This semi-rant has been building for some time, as I’ve wandered around the web and seen all manner of definitions and musings about what rights are and where they come from and how they should be identified, protected, enforced, etc. Fie to all, I say.
Whether we’re considering natural rights, positive rights, negative rights, rights “granted” or affirmed by the state, makes little difference to my mind. If you can come up with a so-called right, there exists some one or some thing that can—and possibly will—smash through what so many of us see as some magical protective barrier. Rights are illusions that seem to be real only to the degree that others’ conceptions of them dovetail with one’s own, and they play along.
This should be self-evident from observing human societies and the natural world. We like to speak magnanimously of a “right to life”, but as the forthcoming Salon interviewee put it (and I’m paraphrasing), “What does a virus know or care about that?”. Does anyone reading this really think that sputtering “I have a right to life!!” will stop a mountain lion attack? Why would it be any different for the [relatively few] genuine human predators amongst us? It’s a nice, magical bubble many of us curl up in, up until we encounter something that penetrates that bubble and scares the shit out of us ... or actually takes our life. Those of us who’ve had a close call, say in a car crash or serious illness, have had that bubble punctured; but I submit that most who recognized the blowout set to work repairing the bubble as best they could. The closeness of death—it’s omnipresent, and right on the other side of this coin we prefer to label “life”—is something very few have the fortitude to acknowledge, much less accept. I know I am not among them.
It is truly a rough and tumble world, then. To make and maintain life, the cost is something else’s life. That reality is at best contorted, confused, or delayed via the stately dance of evolution over the millennia; predator and prey evolve measures and countermeasures to try to load the dice to favor their side, but nothing escapes the game. Nothing.
Probably when humanoids first started aggregating into families and then larger groups, the rough and tumble was still present (and tends to be re-created to some degree wherever a voluntary frontier is forged). I strongly suspect, though, that a few of the bigger-brained specimens realized that some degree of cooperation worked much better than separatism and competition. Collaboration worked even better ... and thus was the concept of society born. To be sure, in the beginning it was almost certainly the anarchistic, voluntaryist community some of us would like to live in today. However, as individuals became comfortable with cooperation and collaboration, they probably began to expect those things. And thus, those who did not deliver were treated harshly—shunning, ejection from the group, and killing became tools for encouraging others in the group to continue playing along. Somewhere in there, probably, the concepts of “rights”, “morals”, “laws”, and “criminals” were developed. These abstract ways of thinking and approaching relationships helped build communities, to further develop society ... all the way “up” to the modern, complex, multi-layered and state-dominated society we find ourselves part of today.
Along with those ideas developed another concept, that of politics. The meaning of that term has been stretched quite a lot over the centuries, but according to my Webster’s New World Dictionary, its root is from the Greek term politikos, which means something like “of the citizen”. [I note that the same term is the root of “police”.] So, politics originated simply as the means by which members of some society figured out how to govern themselves. Once that happened, I imagine it was a very short trip to some individuals conniving to take others’ political power for themselves under the guise of representing them; from there the gallop to today’s nation-state was on.
Part of the ride was the continual feeding of that bubble mythology, which was, after all, the only thing the nascent political class (viz., politicians) could offer: the hollow promise of security. Perhaps partly as a distraction to the omnipresent, unpleasant truth that the state can never deliver on that promise, and mostly out of desire to increase one’s power, the concept of rights expanded and eventually assumed its current bloated, blurry form. Right to life, right to property, right to a job, to water, to food, to equality, to self-defense, the right to not be offended, challenged, criticized, or to suffer the consequences of one’s choices ... they’re all of a piece, that is to say, an idealized representation of a society we would like to live in, but which in reality will never exist. It is an unattainable utopia. So is the pro-freedom creed, whether one calls it the Non-Aggression Principle or Zero Aggression Principle, which states: No human being has the right—under any circumstances—to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation.
Why? Because there are elements of nature—which includes human life—that have a stubborn way of not playing along with the conceptual game.
Life actually works like this: We are all free to do whatever we want. Seriously. We can do whatever we want, within the bounds of the physical world of course. What keeps us from pursuing this total freedom? Two things, I think: the desire most humans have to see ourselves and be seen by others as a good person; and our social nature (of which the first reason is a part).
Because of the deep social needs humans have, we learn very early to check many of our impulses to do whatever we want, because doing them could harm our relationships with others. From infancy, we need attention and care from our caregivers, and through ancient instincts, we act to gain and maintain their approval, and minimize their disapproval. As we mature, social needs expand and change, and are influenced by the society/culture we are raised in, as well as our own thoughts and feelings with respect to its constructs and the individuals around us. It’s at these levels that instinct can be overridden or subverted by conditioning, in many individuals. That conditioning can take the form of family values, cultural biases, religious mores, political principles, and/or state and social indoctrination. Thus, from that elemental need has arisen an approach that does work, but which is largely smothered by irrationality—viz., claiming that not-A is A and building upon that flawed premise. That’s why I emphatically reject the idea that all of human social history thus far represents progress. So, to summarize my view, it is our need to interact positively and collaboratively with others that checks our baser impulses; and this simple thing has become expanded upon and/or codified into the concept of rights, which is ostensibly the fundament of law.
Earlier I mentioned “genuine human predators”. In my view, they are those relative few who do not conform to the ideas of rights to life and property. In other words, their acts signal a rejection of what many conceive of as “natural law”. Part of the reason why individuals like David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Michael Swango are widely reviled as monsters is because their acts puncture our cozy conceptual bubble. (Statist systems, largely through the believers tasked with “education” and infusing nationalism and defense of the homeland, create both mental and physical predators as well. The fact that many of them have at the least a vague unease about their lives suggests that some element of their being recognizes the lies upon which the life has been built.)
Does my rejection of the concept of “rights”mean I condone or encourage such acts? I would hope that it is clear that I absolutely do not. Beginning well prior to my discovery of the freedom philosophy, I have thought about the conditions necessary for humans to live and try to attain the best within themselves; and my answers have consistently pointed to individualism and voluntaryism, in both theory and practice. I view my rejection of the concept of rights as perhaps an overblown reaction to the idiocies attached to the concept these days; but it is one borne of the understanding that the concept is a fiction. To be sure, it’s a very useful fiction—one that has led to another fiction though, that being the “social contract” that purportedly informs us as to proper interpersonal conduct.
Rejecting the idea of rights helps me keep in mind the reality of the world: there are no guarantees, there is no protection from pain, harm, and ultimately, death. Thus, I have at least a niggling awareness in every situation that my bubble could be burst. This does not mean that I have therefore adopted a fatalistic perspective—those who are regular readers know that is far from the truth. Rather, I try to cut through the trappings of modern-day rights, and focus instead on the essential elements of interacting with others that are most likely to create and sustain the voluntaryist, tolerant community I would like to be part of.
That is easy to lay out: treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. I posit that in a society that consistently operates on that perspective, serial killers and the like will be very few, and will live short lives. Why? Two reasons: the first life-respecting individual who is targeted will probably dispatch him in the attempt; and second, the lifespan of those who associate with others who hold life in low esteem would tend to run to the short side. Even opportunistic thieves, murderers, and those who might aggress in other ways would have very good reason for thinking twice about stooping to such behavior. But there will always be some who do choose such acts. I prefer to keep that in mind, assessing individuals and situations as needed, and acting in accordance with my assessment rather than pinning my hopes on a bubble, and bemoaning a “rights violation”.
In the USSA, what began as a useful mental shortcut for maintaining a healthy community has become a trap. The essential component of the concept of rights has given way to all manner of harmful, fallacious ideas. Instead of fostering a vibrant community of responsible, largely self-disciplined, interdependent individuals, it has spawned entitlement attitudes, victimology, and a wrong-headed zero-sum perspective. To my mind, the complete rejection of the concept of rights allows a return to the heart of the matter. And for those of us who want to live in a psychologically healthy environment, it offers a means of starting to rebuild toward that kind of community.
Rights, Schmights
Ah, respect!
Thanks for joining us, Dullhawk—I hope it proves worth the effort.
I’m glad you followed what I tried to say; I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and for whatever reason, today became the day I dumped it out of my brain.
I think you hit on a crucial aspect of it, in mentioning respect. In striving for what I think is the healthiest way for individuals to interact, I try to respect their choices and being even if they would not reciprocate for me—up until aggression is attempted, that is.
Rights
The "right to life" does not refer to a right to everlasting life, i.e. that you won't die from a deadly virus, a mountain lion attack, or even from another human attacking you, it is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be murdered by another human being.
If there is no "right to life", then there is no such thing as murder.
If "liberty" is not an inherent "right", then there is no such thing as slavery.
If there is no "right to property" then there can be no such thing as theft.
**********************************************
"…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god." – Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of
Really?
The "right to life" does not refer to a right to everlasting life ...
I don’t recall insinuating that the phrase did.
... it is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live ...
Yes, it’s a belief, nothing more. Some do not share it; so what good will belief do one in those circumstances?
... particularly that a human being has the right not to be murdered by another human being.
So, an individual must never resist an attack? Someone who is ferociously beating on my child hasn’t earned a similar response from me? Is it somehow different when the state sanctions the killings, such as in wars and capital punishment?
Regarding your three statements, it appears that you have somehow inferred from my post that I have concluded that the concept of rights has no value at all. Far from it—and I thought I’d made that clear. Some killings are justified, some are not. There is such a thing as taking advantage of a person, in part or in toto—sometimes even consensually. And ownership is a concept best thought of as limited even under optimal circumstances, since when we die we don’t take anything physical with us.
Rights and values and morals can be extremely useful concepts—but many humans mistakenly think they are universally shared, and encompass far more than is possible, let alone rational.
Really??
Greeting and salutations, Sunni. Nice to meet you. Hope you and yours are healthy, happy and prospering.
There is a vast difference between murdering and killing, though admittedly it is many times not observed by our 'intellectual' elite, the mass media, and etc.
Murder is taking a life without warrantable cause, which correlates to what you said, “Some killings are justified, some are not.”
You cannot murder that individual who is ferociously beating your child, but you may certainly kill, (i.e. quell), that individual, and generally, with impunity in virtually any society. Why? Because it is a universally accepted natural right that a mother may protect her young.
Robert
It most certainly is possible
Murder is taking a life without warrantable cause, which correlates to what you said, “Some killings are justified, some are not.”
But such killings happen every day, do they not? And I would daresay that what one person considers “warrantable cause”—He was raping my child; She was having sex with a man not her husband; He didn’t show me enough respect; The baby just wouldn’t stop crying!; She brought shame upon our family—another will not.
I think that in each society there is some “universally preferred standard of behavior”, and much of that derives from the concept of rights, so again, the idea isn’t useless. But I believe it is not helpful to expect that everyone’s conception of them, nor actions based on what they are, will agree with one’s own.
Justified or Warrantable
“Some killings are justified, some are not.”
"And I would daresay that what one person considers [“justifiable cause”]—He was raping my child; She was having sex with a man not her husband; He didn’t show me enough respect; The baby just wouldn’t stop crying!; She brought shame upon our family—another will not."
Justified – necessary, defensible, right, acceptable, reasonable, warranted – Source Microsoft Word2000 Synonyms
Reasonable is probably a good yardstick here. Would you consider it "reasonable" for someone to kill you because you didn't show them enough respect? Do you think it would be "reasonable" for someone to kill you, particularly as a "baby", just because you wouldn't stop crying?
"As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
"sputtering"
Greetings,
You inadvertently left off my i.e., which means,"that is to say", Sunni.
Robert: The "right to life" does not refer to a right to everlasting life, i.e. that you won't die from a deadly virus, a mountain lion attack, or even from another human attacking you…
Sunni: “I don’t recall insinuating that the phrase did.”
Robert: I believe you did insinuate that, Sunni.
Sunni: “Does anyone reading this really think that sputtering “I have a right to life!!” will stop a mountain lion attack?”
Robert: And, I don’t recall anyone insinuating that “sputtering” anything will stop a viral attack, a human predator or a mountain lion attack. The "right to life" only gives you the "moral right" to try to fend off that viral attack, that mountain lion attack or that human predator, it is the moral right of defense of your life, because your life is your property. And, it is the "moral right" to defend the life of another, (your "baby" for example), because his or her life is his or her property.
We should begin to see from this how our "natural rights", i.e. our "inalienable rights", which include life, liberty and property (or estate), are interdependent.
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." -- Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:211, Papers 1:135
Rights of Man and The Age of Reason
“I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” – Thomas Paine
“Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.” – Thomas Paine
“Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.” – Thomas Paine
“…the natural rights of man… justified resistance to oppression.” – Thomas Paine
“POLITICAL LIBERTY CONSISTS IN THE POWER OF DOING WHATEVER DOES NOT INJURE ANOTHER. THE EXERCISE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF EVERY MAN, HAS NO OTHER LIMITS THAN THOSE WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO SECURE TO EVERY OTHER MAN THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE SAME RIGHTS…” – Thomas Paine
"In casting our eyes over the world, it is extremely easy to distinguish the governments which have arisen out of society, or out of the social compact, from those which have not; but to place this in a clearer light than what a single glance may afford, it will be proper to take a review of the several sources from which governments have arisen and on which they have been founded.
They may be all comprehended under three heads.
First, Superstition.
Secondly, Power.
Thirdly, The common interest of society and the common rights of man.
The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason." – Thomas Paine
“THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And, incomprehensibly difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it, from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be no time.
In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man is an evidence to himself, that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising from this evidence, that carries us on, as it were, by necessity, to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause, man calls God.
It is only by the exercise of reason, that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything… How then is it that those people pretend to reject reason?” – Thomas Paine
Oh, boy...
I could roll jazz on this post all day. That's not a good thing, as I spend entirely too much time in the philosophy mode already...it won't be good jazz.
So far...
"That’s why I emphatically reject the idea that all of human social history thus far represents progress."
The idea that it does represent a linear march upward into the light of perfection is commonly known in hoity-toity circles as the Whig(1) theory of history. After Kuhn and Rothbard, I'm not even going to give that kind of blind approval to the history of the natural or formal sciences, let alone to a history as tumultuous and terrible as the history of political action. It just doesn't work that way.
"Rights are illusions that seem to be real only to the degree that others’ conceptions of them dovetail with one’s own, and they play along."
Cutting to the heart of the argument, I can only say that this misconstrues the significance of moral theory. Moral theory's practical value is its instruction to judgment as to the nature, good or evil, of a given course of action.
"Part of the ride was the continual feeding of that bubble mythology, which was, after all, the only thing the nascent political class (viz., politicians) could offer: the hollow promise of security."
Rebuttal: On natural law grounds Spooner demolished the moral, legal, ethical and historical justifications for the state. No Treason No. VI still remains the demolition of record of social contract theory.
"Two things, I think: the desire most humans have to see ourselves and be seen by others as a good person; and our social nature (of which the first reason is a part)."
It might surprise you, given the position I'm advocating, but neither has motivated me. I frankly don't give a damn what others think of me. I do what I have judged as the morally just thing as an end in itself. Then, as I've said in the past, I'm a freak.
"but it is one borne of the understanding that the concept is a fiction"
I stand by the conviction that this understanding is at best mistaken. A bunch I can only call Catallactic positivists, because their particular fixation transcends multiple schools of thought, largely view money as a social convention, and only dimly understand how and why money comes to embody the role it does. The concept of purchasing power, in their logical canons, is a fiction that people magically don't notice. This is really quite disturbing, considering what it naturally led to; technocratic tinkering with the money supply until we end up in the present mess.
More stuff...
As I see it, one flaw inherent in this discussion is the use of a single term, rights, to denote distinctive concepts. Rights has been used as the term to signify concepts which are not merely different, but also contradictory to each other e.g. "positive" and "negative" rights. Also is the problem of what metaphysical, ontological and epistemological givens are present underlying the construction of any ethical system.
Let us dispense with so-called "positive rights" straight away by virtue of the observation that it depends on an ontological absurdity and move on.
(1) - I believe it's David Hume who's responsible for that particular disaster...
Lysander Spooner
Hello Brian,
Hope this finds you and yours healthy, happy and prospering, as well.
Thanks. Your mention of Spooner brought this Lysander writing to mind, if anyone is interested.
NATURAL LAW or THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE
http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html
Hmmmm.
Cutting to the heart of the argument, I can only say that this misconstrues the significance of moral theory. Moral theory's practical value is its instruction to judgment as to the nature, good or evil, of a given course of action.
Not having read much (if any) moral theory, I really can’t comment on this.
And again, I am not saying that the concept of rights is devoid of all usefulness. As best I grok, in my current hurried and harried state, your observations regarding the “Catallactic positivists” sound similar to some of the observing and thinking that led to this post, which should be taken as more of a thought experiment and exploration than a position paper, even though I did write it more in the latter style. I hope we can continue the conversation when I am less hurried and harried; I suspect your “jazz” will help clarify my thinking.
Never?
Poppycock, I say! Moral theories are presented all the time, often haphazardly. There's a reason why, of course, it's probably the most directly practical and derived of the philosophical fields. Everyone except for sociopaths knows they need it and though usually not in a fully conscious from first principle up to individuated instance sort of way they formulate their own codes. Often it is simply what works practically.
The logical importance of judgment (and morality) is not merely elevated in the context of a species that possesses free will; it would be nonsense to pursue it otherwise. If we are determined by our very nature, moral examination is at best a vacuity - we can only do what we will end up doing, the problem of "ought" becomes very much like a divide-by-zero error. I couldn't oppose determinism more staunchly if I tried, myself. It's one of the metaphysical backbones of my libertarianism.
The power of consequences
Life actually works like this: We are all free to do whatever we want. Seriously. We can do whatever we want, within the bounds of the physical world of course.
Well ... yes, I suppose you're right. To offer a crude example, I am free to approach that sweet young thing and have a lovely time enjoying her body, even if she doesn't find much interest in the enterprise, because I can. I'm bigger than her. I must, however, be willing to accept the consequences of my actions, which — in our utopia devoid of laws — can include being killed or severely injured by her or her friends if the activity was nonconsensual. This is where I part company with your answers to the next question.
What keeps us from pursuing this total freedom? Two things, I think: the desire most humans have to see ourselves and be seen by others as a good person; and our social nature (of which the first reason is a part).
I think you've underestimated the power of consequences. I enjoy my freedom; imposing on other people's freedom (such as the sweet young thing's freedom to choose her partners) may have an extremely adverse effect on my own freedom or even my life, and therefore I refrain from forcing the issue. I also would set an example that larger persons than I can consider themselves free to impose themselves physically on me. Far from wanting to be seen internally and externally as a good person, I am wary of what might happen if I act on my desires.
From this evolves what we've codified in the zero aggression principle and the proverbial Golden Rule. I am free to do whatever I want provided I don't infringe on your freedom to do whatever you want. A corollary is to treat others the way you'd like to be treated.
Do I have the "right" not to have my freedom infringed? Sure I do, if we agree on the code. But anyone can disregard the code anytime, and we each need to be on our guard.
You're correct in saying there's no such thing as rights, if there's no such thing as agreements between and among individuals. And other individuals can impose on your agreements at any time, so it's wise to "have at least a niggling awareness in every situation that my bubble could be burst."
I'm not quarreling loudly with your conclusions, which can be reached either through your premises or mine. My quibble is that I don't refrain from grabbing that sweet young thing because I want her to think I'm a nice guy. I keep my hands to myself so they (or some other part of my body) don't get cut off.
---
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Right. (As in correct, that is!)
B.W., thank you so much for tagging perhaps the most important aspect of my “social nature” argument, which I somehow managed to leave implicit in my words. Absolutely, the possible consequences of a choice quite frequently keeps behavior in check—and exactly for the reasons you stated. We want to think well of ourselves; we want (at least a few) others to think well of us; and knowing that “what comes around, goes around”, we prefer the loop to be positive in tone.
I do maintain that we are free to do whatever we want. (I’m pretty sure at least one other Family member has stated the same thing, but I was unable to find the quote yesterday.) However, the possible consequences of some of the choices open to us are so repellant that they are almost never even considered, much less acted upon. And I think that is partly why we regard them as so heinous when they do occur.
[Apparent] Balance of Power
This is something I've kicked around for a while as well (the whole post, not just B.W.'s comment). In order to dispense with the lenses of our belief systems that color our worldview, as well as our moral philosophizing if the two are distinguishable, I wanted to tear everything down to physical reality. Physical reality (simplified) says that the one who brings the most force or power to the conflict - and isn't all interaction with things other than ourselves conflict, much the way "collision" is defined in physics as two objects attempting to occupy the same space - wins the conflict. With sentient beings, a calculation of the odds and options is performed before entering too deeply into the conflict (as the consequences can become more grave as the conflict progresses) in order to preserve their existence. This calculation makes the appearance of force important.
When calculation of apparent force presents no clear winner, then collaboration and compromise become possible. (This obviously builds on many levels, and is just thinking out loud anyway). I think this is the point where moral systems develop and have effect ("Natural Rights" being part of a moral system). When the balance of power between entities appears to be nearly equal or not so biased as to reduce the risk of conflict then morals dictate the interaction. If that balance of power is skewed, the moral basis (rights and such) matters not.
Don't understant, evidently
It is an unattainable utopia. So is the pro-freedom creed, whether one calls it the Non-Aggression Principle or Zero Aggression Principle, (snip) Why? Because there are elements of nature—which includes human life—that have a stubborn way of not playing along with the conceptual game.
I must disagree. I attain the zero aggression principle each and every day. I just have to practice it. The fact that others do not doesn't stop me from living that way. All I can do is prepare to defend myself the best I can from that aggression. NO guarantees of any kind exist.
I don't need the consent of every other (or any other) being on the planet to own my life and use it in the way that suits me, the best I can. Self ownership is foundational, whether you call that a "right" or anything else. And calling that a "right" certainly can't be used to make the violation of anyone else's self ownership somehow legitimate.
I don't think that's what you mean by what you're saying here, but that's the first impression I got.
Guess I don't understand the question... :(
"Rights" are independent
Hmmm... I’m not sure that “rights” are a corollary of society at all. We are born independent of any society, albeit we are [usually] born into a society. The ‘right to life’ exists independent of any group, it merely means that each person has a _right to his own life, to do with as he pleases_ – when alone or not. This is true of all living creatures... true of Tarzan (and Cheeta) as well as of Howard Roark. With that in mind, it’s irrelevant what society thinks of rights or how it may attempt to implement or ignore them. This is why we are free no matter what society does or says.
I think we came OUT OF a collective INTO a world of individualism as individuals began to think for themselves. It was individuals who “discovered” rights as they began to assert themselves with their human brain – i.e. began to pull away from the collective aspects of group-think as they realized what makes them happy and productive.
I see “rights” – to life, liberty and property – as an individual assertion of defiance against any group (including society itself) that expects everyone to think and act the same way. While we may acknowledge some benefits of living in a society, “rights” insist on being left alone to wander in whatever direction the human mind can take it. It threatens no one because it asks nothing of anyone – thus the Golden Rule or the ZAP principle can apply to “rights” universally without stepping on anyone’s toes.
(The Bill of Rights, however, does step on the toes of any group or society that attempts to limit individuals to a group standard.)
One More Thing! (Since I'm a Nag)
This:
"But such killings happen every day, do they not? And I would daresay that what one person considers “warrantable cause”—He was raping my child; She was having sex with a man not her husband; He didn’t show me enough respect; The baby just wouldn’t stop crying!; She brought shame upon our family—another will not."
seems to implicitly assert that an objective reference to reason is impossible with regards the ethical nature of a given act. I don't see as you're actually saying such but it could be inferred from that. This begins to explain why rights-theory advocates (such as myself) get something like an immune reaction when someone says, "natural law/natural rights is all nonsense anyhow" and the response is usually pure vitriol. It's impossible to bridge that gap, however. What is euphemistically called "non-cognitivism" is in practice a denial of the possibility of the use of reason in constructing a theory of ethics, but its implications are far more broad than that, and far more disastrous, and sure it is no wonder that it is a product of logical positivism.
Intro to Natural Law
Greetings and salutations, Brian:
If you haven't already read this, you, (and possibly others here), may find some useful thoughts within this writing, Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard.
http://www.mises.org/story/2426
"The laws shall be merely declaratory of natural rights and natural wrongs, and … whatever is indifferent to the laws of nature shall be left unnoticed by human legislation … and legal tyranny arises whenever there is a departure from this simple principle." - Elisha P. Hurlbut, Essays on Human Rights and Their Political Guarantees (1845), cited in Wright, American Interpretations, pp. 257 ff.
Robert
Sorry I didn't respond to your earlier note...
But thanks very much for both links. Straight into the bookmarks and soon to be read.
Can vs May
"Life actually works like this: We are all free to do whatever we want. Seriously. We can do whatever we want, within the bounds of the physical world of course."
Although I perceive that what you state there is true, we should not confuse "can" with "may". "We can do whatever we want, within the bounds of the physical world of course" but we "may" only do what the [sic] laws permit.
MAY , verb aux; pret.might. ...3. To have moral power; to have liberty, leave, license or permission; to be permitted; to be allowed. A man may do what the laws permit. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature [See below]. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.(Ibid.)
Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. - (Ibid.)
Well said!
Darn it, Sunni - I've been meaning to write a screed bashing the concept of rights, and now you've taken all the wind out of my sail!
Seriously, very well said. I think as we explore personal, mental freedom more and more, we're going to see that these "mental shortcuts" we've been taking (there's more than just the concept of rights) separate us from reality, even as they give us warm fuzzies. It's not freedom if it doesn't exist in the real world. So the concept of rights, even though they are generally useful, can explain a lot of our current problems in society. The bottom line is that if you rely on a third party for your freedom, you're not very free, and rights have no meaning if they do not invite enforcement (if you're just going to defend your own interests, you can do that without rights, and I am starting to retool my approach towards this anyway).
Again very well said! I'll be ripping off your essay posting something similar in the not too distant future, I hope.
- Jeremy
http://blog.6thdensity.net
Today's Rights Problems
I have to agree, Jeremy. The trampling of the RKBA and every other enumerated right was actually made more likely when they were enumerated in the BoR. The BoR built a wall around those concepts to make people warm and fuzzy, but the wall was made of paper and easily breached once the pacified weren't paying attention anymore, as the bemoaning rather than defending of such tramplings is indicative of. Most still believe that paper wall is protecting their precious-held concepts.
Rights
We like to speak magnanimously of a “right to life”, but as the forthcoming Salon interviewee put it (and I’m paraphrasing), “What does a virus know or care about that?”. Does anyone reading this really think that sputtering “I have a right to life!!” will stop a mountain lion attack? Why would it be any different for the [relatively few] genuine human predators amongst us?
Rights are the flip side to obligations. Viruses and mountain lions have no obligations toward you. Other humans have a moral obligation not to murder you. That is your right to life.
People have a moral obligation not to take things from you that you justly own. That is your (moral) right to property. The government enforces a legal obligation of other people not to take things from you that the government says you own. That is your legal right to property.
etc.
Rights are only illusory "bubbles" when you forget that they're shorthand for an obligation on other people. "The complete rejection of the concept of rights," insofar as it entails the complete rejection of any obligations of one person to another, leads to quite the opposite of a psychologically healthy environment.
I do agree, however, that the Golden Rule (enforced on each person largely by his or her internal judgment) is not a burdensome obligation, and would lead to a good society.
Peace,
-Gabe
More nag...some Jazz
Long on the most common arguments against rights theories. The demolition of Rollins is the best part. Punk pseudo-philosopher kids, smug with repeat readings of Schmidt/Stirner and the pamphlet Long demolishes have been getting some response on a practical level, which is really more than any of them have ever deserved. It's precisely the opposite of what's happened here. Serious questions have been asked about a perhaps abstruse and obscure segment of libertarian philosophy. Serious answers were hoped for, and I hope the advocates of rights theory have been providing them.
This, by Long, is the crux of whole argument;
"[...]But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct." --Roderick Long, The Nature of Law Part IV: The Basis of Natural Law
The natural law advocate is often in a less advanced position than the natural law critic; working much closer to the metaphysical, epistemological and ontological roots of ethics. To hear a concept like rights trashed outright, then, is to hear an attack on the foundations of ethical judgment itself. Some, such as Rollins, are perfectly fine with this. Their ultimate objections to the state are purely emotive. I'm sure he would have made an excellent Blue Cap, in the right time and place.
The problem with Natural Rights
Brian,
The problem I most have with the concept of Natural Rights, is usually how they are presented and discussed. Many times, the phrase is bandied about in a way that could just as easily be replaced with the concept of a God. It is a belief held by a subset of society -of which I consider myself a part - and is no more a universal truth than the concept of God to an atheist.
"Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection."
I have no quarrel with this concept. It is rather well put, but his "we" is only referring to those who are believers in the Natural Rights doctrine. I just want to acknowledge that the doctrine doesn't exist in a vacuum and place it in the proper context. I hold no illusion such that everybody truly believes in the sanctity of Natural Rights but some are simply worse than others at the execution of this ethical doctrine.
Universals
At this point a problem emerges; if Natural Law, which can be cogitated from pure reason, is not universal, is the pure reason which cogitated its discovery? One need not live in a society where adherence to natural law ethics was automatic or where everyone already always adhered to it, including the hypothetical subject. If that were the case, studying the problem would be a fabulous waste of time at best. Any study is primarily a building of one's own knowledge, and not for everyone else.
"It is a belief held by a subset of society -of which I consider myself a part - and is no more a universal truth than the concept of God to an atheist."
If an atheist asserts God does not exist, and God does exist, the atheist is wrong. If a theist asserts God does, and God does not, the theist is wrong. God does not come into existence, or cease to come into existence, at the individual's whim. Reality, in the metaphysical and ontological sense, is not subjective. The subjective nature of experience, including what one has taken time to think about, is still beholden to objective epistemological laws (logic) and these still come into effect no matter the experience or person.
As for the quasi-theistic presentation given in natural law arguments...most of the innovators in natural law theory were Christians, such as Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, etc. and so it comes as no surprise to me that it should often have that framing, even though in its first exhaustive presentation, Aquinas, it was being deliberately separated from positive and divine law.
Edited a minor error...
Proof of God
"At this point a problem emerges; if Natural Law, which can be cogitated from pure reason..."
Can it? You obviously believe it does. Some Christians believe God is cogitated from pure reason, how else could it be so? Likewise, God is universal. How could it be otherwise?
I am not suggesting "Natural Rights" are born of pure reason, though. They don't suddenly happen or appear when I want them to; they happen inside of a framework that the fundamental true believers don't (or can't) acknowledge.
Rebuttal
Very few Christians have tried to cogitate a systematic rendering of their faith on purely rational grounds (onto-theology, in Kantian language, and I'm happy to resurrect that usage over the disgusting usage by Heidegger) for the very reason why the Scholastic attempt went kaput. I shall quote Will Durant(1); "It was a trojan horse that brought in a thousand hostile elements..." of course, their project was to integrate large Aristotle's philosophy into Catholicism, but the point still stands. At some point a leap of faith is necessary, and considerably more pernicious than the assumption that the mind is capable of clear reasoning, or the senses of reliable perception. An onto-theological argument for God can be put to the acid test of reason, and the faith hiding in it revealed after the rationalist clutter obscuring it has been burned away.
"They don't suddenly happen or appear when I want them to; they happen inside of a framework that the fundamental true believers don't (or can't) acknowledge."
I assert the only framework in question is reason itself. To the extent that one wishes to ignore, evade or subvert it as being bound up in some set of self-cloistering problems one must apply those criticisms to reason in general. There are, of course, empirical aspects to the applied form of natural law, but the bare skeleton upon which that meat is added is a purely rational framework.
I should also like to clear up a point. I don't use the term pure reason as Kant does, as I find the definition highly pernicious. In a sense it inadvertently furthers the Cartesian/Baconian(2) artificial dichotomy of reason/sense and doesn't fully accept the significance of the "dogmatic" observation that sense and reason are basically useless on their own.
(1) - This is a highly inexact quote from Story of Civilization Volume IV. I can't check it as I don't have the volume right now.
(2) - This is, I admit, more than a slight caricature of the problem, and the views of Descartes (but not so much for Bacon) as well.
We are still in different frames of reference
At some point a leap of faith is necessary, and considerably more pernicious than the assumption that the mind is capable of clear reasoning, or the senses of reliable perception.
This is the leap of faith I am referring to, I think, to arrive at Natural Rights theory. I believe this leap to be the mental shortcut Sunni is referring to when she said she was examining mental shortcuts. It is a shortcut most (or all) of us here use and travel frequently.
I assert the only framework in question is reason itself.
I understand that you assert this. This very framework is the one I assert exists inside of a larger framework of Nature, of which reason is only a small subset. This natural framework contains many beings that, as far as we (the "superior" monkeys) know, don't reason. It could - and has in these comments - be argued that even some of our own species don't necessarily occupy a frame of reference housed inside of reason and especially the same flavor of reason we may perceive ourselves in.
Brief, for lack of time
Re: Point 1
I was referring to the hidden non-rational component buried in any true onto-theological statement. I don't see a leap of faith as necessary to the exercise of pure reason, nor of the senses. To say that it does puts the mind perpetually two steps from the door of self-induced logical catatonia.
Re: Point 2
The necessity of using reason, which is natural to man, to discover the proper standard of interpersonal conduct, should only be more obvious to you then. We need not use the theory of natural law ethics to understand an attack by wild animals, as it does not apply. We're dealing strictly with human beings. The metaphysics and ethics of toasters, mussels and socialites will have to wait for another day, when we cast our gaze upon non-human things. However, even then, we'll still have to use reason to understand it, as it's a necessary component of any functional sapient consciousness.
Brief was to the point
Brian, I feel we are coming closer with every comment. Regarding my point 1 and your response, I feel that perhaps "leap of faith" may be a too-strong phrasing for what I'm trying to convey; I only used that phrase for the quick connection to your comment, I guess. To elaborate, when one deals with other people, who supposedly occupy and think inside of the same frame of reference (that being the human-centric ethical realm of those nearest you, since there is a hint of spatial or geographic continuity to these properties), a certain level of trust exists that this person passing you on the sidewalk carrying a shopping bag and eating an ice cream cone will not spontaneously pull a gun and just randomly give you a double tap to the head and continue walking and licking. This modicum of trust was what I was referring to as a leap of faith to believe the passerby held, at least, the same basic standards regarding life, etc that we consider the natural rights (and because of a perceived balance of power resulting in little gain or negative consequences; reason and logic at work!). Because there is some spatial continuity to the distribution and variation of these base ethics, the same trust, or level of trust, may not be present while walking the streets in a far away city on a different continent with a different culture (see the female western reporter wearing the burqa (sp?) in the middle east).
Regarding point number 2, this is where I feel we are getting closer and closer. I realize that the frame we speak about is the previously mentioned human-centric frame that exists in the larger frame of nature and the universe. If we were to refer to and think in the larger frame all the time, it would be like calculating our speed of travel on a freeway relative to the sun every time we drive. Likewise, though, if we were to only recognize the human-centric frame while denying the existence of the larger frame or simply ignoring it altogether, that would be akin to ignoring the fact that there is a sun and other bodies outside of the region we refer to as Earth. This only comes into conflict when stuff from outside the Earth or outside of our human frame of reference penetrates into the frame rather than just remaining a projection of something onto the frame.
Even inside of our chosen frame of reference the concept of the Natural Rights that sprung from some rational basis can only apply to the rational creatures inside of it. When humans become irrational they essentially leave our frame of reference and become part of the larger frame of nature where it is simply survival of the fittest. Dealing with such folks inside of the rational frame is a losing proposition because they aren't playing by the same rules. I think what Roderick was saying in the quote above about these concepts needing protected, not providing protection, would be bringing more people into the same frame of reference (utopia being everyone included) or defending this frame of reference from those outside of it like a city wall.
Essentially, we deal strictly inside of our frame of reference as a sort of shorthand. But, I think what Sunni was talking about in this post is that we need to be aware of what the longhand is and not assume that the shorthand is the whole story; too many shortcuts end up getting us lost.
P.S. I hope your happy. I have the phrase "roll jazz" firmly stuck in my head. I'm not sure what it means exactly, but it evokes a smooth coolness that I can dig. 8)
A few thoughts in response
It was hardly considerate of me as one of the hosts here to post something like this and then go offline for over a week, bu that’s the way things turned out. Rather than reply to each comment, I’ll address various bits and pieces in one longish response. Before I commence that, I would like to say to everyone participating that I very much appreciate the tone of the conversation—for the most part it’s been respectful and civil.
Okay, the easy part’s over ... now to the main course.
From Suverans2:
Justified – necessary, defensible, right, acceptable, reasonable, warranted – Source Microsoft Word2000 Synonyms
Reasonable is probably a good yardstick here. Would you consider it "reasonable" for someone to kill you because you didn't show them enough respect? Do you think it would be "reasonable" for someone to kill you, particularly as a "baby", just because you wouldn't stop crying?
"As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
I’m pretty sure all of us reading this know what “justified” means, thanks. And if not, dictionaries and such are just a couple of clicks away.
Regarding the more substantive items, I do not think killing under those conditions would be reasonable—but such killings have happened. And that was the entirety of my point in bringing up the examples. Your closing quote is an older formulation of how I began my penultimate paragraph, so I’m not sure why you thought it needed to be said again.
More from Robert:
You inadvertently left off my i.e., which means,"that is to say", Sunni.
Um, no, I didn’t; and I do know what the abbreviation means.
Robert: The "right to life" does not refer to a right to everlasting life, i.e. that you won't die from a deadly virus, a mountain lion attack, or even from another human attacking you…
Sunni: “I don’t recall insinuating that the phrase did.”
Robert: I believe you did insinuate that, Sunni.
I can understand how someone might infer that from the words, but that was not what I intended to communicate. Going back to an earlier exchange, I thought I’d made my meaning clear: you had commented that the phrase communicates a belief that one has an essential right to live; and I responded that it is not a universal belief.
From Brian:
Poppycock, I say! Moral theories are presented all the time, often haphazardly. There's a reason why, of course, it's probably the most directly practical and derived of the philosophical fields. Everyone except for sociopaths knows they need it and though usually not in a fully conscious from first principle up to individuated instance sort of way they formulate their own codes. Often it is simply what works practically.
Ah, okay; we had differing contexts in mind, then.
From PintofStout:
When the balance of power between entities appears to be nearly equal or not so biased as to reduce the risk of conflict then morals dictate the interaction. If that balance of power is skewed, the moral basis (rights and such) matters not.
Very interesting ideas in your commentary, PofS; I for one would like to see you expand upon them at your place once you’ve the time for it. For now, I’ll focus on the bit I pulled out. When morals are not highly congruent between the parties, the flimsy nature of rights becomes evident. As an example, honor killings are still acceptable in some societies, but not in others.
Pagan contributed:
I see “rights” – to life, liberty and property – as an individual assertion of defiance against any group (including society itself) that expects everyone to think and act the same way.
Thank you very much for your thought-provoking post. From your context I see the concept in a new light—one I could value deeply. But again, that perspective is far removed from the current conceptualization of rights.
Brian again:
This:
"But such killings happen every day, do they not? And I would daresay that what one person considers “warrantable cause”—He was raping my child; She was having sex with a man not her husband; He didn’t show me enough respect; The baby just wouldn’t stop crying!; She brought shame upon our family—another will not."
seems to implicitly assert that an objective reference to reason is impossible with regards the ethical nature of a given act. I don't see as you're actually saying such but it could be inferred from that.
Yes, it could; but I was not saying nor implying that. My point was mostly to highlight that other societies have differing views of what can justify killing another—and with that frame of reference, the baby example doesn’t belong. Sorry about the sloppiness.
Suverans2 wrote:
Although I perceive that what you state there is true, we should not confuse "can" with "may". "We can do whatever we want, within the bounds of the physical world of course" but we "may" only do what the [sic] laws permit.
I am not going to wander off into the thicket of law here; I see that as another mental shortcut that has led many, many individuals very far astray.
Jeremy contributed:
The bottom line is that if you rely on a third party for your freedom, you're not very free, and rights have no meaning if they do not invite enforcement (if you're just going to defend your own interests, you can do that without rights, and I am starting to retool my approach towards this anyway).
Again very well said! I'll beripping off your essayposting something similar in the not too distant future, I hope.
Thanks for registering and sharing your thoughts! Given the response my ramble has generated, I’m sure your contributions to the exploration will shed more light on our perspective than mine apparently has. I look forward to seeing your ideas. I deeply enjoy—and get a lot of value from—exploring these mental shortcuts, but doing so typically leads me into territory most others don’t seem to grok or like.
While waiting for the deeper exposition, I’ll just wonder aloud why we refer to others as “third parties” and not “second parties” ...
From selylidne:
Other humans have a moral obligation not to murder you. That is your right to life.
When and how did that develop? I’m not being flip in asking. Since you distinguished mountain lions as in a different class from humans, yet we are animals also—albeit very different ones, since we are thinking animals—I can’t help but wonder when in our ancestral past we crossed some line that put upon us obligations that other animals do not have.
Does our capacity to think really change all the rules of the game, so to speak? (I’m wondering out loud again, and that is probably an exploration better saved for another time, but anyone who wants to answer briefly and generally is welcome to do so.)
Thanks for joining the conversation, Gabe.
Regarding PofS’s and Brian’s exploration of natural rights, I will only say, please continue. PofS has focused on an area I have long wondered about, but have not done any serious/formal reading or exploration into; thus I think it best I stay out of the subthread for the most part.
To conclude, then. Mama Liberty and PofS have restated my position most clearly: “NO guarantees of any kind exist”; “I hold no illusion such that everybody truly believes in the sanctity of Natural Rights but some are simply worse than others at the execution of this ethical doctrine.” The concept of natural rights has much more value to me than all the modern, often state-based claptrap chewed over so much in political and social commentary, but it also is a mental shortcut that, while it may work well in a peaceful society where it is at least implicitly accepted, it is still a “warm fuzzy”, as I believe Jeremy put it. Under less optimal conditions, one sees the wishful thinking behind the concept much more clearly—and we may experience some of that here, if economic conditions continue to deteriorate and more Americans recognize the chimera of political leadership as realized in the USSA. As Heinlein put it, I think our society is on a cusp ... but few apparently recognize that and are going to the bottom of the pool.
Apology
Greetings and salutations, Sunni:
Hope this finds you and yours healthy, happy and prospering.
We, (Kathleen and I), are intuitive enough to know where we are not wanted. Our apologies to you and the conspirators for interrupting. Please remove our account immediately.
Thank you.
Robert & Kathleen
P.S. Um, yes you did. See the first line of your Fri, 2008-07-11 20:12 post, entitled, Really?.
Not necessarily true ...
Robert, it is true that your comments thus far have been viewed differently by me than others’ contributions—but that is first and foremost because I do not know you, insofar as I can tell from your participation here. Until I know you better, I cannot judge whether you’re “interrupting”, or worse.
Part of the situation is my responsibility: I do not have a current page that spells out what this place is about and the preferred means of contributing to our conversation. I apologize for that; and I hope to get one posted very soon.
I read about time once
Regarding PofS’s and Brian’s exploration of natural rights, I will only say, please continue. PofS has focused on an area I have long wondered about, but have not done any serious/formal reading or exploration into
Sadly, I've read precious little on it, too. I'm struggling to keep up with Brian's terminology which is kind of "insider" to those who may read and study philosophy.
I had hoped (for about two years now) to read up on all of this and present an essay, but have been unable to recapture the frame of mind that drove this desire after the reading materials were gathered (a slew of links to the works). Maybe this will spur me into it again if only the time could be found for it. Thanks for the encouragement.
Did I miss something?
Guy comes in, makes some interesting and challenging comments, gets challenged back, which causes him to get huffy and leave. Thin skin or is some subtext flying over my naive little head?
I did too, I think.
Uncle Warren, I am not entirely sure what happened. I sought clarification, but it was not forthcoming, so I honored his request.
I have UWA 52 downloaded, but still haven’t gotten time to listen to it—it’s driving me nutty! Maybe this evening ...
Rights
I finally gave in and registered. ;)
About rights: I see your point. I don't necessarily expect others to respect what I consider to be my rights, but I will not stoop to violating theirs. I have never thought rights are transferable between species, although I will still attempt to treat other species with respect as long as I can without endangering myself or others of my own species. I will defend my "rights" against predatory humans or other dangers.