It’s important to note that rights are not axiomatic, but instead are derivative from the requirements of man. Man, to live as a man (rationally), must not live under constant threat of force (which is how animals live). Without rights, man must live as an animal, killing when it benefits the short term. Anarchy is the distinct lack of rights.
Rights, however, ONLY exist as a derivative of the requirements of man’s life, by his nature. I’m going to post a brief summary of the Objectivst Ethics that deals with the nature of man, and the derivation of rights (I had written this up for another forum, in a debate about animal rights, but it rather neatly addresses your issues).
But before I do this, I’ll briefly answer your second thing:
[in response to my statement that it’s right for someone on a deserted island to survive and exploit his resources:]
I don’t think it’s “right”, I’d just say it’s natural, pre-programmed, instinctive, whatever.
What, then, is “right” (in the right/wrong sense)? By my definition, “right” means “moral” which means “live affirming.” If life is the choice, survival by exploiting resources is right - the alternative is death.
So here’s my brief essay. Keep in mind his is my attempt at a brief summary of “The Objectivist Ethics” (I also cut out the bits about animal rights, since that’s irrelevant to the current discussion).
Every creature in existence has a number of automatic and nearly mechanical systems designed for a sole purpose: self-preservation. Pain is an automatic response informing you that something is very wrong. Hunger means you need to eat. Thirst means you need water. Sweating is your body’s self-cooling mechanism because your internal systems require a highly regulated and consistent temperature. Emotion is a life-promoting and self-preserving mechanism as well. An automatic evaluation based on one’s premises, which provide a reasonable heuristic for determining if something is life-affirming, or life-threatening. Fear tends to mean life-threatening, joy tends to me life-affirming. Sadness tends to mean that something life-retarding has happened. The very nature of life is self-reliance and self-preservation by one’s own action.
All objects, including living beings, have an identity � a nature � they are what they are, an attribute of which is that they act the way they must. Plants absorb water from the ground and will stretch to reach sunlight. Animals, however, cannot remain still, passively waiting to be fed. Animals must hunt or gather. An animal that attempts to survive by the same mechanism as a plant will quickly find itself starving. An animal that attempts to survive by the same mechanism as another animal (say, a squirrel trying to hunt like a wolf, or a wolf trying to climb a tree to harvest nuts like a squirrel) will also find itself starving (or killed) rather quickly. Animals must act according their nature or they die. Luckily for them, their systems are nearly completely automatic, and their responses are primarily mechanical � they don’t think about what they do, they just act (instincts).
A human, on the other hand, lacks those unique traits that allow an animal to survive without the capacity to reason. A human who attempts to survive by running down a dear and biting it like a wolf will find itself himself starving (or stabbed in the chest with antlers or hooves). We don’t have powerful jaws and pointy teeth. We don’t have powerful muscles and an extreme sense of hearing, smell, or sight. If we attempt to break open nuts with our teeth, we’re likely to break our teeth, rather than the shell of the nut. A human who attempts to survive as an animal will not live long.
To survive, a human has a single option: use its mind. Develop abstractions and concepts from observation and formulate plans for survival. The simplest form is the development of tools. Tools are created from nature (harvested resources) and then applied to reality to acquire or produce that which is needed for survival. In order for an individual to survive and advance his life, he needs to be able to keep those tools, and keep the products he creates. Creating products only to have them forcibly taken deprives you of your means to life. Having one’s tools taken results in the deprivation of one’s means to life. If you forcibly take someone else’s products, thus depriving that individual of their means to their life, you’ve demonstrated yourself as a threat, and for that individual to survive and flourish, the only defensive or retaliatory action is force. When stolen from, your only options are death, or force (which itself may result in death). Thus it is in your own self interest to respect the products of the other individual � anything else, and force must be applied in one degree or another, deadly force, if necessary.
This is what gives rise to rights. To violate an individual’s sovereignty can only result in the application of force. Thus, rights come into existence. Not as a mystical revelation, nor as a social convention, but as a necessary condition for the life of a rational being in a society (rights on a desert island make no sense). The most fundamental right is the right to one’s life. The main corollary right (which is required to fulfill the fundamental right) is the right to one’s mind � that is, the right to think and judge. However, a mind without a body is useless, which gives rise to the next corollary right: the right to the products of your mind. Your mind controls your body to create a product that will sustain and/or advance your life. Restated, this is the right to property � the right to rationally acquired or produced products (in this context, �rationally� implies �without violating rights�). The body is an extension of the mind. It is the tool by which the mind interacts with reality. To enslave the body is the enslave the mind. To steal the products of the the mind is to steal a part of the mind itself. The alternative of a society of rights is a society of force, at which point rational existence ceases, and man is forced to live as an animal.
So what, then, is the moral? Because life exists with a nature -� that of self-preservation �- morality is merely the decision to live, and it is a choice only capable to man (or other rational being). Animals, incapable of reason, are incapable of contemplating the choice of life or death � their actions are automatic. To hate (one’s) life is to abandon morality. To love life is to embrace morality. From that foundation, morality derives from rational decisions made to enhance and support one’s life. Violating another’s rights (via theft, murder, fraud, etc) is a violation of morality because, in the long run, it is detrimental to one’s life. Deciding to eat poison is a violation of morality because poison is almost certainly a decision to die. Socialism is immoral because it violates an individual’s right to the products of his mind -� it is an explicit promoter of forced sacrifice, and therefore of death. That which advances one’s life is the moral (implied in �“advances”� is �rational�); that which detracts from one’s life is immoral. Restated, morality is absolute adherence to rationality.
In summary, morality is the decision and the actions to promote one’s life. Rights are a requirement of a rational being for survival in society.