Proving the existence of rights in two paragraphs

[mb121]

The following is taken directly from a draft paper I wrote (to be revised for a final grade). In it, I dauntingly tried to prove the existance of individual rights with Ayn Rand's objectivism. This is what I wrote:

Critics might finally argue that the biggest problem with Nozick’s argument is his foundational, unproven assumption that individual rights exist. Although traditionally the belief in individual rights has usually been associated with varying forms of faith, individual rights can be rationally justified as moral principles derived from the social requirements of man’s nature. The argument would go something like this: because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive. The right to life, in turn, entails the right to take all actions that a rational being would need to take in order to sustain himself. Thus, from the right to life stems the right to liberty, which ensures that individuals are able to make decisions freely without the threat of coercion. Equally, the right to property stems from the right to life also, ensuring that what is created by the non-coerced individual is his property to control.

Any political system is one based on a code of ethics, but only the code of individual rights recognizes that man shouldn’t be treated as a mere means towards anyone else’s end (this was definitely a concern for Nozick, who accepted Kantian ethics). Thus, contrary to Locke, individual rights shouldn’t be thought of as “inherent” to mankind. They are moral principles that are derived from the nature of our particular mode of survival: thinking freely, creating goods through the alteration of our environment, and keeping what we have created for the pursuit of our own values. Man’s rights are not conditional; they are absolute in the sense that man’s nature doesn’t change. However, nothing is forcing us to recognize them. In the end, they are moral principles which are unenforceable without government. For these reasons, Nozick’s assumption that individual rights exist can only be validated on moral grounds.

I feel that my professor was rightfully shocked that I would try to prove individual rights in "half a paragraph," for this is what he wrote:

"This is too cursory - you can't derive individual rights in half a paragraph, no one can!"

He pointed out the sentence I made which said "...because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive." In response, he said

"this seems to me simply untrue - what about people who have lived on death row for 20 years?"

Later he referred back to my argument about rights and said:

"As I understand your reasoning, it seems to revolve around the idea that people need society to survive, and society can exist only if individuals are afforded certain rights. If this is your argument, it needs to be made more clearly. But in addition, this argument rests on certain empirical assumptions that don't seem to be true, insofar as certain limited redistributive measures exist in many different Western societies, which have no collapsed as a result."

Now, I am NOT asking/wanting anyone to re-write my paper for me. I'm just asking for advice on what, philosophically speaking, are the answers to his objections.

[SkyTrooper]

"As I understand your reasoning, it seems to revolve around the idea that people need society to survive, and society can exist only if individuals are afforded certain rights. If this is your argument, it needs to be made more clearly. But in addition, this argument rests on certain empirical assumptions that don't seem to be true, insofar as certain limited redistributive measures exist in many different Western societies, which have no collapsed as a result."

Where did you say anything about society? Strawman. You said that man needs liberty to survive.

[thejohngaltline]

Hmm. I think those are a couple of really well-written paragraphs, personally! His response to proving individual rights in half a paragraph is classic. That "No one can!" mentality never ceases to astound me (man could never invent a flying machine, man could never walk on the moon, etc.)

When he made the objection about people on death row, did he mean to say that they have a different "mode of survival" or that they are not entitled to certain individual rights?

[mb121]

When he made the objection about people on death row, did he mean to say that they have a different "mode of survival" or that they are not entitled to certain individual rights?

He could have meant either

1) Death row inmates are provided everything they need to live by others, thus they aren't rational value-seekers that need rights.

2) None of their rights are respected anyway (they dont have the right to liberty and property), yet they are still surviving (which is basically the same as #1)

[softwareNerd]

The death row example is distracting, because it's a freak case. However, the same devil's advocate point can be made as follows: people have lived for centuries without the concept of rights. If the human race survived, indeed thrived, for so long without rights, how can one claim that rights are required for survival?

Your professor actually made this point with the better example that you quoted at the end of your first post: many modern societies take people's wealth and redistribute it to others, and these societies survive.

[mb121]

The death row example is distracting, because it's a freak case. However, the same devil's advocate point can be made as follows: people have lived for centuries without the concept of rights. If the human race survived, indeed thrived, for so long without rights, how can one claim that rights are required for survival?

Your professor actually made this point with the better example that you quoted at the end of your first post: many modern societies take people's wealth and redistribute it to others, and these societies survive.

How could I prove this wrong? I could list rights-respecting countries and pose them against non-rights-respecting countries, but even then one could still say "well, a little wealth re-distribution doesn't kill a society!"

[fletch]

You might argue that it is possible for humanity to survive without rights but it can only thrive in those eras and civilizations that recognize individual rights.

[JMeganSnow]

You might want to mention that borderline societies stay in existence largely because people have some rights de facto if not de jure. Then you may have to sit down and explain how principles work and why they don't have exceptions or take into account bizarre exceptional cases where you "might" be able to get away with violating the principle.

It's basically a demonstration of the fact that no individual bit of Objectivism stands on its own without the correct underlying principles and axioms.

[DavidOdden]

I'm just asking for advice on what, philosophically speaking, are the answers to his objections.

Philosophically, the answer to his first objection would be to improve your proof. For example, you start yourself by presupposing the concept of rights, which is a logical error. The statement that "because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive" is not a proper starting point: rather, you should start with simple statements of fact, such as that certain conditions must exist for any man to survive, and that man uniquely may choose among multiple courses of action available to him. You are starting the argument about 10 minutes into the argument. His second response is non-responsive: he probably had a brain fart and felt the need to express his undigested discontent.

In response to his third point, the philosophically correct response would be to comply with his first request, of making the individual / society relationship clearer. Recall that what you should be doing is constructing an argument, not reaching the correct conclusion -- it doesn't count if you illogically reach what is nevertheless the right answer. When you say "The right to life, in turn, entails the right to take all actions that a rational being would need to take in order to sustain himself", you've opened the door to the prudent predator argument (see his mention of limited redistribution of wealth which has not yet caused the collapse of Western civilization). Somewhere in there you make a transition to social and political concepts, and yet I have no idea how we got there. Just because you as an individual have the right to live does not intrinsically mean anything about not having to give something up to live in a society. So the correct response in this case would be to make the logical transition explicit.

[source]

I think those paragraphs are well written.

Here is what I think that you should answer your professor. Take these answers with reservation - you don't have to quote me literally, just get the general idea and then come up with your own.

"This is too cursory - you can't derive individual rights in half a paragraph, no one can!"

Your answer: I can and I did. They thought that a man could never walk on the Moon, yet he did.

I think Ayn Rand has given a rather comical answer to this, as well, though I forgot where. If she did, she took as an example a man who invented a camera which takes a photo and immediately produces one. Nobody at the time thought this was possible; in fact, everyone thought he was mad; yet he did it.

this seems to me simply untrue - what about people who have lived on death row for 20 years?

You can, perhaps, take this as a guideline for your paper. Before you start defining individual rights, explain why people on death row don't matter in the creation of this definition. Explain why a criminal cannot be considered a standard by which we are to tailor the guiding principles of a free society. Create a context in which individual rights are absolute. This will help you stick to the subject, and reduce the number of diversions you need to make before you actually define what individual rights are.

As I understand your reasoning, it seems to revolve around the idea that people need society to survive, and society can exist only if individuals are afforded certain rights. If this is your argument, it needs to be made more clearly. But in addition, this argument rests on certain empirical assumptions that don't seem to be true, insofar as certain limited redistributive measures exist in many different Western societies, which have no collapsed as a result.

The first sentence is not true. People don't need society to survive, they need it to prosper. Also, his argument about redistributive measures existing and societies not having collapsed, is invalid. Saying that they eventually will if nothing changes may sound prophetic, but there is a better argument to prove him wrong. His argument is that your assumptions don't seem to be true, because these societies have not collapsed.

There is quite a difference between that which is, and that which seems to be. He cannot, by any logical means, assume the invalidity of the empiric observations which have led to the conception of individual rights, on the basis of a new observation of a society that "seems to work" by violating individual rights. Note that there is also no logical connection between the two observations. To arrive at the concept of individual rights, one must first and foremost observe that there is a certain mode of man's survival. As you pointed out in your paper, this leads to the right to life. Another observation is that a man must act in a certain way to sustain this life (leads to liberty) and that he must be able to keep the products of his work (ownership). Your professor's observation is "this society, which violates individual rights, seems to work".

This observation alone can never prove the concept of individual rights as being wrong. It can, at its very best (which it is not), suggest that there may be something even better. Limiting ourselves to the real world, sanity, health and clear mind, no empirical observation can ever invalidate our previous empirical observations. It can only invalidate our explanations of the phenomena we have observed, and change them. Your professor's observation can't even do that.

Edit: Fixed quotes.

Edited April 20, 2007 by source

[KendallJ]

I'm with Charlotte. The claim that IR can't be derived in 1/2 a paragraph presupposes a certain level of derivation for a certain purpose. One can certainly state the basic thesis of the argument in 1/2 a paragraph. The question is do you need a higher level of substantiation for what you then use it for.

As I read your paras, you're trying to simply critique Nozick's argument by providing an alternative view of the basis of individual rights, as non-intrinsic.. A half a para or more to deliniate the argument seems to provide at least a plausible alternative to intrinsic basis for IR. Plausibility is really all you need, not necessarily and iron clad defense against any objection.

Your prof seems to think that empirical evidence makes the plausibility of the argument suspect. The question is have you mis-stated something in your argument? Do you need to expand the argument in more detail? Or is your prof making a big error in his thinking that you shouldn't really try to deal with?

My take is this. Does the existence of someone "with a pulse" (i.e. living), whose rights are being violated negate your argument for IR based in the ethics of life? This is the death row inmate example. This is where your prof is coming from. The clues are in his incorrect assessment of your argument.

As David has pointed out, clarifying the relationship between individual and society in the argument might help. (Man doesn't "need society" as your prof incorrectly claims, he needs to preserve his reason and products of it, within the rules of society) Also, clarifying what you mean by "life" (as more than "registering a pulse", more as flourishing by a series of actions taken over the long term) may help. Then, the resulting analysis is not "If I can show a society that hasn't collapsed that refutes your claim" but rather, can you reasonably defend the proposition that societies that preserve individual rights flourish moreso in the long run than those which violate individual rights. This lets you counter your prof with evaluation of degree to which societies violate rights, and the time span it takes to register damage done by such violations, preserving your basic thesis. This preserve plausibility of your thesis.

[Korthor]

I agree with DavidOdden that you jump the gun a bit in your proof. For example, you begin your proof proper with

"individual rights can be rationally justified as moral principles derived from the social requirements of man’s nature. The argument would go something like this: because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive"

You are essentially jumping from "man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival" to "the right to life." I can completely understand why your prof would be confused, since the phrase "rational being with a particular mode of survival" means a great deal to Objectivists, and very little to everyone else. You need to do a lot more work defining the moral nature of man before you can make that jump. You start to do that a bit in the middle of the second paragraph when you talk about "thinking freely," etc. You need to move those arguments up and elaborate on them more.

Moreover, I think your phrase "social requirements of man's nature" is what led the prof to think that you thought rights derived from society. Is there a better way to phrase this that wouldn't lead to that confusion?

Finally, I found your distinction between "inherent" and "conditional" rights in the second paragraph somewhat confusing. Moreover, the distinction seemed somewhat secondary given your rather enormous task of defending rights in two paragraphs. Can you take it out? Was your only motivation the academic need to talk about Locke for your prof's benefit? If so, you might figure a way to use some Lockean principles (e.g., his argument for property rights) to defend your notion of rights rather than trying to distinguish between Locke and your view of rights, which somewhat muddies up your argument.

In conclusion, when faced with situations like these I would try to learn rather than be angry. Your paragraphs aren't perfect, and maybe you can learn from your prof how to argue your case better. Even if you find him frustrating personally, learning to deal with irrational people is also a valuable thing to know in this society.

[softwareNerd]

How could I prove this wrong? I could list rights-respecting countries and pose them against non-rights-respecting countries, but even then one could still say "well, a little wealth re-distribution doesn't kill a society!"

Yes, that's what he will say, and the question really is: if he is wrong, then why? But, I don't think one ought to justify rights primarily by the outcome of the "society" at large.

So, I think your approach was right, in that you started with the individual man, and worked from him outward to society. However, consider the starting point:

because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive.

What exactly do you mean by this? For instance, it is phrased like a two-step reasoned conclusion, however, why doesn't the second part simply stand on it's own? Doesn't any living being needs a right to life in order to live? Is some context missing? Why is man in a different situation? What other options does he have?

Think of how you would answer this to yourself, informally, before you even consider how you can explain it your professor.

In general, you need to set the context for yourself: what is the context in which an individual fiunds himself? what conundrum is he seeking to answer when he comes up with this idea of people having rights? what options would he consider? what's so special about rights that makes them the best option? what's the advantage in respecting someone else's rights? Don't look for tricky examples, but simple ones. In other words, what are the more clear-cut cases where it benefits a man to have rights and to respect the rights of others?

[mb121]

Doesn't any living being needs a right to life in order to live? Is some context missing? Why is man in a different situation? What other options does he have?

Think of how you would answer this to yourself, informally, before you even consider how you can explain it your professor.

Ugh. I know I've gone over this so many times in this forum and I feel bad that I have to ask again...but I just don't see how the rights argument works. Explain to me how we derive the right to life? I understand how if I have the right to sustain myself than I naturally have the right to liberty and property, but where does this fundamental right to life come from? Why do animals not have it? And if it is fundamentlaly rooted in the moral roots of my rquirements to survive, then why should I not break someone else's right to life when I can get away with it (to help myself survive)? - if no one else will know but me, and I wouldn't care one way or the other because my sense of life wasn't like Rand's?

[DavidOdden]

I understand how if I have the right to sustain myself than I naturally have the right to liberty and property, but where does this fundamental right to life come from?

What does it mean to be "a right"? You're a clever person, you ought to start with the most basic question. Focus on the fundamentals first.

[mb121]

What does it mean to be "a right"? You're a clever person, you ought to start with the most basic question. Focus on the fundamentals first.

A right is a "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” (VOS hb edn.1965, p. 124)

This isn't getting me anywhere :/

Step 1) I desire to live

Step 2) I have a "right" to life because that's what I need to live?

[DavidOdden]

This isn't getting me anywhere :/

Step 1) I desire to live

Step 2) I have a "right" to life because that's what I need to live?

How about starting at the beginning, i.e. p. 13 ("The Objectivist Ethics"). What I find is that people screw up most often when they skate past the foundations. How about if you just focus on that one essay?

[softwareNerd]

This isn't getting me anywhere :/

Step 1) I desire to live

Step 2) I have a "right" to life because that's what I need to live?

Which of these steps do you find more difficult to chew on?

In step #1, you say you have a "desire to live". Is this merely a desire to stay alive, even if in chains, or does it mean more than that? Is this desire rational and moral? What range of actions do you rationally and morally desire?

Aren't you missing a step between #1 and #2, where you say why you need rights to live? What are these "rights" and why do you need them in order to live? (After all, you could be alive on death row... sorry, just kidding. )

[Spano]

Keep in mind that the the concept of rights is a political one, i.e. it applies in a social context when we're talking about people coming together to form a society. Essentially, individual rights is what you get when you apply the Objectivist ethics to interpersonal relationships. First, you need to establish what it is that an individual needs to survive, e.g. the ability to think, to put thought into action, to keep and dispose of the product of that action according to his judgement. Then you need to establish that force is evil because it destroys the individual's ability to use his fundamental tool of survival, reason (why is reason, not, say, opposable thumbs, man's tool of survival? That's another essay or two). Then you need to establish that if life is the goal, a group of people forming a voluntary system of government must recognize the metaphysical needs of the individual and figure out how to secure them in the context of living with others, the solution being basing one's system of government on the prinicple of individual rights (pause to catch breath). Oh, and somewhere along there you'd need to establish the epistemological importance of thinking and acting according to principles, if you want to have any way to defend against the pragmatist's objection that a little coercion never hurt anybody.

I don't think this can be done in 2 paragraphs or 20, hence the reason Ayn Rand wrote novels and essays with inductive arguments rather than a couple technical papers of formal logic "proofs".

[mb121]

Oh, and somewhere along there you'd need to establish the epistemological importance of thinking and acting according to principles, if you want to have any way to defend against the pragmatist's objection that a little coercion never hurt anybody.

Could you please try to explain this to me!

[KendallJ]

Hi mb,

FYI, it's more helpful if you use the Quote functionality or the "Reply button as it pulls in the quote with a link back to the referring post so that someone like me can read the original for the full context.

But, barring that, I'll try to explain it a bit.

Take out the "epistemogical" from the first point and it might help a bit. Your prof who looks out into the world and sees examples of slight violation of rights, and says nothing more than, "here's evidence so why isn't it ok" is commiting errors of empiricism or pragmatism. Both of these types of errors dispense with the concept of primciples, either implicitly or explicitly. A pragmatist goes by the idea that whatever works is good. That might seem like a principle, but in reality it rejects principles. It says, "I can't know more about reality than the specific examples I have, and therefore the only thing I can judge by is whatever works." The empiricist rejects the idea of principles outright. That is, there are no valid generalization that can be made, and we can only look at the data and maybe look at correlations, but we can't really draw generalizations because we might run up against an example that violates the generalization later (and who are we to know if we will or not).

These are both epistemological mistakes. That is that principles are tools of reason, and they are fundamental to our being able to understand the world.

Anyway, hope that helps. It's a bit of complex point and I've only given some very quick (and poorly spelled) thoughts on it.

[mb121]

Hi mb,

FYI, it's more helpful if you use the Quote functionality or the "Reply button as it pulls in the quote with a link back to the referring post so that someone like me can read the original for the full context.

But, barring that, I'll try to explain it a bit.

Take out the "epistemogical" from the first point and it might help a bit. Your prof who looks out into the world and sees examples of slight violation of rights, and says nothing more than, "here's evidence so why isn't it ok" is commiting errors of empiricism or pragmatism. Both of these types of errors dispense with the concept of primciples, either implicitly or explicitly. A pragmatist goes by the idea that whatever works is good. That might seem like a principle, but in reality it rejects principles. It says, "I can't know more about reality than the specific examples I have, and therefore the only thing I can judge by is whatever works." The empiricist rejects the idea of principles outright. That is, there are no valid generalization that can be made, and we can only look at the data and maybe look at correlations, but we can't really draw generalizations because we might run up against an example that violates the generalization later (and who are we to know if we will or not).

These are both epistemological mistakes. That is that principles are tools of reason, and they are fundamental to our being able to understand the world.

Anyway, hope that helps. It's a bit of complex point and I've only given some very quick (and poorly spelled) thoughts on it.

So bringing this all together, how would you concisely respond to the argument: "well, a little bit of re-distribution/coercion never hurt anyone!"

Edited April 28, 2007 by mb121

[Spano]

So bringing this all together, how would you concisely respond to the argument: "well, a little bit of re-distribution/coercion never hurt anyone!"

Well, you could try knocking your opponent in the face and when he objects, explain that the pain is relatively minor and temporary, and it made you feel better.

If that doesn't appeal to you, I'm not sure there is a concise way to respond, if by concise you mean a few sentences or whatever. Basically, principles are important because of what they are -- the means by which man grasps long term cause and effect. For instance, take any of the Objectivist virtues -- why should I be honest or productive or rational all the time, as opposed to most of the time? Or in this case, why should I adhere to the principle that force is evil and individual rights demand a person be left free, when it seems advantageous to take a little money from the people down the street to pay for my tuition or doctors bill -- especially when they ain't got any way to stop me, since I'm the government? The short answer is that human beings survive by using reason, and reason entails conforming to reality. One of the aspects of reality is cause and effect, which is captured by principles. By saying I should be honest on principle, I'm saying I should recognize that honesty is the cause that brings the effect of being in tune with reality and all the goodies that entails -- and that dishonesty is a cause that brings the effect of all the bad things that happen when you make pretend. If I decide to be dishonest and violated my principle "just this once", I am evading causality and reality. Since evasion is bad, as I hope we all agree, then violating principles is bad. And if we want to be good, then we shouldn't do that. Therefore, we should reject even a little bit of welfare state because it's bad for everyone involved.

Does that get closer to answering your question?

Oh, and I recommend you sign up at ARI's website and listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture about why one should act on principle.

[utabintarbo]

So bringing this all together, how would you concisely respond to the argument: "well, a little bit of re-distribution/coercion never hurt anyone!"

This seems to concede that both re-distribution and coercion are wrong. Why would anyone knowingly allow for wrong things to be done? Does that not make ethics irrelevant?

[Spano]

This seems to concede that both re-distribution and coercion are wrong. Why would anyone knowingly allow for wrong things to be done? Does that not make ethics irrelevant?

It wouldn't make ethics irrelevant; it would make you a pragmatist. Pragmatists still answer the basic question of ethics, "what should I do", by saying you should do what works. They deny the necessity of principles because "what works" according to them sometimes requires violating principles. Case in point: if individualism doesn't "work" to solve the plight of the poor, and redistribution does, then why not do it? Clearly it lacks a validated standard of value, but I don't think they'd claim that ethics is irrelevant. They would just say that ethics requires one to go with the flow rather tie oneself down with restrictive absolutes.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Spano