I have a friend who wants to know where the basic idea of the right to one’s life comes from. he writes:
"I really don’t want to get involved in this argument, but just had a quick question.
What is the support for the idea, “There is one right, the right to life”?
This is not something that exists in nature, in fact it is almost unnatural in its construct. Animals kill and maim other animals all the time.
Chimps like to rip off each others testicles off and throw the young of opposing troops out of trees so they plummet to their little chimp baby deaths. sad face.
So where does this come from?"
probably a little exaggerated/comedic in an attempt to keep the topic light and not confrontational because the rest of the thread has been a little bit aggressive at times.
After reading your friends question I see that he has already set up a context
for you to simply show him that animals do not have rights. Also, you could explain
to him as to why all the other animals do not have rights where as Man, the rational animal,
does have one fundamental right; the right to his own life.
"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”
(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58."
Your friend writes about a"right to life" as not being natural, but we don’t posses instinct to survive in the wild
as chimps do:
“Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.”
From Galt’s Speech
After reading your friends question I see that he has already set up a context
for you to simply show him that animals do not have rights. Also, you could explain
to him as to why all the other animals do not have rights where as Man, the rational animal,
does have one fundamental right; the right to his own life.
"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”
(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58."
Your friend writes about a"right to life" as not being natural, but we don’t posses instinct to survive in the wild
as chimps do:
“Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.”
From Galt’s Speech
It is not obvious to me that all other animals don’t have rights because it is not obvious to me that all other animals never use reason. I’m not sure if this is a stretch, but aren’t there some sort of chimp/monkey/type of animal that possess some sort of ability to reason (even if it is very minimal)? And even if they didn’t the ability to reason the way we as humans do, it isn’t obvious why we have the right to our own lives where as they do not.
"I really don’t want to get involved in this argument, but just had a quick question.
What is the support for the idea, “There is one right, the right to life”?
This is not something that exists in nature, in fact it is almost unnatural in its construct. Animals kill and maim other animals all the time.
Chimps like to rip off each others testicles off and throw the young of opposing troops out of trees so they plummet to their little chimp baby deaths. sad face.
So where does this come from?"
It requires abstract thought. It is recognition of several truths, but not at all as simple as looking at a banana, seeing it is yellow and concluding it is ripe. It is artificial in the sense that anything man-made whether hand-crafted or abstracted is artificial. It is natural in the sense that man can’t choose to live in any other way than by means of his artifacts.
The support for the idea is based on facts and a method for handling abstractions properly (epistemology), as brianleepainter described.
It is not obvious to me that all other animals don’t have rights because it is not obvious to me that all other animals never use reason. I’m not sure if this is a stretch, but aren’t there some sort of chimp/monkey/type of animal that possess some sort of ability to reason (even if it is very minimal)? And even if they didn’t the ability to reason the way we as humans do, it isn’t obvious why we have the right to our own lives where as they do not.
I don’t know about the chimps, but to Ayn Rand rights were a “means of subordinating society to moral law”. So I think to say one has a “right to life” is really just a positive way of saying “You shouldn’t initiate force against other men.” If you’re not convinced that the initiation of physical force is evil, it’s covered in OPAR and Ayn Rand’s essay on Ethics.
It is not obvious to me that all other animals don’t have rights because it is not obvious to me that all other animals never use reason. I’m not sure if this is a stretch, but aren’t there some sort of chimp/monkey/type of animal that possess some sort of ability to reason (even if it is very minimal)? And even if they didn’t the ability to reason the way we as humans do, it isn’t obvious why we have the right to our own lives where as they do not.
Is it obvious to you that recognizing humans rights is in our own self-interest as individuals? Is it obvious to you that recognizing chimps rights is not in our own self-interest as individuals?
It requires abstract thought. It is recognition of several truths, but not at all as simple as looking at a banana, seeing it is yellow and concluding it is ripe. It is artificial in the sense that anything man-made whether hand-crafted or abstracted is artificial. It is natural in the sense that man can’t choose to live in any other way than by means of his artifacts.
The support for the idea is based on facts and a method for handling abstractions properly (epistemology), as brianleepainter described.
I think I understand.
Essentially, Man (which includes the human race and some other sub-categories of animals) is able to exist/survive only by the use of a rational thought process (rational meaning the faculty of reason). Since man enters the world with no automatic knowledge of what is good/bad/necessary/etc, man must use this rational thought process to provide those things necessary for survival. Since man needs the things he has produced as a result of this rational thought process to survive and exist, man then has a right to his own life?
This feels close but possibly missing a step?
This feels close but possibly missing a step?
Several. Some of the steps cannot be put into deductive form. There are living organisms, but that fact is only known by observation not deduction. Valuing is a description of what living organisms do, but that is only reached by extended observation and some introspection. Analyzing the subject-object relation in valuing leads to egoism. The next step requires an explicitly held epistemology because it requires generalizing from one man to all men, if one man need his values then all men need their own values. Some philosophies claim such generalizing is impossible. Next, go back to the observational level and gather that man’s values are essentially mental, they are identified, produced and traded only after first thinking of them. Bodies can be coerced but thinking cannot, so a coerced body is not producing his own values and cannot be said to be living well or thriving even if breathing continues. Rights identify that principle of non-coercion. What a principle is requires looping back into epistemology. What are principles and how are they justified, can principles conflict? Then you might want to inquire into the distinctions required in thinking about rights ethically from thinking about them in a specific legal context. And so it goes, I’m stopping there.
This is really weird: “Man (which includes the human race and some other sub-categories of animals)”. You might be intending to allow the reasoning behind rights to apply to other beings if we ever meet any that seem reasonable, but the concept of man does not include other species. The concept you may be groping for is the abstraction personhood, but that is a distraction. If you don’t yet know why people have rights (and presuming that if any species has rights at least people do), you are in no position to discriminate which other species might also have rights.
I think I understand.
Essentially, Man (which includes the human race and some other sub-categories of animals) is able to exist/survive only by the use of a rational thought process (rational meaning the faculty of reason). Since man enters the world with no automatic knowledge of what is good/bad/necessary/etc, man must use this rational thought process to provide those things necessary for survival. Since man needs the things he has produced as a result of this rational thought process to survive and exist, man then has a right to his own life?
This feels close but possibly missing a step?
This is how I paraphrased ayn rand to one of my friends when they asked me the same question.
The fundematal choice for all living organisms is existence or non existence, life or death. This does not apply to anything that is not alive because regular matter cannot ever be destroyed it can only change form. Any organisms life depends on two factors, material or fuel which it needs from the outside, and the action of using this fuel properly. The standard for proper in this context is that which is required for the organism’s survival by its nature. So what is man’s nature and how does he survive? Man is a rational animal, he survives by using reason. He surives by using his mind, by thinking. Everything man creates for his survival is the product of his mind. This means that for man’s proper survival he must be able to engage in self sustaining and self-generated action, which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. This is a man’s right to his own life, all other rights are consequences of this right.