RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Getting Rights Right

Wednesday
April 13, 2005

Getting Rights Right by Robert James Bidinotto

[Editor's note—I have long held that there is confusion in Rand's writings as to whether "rights" are metaphysical properties of human beings or ethical concepts. It is true that by the time she got round to addressing the question specifically in Galt's Speech she defined them as concepts, yet elsewhere she appeared to be positing rights as ready-made "things" one is born with in the same way one is born with two thumbs & eight fingers. In this post on the SOLOHQ thread, Who's Better Off?, Robert Bidinotto both clears the confusion up & demonstrates its consequences. — Linz]

Should the concept of "rights" be interpreted within a moral context of rational self-interest? Or is it a kind of Kantian "categorical imperative"—a metaphysical commandment that shouts "thou shalt not impose force," without regard to any considerations of rational self-interest? (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (63 messages)

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:36am

The question is basically: What affect does violence have on the perpetrator? If you are concerned with your own best interests, your own longterm health, you will avoid acts of violence. Successfully rational, you will never commit any act of violence in your life. That will be best for your self-interest.

As fallible creatures, we are caught incompetent and we react with violence in self-defense. It happens. The consequences cannot be evaded.

Here in Ann Arbor, we have three sheriff's deputies on the fallen heroes list. Two of them died in the same incident. One died immediately. His partner died several months later. Today, the sheriff's department recognizes that second death as a consequence of "post traumatic stress disorder." Today, a trooper who kills a suspect goes to counseling and therapy. Forty years ago, that was not an option. Men who were cops did not discuss their feelings. Now, we make them do it for their own good.

Soldiers who return from war have long lists of health problems. After World War II, they were told to get over it. After Viet Nam, things began to change. However, even now, veterans of the Gulf Wars have untreatable illnesses that might be attributed to nerve gas -- or to the stress of combat. By their nature, people who volunteer for military duty are not introspective empathetic philosophers. They are extroverts, group-joiners and team-builders, with weak ego structures. They cannot admit their fragility. Post traumatic stress disorders pile up on their lives. Some get through it with counseling. Some never do.

Much of our civilization is defined by such traumas. Can you imagine killing someone close up? Running them through with a spear? Hacking them with a sword? Doing this over and over all day long... and then doing that several times over several months in a campaign? What would that make you as a person? Would you smack down a bratty kid? Would you strike a nagging wife? Compared to what you lived through that they never could understand, what is a cuff?

Socrates served in war. He got over it. Being a philosopher is what killed him. No one wanted to deal with the questions he raised because they could not deal with the cause of those questions. Alcibiades was the understudy of Socrates. Alcibiades became irrational, a "watergater" without loyalty. He was opposed by men for whom loyalty to the state grew out of their need to understand what happened to them in the field. No one handles violence well. It always has consequences.

Judo, jujitsu, karate, aikido, taichi, and other martial arts were developed by religionists. The Buddhist monks who carried tribute -- and sometimes that was just food -- had to protect it, but also sought to do so with the least possible negative affects on the attacker -- not only out of mercy for the attacker, but out of understanding that when you commit an act of violence, you become unbalanced.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:40am

You can be born with two thumbs and lose them both. Thumbs are still part of being a human being. Rights are also attributes of a rational, sentient being. Humans have them; Klingons, Vulcans, and Ferengi have them. They can be lost, given up, taken away, violated, recognized, or honored. A bald man is still a mammal.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:10am

So, there I was, walking down the street. It was a warm spring day in the city. I was paying a lot of attention to the skyscrapers, as I often do. As I turned the corner, what did I see, but Robert Bidinotto, surrounded by children. They were bound with rope and he was crouched behind them, pointing a gun at me. "Die, you irrational kantian!" he yelled. Being fast on the draw from long hours of hard practice, I snapped out my arms. My twin .30 caliber machine guns slid from my sleeves and I unloaded 1000 rounds in his general direction. Much lighter now, I continued on my way, enjoying the skyscapers, and leaving others to clean up the mess.

Rewind...

Most people in civilian life are killed by relatives. Others are killed by "friends." Irrational behavior, threats of violence, violent acts themselves occur and are unremediated, often ignored, not taken seriously. Sometimes the justice system fails completely and an abuser kills a woman.

Hostage situations seldom begin with one person seeking to attack another individual and using human shields. Armed robberies go wrong. Political terrorists make demands of the state. Unfaithful spouses and their children find themselves in really bad situations. In every case, negotiation is the preferred strategy because it usually leads to the best outcome for all.

If I wanted to avoid the really bad morning that saw me wipe out a gaggle of kids and lord knows who and what else, my first strategy would be to not get anywhere close to Robert Bidinotto. That established, I would open a dialog. I believe that if we talk, we are less likely to shoot. If we can trade, exchange value for value, then we are even less likely to become violent toward each other. Sometimes that fails. When it does, it is seldom a surprise.

I have avoided saying this more than a few times over the last six months, but I must speak the truth here and now. It's an Objectivist thing. I'm sure you understand. I believe that the people who want to bomb civilians were abused as children and never got over it. They make up these bizarre scenarios because they have violence in their psyches. Imagine (or remember) being a child while your parents are arguing. You are a hostage. You are forced to be in a situation not of your own making. You were born into it. Imagine (or remember) being a child punished, beated, spanked, slapped, smacked. How do you deal with that? How did you? Did you ever, truly, to your root and rock, ever come to grips with the fact that whatever a child does "wrong" is not an excuse for violence. As an adult you know that. Dealing with it is another problem, entirely.

So, yes, for some people, hostage situations come from out of the blue and can only be remediated by "killing" your "parents" and "siblings" who have taken on the form of Japanese soldiers or Muslim fundamentalists.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/13, 5:18am)

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:04am

Michael,

Though the "hostage situation" I posited has a number of real-life applications (war being the most obvious), the real point of this exercise was as a thought experiment to isolate some basic issues about the concept of rights. Namely: Do rights exist as some kind of metaphysical essences intrinsic to human nature, or are they moral principles to be applied contextually?

The hostage example isolates the key aspects of that distinction, because it pits one's own rational self-interest against the alleged "rights" of the hostage. Which is primary? Your answer depends upon your theory of rights.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:05am

Robert,

Thank you for your original post and allowing this to be posted as an article, so it's not lost in the flurry of posts and threads on this active site. You've cleared up a source of confusion for me personally and I appreciate that. Beyond that, however, you've demonstrated - once again - that there are thinkers who can take the philosophy of Objectivism and clarify it, correct any ambiguities using its very own principles, and apply it to new situations. Thank you.

Jason

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:16am

Hi Robert,

Excellent essay.

I think you make the salient distinction here. It should also be said that believing that rights are inherent rights also leads to the fallacy of positive rights, i.e. right to food, health care, etc.

But I have trouble with Rand's own writing this issue.

In her essay, “Man Rights”, she says, "As to his (man’s) neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of the negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.” She goes on to say in the same essay: "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man." and "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men."

Which is it? Obligation or not? Is the definition of obligation that which is binding legally and morally, a duty? "Except obligations of the negative kind", what are negative obligations?

What is an 'unchosen obligation'? If one should be free to choose one's obligations, which only makes sense, doesn't a 'negative obligation' impose an 'unchosen obligation'?

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:22am

M. Marotta said: So, there I was, walking down the street. It was a warm spring day in the city. I was paying a lot of attention to the skyscrapers, as I often do. As I turned the corner, what did I see, but Robert Bidinotto, surrounded by children. They were bound with rope and he was crouched behind them, pointing a gun at me. "Die, you irrational kantian!" he yelled. Being fast on the draw from long hours of hard practice, I snapped out my arms. My twin .30 caliber machine guns slid from my sleeves and I unloaded 1000 rounds in his general direction. Much lighter now, I continued on my way, enjoying the skyscapers, and leaving others to clean up the mess.

LOL - I must admit that that was excellent story-telling, especially the part where Bidinotto goes down in a hail of bullets!

But there is a mocking-exaggerated quality to it.

Try this:

I am walking down the street on a warm spring day, and out from nowhere comes the neighborhood mugger, Robert Bidinotto. He begins to beat me over the head with led pipe while reaching for my wallet. I hang on to my wallet with one hand while trying to thwart the blows. I cling to the wallet in spite of the blows, and Bidinotto becomes ever more infuriated and strikes me harder. A small crowd gathers to watch, but are *afraid* to help me. All the while I am desperately trying to reach for an ankle holster where I keep a .38 snub-nose. Finally, I get hold of the weapon, and through a haze of blood pouring down my face, I fire 3 rounds into Bidinotto's chest - he falls lifeless to the floor. However, one of the rounds richochets off a nearby wall and wounds/kills one of the spectators.

This scenario, and dozens of varients like it, have been replayed in the thousands. They barely qualify as 'life boat' scenarios because they have become all too common.

Later you said: I believe that the people who want to bomb civilians were abused as children and never got over it. They make up these bizarre scenarios because they have violence in their psyches. Imagine (or remember) being a child while your parents are arguing.

This little gem of psychological projection is nonsense. The only bizaar scenario that has been given, was the one *you* postulated in your exaggerated story. At no time has Robert, or others here that take his postion on war, advocated the indescriminate killing of civilians; and I find your inference that we are, to be disgusting.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/13, 9:07am)

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:26am

Frankly, George and Michael, what I find most fanciful and unrealistic in both of your scenarios is the image of Bidinotto succumbing to mere bullets.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:33am

ROFL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

George

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:11am

Robert - I am really glad this came out as an article because it gave me another chance to sanction it.

I am soooo tempted to do a Robert Bidinotto master villain routine too. How about having him try to blow up the world with a brand new super high-tech macro-destructive nuclear device he invented or unleash a deadly virus he concocted on unsuspecting mankind - maybe because he thought he had an inherent right to do it? A command in his brain hurtling down from the noumenal realm shouting, "Thou shalt unleash death and destruction!" His is a driven man. Fanatical, with a savage gleam in his eyes and sporadic unnerving howls of laughter.

And then a child, maybe 12 years old or so, who is around somewhere, tied up awaiting some unthinkable torture, starts talking. Says that he needs to go pee-pee and should have a right to do that, but actually does not. He explains that rights are contextual, not intrinsic. So he will bravely hold it while awaiting a cruel death.

Robert Bidinotto, master villain, pauses to think. He cannot refute. He changes his mind and disarms his devices. Mankind is saved. A tear appears in the corner of his eye, he hugs his dog goodbye and commits suicide in shame...

* * *

There was something else Michael M said that I am still laughing over:

Socrates served in war. He got over it. Being a philosopher is what killed him.

That remark made my day! ROFL

btw - Michael M. People who want to drop bombs on others have a lot of reasons to want that - not just child abuse. But you might have a point about many who like to do it...

Michael

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:21am

Robert, I just want to say thank you to you, George, and especially Michael K for this and the previous discussion thread. I don't say much on these threads because I'm still trying to wrap my brain around some of the more intellectual stuff.

The Colonel has been doing such an excellent job with me offline helping me to clarify my understanding of some of these concepts, and speaking my views by expressing his own views far better than I ever could. We definitely think alike.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:27am

Michael wrote: "By their nature, people who volunteer for military duty are not introspective empathetic philosophers. They are extroverts, group-joiners and team-builders, with weak ego structures. They cannot admit their fragility. Post traumatic stress disorders pile up on their lives."

This is a sweeping generalization. The people who volunteer for the military come in all shapes and sizes. It is true that the majority have a tendency to share some psychological traits, especially in the infantry, but even so you would be surprised at the differences in mental and emotional depth many of them have.

PTSD is a tricky subject. Not everyone responds to the horrors of combat in the same way. I know a guy who has been to Iraq twice with an infantry battalion, with each tour about 9 months at a time, without any significant psychological effect. Heck, he still has a healthy sense of humor. I know another guy who was in Iraq for but three months with a rear-echelon unit, and he was so shaken up by the experience he is being medically discharged due to psychological problems.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:49am

Rights are intrinsic in the sense that we all have them unless we forfeit them by an act of voluntary aggression. Is there anyone who would say that a man who is mentally retarded to the point of not knowing the consequences of his actions has
1) no rights at all, or
2) equal rights to a fully functional person who is attacked by him?
Rights are ethically derived in the second example, and supercede the intrinsic rights in the first example.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 10:01am

After thinking about it, I think my post here was a bit too off topic so I moved it to here:
http://www.solohq.com/Forum/ObjectivismQ&A/0101.shtml

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/13, 5:43pm)

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:29am

As an (neo-)Objectivist libertarian rights theorist--see my Individuals and Their Rights (1989) and, even earlier, Human Rights and Human Liberties (1975)--I do not recognize myself in Robert's classification. I have always rejected the Kantian characterization of ethics, including rights, but neither do I consider it correct to simply derive rights directly, without any additional considerations, from the ethics of rational self-interest. After all, we are often concerned with how to treat others who have rights, not just with how to conduct ourselves.
As to the application of all this to the question about the Iraqi war, there is no mention in Robert's discussion of the central point to be made against the war: Iraq didn't attack--nor did it plan to attack, nor was there clear and present danger of its attacking--the citizens of the USA who the government of the USA is committed to protect. Governments are instituted to secure our rights and not to secure the rights of everyone around the globe. Government is hired by the citizens for a job, akin to a body guard, if you will, whose job then isn't to defend everyone around the neighborhood however much they may all be in danger or attacked by some people. It is a matter of who the US government is supposed to protect or defend, not whether Iraq is a tyranny. There are umpteen tyrannies or near-tyrannies around the world and it isn't the duty of the US government to protect everyone against this tyrannies, only its citizens. If such tyrannies ought to be attacked, they certainly may be, perhaps even ought to be, but not by the US government.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:30am

Robert,

Thanks for the article. You have been busy. First your original post, then the Bidnotto Blog piece and now this. Two sequels in twenty four hours.

The old Linz observation that rights are not like thumbs you are born with is made crystal clear in your article.

Of course, I was trying to make a similar point in my own article, the incredible mystics amongst us :-)

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:04pm

Tibor Machan writes,

As to the application of all this to the question about the Iraqi war, there is no mention in Robert's discussion of the central point to be made against the war: Iraq didn't attack--nor did it plan to attack, nor was there clear and present danger of its attacking--the citizens of the USA who the government of the USA is committed to protect.

I have addressed this previously in recent days, but regrettably this discussion and related posts have been scattered over several different threads before this one went up. It's hard for Dr. Machan or any reader to keep track of all this.

To help tie things together, I address the specifics of the Iraq situation in this post and in this one -- and in the additional material linked within those posts. I believe these posts show there was ample reason for President Bush to have approved the invasion of Iraq.

Regarding the other point -- that concern for the rights of others doesn't appear to emerge directly from an ethics of rational self-interest -- I disagree. This assumes that it is not to my individual self-interest to generalize the concept of moral boundaries (rights) as a principle of social ethics.

If we do not establish generally recognized moral boundaries for individual action in society, the only alternative will be a society governed by unrestrained power relationships -- which is demonstrably not to the best interests of individuals. But if our goal is maximizing our individual well-being and happiness in society, then establishing a mutual framework of rights is the best -- arguably, the only -- way to achieve that objective.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:20pm

Robert,

I have reviewed most of the links you kindly provided for me and I agree with you that, given what the President knew at the time of the invasion, it was the right thing to do. I do not think I ever disagreed or expressed disagreement with that. Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part that I wish we had known then what we know now. Our intelligence agencies have been screwed by several administrations too so you are right that it is unfair to criticize President Bush for the less than accurate intelligence that led to the invasion. I also wish that the President was doing more to make good out of a bad situation, as you put it in another post. I fear that a Iran-like theocracy is rising into power in Iraq and that our lack of commitment to Afghanistan may hurt us in the future.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:32pm

I don’t know, Bob, if that addresses Tibor’s comments. He says, “neither do I consider it correct to simply derive rights directly, without any additional considerations, from the ethics of rational self-interest.” This may suggest that it is self-interest but one may need to refer to additional conditions to complete the argument. Perhaps, Tibor will say more (or perhaps I’ll get around to reading his book sooner rather than later).

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:42pm

Robert, I am disappointed, that you overlooked my post #5 re: obligations.

I tried to talk about this in the Objectivist Q&A, but the conclusion was that Rand screwed up. I find that hard to believe, not because she is infallible, but because Rights is a core issue.