I am interested in the evolution of the concept of rights. Does anyone know of a good link or book describing this? I haven’t found anything in the core Objectivist literature. I’m interested in the past, not the current mutilation of the concept. For example, where did Locke get his ideas for a natural basis for individual rights?
Thanks in advance,
Steve
Why not read The Second Treatise on Government? Doesn’t Locke mention where he got the idea (you’re assuming he didn’t originate it)?
And there are two essays in The Virtue of Selfishness: “Man’s Rights”, and “The Nature of Government”.
There’s a small older book called Liberalism by L.T. Hobhouse. (John Ridpath reocommended it when he assigned a paper on classical versus modern liberalism in his class on intellectual history).
Aristotle’s Politics might be worth looking at as a failed attempt. Check out the following disturbing quote from Aristotle:
“It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state; and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them.”
I’m still struggling with the validation of rights myself. Although, Locke is very helpful, I’m not satisfied with him. The locus of focus, I know though, should be: what is the nature of the human mind; why does it have to be left free to function? Why does it HAVE TO!
The founding fathers and Locke looked to an English legal mind named Cooke; I think his name was Sydney. It is interesting that Patrick Henry learned about natural justice on his own. Also Thomas Jefferson’s Notes On Virginia might be of some assistance.
Americo.
Oh, I forgot about Thomas Paine. He wrote The Rights of Man; Common Sense; and The Age Of Reason (on the nature of Deism). He’s certainly worth looking at.
Americo.
Thanks, Americo, for the many leads. That was what I was seeking. I think I may have had my focus a little off initially, thinking I could pursue the intellectual development of the idea of rights from, say, Aristotle on through Rand. But Ayn Rand wrote the following in one of the sources Tom Rexton suggested, “Man’s Rights” in the Virtue of Selfishness:
The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day.
Although I am fully aware that the United States is the first country to have been founded on the philosophical basis of individual rights, it just didn’t hit home to me how recent a development that concept is. It will be interesting to see where our Founding Fathers got their ideas.
I was also not aware Patrick Henry learned about natural justice on his own (I presume you mean a natural basis for individual rights).
Thanks again,
Steve
Sorry if I’m digressing, but tell me if my idea for the basis of individual rights is sound. I will try to make this as short as possilbe, using steps.
Man must think in order to survive.
To not think is evil.
Because:
You cannot act and claim to disregard life.
Because:
Morality pertains to life. And, without life, morality cannot apply.
And:
Without individual rights, one is not able to think freely.
Thus: Forcing someone to not think (forbidding of individual rights) is evil.
Conclusion:
Individual rights is the basis for thinking clearly, and as an obvious consequence, it is moral.
Brian,
I think you are thinking along the correct lines. I got a little confused when you started to include morality. As Ayn Rand identified, the concept of rights bridges morality and politics.
The ultimate choice is to live or not live. To live, at least as man, a human being, is to live according to the use of your mind. That is the very nature of man–we are conceptual beings. It follows, then, that a man must be free, not only to think, but to act according to his thoughts, if he is to live. Morality is “how should one act”. Rights are the conditions that must exist to permit those actions in a political setting. You must have a right to life–to live as you see fit. That encompasses freedom to think and to act to advance your life.
Subsidiary rights follow from the right to life. Because the proper goal of life is happiness, you must have the freedom to pursue your own happiness. Because life requires production, you must have the freedom to acquire and own property.
Conclusion:
Individual rights is the basis for thinking clearly, and as an obvious consequence, it is moral.
Individual rights are not the basis for thinking clearly, but the condition required to permit an individual to think and act according to his thought. Reason would be the basis of clear thought.
Does that help?
Steve
Sorry if I’m digressing, but tell me if my idea for the basis of individual rights is sound. I will try to make this as short as possilbe, using steps.
Man must think in order to survive.
To not think is evil.
Because:
You cannot act and claim to disregard life.
Because:
Morality pertains to life. And, without life, morality cannot apply.
And:
Without individual rights, one is not able to think freely.
Thus: Forcing someone to not think (forbidding of individual rights) is evil.
Conclusion:
Individual rights is the basis for thinking clearly, and as an obvious consequence, it is moral.
That doesnt really work as stated. You’re claiming that forcing man to not think is evil because man needs to think in order to survive. But I could use the same logic to claim that not watering plants is evil because plants need water to survive, or that eating pigs for food is evil because pigs need to ‘not be eaten for food’ in order to survive. You cant simply claim that “X needs Y to survive therefore depriving X of Y is evil” is valid when X is a human but invalid in all other cases, without giving a proper reason why.
Rand’s justification is slightly more complex than what you’ve outlined, since she believed that choosing to respect the rights of others is beneficial to the person who chooses to do so - in other words “virtue is its own reward”. I dont think there’s any way to establish the objectivist ethics without appealing to this premises.
Spearmint,
Thanks for this, "Rand’s justification is slightly more complex than what you’ve outlined, since she believed that choosing to respect the rights of others is beneficial to the person who chooses to do so - in other words “virtue is its own reward”. I dont think there’s any way to establish the objectivist ethics without appealing to this premises.”
For some reason reading this has made the issue that much more clearer than it used to be.
Americo.
Rand’s justification is slightly more complex than what you’ve outlined, since she believed that choosing to respect the rights of others is beneficial to the person who chooses to do so - in other words “virtue is its own reward”. I dont think there’s any way to establish the objectivist ethics without appealing to this premises.
This doesn’t sound right to me. Could you please provide references to where she argues that this is the moral basis for individual rights? After all, if that were the argument, it would be circular and leave open the question of what rights we possess and why. It sounds vaguely more like The Golden Rule than the Objectivist reduction of the concept of “rights” with which I’m familiar.
Two things: that derivation of rights seems like a deductive attempt to derive rights from some antecedent principles. AR said she couldn’t have formed her ideas before the Industrial Revolution, which seems to indicate that her approach was mostly inductive.
Also, Aristotle’s approach to Ethics/Politics was wholly different from any modern approach. He had a completely different understanding of what these two concepts refer to. In fact, from my reading, just about all ancients had a completely different approach to ethics and politics from the modern approach of reality -> ethics -> politics. Their scheme was reality -> politics -> ethics. This isn’t the thread for this, probably, so I won’t get into it more. But regardless of Aristotle’s approach (which is not necessarily wrong), the result he arrived at was man’s happiness as the goal, its aims derived from human nature, so it’s easy how he was AR’s teacher.
Forgive me for repeating this post I have made in another section of the forum, but I believe it is relevant.
Throughout his discourses Plato often makes an analogy between the state and the human body/mind. He maintains that the body is a hierarchy of systems controlled by the mind/brain/head and that society itself is a system of hierarchies and his philosophy concerns a search for the best system of government possible.
Western Philosophy has never left this most central of points.
That the mind and body are intergrated and the success of each is woven into the other is dealt with primarily by certain eastern philosophies.
At the center of reason must lie the will to live. Its the basic axiom for life; survival.
However with advanced mind capable of abstraction the majority of humans appear to have placed such illogical abstractions as pleasure at the heart of their philosophy. In such cases the body becomes subservient to the ego.
Contrasting the hierarchal dichotomizing of ourselves to that of society, or of any group unit, whether it be corporation/employees or government/subjects is it not any surprise that things appear to be heading in a negative direction?
In the case of the corporation would it not be more logical to take into account the needs, and potentials of your employees. Would that not produce a more sustainable business? And would the means of business not be better targeted selling products that do not degrade their consumers?
In the case of the government would it not be more logical to take into account the individuality of its subjects? Would it not be more prudent to focus its resources upon education rather than rule making or state policing?
In the case of ourselves would it not be more logical to take into account that pleasure is a product of habit, and that satisfaction can potentially gotten from any number of things? Would it not be more rational to live a life that derives fulfilment from acts that prolong and enhance that life?
on a separate point as regards americonorman’s point:
The locus of focus, I know though, should be: what is the nature of the human mind; why does it have to be left free to function? Why does it HAVE TO!
Good point. That really is the crux, indeed as a prospective neuroscientist it shall be interesting to attempt to answer this question on many levels both physiological, psychological and philosophical. Literally HOW does this system function and WHY?
Charles:
I will think about your question over the next week but first tell me what you mean by “system”–Can you tell me?
Americo.
“In the case of the corporation would it not be more logical to take into account the needs, and potentials of your employees. Would that not produce a more sustainable business? And would the means of business not be better targeted selling products that do not degrade their consumers?”
Charles, you said this. So who are the “employees”? In Ontario, we are prhibited to discriminate. If you are Torquemada shouldn’t I kick you out?
Jose.
P.S. Bob Rae and Trudeau are bastards! Shouldn’t I kick them out.!
Americo.
All of the following are dictionary definitions of the word system.
A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
A functionally related group of elements, especially:
The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit.
An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions.
A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous system; the skeletal system.
A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components.
A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution.
A network of related computer software, hardware, and data transmission devices.
An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
A social, economic, or political organizational form.
A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See Synonyms at method.
The prevailing social order; the establishment. Used with the: You can’t beat the system.
A system can coordinate a number of other systems as means to a specific ends, much like the layers of programming in a computer, or the layers of institutions that form government. A system with an ends’ effectiveness is judged by this end.
Some systems bring order to chaos, other bring a higher order to a lower order. As you highlighted in your earlier post - the human mind seems to need some degree of chaos at some level, emotions. Though you can take control of that by directing them through habit you can never get rid of them, who would want to? they are like engine fuel, they are our drive, just use reason to determine whats driven.
"So who are the “employees”? In Ontario, we are prhibited to discriminate. If you are Torquemada shouldn’t I kick you out?
Jose.
P.S. Bob Rae and Trudeau are bastards! Shouldn’t I kick them out.!"
I dont know who these peoples are or torquemada is an expression.
However I get the gist of your question; and yes with employment come both rights and RESPONSIBILITY, both delegated to you by your employer. If an individual is failing to do his job, acting irresponsibly or otherwise being inefficient with resources you can fire him. The difference between the state and a business is that if someone starts to ‘leech’ of the company, he has no claim on its responsibility to look after him - that isnt an absolute right of the employee, it is an arbitrary one secured by the contract that employs him; if he violates it, then he goes.
Government, by its own acclaimed principles cannot do this. Objectivist’s want to see this government stance changed so that the type of laws that prevent your freedom to employ/unemploy and limit your freedom are repealed.
My last post was in the spirit of a rant. I am not a racist nor am I a bigot but I believe in a person’s right to be a racist or to be a dumbass. I believe that a person can be whatever he wants and say whatever he wants and prohibit whoever he wants on his property.
In my last post I was specifically referring to the Ontario Human Rights Code and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But my main beef is with the former because it governs employment here in my Canadian province. Below you will find some excerpts from the law.
It lists several categories according to which a business owner cannot refer to when deciding to hire an employee or fire him/her.
The biggest one is “creed”. Creed includes a person’s philosophy. A rational business should have an explicit philosophy that guides the organization operations. Surely, the is a “creed” that is the basis for successful business and business practices. If a employee prospect is blatantly antagonistic to this “creed” then an employee should have a right not to hire him for that reason. But in Ontario there are even certain questions that an interviewer cannot ask.
One would assume that a Kantian who attempts to live by that code is insane but I cannot say that I won’t hire him because he’s a Kantian and insane.
And what if you want only psychologically healthy people in your organization? What if, HYPOTHETICALLY, science proves that a homosexual is mentally disfuntional? How could I hire him/her.
And what if my business is on the top floor of an old loft building with no elevators—how can I hire a person in a wheelchair?
Surely racism and bigotry should be stopped in this society. But it should be done on the free market out of self-interest, not by force.
How is Objectivism going to infiltrate the business world if we have to hire Keating-like men or J.Taggart-like men? It seems sad that we have to do it through the back door.
I went to use the restroom once after an interview and over the stall was a notice: We abide by the Ontario Human Rights code.
This was my gist of my last post.
By the way Torquemada is a fictional hero of Hugo’s play Torquemada. However, it is based on the famous Grand Inquisitor of Spain. In the story he is condemned to a sepulcher by his fellow cloister-men because he is too extreme in his Christianity. He is saved and thus begins the story.
Pierre Trudeau was our Czar for twenty years who ruined the country. He was best-friends with Castro. And in 1982, he added to our Constitution the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Bob Rae was our socialist premier in the early 90’s. When I was starting highschool, he brought in an education policy where students could not go to the best school but only to the school closest to his home, even though he had the grades to go to the better school. And the better schools had to accept students who didn’t have the grades but lived within the radius. In grade 9, there was no distinction between advanced or basic students. Ironically, I’m not so angry because in highschool I met my great love.
Anyways, these three men I wouldn’t hire.
What follows is excerpts:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations; ….
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
Services
Accommodation
Contracts
Employment
Vocational associations
Questions at interview
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes the asking of questions at a personal employment interview concerning a prohibited ground of discrimination where discrimination on such ground is permitted under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 23 (3).
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/code/index.shtml
Americo.