Right to Life?

I'm not sure if "dissent" was really the correct subforum for this, since I'm really asking for free education rather than legitimately arguing. If it needs moved, I'm sure the moderators will let me know.

I don't see where Objectivism makes the connection that all people are born with an equal and unalienable Right to Life.

I understand and agree with all of the basic metaphysics and epistemology of Objectivism. I understand that we are all separate entities. I understand that we live and that it is within our nature to live. I just don't understand why any person should really be allowed to live. I would certainly like to live, and I understand that I have a better chance of living if I support other peoples' preference that they live, but I don't see how that bestows a Right on anybody. It is, in the end, just my opinion rather than some kind of Universal Constant.

In the writings I have read, I have been impressed with the logical "proof" that can be built from just a couple of axioms like "existence exists." I can follow the inescapable logic of every conclusion that is based on those axioms and on every premise that follows - until you make the leap that because it's in my interest to not kill people they have an absolute, inalienable Right to live. At that point all of the writings I've come across seem to be saying that we all have a Right to Life because otherwise none of us would have a Right to Life. To that I answer, "Then none of us have a Right to Life." Yes, the world would suck if everyone behaved as if we have no Right to life, and all of our other Rights are predicated upon that one. That doesn't, however, absolve us from the responsibility of offering some logical argument that such a Right exists if we are going to use it as a premise on which to base so many of our other ethical conclusions.

Post 1

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 7:05pm

Ask yourself, do others have the right to take your life away from you?

Do you think, or feel, that you don't have a right to live?

Post 2

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 7:59pm

I think and feel that I want to live. I even think and feel that we should all have a Right to live. However, that is very very far from sufficient for me. Such thoughts and feelings (in me) don't stem from logical deductions based on any premises or axioms. They are most likely an artifact of my Christian upbringing. Since becoming interested in Objectivism I have learned to question many, even most, of the things I have always thought and felt.

In fact, the bit of Ms. Rand's works that I've read would seem to indicate that she took a very dim view of people who would base their ethics on their feelings. The idea that my feelings, or even what I "think" without evidence, should be the foundation of all of my ethics smacks of mysticism to me.

That's why I'm confused about this issue. Everything I read on this subject leaves me with the suspicion that the author accepted a mystical, emotional approach to deciding that we all have a natural right to life rather than a logical approach.

I appreciate your attempt to help me with this problem in a Socratic fashion. Of course, I welcome any further attempts to continue that strategy. As an alternative, I would also welcome a description of the premises and applied logic that result in the idea that we are all born with a Right to Live, or even that life is better than death.

Post 3

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 8:22pm

Nothing mystical about it. Have you given permission for anyone to arbitrarily take your life? No? Then they have no right to take your life.

See the implication here? Rights, for humans, are a man-made concept. Animals, having lesser-to-no capability of concept formation, don't have the concept of "rights"; hence, they follow the laws of nature (in order to survive, life must feed on other life.) Man, however, can reason, and from reason, rights evolved. Yes, we still feed on other life (animal or vegetable), but with other men, we can reason, negotiate, contract...

As for feeling, don't discount the visceral. Even an animal, despite having a "concept" of rights, will still defend its life, and will let you know that it doesn't recognize a predator's right to eat/kill it. Far from mystical, it's natural...

That's my two-cents, but for others who may answer you, since you're new to Rand, what have you read, so far?
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 9/29, 8:23pm)

Post 4

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 9:31pm

I've read Atlas Shrugged and lots of bits and discussions on the internet. I've been over the material at importanceofphilosophy.com fairly thoroughly, and lots of other net based information as well. I've actually been at this for quite some time, but I've been slow to accept it. I'm probably typical of Objectivism enthusiasts in that I was originally attracted to the political implications but disgusted by the ethical ones (contradictory, I know). Rational self interest, greed as a good thing, altruism as a bad thing - those all take a while to really absorb and accept. I had philosophy 101 at a junior college years ago, for what that was worth.

I'm still cogitating on what you've said. It still feels somewhat arbitrary and arguable. Most of Objectivism is relentlessly hard to argue against because it can be laid out so logically. If A, then B. If B, then C. If B and C, then D. You know what I mean? It all kind of fits together like a "proof" in high school geometry class. The "proof" in my mind just seems to be missing a couple of steps right before it gets to "All people have an inherent Right to Live."

Animals don't have a Right to Live because they don't have a concept of Rights, but I know plenty of people who have no concept of Rights, and plenty more who have a flawed concept of Rights. I don't think anyone except maybe the most avowed anarchist would claim that I can kill and eat those people.

In answer to your question, no, I have never given anyone permission to arbitrarily take my life, but why do they need permission? More to the point, what makes you think I need your permission to kill you, assuming I had the capability to do so? (take that as a philosophical question and not as a literal threat please :) )

Post 5

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 9:38pm

"More to the point, what makes you think I need your permission to kill you, assuming I had the capability to do so? (take that as a philosophical question and not as a literal threat please :) )"

Taken hypothetically, you don't need my permission to ATTEMPT it, metaphysically speaking; I haven't granted you permission, but you CAN attempt it without my consent.

But that works both ways, doesn't it?

"Morality ends where a gun begins."

Don't know what else to tell you, besides "don't overthink it." I'll leave you with a question: why wouldn't one want to recognize the existence of rights, if not as a "natural given," at least, then, as a man-made agreement between people? Unless one is aiming to be a predator, it seems kind of arbitrary and arguable to do otherwise...

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 9/29, 9:45pm)

Post 6

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 10:15pm

Well, an anarchist would certainly argue that point, but that isn't much different than your example of a predator (all of the anarchists seem to think THEY would end up on top of the food chain for some reason).

A person who wants to argue for a subjective morality though. . . he could and most likely WOULD argue that we don't have an unalienable right to life. In fact, since the whole of Objectivist ethics rests on the premise that all people have a Right to live, and the whole of Objectivist politics rests (of course) on those ethics, the concept makes a rather juicy target for anyone wishing to discredit Objectivist ideas and cut off at the knees my arguments in favor of Objectivism. If I can't counter that argument that discredits my current beliefs, then I can't be confident that I am following a moral philosophy.

Post 7

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 10:44pm

P M H,

What is Right to Life? A claim that one owns himself (his body is his own property), and that others are not allowed to do things to his body against his consent? This is the basics of property rights.

Might I propose that property rights/capitalism is the most beneficial system for a productive person.

Leeches would want a mostly capitalist system that has some way for them to get stuff for nothing. (Pure socialism/communism is too deadly).

I'd argue that "Right to Life" is not some universal non-arguable law like "A is A" or "There is consciousness" or "Something exists". The "right to life" requires a man who wants to maximize his gains from working in a society... not a universal law, but a societal law that productive men should uphold if they want to be successful.

Post 8

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 4:14am

The "right to life" as Objectivism characterizes it involves merely the individual right to freedom from coercion in the forms of force and fraud. Children have a special status in that their parents must act as "stewards" for them until they have sufficient reasoning ability to live as fully independent individuals. This raises the interesting issue of those who cannot take care of themselves, e.g. the infirm. If they have a "right" to life, at whose expense do they continue to live? Worst case, they get tossed onto the commons to suffer, starve, and perish because no one wants that burden. People in free societies tend to have far too much benevolence to let that happen. In some instances, such infirm people must remain in the same legal status as children with rights to freedom commensurately curtailed and rights to coercion of those "children" delegated to their "parents." This raises interesting ethical issues but still ultimately builds around the postulate (or theorem) of the ideal individual's right to self-ownership and thus the right to life.

By contrast, a purely utilitarian view would place no limits on "the total good" and could easily say it is fine to exterminate such "inferior" people for "the total good." See Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia for examples. See also instances of involuntary sterilization in American history in the name of "eugenics."

I just wanted to mention this because it supplements some of the points already made and may help to serve as a contrast object.

See also the "Civic Responsibility" thread.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/30, 4:56am)

Post 9

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 5:59pm

P M H,

This topic has come up here before. Here are a couple of interesting threads on this issue:

The definition of rights

Do murderers have a right to life?

Check them out first to see if they provide you with the answers you seek. There was a recent ARI essay on the nature of rights. If these past threads don't give you the answers you seek, then I will try to find a link to that essay.

Ed

Post 10

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 7:29pm

P M H,

Perhaps part of the reason why you're uneasy with the argument is due to your methodology. You mention starting with axioms, and deducing everything from there. But that's not really the way Objectivism works. The axioms, or axiomatic concepts, shouldn't be thought of as starting premises that you work up from. They should be viewed as a boundary for rational analysis and discussion. If you take a step outside of the defined boundary, you've stopped making any sense. But within that boundary, there are many, many possibilities.

Instead, Objectivism is significantly inductive, just as science is. Instead of "If A, then B", you have something like "The nature of man is X". You can't derive that nature from axioms like Identity. Identity tells you that everything that exists has a nature. But it says nothing about that nature. That is what you have to discover.

You can then think of rights, and the arguments for them, using this more inductive approach.

You can ask what kind of choices are consistent with the moral standard of life. How do you weigh them? And if you can weigh them, what's required for you to act on them? If you decide that moving to a new city to get a job is the best option available to you, what do you need to act upon it? You need the means of travel. You need a place to live. If you can arrange this yourself, with your own resources, then it's a real option. If you have to rely on others, meaning you lack financial independence, you'll have to seek their permission. And of course, if others are permitted to threaten you with violence, you won't be able to act on it. So rights are rooted in life as the standard...you need them in order to act effectively towards your own life.

Notice that this is all inductive, and not deductive. There's a lot more to the topic, but unless you accept the methodology, it'll always seem a little weak.

Post 11

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 8:10pm

Is there someone, or group, you wish to annihilate, P? Hitler asked the same questions you're asking, and I really have no patience for the kind of evasion that precedes them. Be grateful for other members here who have more tolerance.

Do you have eyes? Can you see with them? Does their function require permission from an authority, or do you direct them where you wish, when you wish? Do others direct their eyes at your discretion, or their own? Do you think about what you see? Do the products of your mind depend on the products of mine? Are your movements directed by me, or yourself?

THAT is the nature of individual rights. Every human being sees, thinks, and acts independently from another. My life is not dependent on your sanction of it, nor yours mine. Your life is not dependent on an authority to sanction it. My life is not dependent your recognition of it.

Human beings are not each a separate species to one another, requiring separate rules to exist with, or without one another. Human nature can be defined, and has to a great extent been defined. Are you denying human beings have a knowable, common nature, P, and that this nature is at the base of your right to exist?

Talk about mystical! Not to mention tyrannical, and murderous.

Post 12

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 9:29pm

P,

I found the essay and it was from The Atlas Society (TAS). Here are some good snippets:

In fact, rights are principles. Properly understood, they are objective moral principles that provide the foundation for a political-legal order. No law should violate rights. Rights are "self-evident" and "unalienable" because they are derived from facts about human nature. They are principles defining the fundamental freedoms and responsibilities that people need to have in society, if we are to live and flourish.

...

Following and expanding on the arguments of John Locke, Rand, like the Founders, understood that individual rights were unitary: they identify aspects of the freedom one needs to act, if one is to live in harmony with others.

...

The obligations they impose on others are negative: to not interfere, to not coerce anyone. This is the basic principle that unifies all the individual liberty rights; it is the basic principle of a society of traders.

Recap:
Humans are a kind of creature with the capacity to live and flourish in harmony with others and to trade value with others. Because of this human capacity along with the conditional nature of life and happiness, it is an objective (same for all) value for us that we do so. Because rights-violating action prevents us from achieving this objective value, it is morally (universally) wrong. We should respect rights because it would be morally/practically wrong not to.

Ed

Post 13

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 11:03pm

Wow. I learned a ton from the "Do murderers have a Right to Live" topic. In fact, some of the arguments in there cemented my own beliefs to the point that I felt somewhat confident chiming in with my own opinion on the topic.

Thank you.

Post 14

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 11:42pm

Ed Thompson said:
"Humans are a kind of creature with the capacity to live and flourish in harmony with others and to trade value with others. Because of this human capacity along with the conditional nature of life and happiness, it is an objective (same for all) value for us that we do so. Because rights-violating action prevents us from achieving this objective value, it is morally (universally) wrong. We should respect rights because it would be morally/practically wrong not to."

-I am beginning to be able to internalize the idea that our Rights are inescapable results of our nature. It's tough to adjust my thinking to reflect that fact, but I'm getting there. Thank you to all who have posted.

@Teresa: Your comments were among the most helpful, and I thank you for them. However,
Even being a novice at Objectivism, I felt confident that members at an Objectivist web forum would not speak to me unless they felt they received appropriate value from their efforts in some way. I do not want tolerance, nor its close cousin pity, which I despise. If those are your only motivations for taking the time to speak with me, I would prefer that you didn't. Your other comments were helpful, and I have no issue with you except that I don't want your tolerance or pity.

By the way, I knew that I sounded Hitleresque, and I was distressed by the fact that my logical understanding of Objectivism was leading me to those conclusions. That was why I sought clarification here, not because I wanted philosophical justification to do away with anyone.

Post 15

Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 5:39am

My comments to new members can be terribly harsh because I expect new students to do the actual work it takes to have a good understanding of what they're talking about. Its not like there's a lack of information on Objectivism surrounding all things contemporary in the culture (and the world.) I get extremely tired of new members claiming they've done the work, but then go on to make abundantly clear they've only read the comments of critics, or watched a couple of YouTube videos from Libertarians who claim to be Objectivists. Its annoying.

I appreciate your efforts so far. 12 points from me.

Post 16

Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 9:53am

To supplement Joe's "induction" notes in Post 10, I recommend these highly technical books:

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand
The Logical Leap by David Harriman

The second is especially interesting because it shows the inductive method in great detail in both physics and philosophy.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 10/01, 9:54am)

Post 17

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 3:02pm

Apply symmetry to your analysis.

Crap happens. We call them 'acts of God.' Consequences out of ours or any other humans ultimate control. Natural disasters. We all show up, enjoy the ride, and take our chances.

So IMO, your question is limited to rights in terms of moral sanction for the actions of other humans who might deliberately, with intent, take your life.

Which is why I suggest, apply symmetry. On what possible basis would a peer -- another sweaty naked ape just like you or me -- have more of a right to your life than your own right to your own life?

You may choose to throw that right away; it is your choice, your right. But it is not my moral choice to throw your life away, to dispose of it as I see fit. On what possible moral basis?

1] I have more S*H Green Stamps?
2] I run the 40 faster than you?
3] I go to the right church?
4] I've rolled my eyes into the back of my head along with Durkheims insane acolytes, and seen my right to your life?

Others certainly have the capability to take your life from you; you can possess the moral right to your life even as the mob burns you at the stake. In fact, in those circumstances, if the only way to save your life was to press a hypothetical button that would destroy the balance of the world and save only your life, I'd say you had every moral right to press the button. (Whether you did or not would still be your choice, for whatever reason you chose. Your children? Your loved ones? There could be many entirely selfish reasons for not pressing that button. My point is, if the world puts you on that torture rack, then it is the world's bill to pay for doing so(and even, simply tolerating those who would do so), and you would have every moral right to demand payment by those who created the conflict.)

The only lesson of that extreme hypothetical is, don't build worlds where such buttons exist and that is the only choice left to an individual.

The point is, as the mob immolates your life, it does so enabled only by the sheer brute force of numbers, not by any foundation of morality. In practice, there is no such hypothetical button, you will not be able to save yourself even if you had a moral right to do so, and the mob will burn you at the stake; you will possess your moral rights even as your life goes up in smoke. But the actions of the mob in that instance has nothing at all do with morality or the 'rights' of the mob, only of its capability, that is, the brute force of its numbers numbers. It acts like any slobbering beast in the jungle, the biggest. If it is our goal in life to align ourselves with slobbering beasts, then by all means...join the mob. How hard can it be? Millions do it. But that act is so far from the concept of morality and rights that it might as well play out on a sacrificial alter in front of a volcano. You know, what the Tribe Uber Alles folks have long justified.

There is another thread discussing Joe's recent book on morality. On it is a discussion of 'The Golden Rule' as a pervasive recurring feature of many foundations of morality.

When we advertise that we are willing to accept a win by force, deceit, corruption, and even murder, by symmetry, we advertise that we are willing to accept a loss by same.

And so, the rational self interest of 'The Golden Rule' is glaring and obvious, and the 'test of time' argument is passed by that rule with or without my embrace of it. It shows up all over the world and throughout history as a basis for morality.

Your inherent moral right to your life, IMO, is a consequence of symmetry applied to the foundation implied by The Golden Rule.

Under symmetry, there is no possible moral interpretation among peers of others having a greater moral right to your life than you yourself do. They may have a by-force capability to take your life, but that has nothing at all to do with morality or rights. They might justify their peer based aggression by hypothesizing an authority safely beyond reach and then jarringly speaking for it, but that is just the oldest carny huckster political trick in the book, whether that authority is God, "S"ociety, or Rawl's imagined perfect state of perfect human unbias, existing in a land to which only he is able to travel to and report back the opinions of its inhabitants. Same old same old.

Ancient man might have called it 'the Volcano God that lives under the Volcano.' Same thing. Rawls is just one of the latest voodoo high priest to try and pull this one over on his human peers.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/27, 3:21pm)

Post 18

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 3:56pm

Here is a concrete example of The Golden Rule in action, as an example of rational self interest.

"In the event that I initiate violence against another and with criminal intent take their life, my fervent wish is that the rest of the Tribe would descend upon me and take my life from me, for I'd have truly relinquished any right I had to that life by taking another."

By all means, do unto me as I would do onto others. I want that selfishly. And, that is a perfect example of The Golden Rule, and one in which it is entirely possible to live under to a ripe old age.

How? By refraining from murdering others, and taking their lives. Something that is so trivial to accomplish that millions successfully do so, and have, for generations.

Which is exactly the world we say we want. Right? One in which murder is a fringe 'lose-lose' event, guaranteed.

As opposed to, the insanity of proposing a world in which murder was deliberately 'lose-win.'

If we want less murder in the world, then the Paradox of Violence dictates that murder be -made- lose-lose.

Because we have all been lied to; crime not only pays, it pays damn well, as a shortcut, unless the balance of the tribe -makes- it pay terribly, as a result of the rational self interest of those who don't want to live in a world where the initiation of murder is an accessible act that can be considered with minimal consequence.

The recidivism of executed murderers is a perfect 0%.

And yet, the conviction rate of accused murderers is not a perfect 100%, because everything we do, we do imperfectly. And in the balance between murderers who get away with murder and accused murderers who are wrongly convicted and unjustly executed we have largely deliberately targeted a system that leans heavily in the get-away-with-murder end of the spectrum, as the lessor of two evils. As well, we have smartly made this a matter for states to decide, 50 experiments in justice running in parallel, and are all equally empowered to vote with our feet in a free nation to live under the paradigm that best suits our individual assessment of rational self-interest. This balancing act of individual rights and rational self-interest should never be applied on a national level, because that would be a totally unnecessary example of forced association anathema to free association.

I'd extend that same concept to as many principles of legislation and tribal organization as possible, with the exception of our relationship with external nations-- that is a proper function of a unified national government(even as the 50 states do and would have their own trade delegations to foreign nations, no problem at all, and the US Dept of State could facilitate that. But...defining a one size fits all model of national legislation and detailed regulation is a terrible systems design paradigm.

For example...as long as the principles of free association were enforced, I'd see no issue with the people of Vermont announcing that they are going to move towards a more socialist/communal form of organization, and let folks vote with their feet. I'm not smart enough to know whether folks would stream into Vermont or out of it, but assume there would be some of both under a model of free association. Likewise, Montana deciding on a complete laissez-faire model. 50 experiments running in parallel under a model of free association, and a minimal national government looking mostly outward (and largely enforcing a model of free association internally.)

Maybe in that Vermont, your right to your life is subservient to the Tribe. As long as you have signed up for that program under a model of free association, I don't see any possible issue with that, and more power to the commune, long may it wave...under freedom and free association.

By eliminating the current chain link fence cage death match struggle for national supremacy, competing ideas to run 'the' economy are diffused as existential threats to other ideas, and there are reduced opportunities for the endless and accelerating internal conflict that is dividing the nation. We'd be back to 'united we stand' instead of the current lurch towards 'united it stands.'

Because united it isn't standing so steadily anymore; Americas lurch towards universal totalitarianism isn't going down well, nor will it ever.

Post 19

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 6:18pm