Regarding the Objectivist Theory of Rights

Steve,
First of all thanks for your response. :)
I wanted to say that maybe I should have written that the most fundamental right must be the same right as the right which was the source of all [other] rights. Rand seems to make a distinction between the two though by describing man's most fundamental right as "the right to his own life" and describing the source of all [other] rights as being the "right to life". (I take "the right to his own life" to mean basically what you described it as being in your post, and the right to life to mean the right to act to sustain your life.) I do not see how the most fundamental right could be any other than the right which is the source of all [other rights], in other words. Can you help me with this?
Thanks.
p.s.... I felt that there might be something wrong with saying "anyone in their right mind would, etc..." as an argument, but, instead of looking in to why that might be the case, I simply and lazily wrote it anyway. I was rather tired (as I seem to be a lot these days) and simply didn't care. This was a mistake of mine. I should have had more scruples than that. I apologize.

Post 41

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 9:53am

Christopher,

Rand defines "life" as "a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action," and "the right to life" as "the right to engage in a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action." She then says that the latter means: "the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." She adds: "Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (My emphasis)

From the above, it is evident that she equates 'the right to life' with 'the right to one's own life.' But on what grounds does she do this? For it would seem that the two are different rights -- the former implying only the right to sustain your life, while the latter implies the right to destroy it.

My answer (from Post 12) is as follows: The freedom to sustain your life implies the freedom to destroy it, because it implies the right to determine for yourself which actions are self-sustaining and which are not.

Thus, the state can't come along and say, "You can't do that, because WE'VE judged that it isn't conducive to your survival. YOUR judgement is the only thing that matters. So, even if you're doing something that the state judges is suicidal, it has no right to stop you.

As Rand puts it, "The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action -- specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."

-- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/19, 10:01am)

Post 42

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 12:49pm

I don't think this is repetitious, but it might be, in which case, I apologize in advance to whoever I am repeating.
The legal right to something includes the right to dispose of it in any manner one chooses.
Also, suicide, under emergency circumstances such as Galt faced, or medical exigencies, is a self-protective act. It is akin to rejecting poison, turning away from obscenity, risking your life to secure freedom, Kira setting out on the improbable journey out of Soviet Russia.
Just as we say that life as appropriate to man is how men must try to live, we are saying no to living as a slave, etc. Galt was willing to spend his life on preventing Dagny's being tortured. (Sigh.) (Lucky Dagny didn't meet Luke or Bill first.)

Post 43

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 3:41pm

Christopher,

No need to apologize. I have nothing against strong statements and I wasn't at all offended. What I was pointing out is some phrases are really the opposite of what they appear to be on the surface (a strong claim really sitting there as a structural weakness). When I catch some weasel words appearing in my typed text, I delete them and ask what feels weak in my argument such that I got defensive. Here is what I think is a fun Wikipedia article on the subject.
-----------

I remain somewhat baffled by the distinction between "the right to his own life" and "the right to life" - not as to the actual difference in the meaning of the words, but in what is the significance of that difference.

- The word "the" particularizes the subject, saying we are focusing in on a particular instance of that which is a right.
- A right is a moral principle related to action, a concept subsuming different kinds of rights (our context only limited that range to moral rights).
- "his own" distinguishes whose life is being referred to.
- Not having "his own" still references the life of a human relative to the right being discussed. No one is reasonably asserting, given the context, that it is a statement that man owns all life (all living forms) - that isn't even in the area of discussion.

Neither I nor anyone else can literally live anyone's life but our own. I live here inside of my skin and you live over there in your skin, etc. So my right to my own life is so close to saying 'my right to life' as to befuddle me in this context. You'll have to elaborate on what is significant in this difference.

Post 44

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 8:30am

Steve,
Thanks very much for that.
I think that part of what you were saying is that rights are rights to engage in certain types of action. I'll have to look in my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness, but I am pretty sure that Rand echoed that contention. If that's the case-- if Rand claimed that rights are rights to engage in certain types of action-- then perhaps there literally is no distintion between what is denoted by "the right to life" and by "the right to one's own life.
I was interpreting "the right to life" as meaning the right to engage in a certain kind of action (namely, as the right to engage self-sustaining action), and interpreting "the right to life" as meaning the right to make one's own choices and decisions and to keep the product of one's work. I don't know exactly why I interpreted the latter of these rights this way (which is probably why I just said that anyone in their right mind would interpret it that way, instead of making a rational argument for interpreting it that way); however, if by saying "the right to one's own life" Rand meant the right to engage in self-sustaining action, then there truly is no distinction between what is denoted by "the right to life" and by "the right to one's own life".
Thanks very much. :)

Post 45

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 7:03pm

I'm sure that this will be twisted and misread (sigh), but anyway:

Miny: The legal right to something includes the right to dispose of it in any manner one chooses.

Actually, rights are not infinite black holes of private privilege, but rather, in the case of property rights, as one example, are strictly delimited by the contractual relationship with the commons, from which all physical property at least derives.

Taken literally, Mindy's statement "...any manner ..." (emphasis added), which, yet again, reflects a strain of libertarianism at odds with Objectivism, would allow one to not just build an atomic bomb in ones basement, but to set it off as well, regardless of the damage to other's lives and property. Or, owning a piece of land, one could dig a conic section right to the core of the Earth, perhaps selling it as raw mass to an L5 colony via the upcoming space elevator that JPL is working on.

Too bad about those earthquakes and volcanos. Just exercising my rights...

That's not how rights work, unless you're referring to the quaint concept derived from the Divine Right of Kings that appeals to the less responsible factions of the Libertarian underground. In the real world, whenever I claim something for my exclusive use, that simply means that I can forbid other people from interfering with my common law right to use and disposal.

But that right is bounded by the original commons rights that other people gave up so that I could, for example, claim a piece of land and fence it off. Other people had the equal right to use of the land - for passage, for hunting, for recreation, potentially to build something else or mayby the same thing I was planning - before I made that claim, and thus, I have to compensate the commons for the losses to those people. What's fair is fair.

That in NO way diminishes the value of private property or the right for people to acquire and enjoy it. Private property is wonderful and the tragedy of the commons is quite real. However, these archaic ideas of somehow acquiring property by such means as "mixing ones labor with the land" or simply "establishing a boundary" (as gold miners would establish a claim during the CA gold rush) are totally off the mark both morally and legally. They immediately generate all kinds of absurdities, such as claiming the view out to the horizon, or claiming the moon (as one organization has done, BTW.) This should be a signal to the intellectually wary of some underlying fallacy.

Post 46

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 7:06pm

We don't need to hear your disgusting bodily functions, please don't transcribe them.

Post 47

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 8:48pm

"ph," Ted, not "f" - or perhaps you are not familiar with the field?

Post 48

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 9:22pm

Are you some damsel in distress that you think we want to hear you "(sigh)"? Keep your noises to yourself.

Post 49

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 6:21pm

Cut the man some slack, Ted. I see it as a vast improvement that Phil made it through a post without compulsively assuring a disinterested crowd that he isn't homosexual or dropping some creepy and bizarre reference to child molestation.

Post 50

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 6:48pm

Mindy wrote,

Just as we say that life as appropriate to man is how men must try to live, we are saying no to living as a slave, etc. Galt was willing to spend his life on preventing Dagny's being tortured. (Sigh.) (Lucky Dagny didn't meet Luke or Bill first.)

I'm not saying that what Galt did was wrong or against his self-interest. He clearly couldn't stand the thought of witnessing Dagny's torture. It would have been unbearable agony for him. I think suicide is justified under those circumstances. I also think that one is justified in risking one's life for the sake of freedom, if only because living as a slave can itself be unbearable. My point was only that there may be circumstances, although admittedly rare, under which initiating force is in a person's self-interest. But in such cases, the perpetrator has an obligation to compensate his victim, if possible.

- Bill

Post 51

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 7:09pm

William from post #50: ...I also think that one is justified in risking one's life for the sake of freedom, if only because living as a slave can itself be unbearable. My point was only that there may be circumstances, although admittedly rare, under which initiating force is in a person's self-interest. But in such cases, the perpetrator has an obligation to compensate his victim, if possible...

In point of fact, one's life is always at risk. Just sitting out in a park waiting for a meteorite to strike is a significant, albeit small, but real and calculable risk of one's life. More to the point, every time I get on my motorcycle, I am raising the risk level to my life in some respects, lowering it in others. Where I eat, what I eat, and how much I eat are risk factors to my life. We have arranged our civilized Western lifestyle in such a way that risks are largely invisable, but those ambulances and fire trucks are quite real.

A rational person balances risks against rewards and penalties using some variant of decision theory, explicitly or implicitly.

Paramedics initiate force all the time, as when they are faced with someone in a coma or clearly not thinking clearly, due to shock, drug overdose or other physical or mental deficits. Not only do they not compensate the "victim" for the effort of saving his life, but they usually charge them a sizeable fee for the service, on the assumption that if you wanted to live, then you ought to pay them for their services in that end, or, alternatively, if not, then what are you doing wasting your and their time, as in suicide.

Post 52

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 7:17pm

Re-reading that bit about how it was a good thing Dagny didn't meet Bill or Luke first, I felt a twinge: I trust you guys know that was a joke!!

Post 53

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 7:34pm

I'm sorry, Ryan. After the "(sigh)" I simply stopped reading. [Whine.] So, /sniffle/, I didn't know if he went on with a racist >burp< rant, or a discussion of his ~wheeze~ perversions or lack thereof. I'm glad to hear }}fart{{ that he didn't.

Post 54

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 10:26pm

Phil wrote,

Paramedics initiate force all the time, as when they are faced with someone in a coma or clearly not thinking clearly, due to shock, drug overdose or other physical or mental deficits.

That's not initiating force. Force in this context refers to forcing someone to act against his judgment, which presupposes that he is in possession of his faculties. If he is in a coma or in shock, then he's not in his right mind, so how could he be a victim of force or coercion?

By the way, Phil, I don't understand why you refer to me as "William" when I sign my posts "Bill" -- unless, of course, you're trying to be condescending. Are you?

- Bill

Post 55

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 1:23am

Ted, I'm just messin with ya. :)
As to paramedics and initiation of force. No, they don't. There are very clear laws regarding how a patient can be treated, along with a presumption of consent for lifesaving treatment in the event of incapacitation. One of the first things we learn is that if you forcibly treat someone that doesn't want to be treated, you are getting charged with assault.

Post 56

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 11:15am