| | Well, John, rights are derived from man's desire to interact with others. A man living on a deserted island does not have, nor does he need, rights.
But a man living with others, in order to interact in a rational manner with other individuals and society, ~requires~ rights.
Rights are a standard of social interaction, whether between private individuals or between an individual and the state.
Objectivists do not distribute rights to anyone, like tokens of acceptance or admissions into a special club. Rights are simply a necessity of reality. Objectivists value certain things over others, and therefore must acknowledge human beings as sentient, volitional creatures with a ~requirement of certain rights~.
Animals are not sentient, volitional beings. They live, yes. But they cannot grasp abstract concepts, or act upon reason, or reason at all. An ox can see a chair before him, but he couldn't conceive of the purpose of the chair, or consider the chair ten miles down the road that he can't immediately see. Animals have no rights. They do possess inherent beauty, because they are alive, and life is an amazing thing. But humans require food, and must therefore differentiate between species, otherwise cannibalism becomes acceptable!
As for non-living things, the concept of rights can in no way be applied. A non-living thing may possess value, as a resource or commodity, or be beautiful and expensive, but that is all. A stone could not possess rights because...well, it can't ~do~ anything. If a rock had rights, we couldn't touch it or build with it, for fear of violating its rights, and the stone would sit there on its hillside for all time. If rights were applied to nonliving things, the concept of natural resources would fly out the window.
As I said, non-right-possessing things can have value, sentimental or otherwise, but can only be considered property of sentient beings. While I wouldn't destroy a painting of Michaelangelo, because 1) it isn't mine 2) it has value in its beauty, the painting could not have rights above those of its owner; it could have NO rights.
I wouldn't off-handedly slaughter a deer or bear for the satisfaction of a whim--it serves no purpose. But if I did, I couldn't be prosecuted for it...whose rights did I violate? If I destroy or steal the private property of another person, I have violated ~that person's~ rights, but certainly not the nonexistent rights of their property.
Thanks,
J
|
|
