The origin of rights

[tnunamak]

I understand and agree that it is immoral, that is, against one's self interest, to violate the rights of others, but putting that aside, where do the rights stem from in the first place? What makes them inherent to man, as opposed to animal. If we were to discover another race of sentient beings with a capability for intelligence much like our own, would they have the same rights? If men did not live in civilized society, would rights still exist? That is, did men living in the circumstances of cavement have rights to respect of each other? I'm just trying to get a handle on where they originate from.

[LaszloWalrus]

Rights originate from the requirements of human survival, which necessitates the use of reason. The only way to make someone act against his reason, is to use force or fraud. (For a better analysis and proof of this, I recommend Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism Through Induction). Animals do not have rights because they have not rational facutly; they're means of survival is instinct and force.

In a caveman society, respect for rights should still apply.

If there were a race of sentient beings who were not human but could still use reason, then they should have the same rights as humans.

[Felix]

I have been thinking about this myself lately. My problem is: I understand that it is a human need. But why is it a right? And what's the difference and why?

[Bold Standard]

I have been thinking about this myself lately. My problem is: I understand that it is a human need. But why is it a right? And what's the difference and why?

Hmm, I'm not sure what your specific problem is, but the short answer is: the issue of "rights" is a moral issue, and morality is derived from man's nature, and requirements for his survival/flourishing. So, it's a right because it's a human need, as you put it. The difference is, rights are a specific type of human need. It's the difference of species vs genus. Does that address what you are asking?

[Felix]

Hmm, I'm not sure what your specific problem is, but the short answer is: the issue of "rights" is a moral issue, and morality is derived from man's nature, and requirements for his survival/flourishing. So, it's a right because it's a human need, as you put it. The difference is, rights are a specific type of human need. It's the difference of species vs genus. Does that address what you are asking?

It adresses it, yes. But it doesn't answer it. Why are rights a specific type of human need? What differentiates these needs from needs for food, for example. My question is: Why is it justified to legally enforce that certain needs (rights) are met and others aren't? What makes rights so special that they allow the use of force if they are not met?

[Bold Standard]

Oh, have you read "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness? I think I'm going to re-read that before I try and answer your last post. It sounds to me like you want a good definition for "rights."

But I don't think rights allow the use of force if they're not "met," but "if they're infringed upon" might be a better way of putting it, and so that's only retaliatory force, and of course there's a specific formal procedure that people in a civilized society have to go through to do that, in most (non-emergency) cases.

[softwareNerd]

I'm just trying to get a handle on where [rights] originate from.

Rights are a solution to an age-old political question: how to decide who decides?

Like any idea, they arise from the mind of man. On the other hand, they are not arbitrary. They reflect the reality of human nature.

As for other sentient beings, the first question would be a practical one: are these beings that would understand the idea of rights? are they the type of beings that humans want to trade with?

[miseleigh]

As for other sentient beings, the first question would be a practical one: are these beings that would understand the idea of rights? are they the type of beings that humans want to trade with?

If they use reason, they will probably be able to understand 'rights' once we get a translator; if not, they wouldn't have them anyways. As for the second question - why would that make a difference to whether or not they have rights?

[Felix]

It sounds to me like you want a good definition for "rights."

Yeah, that might even solve it. But at least it would be a good start.

I'll have a look at the essay, too.

[mrocktor]

Rights are a direct consequence of the fact that man survives by thinking. They are the recognition that you can't survive by forcing others just as others can't survive being forced by you. Rights are principles, knowlege derived rationally from the facts of existence.

Rights are also a recognition of metaphysical equivalence between men - I'm conscious and capable of choice and so are you. No matter how certain I am that I can choose better than you, there is no basis for my forcing my choices on you. I'd either have to accept your forcing me to bend to your will as well - since you may have as strong a conviction as I that you are right - or claim some metaphysically given difference between my consciousness and yours to justify my precedence over you (the "Divine Right of Kings" was one such claim).

Any other being capable of conceptual thought and choice automatically posseses rights.

mrocktor

[Dave27]

I understand and agree that it is immoral, that is, against one's self interest, to violate the rights of others, but putting that aside, where do the rights stem from in the first place? What makes them inherent to man, as opposed to animal. If we were to discover another race of sentient beings with a capability for intelligence much like our own, would they have the same rights? If men did not live in civilized society, would rights still exist? That is, did men living in the circumstances of cavement have rights to respect of each other? I'm just trying to get a handle on where they originate from.

I don't think rights are inherent to man. I also don't think they are necessary for survival, since people in different cultures and time periods have survived just fine with different rights--or none at all. I've thought about this too, and what I came up with is that men only have--or deserve--the rights that they were willing to fight and die for. Men fought to earn them and keep them because they considered them desirable, and then agreed not to violate those of others so as not to have their own violated. Animals don't have rights because they can't fight for them. As for other sentient beings...how about those on the other side of the globe? Do the Chinese have the rights that you have?

I hope these thoughts are useful to you

[mrocktor]

I also don't think they are necessary for survival

Slaves survive, free men live. Rights are the conditions required to live as man, as a rational volitional being - not what is necessary to survive as an animal, an impulse driven being.

Animals don't have rights because they can't fight for them.

Animals surely can fight, as any cornered dog will show you. The yhave no rights exactly because fighting is all they can do. You can't reason with a dog, you must deal with it by force.

As for other sentient beings...how about those on the other side of the globe? Do the Chinese have the rights that you have?

Yes they do, they happen to live in a place where the government respects their rights less than here (though the western governments are far from perfect in respecting rights, very far).

mrocktor

[Felix]

Rights are a direct consequence of the fact that man survives by thinking. They are the recognition that you can't survive by forcing others just as others can't survive being forced by you. Rights are principles, knowlege derived rationally from the facts of existence.

Rights are also a recognition of metaphysical equivalence between men - I'm conscious and capable of choice and so are you. No matter how certain I am that I can choose better than you, there is no basis for my forcing my choices on you. I'd either have to accept your forcing me to bend to your will as well - since you may have as strong a conviction as I that you are right - or claim some metaphysically given difference between my consciousness and yours to justify my precedence over you (the "Divine Right of Kings" was one such claim).

Any other being capable of conceptual thought and choice automatically posseses rights.

mrocktor

Thanks. That makes sense.

My next question would be: Why are these rights enforced? What distincts the fact that I need independence from others to survive from the fact that I need food to survive? Why are they "rights" and not just "needs"?

[RationalBiker]

Thanks. That makes sense.

My next question would be: Why are these rights enforced? What distincts the fact that I need independence from others to survive from the fact that I need food to survive? Why are they "rights" and not just "needs"?

The difference is rights pertain to actions versus things. Certainly by action, one can earn the right to possess certain things (in your example food), but to say that one has a right to food absent the action necessary to earn that food is to say that I can take anyone's food at any time and claim it by right.

[Bold Standard]

Yeah, that might even solve it. But at least it would be a good start.

I'll have a look at the essay, too.

Oops, I fell asleep after I read it. : ) But definitely, give that essay a read.. It stands well on its own, in case you haven't read the rest of VOS (if you have, that much the better), and every sentence of it is directly applicable to this thread. But I'll quote just a couple of highlights, where she emphasizes the definition of rights from different perspectives, that are fabulous. She really elaborates on these in the rest of the essay though.

"Rights" are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Under all [statist] systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man's earthly existence.

Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience—on the implicit principle of: "The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler's edicts are its voice on earth."

The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a "right" pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

The term "individual rights" is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man's rights.

That doesn't even scratch the surface though-- that essay is packed with useful insights!

Edited July 17, 2006 by Bold Standard

[JMeganSnow]

My next question would be: Why are these rights enforced? What distincts the fact that I need independence from others to survive from the fact that I need food to survive? Why are they "rights" and not just "needs"?

You need many things to survive and prosper. However, the reason that one of the things that you need (liberty) is a right is that it is the prerequisite of gaining everything else that you need to survive. A man that can exercise his rights has a clear path to provide for his own needs. There may be no guarantee of success, but no guarantees of this kind exist, anyway; any attempt to guarantee a man food, shelter, clothing, or a color television is doomed to failure by the nature of reality. However, it IS possible to guarantee a man the right to produce his own food, shelter, clothing, or color television.

[Bold Standard]

I understand and agree that it is immoral, that is, against one's self interest, to violate the rights of others, but putting that aside, where do the rights stem from in the first place? What makes them inherent to man, as opposed to animal.

Rights are exclusive to man, but not inherent in him. If there were only one man alive on earth, he would have no rights. Rights derive from principles of interaction among men-- they are a social/political concept.

[Felix]

You need many things to survive and prosper. However, the reason that one of the things that you need (liberty) is a right is that it is the prerequisite of gaining everything else that you need to survive. A man that can exercise his rights has a clear path to provide for his own needs. There may be no guarantee of success, but no guarantees of this kind exist, anyway; any attempt to guarantee a man food, shelter, clothing, or a color television is doomed to failure by the nature of reality. However, it IS possible to guarantee a man the right to produce his own food, shelter, clothing, or color television.

So a right is some sort of a meta-need, so to speak. And as such it is more fundamental as it is the basis to fulfill all the other needs. Sounds good to me.

Rights are required so that man can live according to his nature in the first place. So that's what makes a governmental framework necessary.

This raises other questions in my mind (as usual), but they don't really belong here.

Thanks Jenni!

[softwareNerd]

Rights are required so that man can live according to his nature in the first place.

...while living in a society with other men.

[ggdwill]

I think what distinguishes a right from a need is that one necessarily involves other people and one doesn't. Being a social concept, a right implies the absence of something (ie: force or fraud) while a need implies the presence of something (eg: food or shelter). Semantically, yes it is appropriate to say that one "needs" to be free from coersion in order to live, but it would be more accurate to say that in order to live, one should behave like a human. Behaving like a human entails exercising reason - instead of force - for the pursuit of physical and emotional needs and wants; and the notion that every human should behave like a human is why rights exist.

Of course, because humans are volitional, they have the ability to act "inhuman" (ie: towards their own destruction) and so rights exist because, if life is the goal, certain things are right to do and certain things are wrong. I think that the need to respect the human nature (ie: the rights) of others, for selfish purposes just as one would selfishly repect the dangerous nature of sticking a fork in an electrical outlet, is what fundamentally establishes one's need to have his own humanity respected.

- Grant

Edited July 17, 2006 by ggdwill

[Vladimir Berkov]

But doesn't such a definition of rights imply that codified rights should change as knowledge about the human mind changes?

For example, if science shows that the human mind acts irrationally in some ways, that would change the nature of rights in certain ways. Or if science shows that collectivism in some form is a human need, wouldn't that require collectivism to become not only allowable but mandated?

[Bold Standard]

But doesn't such a definition of rights imply that codified rights should change as knowledge about the human mind changes?

New knowledge doesn't invalidate old knowledge (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).

For example, if science shows that the human mind acts irrationally in some ways, that would change the nature of rights in certain ways.

People make irrational descisions all the time, but that doesn't change the fact that man's essential defining characteristic is the capacity for reason, or the fact that an ability to grasp reality and deal with it independently is necessary for life, or any of the other facts that are the foundation of morality and rights.

Or if science shows that collectivism in some form is a human need, wouldn't that require collectivism to become not only allowable but mandated?

Do you propose that it is possible for science to show such a thing? Based on what evidence?

[hunterrose]

As for other sentient beings... are they the type of beings that humans want to trade with?

Why would that make a difference to whether or not they have rights?

E.g. If it were found out that, say, ants were sentient?

[Dave27]

Slaves survive, free men live. Rights are the conditions required to live as man, as a rational volitional being - not what is necessary to survive as an animal, an impulse driven being.

Animals surely can fight, as any cornered dog will show you. The yhave no rights exactly because fighting is all they can do. You can't reason with a dog, you must deal with it by force.

Yes they do, they happen to live in a place where the government respects their rights less than here (though the western governments are far from perfect in respecting rights, very far).

mrocktor

I have always disliked the "scissors" method of responding to posts. It seems to me that with a bit of effort, anyone can compose a decent paragraph

Do you think free men are happier than slaves? I've traveled. I've met real slaves, or very close to it. They aren't as miserable as you might believe. They sit in groups at night, drink whiskey, and tell stories. They laugh and play games with their children. On the other hand, the men of my country and yours are often disgusted with life; pills sell, and psychologist's offices are full. Do you think that you are happier than your average Chinese? I taught English in China. The people there are just like you and I. Do you believe that men in the past, who never had the guaranteed rights Americans put in their constitution, never knew happiness? I sincerely hope not. Again I insist that rights are not necessary for survival or for happiness. And what more is there?

[LaszloWalrus]

Did you go to a different China than I did? In China, all I met were people who hated the country and were desperate to leave. They were scared to death even to discuss certain issues (like the student rebellions in Beijing) because of what their government might do to them.

I would have to say that most people in the world have been incapable of being happy due to their governments; I doubt that, for example, Russian serfs were happy (much less happier than Americans) or that black slaves in the American South were happy either.

Finally, as a general message: if anyone is looking to become a slave, I could use some extra income, and I have some chores that need doing. I can guarantee you your very own cardboard box and three square meals a week. If I get other slaves, you might have to share the box.