on factual requirements of survival, factual capacities, factual referents. Her notion that rights are not granted as a concesion or courtesy, but inherent to the reality of men in a social context.

It is precisely on these grounds that I dare proposing that rights are not inherent to the nature of entities unable to say "I am, I think, I choose" even if they belong to the human species, but they are still entitled to our protection because of objetives features they possess, which mirror / precede / resemble a rational faculty.

I think that kind of turns rights into something temporary that you lose if you are functioning in abnormal ways. Kind of dangerous I think if adopted as a policy.

Well, that is what happens everyday in many legal situations. For example, in clinical trials when the investigator and the Ethics Committee have to determine whether a patient has the right to sign an informed consent for participation in a clinical trial. If you are temporarily out of your mind, you are temporarily out of your mind, and you are not held responsible for your life. Other people take decisions for you. You cannot argue: "Conceptually, John is a rational adult. So we must expect him to act as a rational adult, even if he is out of his mind now" You do not put the concept before the existents.

My point is, we are ALREADY distinguishing between distinct categories of rights, working in different ways and based on a diversity or realities. My system would simplify things but separating rights (which are always full and inherent) from grights (which are given based on objective features of the subject).

The whole kind of mess that happens when differences between people are seen as different rights. Rights for the blind, rights for the deaf, rights for people with super high IQs. The needs of these people can vary, some claim that this indicates a need for "special" rights.

The blind, the deaf and people with high IQs use their conceptual thinking as a survival tool, regardless of the senses they use to form precepts and regarles on the speed and complexity of the concepts they make. So what they need is rights: right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.

Babies do not use conceptual thinking as a survival tool. If they are to be protected, it must be on a whole different basis.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Eiuol]

Why is my comparion bad?

It's a bad example because you are speaking of the total loss/destruction/absence of some faculty. I'm saying that a baby DOES have a faculty of reason. I'm not talking about a *reduced* capacity. I think that makes your question more simply "why do babies have rights?", the thread that probably made you want to start this thread. If you see a *contradiction* or something really weak reasoning, then address it in that thread.

My point is, we are ALREADY distinguishing between distinct categories of rights, working in different ways and based on a diversity or realities. My system would simplify things but separating rights (which are always full and inherent) from grights (which are given based on objective features of the subject).

Or even more simply, someone has rights or they don't. No need for that whole mess of deciding if someone is rational *enough*, you only decide if that rational faculty is there, because having that is the very reason why we bother talking about rights, and why we don't bother considering gorillas. If you start talking about grights, like I said, that's turning rights into something about permission except for the people with perfect brains. Good intentions, maybe, but you definitely don't want gray areas of where rights begin. That's why I brought up specialized rights; the reason that even occurs is because rights aren't connected to survival needs in a social setting. The concept is split so much that meaning starts to get lost.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Eiuol

[Hotu Matua]

It's a bad example because you are speaking of the total loss/destruction/absence of some faculty. I'm saying that a baby DOES have a faculty of reason. I'm not talking about a *reduced* capacity.

You may have noticed by now that unless we have a common understanding of that "faculty or reason" means, we cannot go ahead.

I just read all entries under the name "faculty of reason" in Peikoff's textbook Objectivism, and none of them advocates perceptual conciousness (the kind of conciousness babies have) as a qualifying faculty or reason. All of references to factulty or reason, implicitly or explicitly, refer to conceptual conciousness.

You may be confusing "faculty " with "potentiality". But faculty is an actuality.

Babies do not have a faculty of reason.

They have the potential to develop it, if and when appropriate conditions are met. There is no guarantee for that.

In the same way, people who have lost their faculty of reason, have just lost it. They have the potential to regain it if and when, hopefully, wonderful therapies are discovered before they die...

[Maximus]

I can see where "grights" could be misused to justify a category of human beings as inferior and, therefore, subject to abuse. Think Jews and Nazi Germany. "Yes, they are human in a sense, but inferior humans, and do not qualify for rights as we understand them."

[Hotu Matua]

I can see where "grights" could be misused to justify a category of human beings as inferior and, therefore, subject to abuse. Think Jews and Nazi Germany. "Yes, they are human in a sense, but inferior humans, and do not qualify for rights as we understand them."

Every idea can be misinterpreted or distorted.

That's not a good argument for rejecting an idea.

On the contrary, the concept of GRIGHTS preserves and protects the life of precious entities while any debate on their rights is going on.

In essence, a gright is a protection, granted by the State, to ensure the preservation of life in entities that are developing a faculty of reason, had a faculty of reason but lost it or are close to having it.

Had the Nazis believed in the importance of GRIGHTS, no Holocaust would have occurred.

The practical implications of this model is not that vulnerable old people or babies will be hurted. All the contrary: the implication is that the defense of life will be extended to cover as weell late-stage fetuses and some non-human species. The real resistance I foresee in Objectivists is to include these last two groups of entities under the model.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Eiuol]

You may be confusing "faculty " with "potentiality". But faculty is an actuality.

Do sleeping people have the faculty of reason? They have the potential to use reason, but no one asleep can do reason. So do sleeping people only have grights? For the most part, the faculty of reason is having a functioning human brain (i.e. alive) and/or conceptual consciousness (chimpanzees are excluded). The concept of grights is overall confusing and vague, that's why it is a bad concept. I really do think the concept of rights is plenty consistent and useful, I would suspect that further investigation into the Objectivist concept of rights would do you good, which I suspect you have been doing, hence your interest in making this thread.

"a gright is a protection, granted by the State, to ensure the preservation of life in entities that are developing a faculty of reason, had a faculty of reason but lost it or are close to having it."

And what happens if the government chooses not to grant these pseudo-rights? You described no necessary obligation to acknowledging or providing grights other than it would be nice, meaning that grights can be revoked (or provided )at any time. Have sympathy for chimpanzees? Give them grights. Don't like babies? Don't let them have grights.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Eiuol

[Hotu Matua]

Do sleeping people have the faculty of reason?

Yes, healthy adults who are sleeping have the faculty of reason.

They can excercise it here and now. Just shake them a bit and they will wake up, ready to sign a contract, keep writing an essay or composing a symphony.

Try to wake up a baby or a person with severe neurological damage. See what you get.

A blind person does not have the faculty to see. I do, even if I close my eyes. If I want to exercise it, I just have to open them back. The blind is helpless.

And what happens if the government chooses not to grant these pseudo-rights? You described no necessary obligation to acknowledging or providing grights other than it would be nice, meaning that grights can be revoked (or provided )at any time. Have sympathy for chimpanzees? Give them grights. Don't like babies? Don't let them have grights.

Actually I have mentioned that Grights would be objective, not subject to the whims of the government in office. They could not be revoked.

They would be based on the nature of the subjects involved. Specifically, in their ability to match preestablished criteria.

In regards of non-human species, there is plenty of accumulated scientific data regarding many of them, and more will be coming over the next years. I am no expert to establish at this point which species would be meeting the criteria of a degree of conceptual conciousness and self recognition. For the time being, I am mentioning chimps, gorillas and dolphins as examples.

The difference between the right to life and a gright to life is that a right is claimed by the holder and recognized by the State. A Grith cannot be claimed by the holder, but needs to be provided unilaterally by the rational men, through the State.

[Maximus]

Any right that is "granted" by the state can be taken away by the state.