Why Rand has no theory of Rights


sjw

Recommended Posts

Xray, oughts come from someplace.

Brant,

Of course oughts come from someplace. No one would deny this.

Where?

From human individuals offering their personal opinion on what should be done.

We get oughts from ises all the time and you're no different in spite of your sophistical "wrong inference."

That oughts are inferred from ises all the time is not the issue.

The issue is about the clear separation between a descriptive statement (about what is) and a normative statement (about what ought to be).

IF normative statements are derived from descriptive statements, you will always find a normative "ought to" already contained in the premise providing the foundation for the derivation.

Example:

Deriving from the descriptive statement that tigers are dying out in nature, the normative statement that tigers "ought to" be saved already contains an 'ought to' premise, namely that "(certain) species which are dying out ought to be saved".

So we get

Premise 1: Species which are dying out ought to be saved

Premise 2: Tigers are dying out

Conclusion: Tigers ought be saved.

Without the normative "ought to" already contained in the first premise, there is no "ought" from "is".

You can test it with any examples you can think of you, you will invariably get the same result.

Your position is there are no objective oughts from objective ises.

Correct.

I don't concede there are no objective oughts at all.

Can you think of any "ought" from "is" which does not contain a value judgement in the premise already?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Xray, oughts come from someplace.

Brant,

Of course oughts come from someplace. No one would deny this.

Where?

From human individuals offering their personal opinion on what should be done.

We get oughts from ises all the time and you're no different in spite of your sophistical "wrong inference."

That oughts are inferred from ises all the time is not the issue.

The issue is about the clear separation between a descriptive statement (about what is) and a normative statement (about what ought to be).

IF normative statements are derived from descriptive statements, you will always find a normative "ought to" already contained in the premise providing the foundation for the derivation.

Example:

Deriving from the descriptive statement that tigers are dying out in nature, the normative statement that tigers "ought to" be saved already contains an 'ought to' premise, namely that "(certain) species which are dying out ought to be saved".

So we get

Premise 1: Species which are dying out ought to be saved

Premise 2: Tigers are dying out

Conclusion: Tigers ought be saved.

Without the normative "ought to" already contained in the first premise, there is no "ought" from "is".

You can test it with any examples you can think of you, you will invariably get the same result.

Your position is there are no objective oughts from objective ises.

Correct.

I don't concede there are no objective oughts at all.

Can you think of any "ought" from "is" which does not contain a value judgement in the premise already?

Value judgments don't have to be subjective--that is, arbitrary, if they have, for starters, objective referents. In the human case, never mind tigers, we try to objectify morality, which is difficult, and Ayn Rand falls short for lack of enough data. The analogy is the scientist trying to objectify a theory by objective referents only to be confounded, over time, by contrary data. It behooves the scientist therefore to be modest and continually inquisitive, but Rand preferred polemics; understandably, considering her time and place. You yourself are as absolutist as Rand using the power of deductive reasoning which manages to cleave off a whole chunk of human inductive being excluding everyone else, really, from her philosophy--a philosophy which should be open, not closed. All subjectivity exists in an objective sea, btw, and is subordinate to it. In this sense all moral subjective value judgments are objective but most are incorrect in that they contradict human universality reified from the concept "man."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand having no theory of Rights is quite simply false. Any Rand simply takes the rational position of A is A, or in other words as related to this subject Ayn Rand takes the position that Individual Rights are an irreducible primary. Not only is it an irreducible primary but it is also A Priori. There are only two options when it comes to Rights, either A man is his own property or he is the property of the state. I would ask if he is property of the state how one came to that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand having no theory of Rights is quite simply false. Any Rand simply takes the rational position of A is A, or in other words as related to this subject Ayn Rand takes the position that Individual Rights are an irreducible primary. Not only is it an irreducible primary but it is also A Priori. There are only two options when it comes to Rights, either A man is his own property or he is the property of the state. I would ask if he is property of the state how one came to that conclusion.

If you think she has a theory, explain her view of consent and how it applies to her view of government. E.g., show how George is just all wet in writing this excellent essay:

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This is an issue that fascinates me and these articles are an excellent start...

TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Is Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights Properly Classified as a “Natural Rights” Theory?

Posted by TOS Admin at 4:20 pm

2011-fall-lg-210x300.jpgThis letter and reply are from the Spring 2012 issue of TOS.

To the Editor:

I must take issue with part of Craig Biddle’s article “Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights” [TOS, Fall 2011]. Mr. Biddle is right to distinguish Rand’s view of rights from both the religious notion that we are endowed with rights by God and the positivist argument that rights are government-created permissions. But his attempt to distinguish Rand’s view from natural rights theories is unconvincing. He characterizes this third category of rights theory as the view “that rights come from a law of nature created by God,” and he notes that this amounts to the first category—the religious argument.

But as Mr. Biddle’s article makes clear, Rand does believe that rights come from a law of nature—just not one rooted in religious faith. He acknowledges that she invokes a “moral law . . . [that is] the principle of egoism,” and he analogizes this moral law to the principles of the hard sciences: “Just as the abstract nature of the principles of physics and biology does not change the fact that those principles are true, so, too, the abstract nature of the principles of morality does not change the fact that these principles are true.” But the principles of physics or biology refer to natural phenomena, and surely Mr. Biddle would not hesitate to refer to them as “laws of nature.”

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/is-ayn-rands-theory-of-rights-properly-classified-as-a-natural-rights-theory/

The Moral Foundation of a Free Society

Craig Biddle

Share

PDF Available: To purchase a PDF of this article, click here.

Free Audio Available: To download an MP3 of this article, click here.

shaw-ayn-rand-front.jpgPhoto: Gary L. Friedman; Copyright © Sandra J. Shaw Studio 2011.

What are rights? Where do they come from? One’s answers to these questions determine whether one is capable of defending a free society. If one does not know the nature and source of rights, one cannot know whether rights are real or imagined. And if rights are not real, there is no foundation for freedom; governments and societies may do as they please.

The traditional answers to the above questions fall into three categories: (1) Rights are moral laws specifying what a person should be free to do, and they come from God. (2) Rights are political laws specifying what a person is free to do, and they are created by governments. (3) Rights are moral laws specifying what a person should be free to do, and they are inherent in man’s nature. But each of these theories is demonstrably false, and a person or society attempting to defend freedom on such grounds will ultimately fail—as Americans are failing today.

Ayn Rand’s answers to the above questions, however, are demonstrably true—and those who come to understand her answers thereby equip themselves to defend freedom on solid, philosophic ground.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand having no theory of Rights is quite simply false. Any Rand simply takes the rational position of A is A, or in other words as related to this subject Ayn Rand takes the position that Individual Rights are an irreducible primary. Not only is it an irreducible primary but it is also A Priori. There are only two options when it comes to Rights, either A man is his own property or he is the property of the state. I would ask if he is property of the state how one came to that conclusion.

If you think she has a theory, explain her view of consent and how it applies to her view of government. E.g., show how George is just all wet in writing this excellent essay:

http://heim.ifi.uio....-anarchism.html

From Ghs's article:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.

No information is given either how those who don't consent to a minarchist government would be dealt with.

Ghs:I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice.

What about those who have not been persuaded and therefore would not voluntarily agree to rational anarchism?

As Ghs has pointed out on another thread,

http://www.objectivi...ic=11624&st=140

Ghs:

"The problem of consent is one of the most fundamental and widely discussed topics in modern political philosophy"

So whenever the political issue is about deciding on something (e. g. on a specific form of government, or on how an anarchist society is to be organized), consent (or lack thereof) is an issue.

So if unanimous consent is not reached (a realistic assumption), what does one do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if unanimous consent is not reached (a realistic assumption), what does one do?

When in doubt, always invade Poland!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Biddle's presentation of the natural rights tradition is skewed and highly misleading. This is yet another O'ist effort to make Rand seem more original than she actually was by misrepresenting the general tradition to which she belonged.

The Objective Standard pulled a similar stunt some years ago in a highly inaccurate article on just war theory, written by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. I wrote a lenghy reply that was published in Liberty Magazine (May 2008). It can be found here:

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/ThinkingAboutWar.html

I don't know whether these clowns are downright ignorant, or whether they are so blinded by ideological preconceptions as to be unable to do competent intellectual history. But clowns they surely are, whatever the cause may be. They almost make me embarrassed to affiliate myself with Rand's ideas.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Biddle's presentation of the natural rights tradition is skewed and highly misleading. This is yet another O'ist effort to make Rand seem more original than she actually was by misrepresenting the general tradition to which she belonged.

The Objective Standard pulled a similar stunt some years ago in a highly inaccurate article on just war theory, written by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. I wrote a lenghy reply that was published in Liberty Magazine (May 2008). It can be found here:

http://www.ozarkia.n...ngAboutWar.html

I don't know whether these clowns are downright ignorant, or whether they are so blinded by ideological preconceptions as to be unable to do competent intellectual history. But clowns they surely are, whatever the cause may be. They almost make me embarrassed to affiliate myself with Rand's ideas.

Ghs

CB got hung up on "God." Rand didn't make that mistake. She knew Jeffersonian rhetoric belied Jeffersonian substance respecting the Declaration of Independence and rights. She was actually one with him.

Now, not representing Objectivism, my view is rights are a human invention validated by referencing human nature making them natural, but, as with all philosophy, not in themselves metaphysical except through their referents. Rights exist in the same sense any philosophy exists. No more and no less save through codification and protection. "That to secure these rights . . . ." They cannot be secured like cattle by cowboys and within fences. There are no cattle here. Only people. They are not secured. Their rights are. By them and by their governance which is actually the governance of those who would do them rights' violating harm if they could only get away with it. They are the real non-consenters. The fetus, of course, is out of the loop, mostly, because the expectant Mother is not. She has her rights in the sense hers fall within rights' philosophy. The fetus has yet--where is that law? Where is that philosophy? "Right to life?" "Right to life?" Okay. I'll give you that, maybe, if you can make a case for all the other rights you never seem to be aware of or mention.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Biddle's presentation of the natural rights tradition is skewed and highly misleading. This is yet another O'ist effort to make Rand seem more original than she actually was by misrepresenting the general tradition to which she belonged.

The Objective Standard pulled a similar stunt some years ago in a highly inaccurate article on just war theory, written by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. I wrote a lenghy reply that was published in Liberty Magazine (May 2008). It can be found here:

http://www.ozarkia.n...ngAboutWar.html

I don't know whether these clowns are downright ignorant, or whether they are so blinded by ideological preconceptions as to be unable to do competent intellectual history. But clowns they surely are, whatever the cause may be. They almost make me embarrassed to affiliate myself with Rand's ideas.

Ghs

CB got hung up on "God." Rand didn't make that mistake. She knew Jeffersonian rhetoric belied Jeffersonian substance respecting the Declaration of Independence and rights. She was actually one with him.

Now, not representing Objectivism, my view is rights are a human invention validated by referencing human nature making them natural, but, as with all philosophy, not in themselves metaphysical except through their referents. Rights exist in the same sense any philosophy exists. No more and no less save through codification and protection. "That to secure these rights . . . ." They cannot be secured like cattle by cowboys and within fences. There are no cattle here. Only people. They are not secured. Their rights are. By them and by their governance which is actually the governance of those who would do them rights' violating harm if they could only get away with it. They are the real non-consenters. The fetus, of course, is out of the loop, mostly, because the expectant Mother is not. She has her rights in the sense hers fall within rights' philosophy. The fetus has yet--where is that law? Where is that philosophy? "Right to life?" "Right to life?" Okay. I'll give you that, maybe, if you can make a case for all the other rights you never seem to be aware of or mention.

--Brant

I agree - an invention, and not in themselves, metaphysical.

Though the derivation is.

If it werent for the bullies, the takers and hurters, rights wouldn't

have been dreamt of. Simple observation and awareness of other

people, respect for their independent choices - therefore, their bodies

and minds and property - and not one right would be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now