Proving Inalienable Rights
Posted by DrJoelBross 7 years, 7 months ago to Government
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If we are going to have a rational discussion, it is best to begin with a common understanding of the key concepts.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which 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. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) - Ayn Rand Lexicon here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...
Rand had much more to say, of course.
Based on her analysis, I believe that all volitional beings have rights: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... That would include self-aware software, and maybe cetaceans, among others.
I refer you to the Star Trek: Next Generation episode "Measure of a Man"which I found fully consistent with the understanding of rights found (perhaps only) in Objectivism. (Summarized on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mea...The_Next_Generation)
and Memory Alpha here: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Th...(episode) )
The thought of rights stems from a conceptual faculty.
For instance: My cats are well taken care of and they know that they need (and demand) food from me. They don't have a "right" to me feeding them. I do it because they are good to me and I to them.
The BLM movement folks have a "right" to act for their betterment. They don't have a "right" to destroy...etc.
I think that there is a great deal of confusion about the term "rights" and thank you for your lexicon references.
Rights are a moral concept, not a result of a fact of "volition". Morality arises from the need to use one's rational faculty to live in accordance with the necessity of making choices. The concept of rights is the application of morality in a social context.
"Volition" alone does not necessitate or make necessary conceptual thought or morality, which is why man, the only conceptual being and the only being capable of or requiring a rational code of morality is the only being to which the concept of rights applies.
The pop philosophy in Star Trek is most certainly not Objectivism. Objectivism is not whatever someone likes because he also happens to like something in Ayn Rand's writing and rationalizes that Star Trek is Objectivism. Those who are interested in Ayn Rand should read and understand what her philosophy is and how it is so radically different than traditional views. It is not Star Trek and not science fiction.
...and I like how you think and articulate my sentiments about said subject matter so poignantly.
You are correct that just being volitional does not give you rights, but it does in a social context, which is what we are discussing.
In our society, in your city here and now, what other entities have rights, except humans? Of necessity, if aliens landed, given the context of spaceships and all that, they, too, would have rights in our society.
Children have rights. They have rights appropriate to their nature, the most basic of which is the right to life. They do not have unconditional rights to liberty or a pursuit of happiness, or freedom of travel, or a hundred other legally acknowledged rights, all of which derive from the fundamental right to life.
We agree that "Star Trek is not Objectivism." Neither is Dostoevsky. We were talking about one or two instances in which a technical problem - in this case of philosophy - was the theme of a plot. The Romantic Manifesto laid a foundation for understanding fiction. However, the conflicts of values presented in fiction necessarily raise philosophical issues, otherwise no conflict of values could exist. The plays of Henrik Ibsen are good examples. Hedda Gabler and Enemy of the People are easy to offer.
Enemy of the People could be used as a springboard to discuss global warming, whether it exists, what causes it, and what to do about it.... because ultimately, someone is not going to like "chasing the tourists away", i.e., "reducing your carbon footprint". The plays of Ibsen are not Objectivism, but we could use them to raise questions. So, too, with Star Trek.
Alone on an island you do not need money. You need language because the fundamental purpose of language is cognitive not communication. Alone on an island there is no one else to communicate with. Using "other tools" alone on an island are not social have nothing to do with rights.
There are no "aliens landed" in the "context of spaceships and all that" in "your city here and now". Whether or not other creatures, if ever discovered, would have "rights" does not depend on speculation about "volition". It would depend on their nature, which you don't know because you know nothing about the nature of that which has not been discovered,
Human children have rights because they are human, to the decree and extent they have the capacity of humans, not a free-standing "right to life" from "volition".
Appeals in Star Trek to "sentience" and your premise of "volition" as the basis of rights are not "fully consistent with the understanding of rights found in Objectivism." Others who don't don't understand Objectivism go even farther in openly and falsely equating it with Objectivism.
The philosophical premises of an author revealed in his fiction are not a "springboard", which when misused this way are only a "springboard" into Rationalism. If someone wants to use philosophical elements in fiction to "raise questions" for Objectivism he should begin by dropping the imaginative equivocations in the fiction, tie them to their meaning in reality, and leave out the Rationalism so they can be discussed objectively.
The theme was furthered in an episode where Data defended the right to exist of three "exocomps", using the same logic used to defend his own rights:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Th...
I agree that you took unfair criticism on that other discussion. A couple of factors were in play.
First, I believe that dhalling's analyses of various science fiction universes have been interesting even if misplaced. You do not judge a work of art on its politics. Ayn Rand liked the first James Bond movie. She did not criticize the hero for risking his life to defend the welfare state. Similarly, she admired Victor Hugo. She did not take him to task for failing to analyze the French Revolution from the perspective of laissez faire capitalism. And no one cares what Rachmaninoff's politics were.
That said, I also have voiced my disapproval of the anti-capitalist themes in the Star Trek franchises. Only with the rise of the Ferengi and Quark did that improve. (Note that Armin Shimerman is a Rand fan.)
But Star Trek, like much else that is admirable, is the result of the mixed-premise philosophies of many people working together over time. It cannot be consistent Objectivism, nor does it need to be. Sense of life, plot, and theme are all that matter.
Again, though, the ideas in the plot can be politically correct (objectively correct) or not. And I believe that often in Star Trek, they are.
Also, finally, politics is not all that important. Epistemology and metaphysics rule. And Star Trek stories are based on reality and reason.
Star Trek episodes vary with the writer. They're not even consistent on silly things like how easy it is to use the transporter through shields, how fast is subspace radio, and the travel time between key settings. It's often whatever the plot requires.
Maybe the worst example of anti-capitalist preaching in Star Trek is The Neutral Zone. If you have seen it, don't bother. At least Star Trek: Insurrection's hollow preaching was the setup for an action scene. SF Debris called The Neutral Zone "a Michel Moore documentary about paint drying."
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t...
DS9 In the Cards is a silly comedy that goes over the benefits of people trading with one another. It starts with Jake not being able to get what he wants because his society abandoned money, he says, in favor of improving human life. He and his friend Nog make a series of trades that result in everyone ending up better off. All the main characters remark that life is suddenly improved for mysterious reasons. It's an obvious comparison to the claim at the beginning (even those lines were delivered to sound naive) that free markets do not improve life.
The critics were, as they often are - wrong. There are some people who are so wrapped up in their elite-ism and because they have a certain degree they cannot understand that a TV show, Science Fiction no less, can possibly add anything to a philosophic discussion.
As to 'volitional beings', I am unconvinced that software can be 'self-aware' and would qualify for rights anyway.
For non-human animals, yes but at the risk of being called speciesist (spelling?),
not equal rights. We are faced now with the usual so-called progressives demanding human rights for apes and amoeba.
Her journals suggest that Ayn Rand toyed with the idea that people who are not rational are not human. However, she had no litmus test, so it was just a line entry for herself, and never made the light of day -- and perhaps well and good that it did not.
Rights are conditions required for life in society. If we had apes and dolphins among us as economic actors, they would have to have rights.
As for the status of software, as I pointed out on my blog, if self-aware programs were economic actors here and now, you might not be aware of it. Filings for corporations are electronic. You have no idea who initiated a filing.
"That would imply that rights are not part of a natural law instilled in all humans since some do not exercise the choice due to no deciding to do so or by force from others."
A right is something that does not need to be provided, and cannot be interfered with. You have a right to care for your own health, but you have no right to healthcare. You can choose to ignore the issue of your health, but that does not negate your right to choose and act on those questions.
A right, like exercise of any moral choice, most certainly can be "interfered with" -- by force. The moral principles cannot be negated; your actions in accordance with them certainly are. That is why morality in a social context must be formulated in terms of rights and is the basis for the principle of non-initiation of force and the fundamentals of proper government.
I have a brother who has led his life by the idea that he has a right to life and since he did not ask to be born, society owes him a life. As you might expect, the nature of reality has fought him all the way, in his case drug and alcohol addiction, being beat up numerous times, and several jail time experiences. What became of that built in natural right to his life. The only right he had was to how he chose to live his life, though that gets difficult after faking reality for a long time since he was a wee toddler and at 75 still has the same attitude about life.
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another." John Locke
http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497
Respectfully,
O.A.
Or am I missing something.
On the eve of World War 2, Pentecostal Christians in the USA (Pennsylvania, as I recall, perhaps West Virginia) were persecuted and arrested for not pledging allegiance to the flag. That was just one consequence of the collectivism that that engulfing the world, even here in the USA.
Again, however, it would require a pretty deep discussion to determine just what conditions should apply to citizenship, and what we mean by citizenship. Just for instance, I might I agree that no one should be compelled to stand for the National Anthem, but that in order to vote, you should repeat and sign the Pledge of Allegiance. ... just asking, really...
Had such virtues been displayed by early Objectivists, including Rand, it would have been much further in reaching its inevitable destiny in the minds of human beings than it unfortunately has.
All should never lose sight of the fact that the purpose of philosophy is happiness - NOT politics. Politics is only what, potentially, stands in the way.
Great discussion!!!
1.) The right to self-determination.
2.) The right to private property.
Every single inalienable right is of one, or the other, or both, all the while not infringing on either of someone else.
Hurrcanes coming but settled down at lo tand it' snot eve headed at us direct anymre.Enjoy Life!