Well, if you mean that there’s no evidence of intrinsic rights in the sense that there is some ultimate metaphyscial source of man’s rights which exists without necessity of validation, then that’s correct. None of man’s conceptual knowledge is gained in this way. We must observe reality in order to learn the truth, it is not handed to us from above, nor can it be mystically intuited.
But isn’t that the semantics attached to our usage of the term of “right”: “some ultimate metaphysical source of man’s rights which exists without necessity of validation”, isn’t that the “truth” we are actually trying and hoping to find out in the end, but which we will at best be bound to believe in, but never will know for sure.
However, just because there isn’t a magical book containing man’s rights somewhere, that doesn’t mean that man’s rights are subjective-- just being whatever people decide that they are on a whim. People’s rights are what they are to serve a crucial purpose-- to delineate how men are to interact in a society so that society is to be a benefit to each of its members, that is, if it is to be a moral society. In order to do this, we must use reason to discover the nature of man (which is objective) and determine what these moral principles are.
At its root, your question may be epistemological.
Well, “discovering the nature of man”, doesn’t that just simply mean “observing man’s actions in order to find out his intentions so we can apply some reasonable automatic control to enable man to achieve his most obvious objectives”? And how are these human actions being motivated in the first place? Aren’t human actions initially based “on a whim”? I mean, what else should they be based on in the first place? And if so, what’s wrong about saying that rights are rules created to enable everyone to act on his own whim, whim being the cause and the point of declaring rights?
No, there is no question of rights without man and a society in which he lives. These preconditions don’t mean that it is an arbitrary rule created by men on whim. That would be similar to saying that, if there were no coconuts, no one would need to learn how to harvest them.
Now whats wrong about that coconut simile?
Men do not create rights from whole cloth, they discover them by understanding their own nature and how they function in society.
…they “discover them” meaning nothing but “they find their usefulness in society”, isnt’ it?
I was just asking where we rationally derive rights from …
Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant how do we explain to people who do not want to give us the right to life.
I see that you are actually asking a deeper question. You are asking if rights are axiomatic (i.e. “obvious”) or if they can be derived from other ideas and concepts. Correct?
Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant how do we explain to people who do not want to give us the right to life.
I see that you are actually asking a deeper question. You are asking if rights are axiomatic (i.e. “obvious”) or if they can be derived from other ideas and concepts. Correct?
What rational reasoning could I use to justify the existence of such a thing as a “right” in the first place. It is obvious, that a will to life exists in every man’s brain. Therefore it makes sense for everyone to create a rule named “right to life”, so everyone can be sure of being able to live one’s life. The creation of this rule “right to life” is of everyone’s interest. It is a conventional decision.
But that doesn’t explain the “right to life” as something absolute, something somehow given from above.
Rights dont exist independently of humans, nor are they given from up high - they are entirely a product of human invention and would not exist without us. But this doesnt mean that they are subjective or not based on actual facts. The equator is, in a way, a ‘human creation’ and doesnt exist outside us (there isnt really a line running around the earth) and the same applies to numbers and money. But in another sense these concepts are objective in that they are based on aspects of reality which exist whether we recognise them or not. The grounding for rights is that they constitute the bare essentials required for humans to live. Regardless of whether you believe there is a right to life and liberty, it remains a brute fact that these things are essential for human survival, hence the decision to explictly codify them in a set of rights.
But isn’t that the semantics attached to our usage of the term of “right”: “some ultimate metaphysical source of man’s rights which exists without necessity of validation”, isn’t that the “truth” we are actually trying and hoping to find out in the end, but which we will at best be bound to believe in, but never will know for sure.
In short, no. Ask yourself the same question about the Laws of Physics: is there a preexisting source which contains every Law of Physics that reveals these Laws to humans? If not, does that mean that the Laws of Physics are arbitrary conventions agreed upon by humans? I claim that rights have the same epistemological status as the Laws of Physics.
Well, “discovering the nature of man”, doesn’t that just simply mean “observing man’s actions in order to find out his intentions so we can apply some reasonable automatic control to enable man to achieve his most obvious objectives”? And how are these human actions being motivated in the first place? Aren’t human actions initially based “on a whim”? I mean, what else should they be based on in the first place? And if so, what’s wrong about saying that rights are rules created to enable everyone to act on his own whim, whim being the cause and the point of declaring rights?
No, what one needs to discover about man is how he survives when on his own. Then, you design your rights so he can still do that in the context of a society. Since man has no automatic knowledge about the world, he has to use his mind and effort to use things in the world to suit his purposes. This includes being able to think and act freely, without his actions being forced to work against him. Because of this, one must preserve this freedom of thought and action in the context of a society of the society is to be a moral one. This fredom of thought and action is called a right.
Rights dont exist independently of humans, nor are they given from up high - they are entirely a product of human invention and would not exist without us. But this doesnt mean that they are subjective or not based on actual facts. The equator is in a sense a ‘human creation’ (there isnt really a line running around the earth) as are numbers and money, but all of these things are based on aspects of reality. The grounding for rights is that they constitute the bare essentials needed for humans to live. Regardless of whether you believe there is a ‘right to life and liberty’, it remains a brute fact that these things are essential to human survival, thus the decision to explictly codify them in a set of rights.
…which brings us back to the principle of usefulness. If “right” is used as a synonyme for a tool that is neccessary for human survival etc., it is clear that they would not exist without us.
But unfortunately, this term (“right”) for many has some different semantics attached to it by definition: Many would define a right as something given from up high, an idea. That’s why this expression is quite problematic.
So if the the term “right” doesn’t contain the idea of “god-givenness” already by official definition, it is clear how they are based on actual facts.
But unfortunately, this term (“right”) for many has some different semantics attached to it by definition: Many would define a right as something given from up high, an idea.
Well yes, but not in Objectivist circles. If youre intersted in Ayn Rand’s views then the book “Virtue of Selfishness” would be the best place to look, mainly the short essays “The Objectivist Ethics” and “Man’s Rights”.
You are asking if rights are axiomatic (i.e. “obvious”) or if they can be derived from other ideas and concepts. Correct?
Yeah, that’s my question
Are you also implying that you know that you require people to respect your rights if you are to be happy, but you cannot understand why they should do so. You understand your need for rights but you question your need to respect the rights of others?
Just trying to clarify your focus so I or others can point you in the right direction.
Rights are part of the Objectivist Ethics, which is based on Epistemology, which is itself based on Metaphysics and the Three Axioms. So THERE’S where rights come from and their basis.
Rights are not “self-evident” . . . this is the reason they are collapsing in practice.
Are you also implying that you know that you require people to respect your rights if you are to be happy, but you cannot understand why they should do so. You understand your need for rights but you question your need to respect the rights of others?
Just trying to clarify your focus so I or others can point you in the right direction.
I’m implying that the respect for the rights of others must be mutual, otherwise there’d be no point of laying down any right at all.
But I’m not sure whether this answers your question.
And in case there are such things as “rights prior to human existence”, “god-given rights” equally given to everyone, it must be mutual as well.
Rights are part of the Objectivist Ethics, which is based on Epistemology, which is itself based on Metaphysics and the Three Axioms. So THERE’S where rights come from and their basis.
Rights are not “self-evident” . . . this is the reason they are collapsing in practice.
And in case there are such things as “rights prior to human existence”, “god-given rights” equally given to everyone, it must be mutual as well.
Rights are definitely not god-given, nor are they “prior to human existence”.
Put simply, they’re a concept that names an essential element that is required to transition from individual morality to life in society. They are the bridge from Ethics to Politics.
you ask about the justification of rights, specifically the right to life. I take it that you are not acquainted with Ayn Rands philosophical system (you read on Capmag we were for rights…).
Ayn Rand did not originate the idea of individual rights (of which the right to life is the fundamental right). That was done by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Locke had both a dogmatic religious view on rights (ref. his “workmanship”-argument in the 2nd Tr.) and a secular reasonable justification, but it was the religious justification of rights that historically survived. Now, Locke influenced the Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson), as you perhaps know. Especially ominous was the notion manifested that “we take these rights to be self evident” and given to us by a God. Now, today Locke has been discarded by many scholars as in fact being against individual rights, but a reading first-hand of the 2nd Tr. will tell you that this is a false view. Also, the religious component in Locke - overemphasized in his interpreters I think - lead to the disrepute of individual rights, because they saw his theory as tainted (which it was) with religious unscientific rationalizations. Your notion that individual rights are not grounded in anything but a root choice, ungrounded in reason, is the watered-out argument of those who historically opposed individual rights in their fight for collectivism (a motive I do not think you have).
Now, what Ayn Rand does is to provide a whole rational secular philosophic system that supports individual rights without the flaws this theory historically suffered from. You see, from history we can draw the conclusion that a political theory needs such a justification if it shall survive the test of time and the attacks from its intellectual enemies. Ayn Rand brilliantly defends these rights I think, and she ads new insights specifically of what in fact rights are. Just to mention one unique contribution to the defense of rights contributed by Ayn Rand. Locke speaks throughout his 2nd Treatise of how destructive force is, but to my knowledge Ayn Rand is the only one who identifies and emphasizes that the initiation of force, or threat thereof, is the only means by which rights can be violated.
But to really appreciate Ayn Rands defense of individual rights you have to look to the philosophic theory on which it rests. It rest on an ethic of rational self-interest, of an identification of man as a volitional rational animal with reason as his only means of knowledge and survival. In short, all your questions on what does rights depend on (or how can man live a rational life in society) rest on the other more fundamental (ethics, epistemology, metaphysics/ontology) branches of philosophy.
And by the way, the notion that rights are axioms chosen by whim is the libertarian view of rights, which leaves rights totally undefended and floating in the air without any justification at all. We are not libertarians and libertarians have nothing to do with Ayn Rands philosophy. She herself did everything in her power to distance herself from these subjectivist whim-whorshipping (her own words) “hippies of the right”.
Judging from all the replies to my postings, I think things have become much clearer to me now concerning the objectivist views. I understand that objectivism isn’t about finding absolute values at all (which is the task of religion), but about finding objective values, which can only be found by an individual and for that individual himself.
And by the way, the notion that rights are axioms chosen by whim is the libertarian view of rights, which leaves rights totally undefended and floating in the air without any justification at all. We are not libertarians and libertarians have nothing to do with Ayn Rands philosophy. She herself did everything in her power to distance herself from these subjectivist whim-whorshipping (her own words) “hippies of the right”.
I find it hard to distinguish between libertarians and objectivists, since the definitions I found pretty much correspond to descriptions of objectivists.
When I associated rights with axioms chosen by whim, what I had in mind was practical life as we observe it today: Social economies as in most parts of Europe must be based on the whim, that is, the desire for social security of those human beings who decided on a “social hammock”. I wasn’t saying what rights should be, but what they tend to be in practice.
But where exactly do libertarians claim that rights are “floating in the air”. As far as I understand, libertarians have a view that is pretty much as laissez-faire as the objectivists’. Or do you actually mean “liberals” in the sense as you use it over there. I find this whole liberal-libertarian hodgepodge confusing, because in Europe “liberal” doesn’t refer to welfare state and socialsm at all. It’s the opposite (Just in case you understand some German, go to The FDP’s Homepage to see what I mean).
But where exactly do libertarians claim that rights are “floating in the air”. As far as I understand, libertarians have a view that is pretty much as laissez-faire as the objectivists’. Or do you actually mean “liberals” in the sense as you use it over there. I find this whole liberal-libertarian hodgepodge confusing, because in Europe “liberal” doesn’t refer to welfare state and socialsm at all. It’s the opposite (Just in case you understand some German, go to The FDP’s Homepage to see what I mean).
Greets
Bobby66
Libertarians won’t claim that rights are floating in the air-but they also do not have a philosophical structure with which to ground them. Objectivism is a complete system and structure which clearly defines the epistemology used to determine rights, and much more.
Libertarians share many similarities with Liberals, and with Conservatives, (and as you noticed-with Objectivism) they are a hodgepodge of many ideas. Sort of a hand plucking of various aspects of other political groups with no foundation on which they are to stand (except the umbrella term *liberty*). That is why we would say that to them rights are *floating in air* up with their other abstractions.
Libertarians won’t claim that rights are floating in the air-but they also do not have a philosophical structure with which to ground them. Objectivism is a complete system and structure which clearly defines the epistemology used to determine rights, and much more.
Libertarians share many similarities with Liberals, and with Conservatives, (and as you noticed-with Objectivism) they are a hodgepodge of many ideas. Sort of a hand plucking of various aspects of other political groups with no foundation on which they are to stand (except the umbrella term *liberty*). That is why we would say that to them rights are *floating in air* up with their other abstractions.
But don’t they mean just the same thing (*liberty*, that is the right to individual life) ?
Can you give me an example for why they don’t have a system?
I find it hard to distinguish between libertarians and objectivists, since the definitions I found pretty much correspond to descriptions of objectivists.
Yes, they’re the wolves in sheep’s clothings. (Well, sheep is not the animal one would typically associate with Objectivists, but you get the idea.)
The essential difference is that while Objectivism is based on the Primacy of Existence, Libertarianism is based on the Primacy of Liberty. Objectivism advocates that you choose to be bound by the laws of reality–in every area of life, from gaining knowledge to formulating moral principles to judging works of art, from your most private matters to your business relationships to politics–while Libertarians base their phjlosophy on their desire to be free from constraints, BOTH from constraints imposed by other men AND from the immutable laws of reality.
So, while there is an overlap in the area of politics, where both Objectivists and Libertarians are against the initiation of force, the two philosophies are diametrical opposites at their roots, where Objectivism tells you to obey Nature so you can command her, while Libertarianism rebels against reality in a helpless and pointless rage.
An Objectivist has only one master: Reality. A Libertarian recognizes no master. Which means that both refuse to recognize other men as their masters–hence the superficial similarity in politics–but are fundamentally different in their approach to everything else. An Objectivist is earnest, principled, confident, ambitious, enthusiastic; a Libertarian is cynical, frivolous, resigned, embittered, and defeatistic.
(And if you look closer at the politics, you’ll find that the similarities extend no farther than the surface: Objectivists support a government that uncompromisingly defends the rights of individuals, while Libertarians hate the government even_–or_ especially–) when it defends the rights of individuals.
But libertarianism isn’t a philosophy, is it? It’s jst a political attitude. So in the field of politics, libertarians draw the same conclusions as objectivists because the libertarian principle (liberty) implies everything an objectivist can expect from a government, though libertarianism may have no philosophical basis, so it differs in private issues, right?
(Well, sheep is not the animal one would typically associate with Objectivists, but you get the idea.)