Rights?

This has been bugging me for a little while now - The factors that allow us to have rights is our innate reasoning power and concious choice to function in society...

Where does this leave the mentally disabled? Does it give them no rights? If they have no right to live, is killing a mentally disabled person for some kind of property gain an immoral thing to do?

I can't understand where I'm getting stuck in this problem; Something seems to be missing for me.

Cheers.

Andy.

Post 1

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 3:09pm

Individuals do not have rights because of their individual characteristics.

Humans have rights because they are rational animals.

Individuals have rights because they are human.

Post 2

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 7:47pm

Mr. Bowman,

Rick is right. What humans share is a common potentiality for rationality (possessed in different degrees). If some being had absolutely no potentiality for rationality -- then it would not (could not) be a human being.

Ed

Post 3

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:38pm

"Rights" in a society or between a set of life forms exist only because they are fought for and enforced.

The justification for the right to have full control over what is done to your own body and property comes from a productive life form's realization that enforcing such rights for themselves and others is extremely beneficial (and even necessary) to achieving their own goals.

If you steal from another when they are defenseless, you can expect someone to come back later and make sure you have a net loss. But now your talking about a life form that has very human genetics, yet has lesser than average functionality/ability. Does anyone care about this life form? Are they going to defend? Do you actually want to live at the non-consensual expense of other humans?

Post 4

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 12:00am

Andrew:

     1st off: by 'the mentally disabled', I gather you regard this amorphously labeled group as having NO 'innate reasoning power and conscious choice' ability (as, like, say, a 'normal' 6-mos old); am I correct on that? If so, then...

     2nd: by 'reasoning power' ("innate" or ...?) do you mean the capability of rationality, or do you merely mean ratiocination? (There IS a difference.)

     3rd: Further, re "2nd", do you mean merely using (whichever), or the actual learning-how-to-use...it?

     Since I'm presently raising a Down Syndrome boy (I'd guess you could say he's 'mentally disabled') , I'd appreciate your clarifications before attempting to answer your questions.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: checking my profile might be worthwhile before you respond.

P.P.S: re-reading Ed's last statement would also be worthwhile.

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/02, 12:11am)

Post 5

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:50am

This discussion reminds me of an experience I had back in the mid-70s, when I was in the band on a local tv mid-day talk-variety program. The emcee was talking with the parents of a Downs Syndrome boy who was in a regular school and performing TWO YEARS ahead of grade level! Now, I know some of you might think: two years ahead of grade level in the typical government school is nothing to boast about. But the point is that a "mentally disabled" kid was supposed to be way BEHIND grade level. So what was going on??

It seems that his parents ignored the conventional wisdom about Downs kids. They knew that they would get little or no visual feedback from their son that he was "getting" what they were trying to teach him, since the nerve-muscle connections in Downs kids are (always? usually?) not functional. Parents of "normal" kids cue off of their kids' facial expressions as they grapple with and grasp ideas, words, etc., those expressions being the outward manifestation that their minds were actively at work. The Downs boy's parents ASSUMED (they said they "took it on faith," which plays well in Nashville, the "buckle of the Bible Belt") that he was getting it, and they just steadily, consistently, persistently kept working with him and, lo and behold, he WAS getting it, and he made enormous academic progress.

(Think about how well "normal" kids could do, if their parents worked with them that much!)

Anyway, while I know that there is a large range of cognitive ability among Downs Syndrome kids, there is also an effective way to draw out what ability they do have, as these parents demonstrated. There is no reason that the "mentally disabled" have to be neglected on the assumption that they aren't "rational." They are. They just take more work -- and more "faith" or principled understanding about what will work, if it's given a chance.

REB

Post 6

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 11:46am

Dean,

""Rights" in a society or between a set of life forms exist only because they are fought for and enforced."

You are exactly right.

Post 7

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:15pm

Mike Erickson quoted Dean,

"Rights" in a society or between a set of life forms exist only because they are fought for and enforced."

and commented, "You are exactly right."

We have to make a distinction between the existence of rights and the enforcement of rights. People can have rights even if their rights are not enforced, as in a totalitarian state. The fact that people's rights are not enforced does not mean that they don't have them, in the sense that others aren't obligated to respect them. All it means is that the rights that they do have are not being protected.

- Bill

Post 8

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:19pm

Bill,

I believe thoughts without actions are meaningless.

Mike E.

Post 9

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:26pm

Mike,

If rights didn't exist unless they were enforced, then they couldn't be enforced, because in order to be enforced, they would first have to exist.

- Bill

Post 10

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 4:02pm

Very true - to be enfoced means they be recognised.

Post 11

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 4:24pm

Bill,

"If rights didn't exist unless they were enforced, then they couldn't be enforced, because in order to be enforced, they would first have to exist."

That's just silly. A "which comes first, chicken or egg?" type of argument. The fact is, rights exist where there is enforcement of them, nowhere else.

I have to concentrate on work for a few hours. I'll check in tonight.

Mike E.

Post 12

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:19pm

So rights don't exist in a totalitarian country where they're not being enforced? Then how can we say that the state is violating them? Your right to your tax money is not being enforced. Does that mean that you don't have a right to the money?

- Bill

Post 13

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 7:46pm

Bill,

Rights are a good idea. But without action they are meaningless. What meaning does "I have rights" mean, if they are violated, you take no action? What meaning does, "people in totalitarian countries have rights" have, if you do not take action? What is your plan of action?

Frankly, I'm a little pissed lately. We've had a "heroes" thread about "heroic" objectivists, another thread criticising most people "even objectivists" for not acting against "injustice", even calling most people cowards. So, where is the motivation for action when we can be "heroes" without acting, because of our ideas only, and where we can have "rights" without action? What a crock of horseshit. Ideas without action are disconnected from reality.

Post 14

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:25am

Mike,

Of course, action is important, but action must follow ideas, not precede them; you must know what you are acting for.

- Bill

Post 15

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:47am

Mike,

There can be no enjoyment of one�s rights without enforcement, that is true. But rights do not depend upon enforcement or recognition for their existence.

Man�s nature is what gives rise to the concept of rights. So, regarding chicken vs. egg: First, there is man�s nature. Next, recognition. Then, enforcement.

You say that ideas without action are disconnected from reality, but this doesn�t prove what you want it to. Take away enforcement and recognition, and there is still man�s nature as a volitional, conceptual being. That nature is the connection to reality that maintains the concept of rights in the absence of societal recognition. No action on the part of any individual is required. An individual needs not understand, nor be read, nor come out swinging for his rights for their continuing existence. This is Bill�s point.

Your point, that we are all doomed if we don�t get off our butts and do something about our rights, that sitting around repeating, �I have my rights, my rights, my rights!� is not going to be enough�is also true.

Jon

Post 16

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:32am

Jon,

"But rights do not depend upon enforcement or recognition for their existence."

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You have written a prescription for pacifism with which I vehemently disagree. Innocents fall under the protection of those who would ACT to preserve THEM as a value, they have no intrinsic RIGHTS until such time as they conceive of their rights and the necessity and willingness of action to preserve their rights. Context, as always, matters.

Post 17

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:23am

Mike Erickson�s argument seems the strongest in my opinion.

The source of mans rights, are his conditions for existence; and the source of those conditions, is the Law of Identity. A right is a moral principle, and it is a principle that only has meaning in a social context. Eliminate that social context, and there is nothing for that moral principle to define. Rights are a relational concept; they describe the transition from taking action alone, to the morality or guiding principles that should govern those actions within a social structure of other people.

The conditions for existence are intrinsic, but the moral principle that would protect those conditions within a social context, exists only to the degree that a person recognizes and then acts upon them.

George

Post 18

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 3:34pm

Did Ayn Rand have the right to bear arms?

She not only did nothing to act upon it, but also actively dismissed its importance.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 2/08, 4:20pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 5:32pm