Now I obviously as a human begin supports the Right to Life, the originator of all other rights. But the question always bugs me, where does it come from? The Right to Life can be as closely described as the right to be left alone. But then what exactly gives human begin this right? or is it just a human made idea based on equilibriums in society and does not stems from anything metaphysical.
Better yet, is there anyway to actually link the 3 axioms to the Right to Life?
Rights arise as an answer to the question: what’s the ideal way human beings can live together in society?
Now I obviously as a human begin supports the Right to Life, the originator of all other rights. But the question always bugs me, where does it come from? The Right to Life can be as closely described as the right to be left alone. But then what exactly gives human begin this right? or is it just a human made idea based on equilibriums in society and does not stems from anything metaphysical.
It’s not obvious; if you say so and your actions and words match, I’d accept it as a fact, but it’s not obvious. Nor does it follow from the fact of you being a human being. That’s because qua man, you actually can oppose or be indifferent to the right to life. The “Right to Life” can refer to three distinct things: a ban against a woman’s right to herself, a welfare-state entitlement to being provided with sustenance, and the right to exist. Presumably you mean only the latter. That right isn’t “given”, it exists (the “give” view suggests divine intervention or governmental boon). It exists objectively, but also has to be recognised, which leads to the metaphysical / conventional quandry that you’re facing. “The Objectivist Ethics” gives the basic connection between the metaphysical and the man-made, in this area. A really rough sketch is that man (unlike other beings) much choose his actions, according to some fundamental goal (existing), and a recognition of his nature (being a creature of reason). Some choices are proper and some are improper, given the being’s nature – since we are focusing on man, we’re focusing on choices, not metaphysically-given states. This gives rise to the concepts of “right” and “wrong”, as conceptual tools allowing man to exist (since he must choose), and the specific question “What are the right goals for man to pursue?”. The fundamental right, then, derives from the fundamental choice – the choice to exist.
Better yet, is there anyway to actually link the 3 axioms to the Right to Life?
A minor correction. There are four axioms (validity of the senses being the last one) with three corollaries (entity and causality [in that order] stemming from identity, and volition stemming from consciousness).
*** Mods’s note: For further discussion on whether there are more than three axioms, see this topic . - sN ***
Interesting, I had the hunch that it might have nothing to do with Metaphysics and absolutes.
If that’s the case, then it’s true what they say, Rights are not given or granted for, but must be fought and protected. The only reason a person have the Right to Life is because if another individual tries to violate it, that individual faces serious retaliation from the said person. Rights then are a by-product of equilibrium resulted from retaliation forces. The only reason then why someone shouldn’t violate another’s right for his own gain is the would be retaliation.
Following that, if a person does not actively protect his Rights, he then has none.
If that’s the case, then it’s true what they say, Rights are not given or granted for, but must be fought and protected.
Yes, in the sensse that if you do not act to keep that which is of value to you (such as your life, or rights), then you can lose it. If you do not vote against the Nazis, you may end up with a Nazi government.
The only reason a person have the Right to Life is because if another individual tries to violate it, that individual faces serious retaliation from the said person. Rights then are a by-product of equilibrium resulted from retaliation forces.
No, that is quite far off the rails. A person has a right to life, period, and that right is recognised in a civilized society. Of course we do not all live in civilized societies (although w.r.t. this forum, I suspect we do – any memebrs from Somalia or North Korea can speak up if they want). As such, you do in fact relegate your right to the use of retaliatory force to the government, thus the offending individual does not face any threat of retaliation from his victim – the retaliation comes from the police, as recognised and dispensed according to objective law.
The only reason then why someone shouldn’t violate another’s right for his own gain is the would be retaliation.
That’s the Prudent Predator error. I suggest reading The Objectivist Ethics as a starting point for further dscussion, just so we have some common ground.
Following that, if a person does not actively protect his Rights, he then has none.
In fact, that is false: it implies that man cannot live morally. The moral thing to do is live by reason rather than force, yet you are suggesting that a man should renounce reason in favor of force just in case someone else lives in contravention of this fundamental moral principle. Thus a victim of a crime only has himself to blame for being the victim of a crime (because he didn’t protect his rights, which apparently he didn’t have). Man exists by right, and no act of force can contradict that.
No, that is quite far off the rails. A person has a right to life, period, and that right is recognised in a civilized society.
That’s my question from the very beginning, why does man have a Right to Life in the first place? and where does this right come from. Whether a society recognize it or not is irrelevant.
Since it has nothing to do with metaphysical givens, the only answer I can arrive at for now is retaliation equilibrium.
I just tried check out this Prudent Predator error and Objectivist Ethics. Nothing relevant turned up for the first one on Google, and the only thing I can find for the second one is the wiki article.
If you have any specific links in mind, I’d appreciate them greatly.
Is it a natural law? (I hate the term but am unable to come up with another that conveys my point) I am unaware of a single species that routinely kills other members of its own species for any reason. This implies instinctual action for the animal kingdom but what about for humans?
Is it derived from the desire to pass on ones DNA, to propagate the species and ensure its survival?
That’s my question from the very beginning, why does man have a Right to Life in the first place? and where does this right come from. Whether a society recognize it or not is irrelevant.
Your first question seems to be looking for some string of syllogisms or a “derivation” of the right to life. This is not a proper way of looking at this, and a misuse of logic. It is an inductive argument and if you want the proper way to go about it from the axioms, that is the whole of philosophy. Metaphysics -> epistemology -> Ethics -> Politics
Rights are a political concept. That is, they answer the question “How do rational men live together?”. Life, however shows up earlier than that, in ethics, and more specifically as the basis of meta-ethics. That is, the requirements of life as man (qua man), define what is the “good.” This is derived from man’s volitional nature, his requirement to use reason as his means of survival, etc. To that extent, it is a “natural” law as Zip puts it. So now that we have that, the question becomes how does man’s life form the basis of any political system. Since political systems must be congruent with the preceing ethical system, it would stand to reason that “life” is going to appear don’t you think? That is, the concept of rights and more specficially the right to your own life is how one keeps the ethical good preserved in a social setting.
To start studying Objectivist meta-ethics, I’d suggest Tara Smith’s Viable Values. That’ will show you how life, and what kind of life serves as the basis of ethics.
PS: going down the DNA-natural selection-survival track is the wrong approach as well. One woudl expect ethical concepts to be somewhat congruent with natural selection and you might think of them as “memes”, but they do not follow from the principles of survival of the fittest.
I am unaware of a single species that routinely kills other members of its own species for any reason.
Sidelight. I think there are numerous examples of consumption of mates after mating, and of eating ones young as well.
Let’s just say I’d hate to be a male praying mantis.
I don’t even know what the word ‘right’ means in the statement," Man has right to life."
I don’t even know what the word ‘right’ means in the statement," Man has right to life."
Roughly, “right” is the term we use to name the things what we should let others do (and therefore expect them to let us do) – without using force to make them (us) to act differently, under the assumption that we’re all following a common set of rational principles for living together.
I don’t even know what the word ‘right’ means in the statement," Man has right to life."
We can start with the simpler stuff. Do you understand “true” and “false”? The concepts “right” and “wrong” are moral analogs. Does this get you closer to understanding?
Roughly, “right” is the term we use to name the things what we should let others do (and therefore expect them to let us do) – without using force to make them (us) to act differently, under the assumption that we’re all following a common set of rational principles for living together.
This seems to make sense. Thanks.
It’s wanting to live , as human beings have the ability to.
Now I obviously as a human begin supports the Right to Life, the originator of all other rights. But the question always bugs me, where does it come from?
I think it’s based on life as the standard of value, which is the cornerstone of ethics.