Defining Individual Rights

Ethics
, , , , ,
1

Recently I’ve been attempting to define the concept of rights in a way more satisfying than:

“A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.”(Ayn Rand Lexiconhttp://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html)

 

This is what i came up with:

“Those values which, if destroyed would render mans life non-existent, unlivable, or in a style contrary to mans life qua man”

 

Critiques and thoughts?

 

P.S.

Here are some places to start:

  >I think I’m missing some areas of thought about the proper way(s)/time(s) to defend such values.

  >I’m lacking the exact aforementioned values, i know they need to be few and specific, but beyond freedom, life, and self i draw a blank

  >I’m not sure exactly sure how to exclude “printing press rights”(Ayn Rand) from this definition, or if is even possible to do so

2

This is another ethical principle which has a metaphysical and epistemic foundation. Its metaphysical basis is a Law of identity and causality. Man is what he is, a rational being. This is his defining identity. He cannot survive like a bird or polar bear. In order to live he has to use his mind. Epistemologically, in order to use his mind man needs freedom of choice. Mind doesn’t work under coercion. Ethically, life is standard of value. Whatever is detrimental for life is bad. Since freedom of action is a necessary requirement for man’s survival, freedom and individual rights are good. Eventually man cannot escape a need for freedom of choice and action. Even in the most oppressive totalitarian slave society there are people who make choice and give orders to others. The only problem is that their choices are not rational and such a society is doomed.

3

Recently I’ve been attempting to define the concept of rights in a way more satisfying than:

“A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.”(Ayn Rand Lexiconhttp://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html)

 

This is what i came up with:

“Those values which, if destroyed would render mans life non-existent, unlivable, or in a style contrary to mans life qua man”

 

Critiques and thoughts?

 

P.S.

Here are some places to start:

  >I think I’m missing some areas of thought about the proper way(s)/time(s) to defend such values.

  >I’m lacking the exact aforementioned values, i know they need to be few and specific, but beyond freedom, life, and self i draw a blank

  >I’m not sure exactly sure how to exclude “printing press rights”(Ayn Rand) from this definition, or if is even possible to do so

There are various rights, can they be subsumed under one unified concept?

4

Here is what I got from a dictionary.  Lots of different meanings.  Please take a look.

 

 

right   [rahyt]  Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb,verb

adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.

in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; theright answer.

correct in judgment, opinion, or action.

fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.

most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.

noun
18.
a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles,etc.: women’s rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.

that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.

a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, orethics.

adverb
38.
in a straight or direct line; straight; directly: right to the bottom; to come right home.

quite or completely; all the way: My hat was knocked right off.

immediately; promptly: right after dinner.

exactly; precisely: right here.

correctly or accurately: to guess right.

verb (used with object)
49.
to put in or restore to an upright position: to right a fallen lamp.

to put in proper order, condition, or relationship: to right a crookedly hung picture.

to bring into conformity with fact; correct: to right one’s point of view.

to do justice to; avenge: to be righted in court.

to redress, as a wrong.

verb (used without object)
54.
to resume an upright or the proper position: After the storm the saplings righted.

Idioms
55.
by rights, in fairness; justly: You should by rights have been asked your opinion on the matter.

in one’s own right, by reason of one’s own ability, ownership, etc.; in or of oneself, asindependent of others: He is a rich man in his own right.

in the right, having the support of reason or law; correct: It pays to be stubborn when one is in theright.

right and left, on every side; in all directions: throwing his clothes right and left; members resigningright and left.

right away / off, without hesitation; immediately: She made a good impression right off.

5

What about Rands definition is not satisfying? Im just curious as to why you would need a better definition.

6

What about Rands definition is not satisfying? Im just curious as to why you would need a better definition.

I merely point out there are other definitions and the word “rights” has multiple meanings.  

 

ruveyn1

7

Sorry, I was addressing Vazenios (the OP).

8

Do you think that rights are created or discovered?

 

This got me to wondering when I heard someone on the radio mention that being armed was already assumed have been a prexisting right, and that the Second Amendment was only created to limit the government.

9

An individual right in a social context presumes that hermits are right-less; that ones right to life isn’t self-evident.  It makes for a curious sort of individual right, as the only individuals who apparently have them are everyone but oneself.   A hermit has the right to self preservation, not because of society, but because he acts accordingly.  Social rights are the regulation of self-evident individual rights, and individual rights are defined by the actions of individuals.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” ~ Preamble, Declaration of Independence

The Preamble identifies 3 rights among an otherwise undefined set of individual rights.  Who defines them?  The individual to whom they are self-evident.

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” ~ 10th Amendment, United States Constitution

The 10th Amendment refers to powers of the people that are independent of the State; these are your individual rights.

 

Individual rights are self-evident and correct and proper to the preservation of ones life.  That which sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context is regulation, and varies from State to State, or from one social context to another.

10

An individual right in a social context presumes that hermits are right-less; that ones right to life isn’t self-evident.  It makes for a curious sort of individual right, as the only individuals who apparently have them are everyone but oneself.   A hermit has the right to self preservation, not because of society, but because he acts accordingly.  Social rights are the regulation of self-evident individual rights, and individual rights are defined by the actions of individuals.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” ~ Preamble, Declaration of Independence

The Preamble identifies 3 rights among an otherwise undefined set of individual rights.  Who defines them?  The individual to whom they are self-evident.

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” ~ 10th Amendment, United States Constitution

The 10th Amendment refers to powers of the people that are independent of the State; these are your individual rights.

 

Individual rights are self-evident and correct and proper to the preservation of ones life.  That which sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context is regulation, and varies from State to State, or from one social context to another.

The strong doctrine of individual rights asserts that there must be certain freedoms of action in order for anyone to exist as a human. Among these,  as Jefferson pointed out, are Life,  Liberty and Property. (P.S.  His original assertion was the RIght of Property but he was persuaded to rewrite that as The Pursuit of Happiness).

 

The notion of rights, in the sense intended above,  implies there is a biological or existential requirement for those rights.  They are not just cooked up out of thin air.

 

ruveyn1

11

The strong doctrine of individual rights asserts that there must be certain freedoms of action in order for anyone to exist as a human. Among these,  as Jefferson pointed out, are Life,  Liberty and Property. (P.S.  His original assertion was the RIght of Property but he was persuaded to rewrite that as The Pursuit of Happiness).

 

The notion of rights, in the sense intended above,  implies there is a biological or existential requirement for those rights.  They are not just cooked up out of thin air.

 

ruveyn1

There’s an interesting difference between a right to property, i.e. objects independent from ones own physical body and therefore subject to dispute by others, and a right to pursue happiness which implies the well being of ones own body.  Locke and Jefferson were primarily interested in justifying the acquisition of property necessary to the preservation of ones life, i.e. food and shelter.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (well being) is a more accurate description of autonomous individual actions (rights) of preservation, as opposed to those actions one must cooperate with others to perform, e.g., acquiring real estate in a manner that others will recognize and respect.

12

double post.

13

There’s an interesting difference between a right to property, i.e. objects independent from ones own physical body and therefore subject to dispute by others, and a right to pursue happiness which implies the well being of ones own body.  Locke and Jefferson were primarily interested in justifying the acquisition of property necessary to the preservation of ones life, i.e. food and shelter.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (well being) is a more accurate description of autonomous individual actions (rights) of preservation, as opposed to those actions one must cooperate with others to perform, e.g., acquiring real estate in a manner that others will recognize and respect.

That’s obviously not true. 

14

What about Rands definition is not satisfying? Im just curious as to why you would need a better definition.

Its not so much that Rand’s definition is unsatisfying, I just wanted to understand the concept of rights in a context different from a social one.

To be more specific i wanted a definition of individual rights which was a positive, rather than a negative. But which did so without specifically enumerating them. However, if rights only apply to the interactions between free individuals then this discussion is superfluous.

15

three rights kinda make a left, for a different context

16

Its not so much that Rand’s definition is unsatisfying, I just wanted to understand the concept of rights in a context different from a social one.

To be more specific i wanted a definition of individual rights which was a positive, rather than a negative. But which did so without specifically enumerating them. However, if rights only apply to the interactions between free individuals then this discussion is superfluous.

If I understand you… you’re looking for a description of the affirmative principle upon which all individual rights rest. That’s a worthy endeavor.

17

Its not so much that Rand’s definition is unsatisfying, I just wanted to understand the concept of rights in a context different from a social one.

To be more specific i wanted a definition of individual rights which was a positive, rather than a negative. But which did so without specifically enumerating them. However, if rights only apply to the interactions between free individuals then this discussion is superfluous.

Rights are moral principles, they are the bridge between ethics and politics. The facts upon which they rest are that humans MUST take action in order to survive and thrive. Those actions, required by man’s life, are his to take by right. No one can rightfully prevent him from taking those actions.

Rights are inalienable, meaning that no one can take them away. So even the people in Iran and North Korea have rights, its just that their illegitimate government is violating them.

Have you read the Lexicon page on “Individual Rights”? Here it is.

18

Rights are moral principles,

Yes… and so are responsibilities. For no one who fails to live a life deserving of rights will ever enjoy them.

 

 

For example:

 

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

 

There is a responsibility to moral actions inherent to the right to property. 

19

Yes… and so are responsibilities. For no one who fails to live a life deserving of rights will ever enjoy them.

 

 

For example:

 

 

 

There is a responsibility to moral actions inherent to the right to property.

This, like pretty much everything you post, is unrelated to the philosophy of Objectivism. You need to at least mention that you’re a Christian fundamentalist, not an Objectivist, before answering questions people rightfully assume will be answered from an Objectivist perspective.

20

This, like pretty much everything you post, is unrelated to the philosophy of Objectivism.

What an odd response… when the quote in my post was Ayn Rand’s words.

 

You need to at least mention that you’re a Christian fundamentalist, not an Objectivist, before answering questions people rightfully assume will be answered from an Objectivist perspective.

You are correct to add that context, Nicky, and I’m glad you posted the reminder so that no one becomes confused. I am not an Objectivist. I only literally applied the writings of Ayn Rand to secure my own financial independence as a Capitalist. Being more of a doer than a thinker, the ideas of Ayn Rand are not an intellectual exercise for me. They are a specific literal plan of action.

 

 As long as intentions remain unrealized by actions, they are irrelevant.