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.
Where is the suggestion of a contradiction?
Life is a form of nature which possesses the property of “living”, which form can be modified/changed so that the form of nature no longer possess the property of living. The matter remains and the life goes out of it. Equally a volitional form of nature has the property volition, or the ability to choose, and that form can change blah blah blah. What are you uncomfortable with?
SL, haven’t you been essentially arguing that rights are political principles?
DA: you are confusing morality and politics.
Also politics is derived from ethics, not the converse
As in, politics is based on ethics. Politics is a social context. Rights are freedom from social interference, therefore rights are political.
To be clear, I think its uncontroversial that politics depend on ethics, which depends on epistemology, which depends on metaphysics.
Also that ethics presuppose value, which presupposes life.
That is not being debated.
“You have a right to do what’s right”
But you also have a right to choose many immoral actions! That is what makes this a difficult discussion. Clearly the OP is asking if it is moral to commit suicide even if it may be secured as a right by any given government.
1 Like
SL, haven’t you been essentially arguing that rights are political principles?
As in, politics is based on ethics. Politics is a social context. Rights are freedom from social interference, therefore rights are political.
To be clear, I think its uncontroversial that politics depend on ethics, which depends on epistemology, which depends on metaphysics.
Also that ethics presuppose value, which presupposes life.
That is not being debated.
When you say “political” are you not merely saying “in a social context”?
SL said:
When you say “political” are you not merely saying “in a social context”?
I agree that all political realities are social. That is not the basis of the difference here. Yes, the social presupposes the individual but the question is how to formulate the moral action of individuals within a social context without denying the individual nature of values and moral principles.
If rights are a species of the genus moral principles, then the definition, the genus and differentia, the to’s and from’s of the definition has to reflect that.
Edit: basically I am arguing that what we mean by “rights” in a political context is a narrowing of what is right in an ethical, individual context. It is simply a matter of extending to others what one grants to ones self.
Edit:
Society is nothing but the individuals comprising it.
Rights are nothing but the limiting of the values one is able to pursue in the presence of the values of others??? The presence of other valuing agents limits what is a moral choice for the individual given productive actions having secured certain values already??
Trying to formulate an essential principle…
Some of the recent posts would probably fit better in that earlier thread, where they can be found again later? Thoughts?
SL said:
I agree that all political realities are social. That is not the basis of the difference here. Yes, the social presupposes the individual but the question is how to formulate the moral action of individuals within a social context without denying the individual nature of values and moral principles.
If rights are a species of the genus moral principles, then the definition, the genus and differentia, the to’s and from’s of the definition has to reflect that.
Edit: basically I am arguing that what we mean by “rights” in a political context is a narrowing of what is right in an ethical, individual context. It is simply a matter of extending to others what one grants to ones self.
Edit:
Society is nothing but the individuals comprising it.
Rights are nothing but the limiting of the values one is able to pursue in the presence of the values of others??? The presence of other valuing agents limits what is a moral choice for the individual given productive actions having secured certain values already??
Trying to formulate an essential principle…
Something like that.
There are some questions of morality such as “should I drink x amount of poison” which are simple to answer. The facts of reality which go into the decision of whether one should drink poison are straightforward: what effect does the x amount of poison have on my body, what are the consequences of those effects on my life, long term.
Moral questions in dealing with a social context are complicated because the facts of reality which must be accounted for involve things like what other people think, how they could act. etc.
So “Should I bother to live I a society” although a complicated question, can be answered “if you live in the right society”, but this answer requires the simultaneous formulation of what the right society is. Rights form a big part of what you expect in that society in regard to your action, and likewise in your expectation for the kinds of values and means/actions used to pursue them which are no longer in your self-interest because 1) you could not live in that right society any longer, 2) your beneficial relationships with other men in that right society would suffer 3) your action would contribute to the dismantling of the right society etc.
So instead of “limits” moral choice, I would tweak it to be “defines” moral choice in the context.
Your probably right!.. 
Edit: I meant the above as a response to SoftwareNerd
Some of the recent posts would probably fit better in that earlier thread, where they can be found again later? Thoughts?
We are getting off topic. Sorry. I’ll restrict my responses here to things more connected with the OP.
In some languages, there are two different words for the two different concepts that are both labelled “right” in English.
Understood correctly, and with the elaboration that follows, people have a right to do what is wrong.
They have a right to do anything that is wrong as long as it does not wrong someone else (in other words until it infringes on someone else’s rights).
2 Likes
I think a big difficulty in thinking of rights as Objective is the idea of rights as a “claim” to a “duty” rather than a “claim” in ones one values and one’s self. Rights as claims to “duty”
are so prevalent in main stream society it is hard not to conflate these to some degree. One claims to something or some action “from” others, the other excludes interference by others. One is claiming a positive right TO something, the other merely claims a right FROM something, namely interference.
Essentially rights are not a claim on anything of anyone else, but an affirmation of what is one’s own. Rights to life and property are not a claim on anyone else by the dying or the destitute.
The above conflation is why I prefer to think of rights as principles of fact based in ethics and identity, not claims.
Rights represent and summarize the facts of man and reality which define the kind of action I can morally take, i.e. rationally in my self-interest, given the totality of the context, in regard to a value possessed by another man - and essentially it is do nothing to alienate the man from his values without his permission.
SL said:
I agree that all political realities are social. That is not the basis of the difference here. Yes, the social presupposes the individual but the question is how to formulate the moral action of individuals within a social context without denying the individual nature of values and moral principles.
If rights are a species of the genus moral principles, then the definition, the genus and differentia, the to’s and from’s of the definition has to reflect that.
Edit: basically I am arguing that what we mean by “rights” in a political context is a narrowing of what is right in an ethical, individual context. It is simply a matter of extending to others what one grants to ones self.
Edit:
Society is nothing but the individuals comprising it.
Rights are nothing but the limiting of the values one is able to pursue in the presence of the values of others??? The presence of other valuing agents limits what is a moral choice for the individual given productive actions having secured certain values already??
Trying to formulate an essential principle…
I like this.
The main reason I distinguish Rights (although based on moral principles) from morality itself is because of the language surrounding rights do not easily allow it.
My morality, has a sole beneficiary and it is me. Each of my actions is moral to the extent it serves my interest, long term, rationally … I can identify what I will call my rights in a social context, from morality and that acting in accordance with my rights is acting in accordance with my morality. The problem is the concept of your rights has longer chain to derive in my morality, i.e. as a moral principle which is in my rational self-interest. So I can call these principles, my moral “recognizing your rights” principles… because these principles are moral FOR ME to pursue ( I avoid killing your etc.)
So to say your “Rights” are not just based on morality but ARE morality is somewhat tangles when morality IS each for the self-sovereign.
As a side note: “extending to others what one grants to oneself” that is not a simple matter as it must be analysed… WHY would one want to do it?.
Rights represent and summarize the facts of man and reality which define the kind of action I can morally take,…
The issue with putting it that way is that a person can act immorally and yet be completely within their rights. So, using the term “morally” in the description can lead someone to think you are saying that one does not have the right to perform an immoral action.
The issue with putting it that way is that a person can act immorally and yet be completely within their rights. So, using the term “morally” in the description can lead someone to think you are saying that one does not have the right to perform an immoral action.
But you completely left out the rest of the sentence (which in its entirety is the way I put it)…
The freedom and choice to perform an immoral action in a non-social context has nothing to do with rights. Cognitively speaking I do not know what relevance a right CAN have when it is a non-social context. Like a fact which tells you how some machines work when they are turned on… you can think about them when it is off, and since they are facts of reality they are always true… but when it is off they are inoperative principle… they literally are not applying at the moment.
In the same way a man can formulate what his rights are when alone on a deserted island i.e. formulate from his understanding of man and reality what moral principles would be relevant to a social interaction, but absent the social interaction, the issue is not present.
It is like saying you have the right to think or breathe, or more bluntly like saying you have the right to being left alone… when you am alone… or telling a tree you have the right to your cup of water. These are true only the sense that you mean at that moment IF you were in a social context those principles would come into play.
Plasmatic:
I’m still trying to formulate my gripe surrounding the language, the dialogue, etc. which accompanies discussions of Rights and cause what I can only describe as a thin but repulsive epistemological morass over an otherwise valid concept.
“Rights” discussions even on this website are riddled with an odor of intrinsicism if not mysticism itself. It’s as though Objectivism’s students have succeeded in dispelling Platonic reality, Mysticism, and intrinsicism from their minds in most realms, and while partially succeeding in respect of the concept morality, they have the most difficulty with the subject of Rights. Of course popular culture, religion, and altruism in the west have all but effectively crippled anyone who has been brought up here… and the journey of recovery and discovery is long and arduous… so I understand. I just wish I could identify the problem better so I could provide more direct and persuasive argumentation… to, in my small way, help correct the errors.
I can’t quite put my finger on it. Do you have the sense of what I am getting at?
But you completely left out the rest of the sentence (which in its entirety is the way I put it)…
I did not mean to misrepresent your meaning. I stopped where the parenthetical part began. I agree with you that rights are only conceivable within a social context.
In addition, a good description of rights should make clear that one can act immorally toward others and still be well within one’s “political rights” even if one strays beyond one’s “social rights”.
I did not mean to misrepresent your meaning. I stopped where the parenthetical part began. I agree with you that rights are only conceivable within a social context.
In addition, a good description of rights should make clear that one can act immorally toward others and still be well within one’s “political rights” even if one strays beyond one’s “social rights”.
On the premise that rights are simply the rights of man, how do you differentiate between what you call “political rights” and “social rights”? Are these particular labels for subsets of the rights of man?
Can you think of an example of an act towards another person that would be immoral (i.e. not in the self interest of the actor) which violate some rights of the another person (your so called “social rights”) but not violate other rights of the another person (your so called “political rights”)?
You last post seems foreign and strange to me and I am having difficulty understanding what you mean.
Are these particular labels for subsets of the rights of man?
On the forum, when we speak of rights, we’re usually speaking of a legal context. Not legal in the sense of a particular set of laws, but in the sense of “ought to be legal”. I used the term “political rights” to signify these (i.e. rights which one ought to have and which ought to be enforced by a good legal system).
With this context, I could lie to someone, and it could be immoral to do so, but it may not violate a political right (i.e. a right that ought to be a legitimate legal right).
Thus far, I assume you agree.
I edited my post to distinguish “political” and “social” rights because there’s a second context, not typical on the forum, but quite common otherwise…
Consider when someone says: “he had no right to lie to me”. They often do not mean this in a legal/political way, but more broadly as a social expectation. Given our relationships and understanding with other people, we have certain legitimate expectations of them, even though these are not (and should not be) legally enforceable. These two concepts of “right” are closely related (unlike the concept of right in “right vs. wrong”). Possibly, one is a sub-set of the other.
Call them social “expectations” and not rights and I can see what you are getting at.
I think it is quite clear that one can act in breach of his/her morality without violating the rights of others… dishonesty is a good example as are many other kinds of actions which are ill advised, self-defeating, and piss people off.
SL said:
I’m still trying to formulate my gripe surrounding the language, the dialogue, etc. which accompanies discussions of Rights and cause what I can only describe as a thin but repulsive epistemological morass over an otherwise valid concept.
I think that is partly because Oist literature has some ambiguity on this. I see what we are doing here as trying to untangle and reintegrate some things that are left hanging. You appear to see this as only imprecision-misintegration in the participants here?
I do see the reason why you want to differentiate rights from ethics. I do see the need to conceptualize clearer formulations on this issue as well. I think we both are clearly trying to preserve the primacy of the individual as the beneficiary of ethics and politics.
Another thing to keep in mind is that selfish people are focused on their interest, so they usually are stronger and most integrated in those areas because they have done the most work there. I think this is natural given an anti-duty mindset. I have very little motivation to dig into the finer points of esthetics for this reason. (And I spent much of my young life doing art. Had some work displayed at the local art museum before I got out of High School )