Objectivist argument for rights

[PelsJakob]

Although I consider myself an student of Objectivism, I find the argument for rights difficult to grasp fully. I am not certain whether this is because I misunderstand the argument or because I disagree, so I hope someone could help me figure out this.

Reading Peikoff's argument for rights in OPAR, I interpret his argument as such: Man is rational, and accordingly should have rights. From this, he concludes that man has rights. For instance, a man has to reason to survive, which leads to the conclusion that man should do exactly that (if life is his moral standard, which it should be). However, I cannot see how it follows that man has rights qua man; I would rather conclude that if man is to live in a prosperous society where the individual is free to control his own destiny, the government should protect him from physical force, i.e. give him rights. Of course, this does not imply that it is up to the government's whim whether it should do this or not; it is objectively right that man has rights.

In other words, I reckon the logical conclusion from Peikoff's argument is that man should have rights, rather than that man has rights. I discussed the matter with a friend of mine (an Objectivist), and he has the same view, stating that this is in accordance with Objectivism.

It would be interesting to see other Objectivists' view on this matter. Does man have rights given to him by nature, or is it merely a question of how men should organize society in accordance with human nature?

(English is not my primary language, so I apologize for any errors in my writing.)

[danielshrugged]

Basically, I think you are misunderstanding Dr. Peikoff; I think you basically agree with him, that you are trying to say the same thing a different way.

From Galt's speech: "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." When Dr. Peikoff says that man has rights, he means that man has certain conditions of existence required by his nature for his proper survival. It is a fact that those conditions must be met if man is to survive in society. That is all it means to say that man has rights.

Your formulation has the unfortunate consequence of implying that rights are bestowed arbitrarily by society. If man SHOULD have rights, then society grants them by permission. I know you do not intend this in your formulation, but I think Dr. Peikoff's formulation is clearer, since it emphasizes the origin of rights in man's nature.

One more thing:

if life is his moral standard, which it should be).

No, it should not be. According to Objectivism, ethics is conditional. It depends on the choice to live. Without that choice, there is no morality. All "shoulds" rest on it.

[y_feldblum]

Government does not bestow rights; individuals have them. But the purpose of government is to guarantee the rights that the individuals do have.

[Yes]

Government does not bestow rights; individuals have them. But the purpose of government is to guarantee the rights that the individuals do have.

The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. "Guarantee" is neither implied nor indicated as such.

"Guarantee" is defined as follows:

"an assurance for the fulfillment of a condition: as a : an agreement by which one person undertakes to secure another in the possession or enjoyment of something b : an assurance of the quality of or of the length of use to be expected from a product offered for sale often with a promise of reimbursement"

[Bryan]

The purpose of government is to protect individual rights.  "Guarantee" is neither implied nor indicated as such.

"Guarantee" is defined as follows:

"an assurance for the fulfillment of a condition: as a : an agreement by which one person undertakes to secure another in the possession or enjoyment of something

Doesn't the government protect rights to assure that the condition of having rights is fullfilled? The guarantee of rights is implied by their protection provided that the government is effective in that protection.

[PelsJakob]

Thank for your answer, Daniel.

From Galt's speech: "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." When Dr. Peikoff says that man has rights, he means that man has certain conditions of existence required by his nature for his proper survival. It is a fact that those conditions must be met if man is to survive in society. That is all it means to say that man has rights.

This is exactly the reasoning I am not following. As you say: Man needs rights to be able to live in accordance with his nature. However, I still do not see where you go from this to man actually having rights. It is not the argument per se I do not accept; on the contrary, I believe that it is a good argument for rights—but I cannot see how the conclusion from this can be that man actually has rights, rather than the conclusion being that man should have rights. I agree that rights are «conditions of existence required by man for his proper survival», but doesn't this imply merely that if man is to live in a society, he should have rights?

Your formulation has the unfortunate consequence of implying that rights are bestowed arbitrarily by society. If man SHOULD have rights, then society grants them by permission. I know you do not intend this in your formulation, but I think Dr. Peikoff's formulation is clearer, since it emphasizes the origin of rights in man's nature.

I agree. But still, that one formulation is clearer than another, obviously does not imply that this formulation is more correct. My formulation does not, however, imply that rights is a subjective matter, and that it is up to the government's whim whether it should give people rights or not, although I admit that it could be interpreted that way. It is is still objectively correct for the government to uphold and protect the rights of the citizens, no matter if rights are given by nature or by the government.

No, it should not be. According to Objectivism, ethics is conditional. It depends on the choice to live. Without that choice, there is no morality. All "shoulds" rest on it.

Thank you for the correction.

[drsm]

Remember, as Ayn Rand defined them, rights are moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. Government is not necessary for the existence of rights. They apply anytime two or more individuals get together. They are the moral principles defining what those individuals may or may not do in context with one another.

[AisA]

This is exactly the reasoning I am not following. As you say: Man needs rights to be able to live in accordance with his nature. However, I still do not see where you go from this to man actually having rights. It is not the argument per se I do not accept; on the contrary, I believe that it is a good argument for rights—but I cannot see how the conclusion from this can be that man actually has rights, rather than the conclusion being that man should have rights.

To say that man "has rights" is to say that man has a specific identity -- he is a rational being; which means: he has a specific means of survival -- by thinking; which means: he has certain fundamental requirements -- to be free from the initiation of force by others, to name the most basic.

This requirement exists, it is dictated by man's nature -- every man "has it". The concept of rights is a means of asserting and defining this requirement vis-à-vis the only thing that can violate it: other men. Man has rights because man has requirements that others can infringe.

Granted, there is no guarantee that those rights will be respected and protected. However, as proof that rights are inherent and not granted by others, observe that rights can be violated, but not destroyed. A thief may steal my car, but he cannot steal my right to property. Any subsequent thefts on his part will be just as wrong as the first, because my rights survive, they stay with me no matter how many times he violates them. Rights are inherent in our identity as human beings – regardless of the actions of others.

We do not say that man “should have” rights for the same reason we do not say it “should be” wrong to steal.

[Betsy]

Thank for your answer, Daniel.

This is exactly the reasoning I am not following. As you say: Man needs rights to be able to live in accordance with his nature.

More accurately, man HAS rights as an inalienable (i.e., INSEPARABLE) part of his nature.

However, I still do not see where you go from this to man actually having rights. It is not the argument per se I do not accept; on the contrary, I believe that it is a good argument for rights—but I cannot see how the conclusion from this can be that man actually has rights, rather than the conclusion being that man should have rights.

More accurately, the correct formulation is that men HAVE rights and the only "should" is that the rights all men have SHOULD be acknowledged, respected, and enforced by the government.

[PelsJakob]

Thank you for all your answers.

I believe I have found the error in my thinking, and AisA's perspective was especially helpful in this matter. I believe the error is that I see rights as a legal, rather than a moral, matter. Obviously, rights cannot exist in a legal sense unless the government recognize them, but I now realize that they still can exist in a moral sense. I guess this is what Ayn Rand called «the fallacy of context-dropping».