15

Natural Rights: Why do they matter?

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
86 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Natural Rights: Why do they matter?

Natural rights are corollary to your existence, requisite for protecting existence, and the foundation upon which all other rights are derived.

These rights are expressed in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …”

Rand wrote in “The Virtue of Selfishness” that this “...laid down the principle in the words ‘…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...’ (That)This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose; to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence. Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was to protect man from criminals---and the Constitution was written to protect man from government.” She also wrote, “The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.” “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Moral law is all that entails man’s right to exist.

John Locke wrote of the fundamental principle of natural rights. Life, liberty and property were rights inherent in your being. These rights are universal and no one has the right to take them. You have a right to exist and the corollary is so do others. You have the right to defend yourself, to the fruits of your labor, to liberty and must grant the same to others. No one has the right to deny your liberty or property without reprisal. Only you can forfeit these rights by an act which violates another. William Blackstone wrote, “... no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.”

Locke asserted that governments were instituted by man for a primary purpose; that it was morally obligated to serve people, by protecting life, liberty and property, for without these protections man was no better off than he was in a state of nature. Man would be at the mercy of every brute. This is the impetus for communities; for the mutual benefit of numbers, for defending natural rights, corollary to your right to exist.

The basic premise precedes Locke. He expanded the archaic notions of a “state of nature” and a tradition among the ancient civilizations that rulers can’t legitimately do whatever they want, as basic moral laws apply to all. He proclaimed that “Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” And, man should “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.” As for property he said, “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” In another passage he wrote, “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” Private property is essential for life and Liberty. People in nature were there own rulers and held individual sovereignty. Thus legitimate Government “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He also wrote, rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.” To do otherwise was to render man no better off than he was when in a state of nature. Man should not enter into or create a government that reduces rights more than absolutely necessary or it would be a diminution of the rights retained by man in his natural state. The only legitimate occasion where man should relinquish his rights should be voluntarily, in pursuit of justice; namely the independent execution of justice so as to avoid unusual cruelty and avoid mistaken, unjust and biased, partial judgment. This should be granted to an impartial arbiter.

Locke expressed the view that if government did not fulfill these obligations then people would be living under tyranny and they would have the legitimate right to rebel. Although in Locke’s day he was dealing with monarchies he expressed these premises universally saying “Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” This was so dangerous in his time, authorship for his Second Treatise was revealed till his death.

His words along with those of Algernon Sidney greatly influenced America’s founding fathers; Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Mason, etc. were among them.

“Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the rights of others.” In correlation and distinction to this he said, “Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”- Paine

“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”- Jefferson

James Madison, attempted to protect all natural rights not enumerated in primary authorship of the Ninth amendment.

It has been said that “you have the natural right to be eaten by a savage beast.” You also have the natural right to use your superior intelligence, defend yourself, fashion a weapon, kill and eat the beast for supper. Whether you call them Natural, Unalienable, or God given is inconsequential, at least in relation to how rights are mutually respected, so long as you recognize and respect them.

Respectfully,
O.A.


All Comments

  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like the distinction between natural rights being negative, something that we already have naturally (e.g., life), which it is wrong for people to take away. And very funny about the firearms; I would point out to your FB friend that bearing arms is part of my right to feel safe (and be safe).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 11 months ago
    Excellent post! I especially appreciate Rand's quotes from the Virtue of Selfishness. Very concise, and profound. And the closing; I love it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If some group does spend time and creates a list, I may be able to build an Apple App Store app around it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good morning Robbie53024,
    Excellent exchange. We live in an imperfect world. Perhaps there is no perfect answer; only the best choice among many bad options...
    Carpe diem!
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Granted I have not memorized every facet of the Objectivist theory of rights, but the parts I do remember are non-contradictory. How is it flawed?

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by harmony. I meant that rights don't contradict and step on eachother. This kind of harmony is not only possible, but it's actual according to the Objectivist theory. If you mean, however, that people can still violate rights and disrupt the harmony (I.e., what results from a non-initiated force environment) in any system, then this is certainly true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, OA. The purpose was to question whether in a system of limited resources, do "natural rights" apply. As you identify for the space ship example, that is not a "natural" environment - I might also say that a deserted island could be considered the same. Just something to question.

    I don't have any perfect answers, but in a closed system where your decisions have a direct impact on my survival, I think that the concepts of natural rights would need to be amended. Thus, can they really be considered "natural?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Solver,
    This could be quite an interesting exercise, but it may also quite exhaustive. As It relates to natural rights, human rights, unalienable, individual rights, God given, whatever you wish to call them and they have a conceptual character that encompass' a vast array. This is why it is easier to write a ninth amendment and leave them un-enumerated. They are fundamental and encompass the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought, expression, association, the right to work, property, etc. All that is prerequisite for these things to exist...
    Give it a shot. I would like to see what you come up with.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Fantastic example! You totally showed up ObjectiveAnalyst and m082844 with your brilliance.
    (sarcasm)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Maphesdus,
    If this is what you believe, it should be quite easy to provide an example. If while exercising one's rights it violates another's then it cannot be a right within the constraints I have described. If I violate another's rights such as polluting upstream from them, then they have legal recourse against me for violating their rights, but I have not been constrained by my own definition.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 11 months ago
    Can anyone or group create a list of these natural rights? If not are they natural?
    People can make lists of natural gem stones, natural animals, natural foods, natural senses, but have BIG trouble agreeing when using the term natural rights.
    It seems to me the natural rights are biased to humans, not nature. Not that that is bad. But, I prefer the alternate term individual rights since the idea is all about the rights of the individual. The individual is part of nature but so is the parasite. Focus these rights to where they belong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello m082844,
    I do not call my self an "objectivist" though I have found no superior single philosophy. I am a student of Objectivism. I have studied much philosophy and glean from each all that is pleasing and reason permits.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Objectivist theory is flawed. It's not possible to create a system of perfect harmony.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Robbie53024,
    Interesting questions. I know others may not agree with my answers, but I do have some.
    1) Yes.
    2) Yes.
    3) No.
    The parent/parents are responsible for providing the resources or sacrificing their own since they were responsible for bringing into the world those lives knowing they would be dependent. This is how the population naturally grew in the first place. If the parents cannot provide they must rely upon the generosity of others. They have no moral right to make demands upon others. If they must sacrifice, gather, hunt, or grow more and work harder so be it. In space, more consideration for unplanned pregnancy and its relation to resources may be required, but I must point out that space is not a natural place for man and therefore "natural rights' may be found wanting...

    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very much agree. Self-sacrifice (to others) so easily becomes group sacrifice. But your group is made of yourself and others. It's a moral code with lots of groups racing to the bottom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Another theory as to why we get bigger dispit the desire of the masses for smaller government is the moral code of of the general public. Check out Yaron Brooks' book "Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Governemnt" for the complete case from an Objectivist's point of view.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the objectivist theory of rights, there is no conflict; only complete harmony. Can you give an example? I'll try to apply the objectivist theory so you can see what I mean.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see. That clears it up for me thanks. I like Mr. Paine -- big fan. The objectivist position is that rights are a concept that apply to a social context, so rights do not apply to a state of nature (i.e., not a social context), in that case you rely simply on moral concepts. Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Given the right circumstances, I can't think of any right which does not contain the possibility of potentially infringing on the rights of another person. There are potential conflicts in everything.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, they also currently have the right to vote. And like the ancient Romans, will vote themselves bread and circuses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is the section of the article that shows that point very clearly,

    "In order to fulfill their agenda, the political elites must repeat the mantras of needs and public duty, hence exacerbate the dichotomy between the businessmen and public domain. The success of such a vision relied on the looters' ability to breed more intellectually lazy masses to provide them more unearned rewards and privileges. Naturally the failures of the system, according to the anti-business herd, are always due to the heretic greed of the industrialists, who are exploiting the underprivileged."

    Strangely this tactic always seems to work, which is why we always get bigger, more anti-individual government after every major crises.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, they have a right to be ignorant, but not at my expense. They can be ignorant on their own dime. Take their freebies away and then they'll have a stake in the system.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem with this approach is in looking to convert the "masses." If we truly believe in liberty, then these people are free to be ignorant.

    I think the better approach is to recraft the way that we choose our representatives. We need to have a system whereby the electorate has a direct stake in the system. The ability to vote should be earned, not merely bestowed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
    Thought exercise for you, OA. A yacht with 10 people on board, five women and 5 men, capsizes and the occupants are stranded on a deserted island. There is barely enough food for all to eat and survive, but they do. One of the women becomes pregnant - the additional child will not immediately cause any deterioration of resources as they will obtain sustenance from the mother. But two or three years down the line that child will begin to crowd out the resources for the others.
    1) Does that first child have a natural right to life?
    2) If more women become pregnant and have their own children, do they have a natural right to life?
    3) Are these natural rights dependent upon the ability of the community to generate resources for all to survive?

    If you'd like, make it a spaceship so that no possibility of rescue or generation of additional resources is possible.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo