What are "rights"?
Posted by nsnelson 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
Too often these days, people use the language of "rights" loosely. A "right" is something that one morally deserves, and it ought to be provided or at least not violated by Other people. We all have a natural right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A natural right is something you deserve by nature, and nobody else can take away from you. Most fundamentally, we have a right to life, which implies you own your life (private property), which implies liberty, and if you own yourself you own your mind and your labor, and the value you produce (more private property), and the right to life implies your right to defend your life (and property), and the right to equip yourself for this self-defense. These rights are natural for all living human beings, and inalienable.
In some sense, the term "right" merely refers to a moral obligation or debt in general. If you agree to pay me $150 to play the organ for a ceremony, and I do it, then I have a "right" to demand $150 from you. But this is a very general usage, distinct from the concept of natural rights. Some rights we agree to (eg, trade), others we have by our nature as living humans.
Unfortunately, some people recognize the authority and security and prestige of the term "natural rights," and they want that positive association for other things they want, so they have tried to borrow (hijack?) this language. So they say we have a "right" to a job (and a certain wage), or a phone or TV or other standard of living and recreation, or a house, or free healthcare, or free education, or X (the growing list is potentially endless). But there is a big difference: to say a product or service is owed (like natural rights to life, etc) is to say that someone somewhere is obligated to do the work to provide them. Progressives are not merely talking about the right to pursue these things. The politicians and people demanding these "rights" are saying they must be provided to them even when they are unable or unwilling to provide them for themselves. That implies that someone "owes" them these "rights." Someone, somewhere, must be responsible to produce the value to supply these "rights." So the person who demands a free X is putting an Other person under obligation to work for person is a violation of his liberty. When John Doe demands the "right" to be provided with a good or service by Jane Roe, he is violating her natural rights.
The term "right" is rightly used for natural rights, rights we have in virtue of our nature, of being alive. Unfortunately the term "rights" is increasingly used not for what people earn, but what they deserve in spite of (or even because of) their inability to earn it. Their inability or unwillingness to produce what they want becomes a claim on the rest of us, an ever increasing mortgage on all those who do produce excess value.
Take the example of the "right to a house." (I don't know if anyone is actually claiming this is a "right," it is just an example for the sake of discussion.) Everyone, including John Doe, deserves their own house by "right," even for free if John can't pay for it and even if John is not responsible to maintain it (perhaps just because John is unable or unwilling to buy it or maintain it); if it is conditioned on John's ability to pay (maintain, etc), then it is not really like natural rights, it is just another thing that must be earned and should use different terminology. Where does John's house come from? Someone (eg, Jane Roe) has to provide it by building it or paying for it to be built. This means Jane or Other people somewhere, real people, are obligated to work for this John's "right to a house." This implicitly makes Jane and Others the slave of John, to some degree.
But this violates the natural rights of Jane and all the Other people now obligated to work for the John's house. The natural rights to life and liberty imply that I own myself (private property), and my mind and my labor and the fruit of my labor (private property), and nobody else has the "right" to violate my natural rights. Yet this is exactly what the "right to a house" (and any other good or service) does.
People like to use the language of natural rights because people hold them in high regard (natural, unalienable, etc). Ironically, by claiming the "right for John to be provided X by Other people," they are destroying the natural rights of those Other people, and so they are destroying the high doctrine of natural rights that caused them to want to use the term in the first place. A "right" to violate someone else's natural rights is a contradiction in terms.
In some sense, the term "right" merely refers to a moral obligation or debt in general. If you agree to pay me $150 to play the organ for a ceremony, and I do it, then I have a "right" to demand $150 from you. But this is a very general usage, distinct from the concept of natural rights. Some rights we agree to (eg, trade), others we have by our nature as living humans.
Unfortunately, some people recognize the authority and security and prestige of the term "natural rights," and they want that positive association for other things they want, so they have tried to borrow (hijack?) this language. So they say we have a "right" to a job (and a certain wage), or a phone or TV or other standard of living and recreation, or a house, or free healthcare, or free education, or X (the growing list is potentially endless). But there is a big difference: to say a product or service is owed (like natural rights to life, etc) is to say that someone somewhere is obligated to do the work to provide them. Progressives are not merely talking about the right to pursue these things. The politicians and people demanding these "rights" are saying they must be provided to them even when they are unable or unwilling to provide them for themselves. That implies that someone "owes" them these "rights." Someone, somewhere, must be responsible to produce the value to supply these "rights." So the person who demands a free X is putting an Other person under obligation to work for person is a violation of his liberty. When John Doe demands the "right" to be provided with a good or service by Jane Roe, he is violating her natural rights.
The term "right" is rightly used for natural rights, rights we have in virtue of our nature, of being alive. Unfortunately the term "rights" is increasingly used not for what people earn, but what they deserve in spite of (or even because of) their inability to earn it. Their inability or unwillingness to produce what they want becomes a claim on the rest of us, an ever increasing mortgage on all those who do produce excess value.
Take the example of the "right to a house." (I don't know if anyone is actually claiming this is a "right," it is just an example for the sake of discussion.) Everyone, including John Doe, deserves their own house by "right," even for free if John can't pay for it and even if John is not responsible to maintain it (perhaps just because John is unable or unwilling to buy it or maintain it); if it is conditioned on John's ability to pay (maintain, etc), then it is not really like natural rights, it is just another thing that must be earned and should use different terminology. Where does John's house come from? Someone (eg, Jane Roe) has to provide it by building it or paying for it to be built. This means Jane or Other people somewhere, real people, are obligated to work for this John's "right to a house." This implicitly makes Jane and Others the slave of John, to some degree.
But this violates the natural rights of Jane and all the Other people now obligated to work for the John's house. The natural rights to life and liberty imply that I own myself (private property), and my mind and my labor and the fruit of my labor (private property), and nobody else has the "right" to violate my natural rights. Yet this is exactly what the "right to a house" (and any other good or service) does.
People like to use the language of natural rights because people hold them in high regard (natural, unalienable, etc). Ironically, by claiming the "right for John to be provided X by Other people," they are destroying the natural rights of those Other people, and so they are destroying the high doctrine of natural rights that caused them to want to use the term in the first place. A "right" to violate someone else's natural rights is a contradiction in terms.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
So the abstract concept of "dogness" does not exist, only individual concrete dogs?
Yes and this anti-conceptual form of argumentation is dishonest.
Interesting. Please elaborate. In my mind, in nature, absent society, you have the need and "right" to defend your life from predators. Unless you are the only human on the planet you have the "right" to the sustenance you have procured and the property you have developed even if it is only a fish or a cave to live in.. the "right" to keep them from other humans. You have the "right' to defend your life and that of your offspring against other humans. If these be not "rights" what would you call them?
Respectfully,
O.A.
Edit: For clarity.
Rights are a concept that unifies a scientific reality based morality and they exist whether they are acknowledged or enforces, just like it does not matter if you think gravity exists.
And even now, many staunch Progressives, who pride themselves with caring for the poor (or using the Government to coerce us and our tax dollars into taking care of the poor), have very stingy records of charity when compared to conservatives.
I think "natural" is a fine adjective. Rand says our rights stem from what it means to be a living human. Issues of survival, life and death, and even a flourishing life are rightly considered part of the nature in which we live.
I started reading her Capitalism, but it begins by saying to read Selfishness first, so that's where I am right now. I'll add Schwartz to my list too.
I like to know the enemy: Do you know of any good defenses of Altruism? Sometimes Rand is very extreme, I wonder how many Altruists would affirm her definition of that philosophy.
Which makes me wonder about foraging. If it is on the private property of someone else, I don't think you have the right to forage and build a shelter without permission. I wouldn't take very kindly to people eating and camping in my garden.
If it is a negative obligation (I have a right to life, which only obliges others NOT to kill me) then it is genuine.
If it is a positive obligation (I want an education, which obliges others to pay for it) then it is NOT actually a right, but that word is used incorrectly by politicians all the time to sucker people who do not give it very much thought (it is a vote winner).
Positive rights result in an endless spiral of costs on society. Those costs can never be fully satiated, and people build resentment. They also erode any sense of voluntary charity.
Negative rights create no cost on others in society, and so foster mutual respect.
In the long run, other people having a claim on you gradually kills any attitude of caring about others. Alternatively, voluntary charity actually fosters the attitude of caring.
BTW, there are some valid positive rights, such as contractual rights, as in your example of being paid for organ playing.
Abstractions, including "rights", are a product of our ability to reason and reduce the effectively infinite details in reality to a hierarchy of mentally manageable units.
A first level fact on which epistemology depends is that we can only hold a few units in focal consciousness at once. "Individual rights" is a very abstract concept based on a bunch of other ones. Ayn Rand's clear thinking on this is why we have an Objectivist movement.
Interesting comment about "right to a house".
I would say, you do not have a right to a house, or any particular dwelling, but you would, I think, have a right to shelter.
I don't know how one "shelters" for free in a modern society. Can't have people just crashing in the park (although they do). If we don't want people living in our parks then do we owe them a minimal place to live?
That also raises the question, do you have a right to forage?
I should have a right to speak, protect myself, eat, breath, and occupy a piece of land (to lay my head).
Are those not the basic of basic needs.
There has never been a tribe or government in history that has been able to repeal gravity. On the other hand, most tribes or governments do not respect those rights we call Constitutional Rights in their citizens or subjects.
When someone asks me if I believe in God's Laws, I answer, "Yes, I do. I call them 'Physics'." Since Constitutional Rights can be taken away (and generally are), they must exist at a different level than Physics. These Constitutional Rights define 'the universe I want to live in' as opposed to 'the universe that exists on its own'. They are not inviolable; they just should be.
Jan
Among Ayn Rand's many contributions to the foundations of philosophy are her essays on the nature of individual rights and the nature of government. Both are in her anthology, "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal". The other superb resource is AynRandLexicon.com edited by Harry Binswanger in collaboration with Ayn Rand in her last decade of work.
As with all proper reasoning, it starts with the relevant and essential facts of reality and then uses induction to identify general principles, followed by deduction to apply the general to the specific. That's a very abstract way of saying,..
1. What facts of reality are we dealing with?
2. What universal principles follow from those facts? In this case, in ethics and politics.
3. How do I confirm my principles? (Necessary for integrity and independent thinking.)
4. What concrete actions follow from that?
On this 800th anniversary of The Magna Carta from June 1215, we get the hfoundation document for the foundation documents of the United States of America. If your read about it, you'll see that it prominently specified a right to property. That was left implicit in our Declaration of Independence and we are paying dearly for that omission starting with taxation and extending to abuse of "taking" under eminent domain law. The history of how that document came about is also interesting history.
So one universal principle is that we have a right to that which is necessary for our functioning as human beings. That grounds intellectual, political and economic freedom which Ayn Rand described as mutually dependent. Please read about that first-hand rather than as interpreted by me or others.
Another is that one has NO RIGHT to the product of another's labor. This counters all the mistaken, altruism-based, "government charity" programs. I like to point out that charity at the point of a gun is a contradiction in terms. Charity is properly THE CHOICE to spend what's yours on someone or something you respect.
For anyone wanting to understand the mistaken thinking that's almost universally accepted about altruism and selfishness, I can't recommend more highly Peter Schwartz's new book, "In Defense of Selfishness". It just became available on Amazon this last week. It's brilliantly accessible while respecting the readers judgement with straightforward reasoning and lots of grounding, practical examples. I also see it as a great lesson in how I can write better.
Load more comments...