Unalienable Rights

[PatriotResistance]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

My question concerns the "by their Creator" part of this quote from the Declaration of Independence. I assume Objectivists fully agree with the "created equal" and "unalienable Rights" phrases.

Would an Objectivist easily substitute "nature" or "Objective Reality" for "their Creator"? Or something else? Or do Objectivists have an objection to the founding fathers attributing the source of unalienable Rights to a Creator?

Bob

[Selene]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

My question concerns the "by their Creator" part of this quote from the Declaration of Independence. I assume Objectivists fully agree with the "created equal" and "unalienable Rights" phrases.

Would an Objectivist easily substitute "nature" or "Objective Reality" for "their Creator"? Or something else? Or do Objectivists have an objection to the founding fathers attributing the source of unalienable Rights to a Creator?

Bob

None whatsoever.

However, as Groucho Marx said at about the 4:00 to 4:29 of this great 1967 Whats My Line clip:

I do not know if my vote counts as I am not a member of the chosen and I do not own any preferred Objectivist stock.

Adam

[PatriotResistance]

None whatsoever.

However, as Groucho Marx said at about the 4:00 to 4:29 of this great 1967 Whats My Line clip:

I do not know if my vote counts as I am not a member of the chosen and I do not own any preferred Objectivist stock.

Adam

LOL

My apologies.

I assumed everyone here had been sworn in and given the secret handshake!

Bob

[Selene]

None whatsoever.

However, as Groucho Marx said at about the 4:00 to 4:29 of this great 1967 Whats My Line clip:

I do not know if my vote counts as I am not a member of the chosen and I do not own any preferred Objectivist stock.

Adam

LOL

My apologies.

I assumed everyone here had been sworn in and given the secret handshake!

Bob

Good one lol.

Not unless there are any fellow Masons here. I am one. We do have codes. They are available at any public library which always cracks me up.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

We do have codes. They are available at any public library which always cracks me up.

Adam

Adam, so much for secrecy...

Bob,

I take the quote "by the Creator" to mean one of two things.

1. In the context of the 1700s, most folk were religious of one sort or another.

2. Creator could mean parents, in which they would wish their children to have Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (that would be my objective take on it without changing the wording).

I'm sure #1 is more in line with thinking of that time as they were looking for freedom from religious persecution. That, and Creator was capitalized which is significant.

~ Shane

Edited October 6, 2009 by sbeaulieu

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

That's one of the cracks where all the bad stuff seeps in.

Rights have to be founded on man's nature, not endowed or bestowed by any being or social structure, to be a solid basis for government.

To me it's a simple thing. Human rights pertain to human beings living in group. Thus the standard has to be the nature of human beings, otherwise it is tyranny of some sort (mainly God or society or government).

A while back I started researching rights reading Locke and tried to discuss this very point, but I soon discovered that there's a hell of a lot of vitriol around this issue that leads nowhere. So I practically gave up discussing it online.

I plan to write something in depth about rights one day, though.

People are currently mobilizing in America around defense of the individual. That's good enough for now. But if this issue is not resolved, the cracks will let the bad stuff in again.

Michael

[PatriotResistance]

Bob,

That's one of the cracks where all the bad stuff seeps in.

Rights have to be founded on man's nature, not endowed or bestowed by any being or social structure, to be a solid basis for government.

To me it's a simple thing. Human rights pertain to human beings living in group. Thus the standard has to be the nature of human beings, otherwise it is tyranny of some sort (mainly God or society or government).

A while back I started researching rights reading Locke and tried to discuss this very point, but I soon discovered that there's a hell of a lot of vitriol around this issue that leads nowhere. So I practically gave up discussing it online.

I plan to write something in depth about rights one day, though.

People are currently mobilizing in America around defense of the individual. That's good enough for now. But if this issue is not resolved, the cracks will let the bad stuff in again.

Michael

Interesting. Human nature? Living in group? That makes me think of this progression: a rabbit has no right to not be eaten by a coyote, a human has no right to not be eaten by a bear, a group of humans has no right not to be swallowed up by an earthquake, but no human has a right to initiate force on another human. I don't know if that's what makes us human, but it is one thing that separates us from animals and nature. And so I think it is inherent - that rights then are inherent in what it means to be human. Does that make any sense?

Now as far as the Declaration of Independence stating rights are granted by a creator, I came up with this recently: I think Jefferson was trying to be as all inclusive as his times would allow and none of them even considered including atheists. So my interpretation is that they thought ALL men believed they were created by some type of god somewhere, and as such rights ARE inherent to all men. Therefore, it is only a technicality that they used the words "their Creator". The intent of rights being inherent to all human life is what is important. Again, do you think that cup holds any water?

Bob

Galts Gulch Gifts

[BaalChatzaf]

Again, do you think that cup holds any water?

Bob

No. The Declaration assertion of inalienable rights is a motherhood statement and is part of a political/philosophical justification for treason and rebellion. The Confederate States tried a similar thing in 1861 and it initiated a war that killed 620,000 Americans and maimed 1.5 million Americans.

The American Revolution was a Civil War, no different in character from the English Civil War which lead to a suspension of the monarchy in England for a little over a decade. (Kindly do not bring up the issue of slavery, which was a pretext on the part of the Union supporters for making war on the Southrons. The American Civil War did not end slavery in the State of Delaware, for example).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I don't follow your reasoning too well since my view of rights is exclusive to human beings and does not include rabbits, etc. I am of the view that rights are codes of behavior for human beings to follow in relation to each other. These codes may be derived from stuff inherent in human nature (and I hold that the rational and just ones do), but they are not stuff in themselves somehow attached to the stuff that makes us human.

It's the old Robinson Crusoe thing. There are no rights on a desert island nor does Crusoe's presence establish any. There's no way to exercise a right if you are alone and things like property are irrelevant to your situation. The moment another human being arrives on the scene, a code of behavior between the two will be established one way or another. That's where the concept of rights comes in and that's where it becomes important to set standards.

Another issue is conceptual consciousness. Can you imagine a right somehow being exercised without the presence of a conceptual consciousness? Your case of animals eating each other is a perfect example of why that would be ludicrous. Even using the NIOF component of the premise, what does the concept of noninitiation of forced mean to a tiger or a rabbit? Nothing, obviously, because they don't think in concepts.

If you accept that rights derive from human nature, trying to sever rights from being a code of behavior removes one of the essential referents of the concept. That would make it a stolen concept.

If you hold that rights are endowed by a creator or are "inherent stuffs" of humans, you basically write your own ticket. One person says all rights must be based on NIOF just because and another says they are cradle-to-the-grave entitlements because the human experience includes long stretches of inability to care for oneself and God demands that we care for each other. The premise this way becomes an opinion, not an objectively defined concept based on low-level concepts which in turn are based on observation.

One thing is for sure. If you define rights as being derived from human nature, you better have a very good understanding of human nature. Doing it this way is my approach.

Michael

[PatriotResistance]

Bob,

I don't follow your reasoning too well since my view of rights is exclusive to human beings and does not include rabbits, etc. I am of the view that rights are codes of behavior for human beings to follow in relation to each other.

But then you use an example of 'what does NIOF mean to a tiger or a rabbit', so I think you actually do understand me. A rabbit has no right to not be eaten because he cannot reason with the coyote. Likewise a human being cannot reason with a bear or an earthquake. But you and I can talk to each other and reach an agreement outside of our animal instinct of 'flight or fight'. And that's where you said, "That's where the concept of rights comes in and that's where it becomes important to set standards".

So how do you link "setting standards" with 'rights being derived from human nature'? The standard could easily become 'the smaller fellow does what the bigger fellow says to avoid being clubbed over the head'. What is human nature? Why do you say that rights being inherent to humans is different from rights being derived from human nature?

I say human nature is our ability to reason - that is why we are not a human animal. The standard cannot be 'my club is bigger' because that is equivalent to the coyote's club being bigger than the rabbits, or the earthquake's club being bigger than the human beings. Reason dictates that even though every human being is not equal in the size of our clubs, we agree to pursue our goals without infringing on any other humans ability to pursue their goals. Rights then, are inherent to reason, to what it means to be human, to human nature. I do not say rights depend ONLY on NIOF, nor that they are "just because". That is what I mean by "inherent".

Bob

[PatriotResistance]

Again, do you think that cup holds any water?

Bob

No. The Declaration assertion of inalienable rights is a motherhood statement and is part of a political/philosophical justification for treason and rebellion.

Ummm, no, the water in the cup was 'since Jefferson believed all human beings were created, therefore he believed rights are inherent to all men and not granted'. In order to reply you have to say something about Jefferson and/or rights being inherent to all human beings, or not.

Bob

[BaalChatzaf]

Ummm, no, the water in the cup was 'since Jefferson believed all human beings were created, therefore he believed rights are inherent to all men and not granted'. In order to reply you have to say something about Jefferson and/or rights being inherent to all human beings, or not.

Bob

Rights are a social convention. Important to the way we live, but nevertheless a convention. In the same class as driving on the right (or left) but somewhat more serious.

Human beings have been dissected and scanned by very sophisticated instruments. Never once was a right found among the pieces.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

Be careful how you use the word "social" when saying social convention. If you think that rights are something mutually agreed upon, you're essentially saying that the majority or the state can dictate those rights.

Reason is the foundation of rights.

[PatriotResistance]

Bob,

I take the quote "by the Creator" to mean one of two things.

1. In the context of the 1700s, most folk were religious of one sort or another.

2. Creator could mean parents, in which they would wish their children to have Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (that would be my objective take on it without changing the wording).

I'm sure #1 is more in line with thinking of that time as they were looking for freedom from religious persecution. That, and Creator was capitalized which is significant.

~ Shane

I don't think it means parents. I don't possess the right to Life because my parents want me to have it. And of course Jefferson was referring to a God by his capitalization of Creator. But I think his INTENT was that ALL human beings, simply by their very nature of being human, possess the right to life, etc.

Think about Jefferson's intent here. He was not saying, 'we the people hereby remove the right to life from the monarchy and place it our possession". He was not saying, "our Christian god grants this right to Christians". He was not saying, "We the People of these modern times now possess rights that those in the past didn't". He was expressing an absolute. He wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident". A self-evident truth is an absolute. It is true now, and in the past and in the future, and it is true for ALL human beings whether their government recognizes that truth or not.

So I think by "Creator", he meant what ever a person believes caused human beings to come into existence, whether that is a god or evolution or whatever. IOW, it is an absolute that human beings, solely by their nature of being human beings, possess the certain unalienable rights.

Bob

[PatriotResistance]

Ummm, no, the water in the cup was 'since Jefferson believed all human beings were created, therefore he believed rights are inherent to all men and not granted'. In order to reply you have to say something about Jefferson and/or rights being inherent to all human beings, or not.

Bob

Rights are a social convention. Important to the way we live, but nevertheless a convention. In the same class as driving on the right (or left) but somewhat more serious.

Human beings have been dissected and scanned by very sophisticated instruments. Never once was a right found among the pieces.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Inherent rights" is not a component of the physical body and so couldn't possibly ever show up on any "sophisticated instruments".

I'll try just once more. The topic is what did Jefferson mean by "their Creator" in the D-of-I. I've suggested that he meant it as an all-inclusive term, an absolute that all men possess certain rights solely by their nature of being human beings. Do you have anything to say about THAT?

Bob

[DavidMcK]

What about Wil E. Coyote? I think he has a right to at least one roadrunner after trying so hard. Maybe not the one he usually chased but another, stupid ugly one.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Inherent rights" is not a component of the physical body and so couldn't possibly ever show up on any "sophisticated instruments".

If rights do not exist physically then in what sense do they exist? I say they exist as social/political conventions. This is analogous to the rules of chess. Chess games exist. They are played and publicized. The moves are the moves of physical pieces on the board. The significance of the moves and what moves are made are governed by the rules of the game. While the rules are not physical, they regulate the physical observables. Similarly rights regulate the actions of individual and regulate the form and content of the laws (yet another convention) which govern how we live and interact.

So the question is (in my mind at least) to what extent are the conventions arbitrary and habitual and to what extent are the conventions determined and governed by physical law and logic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

"Inherent rights" is not a component of the physical body and so couldn't possibly ever show up on any "sophisticated instruments".

If rights do not exist physically then in what sense do they exist? I say they exist as social/political conventions. This is analogous to the rules of chess. Chess games exist. They are played and publicized. The moves are the moves of physical pieces on the board. The significance of the moves and what moves are made are governed by the rules of the game. While the rules are not physical, they regulate the physical observables. Similarly rights regulate the actions of individual and regulate the form and content of the laws (yet another convention) which govern how we live and interact.

So the question is (in my mind at least) to what extent are the conventions arbitrary and habitual and to what extent are the conventions determined and governed by physical law and logic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rights exist in philosophy and in law books and legal interpretations of extant cases. They are objective insofar as they appertain and are derived from human nature: human need of a particular sort--that is, the need to obtain and retain property through economic production and trade without being constantly at war with other people. So the good guys, recognizing that rights are violated through the initiation of physical force pass laws making various expressions of rights' violations illegal. Etc. Thus the State is made the primary, practical defender of rights, not the businessman, the doctor or the preacher. To call them mere "social conventions" is to basically flush philosophy down the drain.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

"Inherent rights" is not a component of the physical body and so couldn't possibly ever show up on any "sophisticated instruments".

If rights do not exist physically then in what sense do they exist? I say they exist as social/political conventions. This is analogous to the rules of chess. Chess games exist. They are played and publicized. The moves are the moves of physical pieces on the board. The significance of the moves and what moves are made are governed by the rules of the game. While the rules are not physical, they regulate the physical observables. Similarly rights regulate the actions of individual and regulate the form and content of the laws (yet another convention) which govern how we live and interact.

So the question is (in my mind at least) to what extent are the conventions arbitrary and habitual and to what extent are the conventions determined and governed by physical law and logic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rights exist in philosophy and in law books and legal interpretations of extant cases. They are objective insofar as they appertain and are derived from human nature: human need of a particular sort--that is, the need to obtain and retain property through economic production and trade without being constantly at war with other people. So the good guys, recognizing that rights are violated through the initiation of physical force pass laws making various expressions of rights' violations illegal. Etc. Thus the State is made the primary, practical defender of rights, not the businessman, the doctor or the preacher. To call them mere "social conventions" is to basically flush philosophy down the drain.

--Brant

Darn good (and brief) response, Brant!

Bill P

[Christopher]

"Inherent rights" is not a component of the physical body and so couldn't possibly ever show up on any "sophisticated instruments".

If rights do not exist physically then in what sense do they exist? I say they exist as social/political conventions. This is analogous to the rules of chess. Chess games exist. They are played and publicized. The moves are the moves of physical pieces on the board. The significance of the moves and what moves are made are governed by the rules of the game. While the rules are not physical, they regulate the physical observables. Similarly rights regulate the actions of individual and regulate the form and content of the laws (yet another convention) which govern how we live and interact.

So the question is (in my mind at least) to what extent are the conventions arbitrary and habitual and to what extent are the conventions determined and governed by physical law and logic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Governed by logic, yes. Determined by governments, no. If governments (or any social body) determined rights, then what justification is there for the individual to act against a system? You kill all of Rand's heroes with the belief that rights are social/political conventions precisely because all those heroes were individuals acting against systems.

Of course, you can't see reason - rights are something that arise from inside the mind, and cutting up someone never shows us anything about the mind. Here's the thing: according to Rand's premises and logic, no value system can be justified except systems that include a set of human rights... i.e. human rights are necessary precursors for noncontradictory justification of any value-action. If someone has a value system that does not condone human rights, their system is logically inconsistent in practice and/or with reality.

Perhaps you're discussing rights using definitions that are not equivalent to those in Objectivism.

[Selene]

Bob,

I take the quote "by the Creator" to mean one of two things.

1. In the context of the 1700s, most folk were religious of one sort or another.

2. Creator could mean parents, in which they would wish their children to have Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (that would be my objective take on it without changing the wording).

I'm sure #1 is more in line with thinking of that time as they were looking for freedom from religious persecution. That, and Creator was capitalized which is significant.

~ Shane

I don't think it means parents. I don't possess the right to Life because my parents want me to have it. And of course Jefferson was referring to a God by his capitalization of Creator. But I think his INTENT was that ALL human beings, simply by their very nature of being human, possess the right to life, etc.

Think about Jefferson's intent here. He was not saying, 'we the people hereby remove the right to life from the monarchy and place it our possession". He was not saying, "our Christian god grants this right to Christians". He was not saying, "We the People of these modern times now possess rights that those in the past didn't". He was expressing an absolute. He wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident". A self-evident truth is an absolute. It is true now, and in the past and in the future, and it is true for ALL human beings whether their government recognizes that truth or not.

So I think by "Creator", he meant what ever a person believes caused human beings to come into existence, whether that is a god or evolution or whatever. IOW, it is an absolute that human beings, solely by their nature of being human beings, possess the certain unalienable rights.

Bob

Excellent. The point of self evident truth is virtually exactly what Ayn meant by man qua man. Greeks had "common sense". Lao Tsu had the "way". It is all the same, except that Ayn linked the concept to economics and demanded that each individual decide whether they were sanctioning their own victimhood.

Dennis Miller spent twenty minutes on his afternoon radio show yesterday discussing with his brilliant humor that he is re reading Atlas again and he is leaning towards the Ellis Wyatt way to resolve the issue. He has been speaking out about Rand quite a bit in the last few months, but has really picked up the air time discussion in the last week.

But, of course, since he is brilliantly funny, and appears on O'Reilly, we should not listen to him.

Let's just keep objectivism in our safe little pup tent.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Human rights are an expression of man's fight against oppression. If there was no oppression we wouldn't need to be talking about rights.

[BaalChatzaf]

Human rights are an expression of man's fight against oppression. If there was no oppression we wouldn't need to be talking about rights.

Rights are still conventions and not ordained by physical law.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Be careful how you use the word "social" when saying social convention. If you think that rights are something mutually agreed upon, you're essentially saying that the majority or the state can dictate those rights.

Reason is the foundation of rights.

The guys with the guns and the power tell us what are rights are or are not.

Die Macht ist das Recht.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I am starting to detect a preachiness that turns me to other directions. It leads to the vitriol that I mentioned earlier and, frankly, I have better things to do. If your intent is to persuade, by telling me what I think, you have not made a dent in my thinking.

I say human nature is our ability to reason - that is why we are not a human animal.

Are you seriously proposing that human beings are not mammals?

Michael