Unalienable Rights

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I owe you something on this, but I have no time. Here is a very short version of some of my premises.

1. A right has no meaning unless there are two or more people interacting in some manner. A person has no right before nature and he has no right before himself acting alone. Nature just is. He just is. He can make rules of behavior, but he will not be able to enforce them on nature. And when he uses them on himself acting alone, we call these moral principles. I adhere to Rand's meaning that rights are moral principles taken to the social level.

2. Rights derive from human nature. The most basic aspect of our nature is that we live and we die. All of us. So the most fundamental right—the right to life—deals with this most fundamental aspect of our reality.

3. One other part of human nature is that there is a condition females go through for a short period of time where two individual lives are involved. The younger individual depends on the older at first biologically since it is inside her, then physically after birth since it will not be able to fend for itself for years. This situation wreaks havoc on all oversimplified explanations. If the right to life does not cover both individuals, you will either sanction the killing of one or the enslavement of the other. So this part is complicated, not simple.

I build from here.

As to the times of the Founding Fathers, here are a few thoughts. One of the greatest benefits I gained from Rand's essay, For the New Intellectual, (despite some glaring flaws in it) was her division and comparison of historical prime movers: i.e.:

Attila versus the Producer

Witch Doctor versus the Intellectual

In her insightful analysis, the Witch Doctor always provided a moral sanction for the Attila (and an epistemological one, although she did not go into this too deeply). Basically, the Witch Doctor presented intellectual arguments for people to turn their minds off. That way they could feel it was OK for another person to rule over them.

In ancient times, this was put in terms of rights: the Divine Right of Kings. By the time it got to the Enlightenment, this phrase was not as much used, but the concept was present. Common Sense by Thomas Paine, for instance, rants and rails against conveying power through inheritance. What could possibly justify inheritance if not that it was by some Divine Right? That this was the way things were supposed to be?

The people of colonial times had an enormous problem on their hands. If they proclaimed that there was no such thing as a Divine Right and that God was not the source of rights anyway, they would be severely persecuted and/or executed. But by saying that Divine Right did exist and that God could grant and remove rights at His pleasure, they sanctioned power through inheritance.

So here is where they came up with one of the most breathtakingly stunning acts of political/philosophical logic (to me at least) in the entire human history. They made a scaffold out of the arguments of the Witch Doctor and the Attila and hung both on it. They proclaimed that God made Nature and that Nature was the purest expression of His will—and that after He created Nature, He stood back and let His Creation run without His direct intervention. Since miracles are hard to come by on a regular basis, if you are going to discuss God's will, that statement is pretty hard to deny. You can deny it to this person or that and get away with it, but you cannot do that with large masses of people. Too many won't buy it.

From there, it cannot be denied that ALL men are part of Nature. Thus ALL men have rights bestowed by God.

Natural Law was born. It applied to both ALL individuals and to God's will. No one could be burned at the stake for saying so, either (not without a strong public reaction).

Absolutely brilliant.

My thinking is that this broke the back of the Divine Right of Some Individuals over the rest of mankind. These things take time, though. Centuries of tradition do not change overnight. It has taken a few centuries for the dust to settle on the idea. Islam, for example, has not yet followed, but that's another story with other complications.

The downside is that, once it is accepted that rights pertain to all human beings, attributing a mystical source to rights is a crack where ultimately bad things can come in. And they are doing so.

This is all the time I have for now. I wish I had more. It's only a start and only food for thought at this stage.

Maybe just one more thought, more in the sense of leaving it on record somewhere than anything else. You might notice that the people who are most over-the-top about proclaiming this or that about rights—the most reluctant to check the "NIOF only" premise and the most shout-prone—usually have control issues. Ironically, freedom is a word they use so they can gain control of others. A negative right may not be something one can use to control what people do, but by God, one can control what others can't do. So one can still control others and be virtuous. Power over the people. Right on! Hell, one can even preach that stuff and get away with it.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

My number one value is for each person to use his own mind and do his own thinking to the best of his ability.

I concur. From previous writing:

We distinguish human rights as a set of natural liberties

belonging in justice to mankind, and only to mankind, because the human

understanding is a function of individual effort and a long series of self-determined

choices in the conduct of one's life.

- Laissez Faire Law, "Human Rights"

[PatriotResistance]

Thanks, Michael. I'm pleasantly surprised that I found nothing to disagree with in your post. I easily agree with each of your numbered points, 1, 2 and 3. I believe my previous comments were my attempt to explain your points 1 and 2. I don't get as intellectual as you, though. I'm a very practical person and I like to think about issues by example, sort of like Einstein did with his "thought experiments".

Your discussion of Rand's essay and historical-political environment of the founding fathers' times reminds me of my opinion that they, and indeed many parts of the world, were then undergoing a political reformation of sorts. Rather than governments granting rights and having power over people, the people HAVE rights and grant power to the government. I don't know a great deal about that aspect of history, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the founding fathers were the first to solidify those ideas in a constitution for government, and that they did it better than any following.

The point I want to make with you (and others) is that I don't fully agree that the idea of Natural Law, as you described, must necessarily include a mystical source. As it's been pointed out by someone else here, Jefferson could not have been an evolutionist. But he did not write that rights were endowed by "their God". I realize he capitalized the word Creator, but I believe it was meant to be an all-inclusive term. If you think about his intent that rights are fundamental to "Natural Law", then the phrase "your Creator" can mean anything from evolution to God to Allah to Reincarnation to Brahman to primordial seeding by aliens. It doesn't matter what "Creator" means to each individual, as long as we recognize that ALL human beings are equal and possess those rights. I believe that was Jefferson's intent.

Now, I agree that some people, for example fundamental Christians, will claim otherwise and maybe that's the crack you speak of. But I think his DofI introduction is fine given an understanding of his intent and the times he lived in, and so I don't think my idea is revisionist - something I'm careful to guard against.

Finally, regarding your last paragraph I would say, yes, lack of critical-thinking by the population at large is rampant. Instead they emote and feel, leading to a moral relativism that can justify opposite courses of action from one day to the next. It's truly frightening.

Thanks again.

Bob

[shadesofgrey]

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?

Well, the idea that rights are inherent in what it means to be human COMES from humans. Jefferson saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." pertains only to anyone who AGREES with the declaration. Unfortunately, you will have no trouble finding people today or at any point in the past who think that all men are most certainly NOT created equal. The English crown certainly didn't agree and their standard of living was as good as the Americans'. Ultimately it's an opinion, not a fact. It's an opinion that benefits most people and generally leads to a better quality of life all around, but an opinion nonetheless.

In Burma or Somalia or Afghanistan the prevailing view is that there is a severe stratification when it comes to the value of human lives. You could easily make the argument that the quality of life in those places is inferior to that of the US, but they'll probably look at you and say "So what?" Just because it can be rationalized doesn't mean it can be effective. Being "right" is nice when you can pat yourself on the back, but it doesn't mean anything when you can't effect change. Equality in those settings doesn't mean anything when you all you know is INequality. If it did, then the ridiculous exercise known as "nation-building" would actually work.

[Christopher]

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?

Well, the idea that rights are inherent in what it means to be human COMES from humans. Jefferson saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." pertains only to anyone who AGREES with the declaration. Unfortunately, you will have no trouble finding people today or at any point in the past who think that all men are most certainly NOT created equal. The English crown certainly didn't agree and their standard of living was as good as the Americans'. Ultimately it's an opinion, not a fact. It's an opinion that benefits most people and generally leads to a better quality of life all around, but an opinion nonetheless.

I wouldn't say that "rights" are opinions, especially when talking about rights proposed by Objectivism. Rather, the opinions are the premises accepted by the philosophy from which specific rights arise. Rights then are merely a product of premises. The premises of Objectivism include rationality supported by Rand's logic, so any rights that are contradictory to Objectivist-proposed rights can be said to be "irrational." That's about as far as we can judge rights in philosophy.

[Charles R. Anderson]

I believe it is essential to bear history in mind and remember the context of human knowledge from the time of the Declaration of Independence. As has been noted, evolution was an unknown theory in 1776 and there was no developed alternative to believing that a supernatural power had created man. Jefferson and Franklin knew of prehistoric animal remains being found and were very interested in them. I do not believe either was much of a believer in conventional Christian religion. Jefferson has often been called a deist and was often accused of being an atheist in his day. But, man was of the natural world and had a nature as man. For those who believed man was created by a god or by some as-yet mysterious process of nature (which Franklin and Jefferson seemed to entertain somewhat), man must live in accordance with his nature to pursue the goals of his life. The rights that John Locke, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson and many other Americans believed that man had derived from man's nature and the desirability that every man should be allowed to live his own life. A high measure of individual independence had long been accepted as necessary for survival in the New World. There were no aristocrats to speak of to take care of the Americans. They were on their own from the early 1600s and it was only about the time of the French and Indian War when the English king and Parliament began to pay them much attention at all. It was not long before the Americans were thinking of the previous neglect as the Good Old Days. Certainly, there was no thought that all men are equal in abilities and motivation, but there was conviction that each man had a right to live his own life, if only because he had to to survive and Americans were generally benign enough not to wish ill to fall on their neighbors.

These historical factors make it seem as though rights may just be a social convention. Those limits on the actions that others in a society can take with respect to others do need to become conventions in that society to become effective protections for each individual in that society. But we need to remember that rights are a political concept in our understanding of morality and must be consistent with man's moral actions and behavior. As such, a conventional right may in fact be immoral and hence it would not be a correctly identified right. Developing a moral code and its principles is not a trivial task and mistakes are often made by man. Developing a set of recognized rights for a society is also a difficult task and some declared rights may well be wrong by virtue of their failing in the goal of allowing each human being to flourish as best he is able and willing to in managing his own life in accordance with his own values. What I find remarkable is that Americans chose this path to try to allow individuals to choose their own values and manage their own lives. This was a bold experiment from the viewpoint of Europeans at that time and really in our own time. Of course, we were partly lucky in this, in that we learned the advantages of being on our own due to Europe's earlier benign neglect. But nonetheless, we learned that there was an independent individualist route to a fairly harmonious society. Since it should be our rational purpose to define rights in such a way that we can all live without harm to one another and with maximal opportunities to work with one another and trade with one another for our mutual benefit, while each of us can live our own life morally, rights are no longer just a convention, but an optimization of moral principles for life in society. The convention of rights should attempt to become an optimization of rights. That set of optimized rights is rightfully claimed by each of us as our sovereign and inalienable individual rights.

To optimize man's rights, you must study the nature of man and ask how does man benefit from living in society with other men. Among other things, you must recognize that man must use his mind constantly to address the needs of survival and to optimize his own living processes. You ought quickly to realize that the primary benefit of living among other men is the many fruits of their minds, which make our own life much more secure and richer in many ways. The early American state constitution writers and the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights worked very hard to identify the necessary rights consistent with these purposes. I think they did a remarkably good job in the end, though along the way, there were some quite deficient state constitutions. The needs of man's mind were particularly well recognized in the Bill of Rights, which makes it clear that there was a great respect for man's dependence upon his mind.

Given the state we are in now, it is too bad that they did not explicitly say that every American has the right to freedom of trade, although the interstate commerce clause was an attempt to provide just that. It was not meant to become the restriction of free trade that it has become. It is too bad that they did not explicitly protect the right to medical care. No, not the right to be given medical care, but the right to be allowed to manage our own medical care, in parallel with our right to freedom of speech. We cannot force anyone to listen to us, but we can speak and we are free to gather up listeners who will voluntarily listen to us. Our medical care right is the same sort of right. We have the right to seek or to offer medical care and to find anyone who will voluntarily join us in that activity. I am sure the Framers of the Constitution could hardly imagine the government would ever seek to constrain us from managing the care of our life by rationing and constraining medical care.

[Selene]

Perfectly phrased.

"...rights are no longer just a convention, but an optimization of moral principles for life in society. The convention of rights should attempt to become an optimization of rights. That set of optimized rights is rightfully claimed by each of us as our sovereign and inalienable individual rights."

E pluribus baby!

Adam

[Wolf DeVoon]

Right?

1) opposite of left

2) correct

3) conservative, loyalist

4) moral justification

5) legal privilege

Jefferson and his contemporaries believed that inalienable legal privileges pertained to adult Englishmen, rights limiting the absolute power of Monarchy derived under Magna Carta. That's why the American Declaration of Independence discussed grievances against the King.

It would be swell if in future you distinguish between legal rights and moral choice.