The right to one's life: where does it come from?

Ethics
21

Rights without the existence of another human are like weight in a weightless environment…

…

 

Weight in a weightless environment remains a metaphysical reality.  If your point is to imply a lack of relevance, I disagree; gravity is gravity.

 

… When you speak “consequences to others not yet present” you are specifying a social context.

Added: You must at least imagine the existence of another human being to be able to imagine a reality where rights are meaningful. In other words, you must at least imagine a social context.

 

Yes, and I was leaning on what Locke expressed by arguing that ones claim on property would go unchallenged to the degree that there remained enough to go around.

 

In terms of imagination, it isn’t possible for even a hermit to have no awareness of others, i.e., to believe that others like him don’t exist.  So to say a right to life is delimited to a social context as if it doesn’t exist without someone else is just wrong.  There’s always someone else.

 

We don’t discover this right by discovering others.  We discover this right by determining what is ours to claim given that we know others exist even if they are not immediately present.

22

I’m not sure if we have any disagreement, because I agree with most you say.

Weight in a weightless environment remains a metaphysical reality.  If your point is to imply a lack of relevance, I disagree; gravity is gravity.

If weightless was universal, weight would not be a metaphysical reality. 

23

This thread got a little side-tracked, but your last post does not give people an indication of what needs extra explanation. 

Hmm, I’m not sure I get this. I thought we start with the idea that life is the sandard of value, and that the selfish pursuit of one’s own happiness is the means to the end of furthering one’s life.

 

At the risk of repetition: how will you pursue your happiness if you don’t have rights? To take an extreme case, a slave cannot pursue his happiness freely. So, the political institution of slavery is inconsistent with a moral code that tells everyone to pursue their own individual happiness.

24

Where does the right come from?  The right is defined as conditions of existence required to live according to human nature, so the answer is, under this definition, it comes from reality.  Asking where does it come from suggests a consciousness as a cause and that is an error.  Human right are not sourced in social interaction.

 

Jefferson said they are unalienable and he based that in religious mysticism.  Rand might say they are unalienable based on the Law of Identity.

25

Hmm, I’m not sure I get this. I thought we start with the idea that life is the sandard of value, and that the selfish pursuit of one’s own happiness is the means to the end of furthering one’s life.

Is it?

If we’re talking about “life” in the sense of our continued metabolic activity then, while happiness might slightly improve your odds of survival, it’d be in a very limited way. Your heart doesn’t need happiness or self-fulfillment, in order to beat; it doesn’t even need your higher brain activity. If “life” means a continued heartbeat then braindead people lying in hospitals are succeeding at it.

And yet, what difference would a heartbeat mean to you if your brain was dead anyway?

Is there something else that “life” could mean, then?

“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors… And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.”

-Galt’s Speech

26

Your life is a value to you, just like the money in your wallet. You can lose it if you fail to use your mind properly. It even has an expiration date (whatever that date may be) which means that you can spend it; you can spend it wisely or foolishly and nobody else can spend it for you.

It’s different from any other value, though, because there aren’t any values without it. Without your life there isn’t any good or any bad (as far as you’re concerned); there’s just nothing. So the fact that you can value things at all depends on your life; it’s the ultimate value which makes all the others possible.

You’ve only got one life to live and it’s up to you to really LIVE it.

You don’t have to make that a priority, of course; you’re free to squander your life on whatever aimless whims you please. If you do you’ll be your own victim and your own murderer, when you’re done, and you’ll deserve whatever you suffer for it.

If you choose to accept the responsibility of LIFE to the fullest then the standard which separates right from wrong is very simple:

Whatever you do in order to live a long and prosperous life is good; whatever you do to waste it is evil.

The beauty of it is that, in this equation, “prosperous” means whatever YOU think it should mean, as long as you’re thinking about it logically! Every egoist on Earth will have a slightly different idea of it and only YOU can rationally figure out what it would mean for YOU to prosper!

“Rights” only enter into it when we ask ourselves how we can live long and prosper together, as a civilized society. However, I strongly recommend that you really chew on this idea of morality before you jump into that.

There’s a speech by Yaron Brook about selfishness which is absolutely amazing.

Also, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard The Nights by Aviici, but it’s equally amazing in a musical form.

:thumbsup:

1 Like
27

I just want to point out, in case anyone new to Objectivism is reading this, that the OP Harrison’s post above is probably not intended for people who don’t have some background with the Objectivist arguments for egoism and capitalism. The arguments in the OP Harrison’s post above are all solid if you know what he’s talking about, but there are a lot of suppressed premises.

 

Edit: Oh wait, this is page 2 of the thread! Sorry, I was referring to Harrison’s post.

1 Like
28

HD said:

 

If you choose to accept the responsibility of LIFE to the fullest then the standard which separates right from wrong is very simple:
Whatever you do in order to live a long and prosperous life is good; whatever you do to waste it is evil.
 

 

 

 

A question for everyone:

 

Is there an essentially differentiating characteristic that can be isolated between these two instances of “right”? :

 

Is it right for me to take any form of life to sustain my own? 

 

Do I have a right to sustain my life thorough the exploitation of other living things?

 

Or

 

I did the right thing by hunting when I was alone on the island without food.

 

I had every right to hunt when I had no one to trade with for food.

 

HD said:

 

 

If you choose to accept the responsibility of LIFE to the fullest then the standard which separates right from wrong is very simple:
Whatever you do in order to live a long and prosperous life is good; whatever you do to waste it is evil.

The beauty of it is that, in this equation, “prosperous” means whatever YOU think it should mean, as long as you’re thinking about it logically! Every egoist on Earth will have a slightly different idea of it and only YOU can rationally figure out what it would mean for YOU to prosper!
 

 

Are you trying to point at a difference between survival and flourishing?

29

…

A question for everyone:

 

Is there an essentially differentiating characteristic that can be isolated between these two instances of “right”? :

…

 

The question, “is it right”, asks is it correct and proper to being what you are.

The question, “do I have the right”, asks is it justifiable.

 

It is right for you to take actions necessary for your survival, but not your right to act unilaterally.

30

Are you trying to point at a difference between survival and flourishing?

Yes and no.

I’m assuming the difference between survival and flourishing. In particular I was trying to outline what “flourishing” is, there. There is no one-size-fits-all prescription for it; each of us has to decide what it means to us, but it’s not just whatever we feel like; we have to make that decision in accordance with certain rules (epistemology).

31

I just want to point out, in case anyone new to Objectivism is reading this, that Harrison’s post above is probably not intended for people who don’t have some background with the Objectivist arguments for egoism and capitalism. The arguments in Harrison’s post above are all solid if you know what he’s talking about, but there are a lot of suppressed premises.

I meant for it to be accessible to anybody (particularly those who are new to Objectivism) but certainly not a replacement for that fuller understanding; there are a lot of conclusions that won’t help anybody for long if they don’t understand the reasoning behind them.

It’s like a free sample: available to anybody who wants a taste but not a substitute for a well-balanced meal.

32

Is there an essentially differentiating characteristic that can be isolated between these two instances of “right”? :

Is it right for me to take any form of life to sustain my own?

Do I have a right to sustain my life thorough the exploitation of other living things?

They’re two different ways of looking at the same thing. You have the right to do what’s right.

Since this is a question of “rights” in a social context (which we look at through a sort of reification of those actions which are morally right) the fundamental thing to grasp is the Objectivist ethics. Hence my attempt to boil the moral apects of Galt’s Speech down to a single page; giving only minimal reference to political “rights”.

If you’re pointing out the fact that I’ve completely ignored politics, you’re absolutely right. It was by design.

33

It is right for you to take actions necessary for your survival, but not your right to act unilaterally.

And you assert so - unilaterally?

1 Like
34

And you assert so - unilaterally?

 

Absolutely; absolutely unilaterally :thumbsup:

 

Actually, I like your reduction better…  You have the right to do what’s right…  Brilliant!

 

Comedian Ron White said, “I had the right to remain silent, but I didn’t have the ability.”  I like that too.

1 Like
35

Notice also that Ms. Rand says “freedom of action”, not freedom from the action of others.

…

 

Correct, and I think it points to a distinction between right (moral) behavior and a right (permission) to behave, as in the following:

 

“If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.” ~ ARL, Individual Rights

 

Borrowing from what was offered from another topic asking what the source of a right to life is, Harrison put it about as clearly as possible:  “You have the right to do what’s right.”  A moral right is derived from the law of identity.  A political right is only a permission that recognizes (but doesn’t create) a moral right.  Those who delimit all use of the term right to a social context confine their moral actions to those of a slave.

36

DA:

 

Rights are principles, they are “moral principles” in that they are informed by morality, i.e. based upon morality.

 

Morality is not based upon Rights, it forms a basis for them.

37

Notice also that Ms. Rand says “freedom of action”, not freedom from the action of others.

I asked about the life boat view in Oism because it turns some ideas expressed here on their head. Either one can treat emergencies as amoral, or one can choose to act on the principles that are derived from a context where moral, life sustaining choices are available. If one chooses the latter and chooses to pursue moral principles, the irony is that one will be acting against ones own life.

Example, a sick person is in a post hurricane disaster. They are an insulin dependent diabetic. They have no insulin and there is another person who is insulin dependent nearby and none else wise. You can either take their insulin and live, or choose not to live in a manner less than the rational animal-man qua man… If you choose the latter, to treat this as a moral context, you must choose to jettison life in order not to jettison moral principles.

Incidentally, I often think I would choose the latter, so I am not picking on SL. I don’t think I could sustain an untormented conscience by reminding myself that I had no moral choice but to accept that my life required me to behave like wild animals. But I am not sure.

 

freedom of action - presupposes freedom from interference in performance of action, otherwise the right would simply be “right to action”. 

 

But a right to “action” as such is not something which needs to be considered wrt a volitional being capable of action, he/she can and will act.  However, in the face of interference in a social context, a right to  freedom of action is necessary because of possible interference (force, constraint, the opposite of freedom) caused by the action by others. 

 

(One also should remember that this right stands against others not nature itself)

38

DA:

 

Rights are principles, they are “moral principles” in that they are informed by morality, i.e. based upon morality.

 

Morality is not based upon Rights, it forms a basis for them.

 

I think we are in agreement, however I’d say (and I believe this squares with Objectivism) that rights, as moral principles, are derived from the law of identity, and as such inform politics.  In that sense, the right to life (as a moral principle) is appropriate to raise in a discussion about the morality of suicide.

39

A right to action presupposes an ability to perform that action, as again (from that other topic) quoting Ron White, “I had the right to remain silent… but I didn’t have the ability.”  Humans have the ability to commit suicide, so a social prohibition is morally questionable and a religious prohibition contradicts free will.
 
Nonetheless, the effect of suicide, from the POV of the actor, is to switch from morality to amorality, i.e., the act is moral, but the result is amoral because morality is only relevent to living beings.  That’s troublesome to me because it suggests a kind of contradiction that can’t exist in nature.

40

I think we are in agreement, however I’d say (and I believe this squares with Objectivism) that rights, as moral principles, are derived from the law of identity, and as such inform politics.  In that sense, the right to life (as a moral principle) is appropriate to raise in a discussion about the morality of suicide.

 

I will concede that a moral issue dealing with a social context can tangentially be enriched by a discussion of rights, but the rights are not determinative or foundational or even contributory as regards to a moral conclusion, at best they should be consistent. 

 

What I am saying is, insofar as a right (which you have previously validated as correct) is based upon morality, its expression perhaps which reveals something about that morality upon which it is based - it is that something about morality which becomes useful in the analysis of the specific moral issue (to the extent the right has been correctly formulated). 

 

 

The right to life is, essentially, the ultimate right, and it is informed by the entirety of morality as a whole, which is based on life as the standard - rational self-interest (which itself is based on the identity of man).