Why is LIFE a RIGHT?

[Vladimir Berkov]

These are just unsupported assertions, however.

Why is it "right for man to live?" You say that it is something more than the desire of the individual to live, but how can this be so? Certainly the universe doesn't care whether a man lives or dies. It only really matters to the man himself, because he has a desire to live which you say is not protected.

Again, I think it is obvious once you prove that there is some necessity to having individual men live then a system of rights to protect that life is necessary. But I think it is by no means obvious where this right comes from other than the simple desire of men to live and not to die.

This is why I think consequentialist arguments such as SoftwareNerd's are dangerous, because they in no way require that all humans have rights or even that those who do have rights are respected. Obviously if you ask any individual he will say he wants to live and that he doesn't want other people to kill him. But to each individual the solution to the problem need only encompass his own life. For example, if I were to possess a "doomsday machine" perhaps I could theoretically tell every other human that he has no rights and that only I do, and live accordingly. This is only one end of the spectrum. In most of human history the rule is that one group of people has rights and the other does not. This can be based on race, on class, on gender, on national boundary lines, on whatever.

And if practical considerations are all that underpin the notion of a right to life, it seems that such a state of affairs is inevitable as groups who have power thus have an interest in saying that groups without power have no rights. Such a state of affairs thus perfectly protects the powerful group's lives, but of course at the expense of the group which has no rights.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Vlad,

I did not know exactly how much you were in agreement or understanding of Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. I was mistakenly assuming you were in some agreement. I guess the main issues you have are with the ethics, which means you also have issues with the epistemology and metaphysics. I have no idea where to start with you on those other issues, but it is pointless to keep discussing politics with you, unless these issues with the more fundamental branches of the philosophy are resolved. If you want to do that, we can set up another thread, or do so in pm's. A thread would be preferable, in that it would allow other members who have trouble with the metaphysics and epistemology to learn as well, and it will give me other tutors to help me.

To sNerd,

I think the above idea would be a great tool (if done correctly) for promoting the ideas of Objectivism in a semi-systematic although summarized format.

Let me know if this would be a good thing.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I am not quite sure what my potential disagreement with objectivist philosophy has to do with my understanding of it. For instance, I understand much of the philosophy of Hume and Kant even though I don't agree with most of it.

I just was looking over my copy of OPAR, trying again to find an answer to my question in several of the chapters and came up empty-handed. I just don't see where objectivism explains why the desires of men to live (man's life) is a valid starting point for everything else which follows.

Peikoff does a decent job of explaining how, given the proposition that mans life is the ultimate value, that a right to life and all other derivative rights are necessary to preserve mans life qua man in a social context.

But the nagging question which remains is why the man's life should be preserved. Perhaps objectivism sees this as axiomatic, although that seems a bit strange to me as it is almost completely arbitrary. It would make almost as much sense to say that the lives of all white men, or of all mammals should be preserved, and build a moral philosophy from either of those axioms.

This issue is like the foundation of the objectivist building, it needs to be sturdy and well-designed else all that is built on top of it risks collapse. This is why I think it is so odd why the objectivist literature essentially devotes no effort to it, instead seemingly accepting it as an axiom and moving on to less problematic discussions of how rights are the only means of letting man live qua man.

[IAmMetaphysical]

But the nagging question which remains is why the man's life should be preserved.

Should be preserved by whom?

A man, if he chooses to live, should take the necessary action needed to preserve his life. If a group of men choose to live, they should do the same. For a group of men, the only moral requirement they have in relation to each other is they none of them initiate the use of force against the others. Since life is the standard of value and the precondition of value, it is good for men to choose to live, if life is possible. It is good for men to respect the rights of others and if need be to set up a government in order to protect their own rights, their own lives.

It is good for a man to defend his life.

It is good for a group of men to do so. The way in which people protect their lives in a social context is through to protection of rights, which means, the protection of the ability for a man to take the actions necessary for his own survival.

The gov't's job is not, and should not be, the protection of all men's rights, but merely the protection of the rights of those that live under its jurisdiction or those that fund it. The gov't derives its right to defend rights because of the delegation of the right to self-defense that individuals possess. The gov't of the united states should not step into the mess in Darfur, for example, if doing so would be a sacrifice for the funders of the gov't. It is no one's obligation to protect the rights of others, but they may do so, and do so morally, if the protection of other's rights represents a protection of their own.

To live successfully, man must be free. A man without a society is unconditionally free, he needs no rights, any action he takes is rightfully his to take. It is the existence of a society that necessitates the concept of rights. The protection of rights can only mean the protection of life, because the protection of a man's freedom is his protection of his life. A man can not live as a man while in chains.

[Inspector]

The problem is that I don't see a clear logical jump from the propositions "all individual men have a desire to live" to "all men have a right to life." The fact that one man desires to live in no way necessitates that all other men's desires to live are relevant or should be protected as a "right." Because again, I don't see how the line can be drawn based on a meaningful principle.

Do you accept the law of non-contradiction?

If so, then there is a very clear principle at work here: You, selfishly, want to be protected by a right to life. By claiming this right for yourself, you necessarily must be claiming it for all humans, since there is no essential difference between you and any other human.

Why not say that Aryan people have a right to life but don't have to recognize the right to life of Jews or blacks because it is not in their selfish interest to do so?

That is a blatant contradiction. There is no difference between Jews or blacks and Aryans in anything that would have the slightest thing to do with rights. It is in their selfish interest to do so, whether they want to recognize that indiputable fact or not.

Certainly it is not possible to reason with animals, but that hardly seems a meaningful line since we extend rights to children and the disabled as well as reasoning adults. The capacity for reason may also matter in areas of conflict or self-defense (where there is no option with animals other than the use of force) but this doesn't translate into the idea that animals have no rights at all, and may be killed at-will for any reason or whim whatsoever.

So you're saying you can see an essential difference between Aryans and Jews that would allow you, on principle, to distinguish that one might be given rights, and without contradiction, the other not, but you can't see any difference between a man and an animal?

Excuse me, but that's absurd!

[Vladimir Berkov]

I accept the law of non-contradiction, but don't see how it is applicable here.

There seems to be a very great essential difference between my life any other human. That is that my life is mine, and that any threat or injury to it hurts me, whereas injury to others doesn't directly hurt me in any way at all. For example, the thousands of people dying in Darfur doesn't make me physically hurt, it doesn't make me lose any of my life. It is really only of consequence to me to the extent that the physical risk from whatever killed them might kill me in the future, and that risk is virtually nil. The same is true for families, tribes, nations and all larger units of men. Death and destruction among another group is always of much less importance and concern than similar death and destruction among the group itself.

In regards to drawing distinctions on which class of beings has rights and which does not my point is not that "blacks don't have rights although animals do," but rather that if the right to life is based solely on a living being's desire for life, there seems no principled way to decide which class of beings should be protected by rights and which should not.

[Inspector]

There seems to be a very great essential difference between my life any other human.

How is that distinction essential in this context? By what principle do you hope to grant yourself a right that nobody else will have, without any logical contradiction? What faculty do you, and no other human, posess?

In regards to drawing distinctions on which class of beings has rights and which does not my point is not that "blacks don't have rights although animals do," but rather that if the right to life is based solely on a living being's desire for life, there seems no principled way to decide which class of beings should be protected by rights and which should not.

It's not as simple as "solely on a living being's desire for life." The desire is the starting point, but not the whole of the justification. A right is a legal creation that is based on the metaphysical requirements of your survival. The short version is that in order for you to survive in a social context, there must be a respect for rights and a rule of objective law. This must apply to all men in order for it to apply to you. To claim it for yourself but deny it to others is a logical contradiction. Do you dispute that?

[Dismuke]

Why is it "right for man to live?" You say that it is something more than the desire of the individual to live, but how can this be so? Certainly the universe doesn't care whether a man lives or dies. It only really matters to the man himself, because he has a desire to live which you say is not protected.

Vladimir -

You are correct that "the universe" doesn't care. The concept of rights only arises in a social context. For a person living on a deserted island, the need for the concept of rights does not even come up. It is possible for the ocean, the weather, the wild animals and such to kill him - but, if so, that is NOT a violation of his rights. Nor would the concept of rights have much use if you were to find yourself on an island populated by a tribe of cannibals - they would be out to turn you into supper and you would be in a position of having to do whatever it takes, including killing any cannibals that may come across your path in order to protect yourself. In such a situation, "might makes right" i.e. brute force, is ultimately what rules the day. Claiming that one has "rights" in such a situation is basically a waste of time and utterly useless

A right is a moral claim against other individuals - and with regard to the fundamental rights that Jefferson described, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," that moral claim consists of a negative obligation: to refrain from initiating force against you.

Rights are NOT axiomatic - they presuppose a code of morality. One cannot talk about rights without addressing the code of morality upon which they are based.

But I think it is by no means obvious where this right comes from other than the simple desire of men to live and not to die.

Well..... exactly what have you got against "the simple desire of men to live and not to die"? Why shouldn't such a desire on your part impose a moral obligation on all other people to refrain from interfering with that desire via the initiation of force? After all, it is YOUR life - not anyone else's. By what RIGHT does someone else have to initiate force and violence against it? It is NOT their life - it is YOUR'S.

The only way you can get around that last question is to basically come up with some form of answer based on the fact that other people, for a variety of reasons, might WANT to destroy your life - i.e. that it is appropriate for them to operate based on their whims on the premise of might makes right. There are, no doubt, plenty of people who will make such a claim - but if there ever gets to be enough such people, one is basically back on the island with the cannibals where, even if one were to come up with a valid concept of rights, it would be totally useless. Rights presuppose a social context and, more than just that, they presuppose a civilized social context.

For an Objectivist, the term "individual rights" is totally redundant as any other kind of alleged "rights" is a bastardization of the term. In other words, in order to validate the Objectivist view of rights, one must already have validated the Objectivist view of individualism/egoism - i.e. the view of an individual man as an end in himself. You cannot validate rights out of thin air and in a total intellectual vacuum. And, once one accepts egoism as valid, a man's "simple desire to live and not die" is anything but irrelevant. One can then easily make the claim that he has a right to pursue that desire free from the violence of others simply because it is HIS life. One cannot, however, make such a claim that it is RIGHT for others who desire to initiate such violence to do so - on what valid basis can they assert such a claim? By what RIGHT is his life theirs to take?

Edited November 21, 2006 by Dismuke

[Dismuke]

In most of human history the rule is that one group of people has rights and the other does not. This can be based on race, on class, on gender, on national boundary lines, on whatever.

I don't think it is accurate to describe what such historical groups had as being "rights." What they had in most instances was privilege which is a very different thing. There are certain exceptions such as early America where the concept of rights was understood and protected for everyone other than black people who were slaves - i.e. their rights were not recognized and were outrightly trampled on.

But none of this really matters. Rights are neither validated nor refuted by historical practice. Rights are a moral concept and their validation requires a moral code. Rights, in order to be implemented in practice, require a society where that moral code has taken hold sufficiently enough that one has a chance of having one's rights respected and for them to be enforced in the event that some choose not to respect them. In the absence of such a society, brute force is what rules the day - as has been the case through much of history and still is mostly the case in many parts of the world.

[Inspector]

By what RIGHT is his life theirs to take?

Dismuke,

While noble in intent, I think your post skips over the meat of his concern. Vladimir is asking why, from the perspective of others, it is necessary to grant you that right. The answer is that they, themselves, desire to live, and thus must have rights, and thus must grant rights. You can't have 'em if you don't grant 'em... unless you think you can have A and not A. That's why the first question I asked was if he accepted the law of non-contradiction.

[Dismuke]

Dismuke,

While noble in intent, I think your post skips over the meat of his concern. Vladimir is asking why, from the perspective of others, it is necessary to grant you that right. The answer is that they, themselves, desire to live, and thus must have rights, and thus must grant rights. You can't have 'em if you don't grant 'em... unless you think you can have A and not A. That's why the first question I asked was if he accepted the law of non-contradiction.

But on what basis do you suppose that these others are necessarily motivated by any sort of desire to live and to achieve long term values? Some people are thusly motivated - and in a civilized society, most people are. But there are always quite a few people out there who clearly are not. Take the mullahs, for example. And, closer to home and less ideologically motivated, consider common criminals. They may "desire" to live - just as they "desire" to have money and fancy cars and such. They may say that they desire such things - but that does not translate into them being prepared to take the course of action that is necessary to achieve such things. In the case of a person's desire to live and prosper, one of those necessary courses of actions includes facing reality, being rational and living one's life long term. Obviously many people do not choose to do so and face rather unpleasant consequences as a result. At the very least, one of those courses is to at least refrain from initiating force against people so that one does not get shot back at in self-defense or by the police. But there are plenty of crooks who, nevertheless, end up in the slammer or dead.

My strong guess, based on previous conversations I have had with him in private, is Vladimir is essentially asking why it is necessary for people who you and I would classify as criminals to respect another's rights. My answer is it is NOT necessary for them to respect other people's rights - and they don't. All one has to do is read the newspaper to see that is not the case. There is no argument in the world what is going to stop such a mentality from attempting to do what it wishes - such an argument would presuppose that the person is rational, which is not the case with those who believe in might makes right, i.e., who live by their whims. There is no "killer bullet argument" in defense of rights (or anything else) that is going to stop those who would deny them in their tracks and convince them. That's why we need guns and (properly limited) governments.

Your argument about why it is necessary from the perspective of others to respect your rights is absolutely correct - but it presupposes a person who properly values his own life and wishes to pursue and achieve values over the long term. Those are the only kind of people in this world who are potentially concerned with rights and the only kind that one can pursuade that rights are valid and ought to be respected. Without such people, no discussion of rights is possible. The best one can expect of the rest is that they will not step over certain lines because they have learned from the examples of others that doing so puts them at risk of some rather nasty potential consequences. I think one of Vladimir's false premises is he is asking us to make an argument for rights so as to take cognizance of the wishes, whims and desires of the latter group of people - which is simply impossible.

Vladimir, of course, can correct me if my assumptions about where he is coming from are off the mark.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Dismuke

[Vladimir Berkov]

How is that distinction essential in this context? By what principle do you hope to grant yourself a right that nobody else will have, without any logical contradiction? What faculty do you, and no other human, posess?

As I said, I have the unique faculty of knowing my own wants and desires, of knowing what causes me pain, and knowing what does not. I thus don't see how it is a logical contradiction to say that "I should live, but you can die."

It's not as simple as "solely on a living being's desire for life." The desire is the starting point, but not the whole of the justification. A right is a legal creation that is based on the metaphysical requirements of your survival. The short version is that in order for you to survive in a social context, there must be a respect for rights and a rule of objective law. This must apply to all men in order for it to apply to you. To claim it for yourself but deny it to others is a logical contradiction. Do you dispute that?

Yes, rights are based on the metaphysical requirements of survival, I agree. The question then becomes what things should be protected via rights so that they can survive. And I am still trying to figure out what unique property of humans mean that all humans requirements for survival should be protected, but no other animals.

[Dismuke]

And I am still trying to figure out what unique property of humans mean that all humans requirements for survival should be protected, but no other animals.

Well, what is it that differentiates humans from all other animals?

And ask yourself, if the survival requirements for any other animal were thusly "protected" would the animal even be able to grasp that it is protected and be capable of abiding by it with regard to other examples of that same animal - i.e., to refrain from killing each other and fighting, as animals are prone to do? And exactly who (i.e. which animal) would be have to be responsible for enforcing such protection. That answer, of course, is us.

As with humans, most animals struggle mightily in the name of their own survival. But, unlike animals, humans can grasp the requirements for their survival and can do something about it. And one of the many ways that they "do something about it" is to devise codes of morality and political systems which respect individual rights. Such things are man's means of survival. All that animals, even the higher animals, can do is merely adapt to whatever nature dishes out to them as best they can.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Dismuke

[Inspector]

Yes, rights are based on the metaphysical requirements of survival, I agree. The question then becomes what things should be protected via rights so that they can survive. And I am still trying to figure out what unique property of humans mean that all humans requirements for survival should be protected, but no other animals.

Humans, in order to survive, create the rule that fulfills the metaphysical requirements for humans to survive in a social context. This is called rights. In order to be non-contradictory, it must apply to all humans. The purpose of the rule is so that you are able to deal with other humans by means of reason rather than by means of force. Your metaphysical nature makes it in your interest to do so.

Animals are not humans, nor are they essentially human in any way. Thus, it is NOT necessary for the rule to apply to them. Put more simply, it isn't necessary for the survival of humans to protect animals. Human survival in no way necessitates it. In fact, as in the quote above, things are very much the opposite; it is required, due to their metaphysical nature, that we deal with animals by force. It is not possible to deal with them by reason, so to attempt to do so is suicidally stupid.

As for humans who choose to act on the incorrect premise that their survival does not require the establishment of rights, there is only one way open for dealing with them - the same way that we must deal with animals: force.

[Dismuke]

I thus don't see how it is a logical contradiction to say that "I should live, but you can die."

It is not a logical contradiction to say that. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mau and many others have said just that. And their saying it was certainly not a logical contradiction of any of the rest of their views. But what such people are claiming when they say that they should live is NOT a right. They are basically demanding that others conform to their whims and their demands. The fact that they might claim that their whims constitute "rights" does not make it so - and most certainly not in the Objectivist meaning of rights.

A "right" means something very specific - and in both the Lockean and Objectivist use of the term, it, is something which, by definition, applies to all human beings by virtue of their unique nature.

The moment that a person claims that "rights" apply to him but not to anybody else - that is the moment he has declared that he does NOT believe in rights. The notion that a given person has rights arises from his nature as a human being and is thusly equally applicable to any other human being. "I should live but you can die" is not at all a logical contradiction - but to claim that it is a "right" and basically say "I have the right to murder you" most definitely is such a contradiction.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Dismuke

[Inspector]

"I should live but you can die" is not at all a logical contradiction - but to claim that it is a "right" and basically say "I have the right to murder you" most definitely is such a contradiction.

Yes, thank you.