QandO

Man, how many beers did you have before engaging in that conversation? :)

Posted by: bob at February 20, 2004 10:57 AM

I don't drink. You think it's time to start? :)

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 20, 2004 11:10 AM

If you got falling-down drunk, Jon, you couldn't do any worse.

The reference to "nature" in the theory refers to the natural fact that human beings have to choose their ethics. This is something unique in all of life. It's the characteristic that makes us so different that we actually have to deal with politics: that branch of classical philosophy which comprehends the study of how we should behave toward one another.

The distinction is rooted in the nature of our minds and their implications for our existence. If we don't think, we can't live. It's (almost) really that simple. The whole essence of "freedom", in this context, is about being left alone to determine the best way to get through life. (Note that this is a bi-lateral imperative: Joe does not get to live at John's expense, because John has his own mind, too.)

Nothing about "natural rights" compares with, say, gravity, as "self-enforcing". That is a crucial error. It is a (yes: natural) fact that we are self-actualized beings, but that is not to say that every person is necessarily going to make the best choices in his or her life with the same necessary result that gravity imposes.

Rand once pointed out the issues in this subject when she said, "Man is the only creature that can sink below his own nature." This is no mere "assumption". It's an accounting of the fact that we have minds, that they have a crucial purpose for our survival and flourishing, and that volition is also a natural component of our existence.

You last paragraph of the post is utter nonsense, Jon. On the logic of sheer power and nothing more, there is no premise for outrage or action when a predator is successful over his victim.

Posted by: Billy Beck at February 20, 2004 12:50 PM

Heh...I rather thought this would get a reply from you, Billy. Few points:

* I don't see any differences in nature between humans and animals, even based on your descriptions. I see differences in *degree*, but not in nature. Many animals are also able to reason, and to choose how they will interact.

"If we don't think, we can't live."

- - -From a purely biological basis, that's certainly true. Animals can think, too, yet they are not subject to "right and wrong".

"The whole essence of "freedom", in this context, is about being left alone to determine the best way to get through life."

- - -Understand, Billy, I absolutely agree with you on this: liberty is a noble end, in and of itself. It is not merely a means to an end. I am libertarian...but only in ideal.

"It is a (yes: natural) fact that we are self-actualized beings"

- - -So are the monkeys I referenced. And like humans, they will not necessarily make the best choices, but only the monkeys can make their own choices. That does not imply an objective moral standard of "right and wrong", though.

"You last paragraph of the post is utter nonsense, Jon."

- - -Well, we do try our utterest.

"On the logic of sheer power and nothing more, there is no premise for outrage or action when a predator is successful over his victim."

- - -Very true. But I would differentiate between an absolute and universal "right and wrong" from which we could extrapolate "individual rights", and a subjective set of ethics. You and I would both be dismayed at murder, as it would violate our standards of right and wrong.

Yet, that is entirely dependent on our own standards. There is nothing in the natural universe which decrees certain actions right and others wrong.

Perhaps we're mixing definitions, and perhaps we just see the universality of the ethics differently. I think "individual rights" are "good"...but I can't prove it. I can only assert it. I can make self-consistent arguments that they exist....but I can't actually prove it.

And, as Bertrand Russel once said, why should I believe in something for which I have no evidence?

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 20, 2004 01:09 PM

"I think 'individual rights' are "good"...but I can't prove it."

Then you're lost, Jon. It's that simple. You have no place in this fight.

Real cynics -- people who will not be convinced of individual rights -- are going to eat you alive, and you have no defense.

Good luck.

Posted by: Billy Beck at February 20, 2004 01:21 PM

Heh ... somehow I knew Billy would beam in. He has a 6th sense which allows him to know when this sort of discussion is going on.

This is good, Jon ... now I can get to work on my rebuttal to your contentions ;). We can have our very own running dialogue on what rights are.

Of course it'll get long and we'll have to put most of it in the "extended portion" of the posts (or our disinterested readers will be clicking the slide bar to the side so much they'll get a cramp in their finger) but it could be fun.

As a note, Billy and I spent about a year hashing through this (about 10 years ago). Believe it or not, its worth the time.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to return to the mucky world of politics. But look for the "rights" post, it will appear ... eventually.

Posted by: McQ at February 20, 2004 02:02 PM

"Real cynics -- people who will not be convinced of individual rights -- are going to eat you alive, and you have no defense."

- - -It's not that I don't want a defense. I've just observed the universe and seen what is provable. And the fact is, the most powerful person/group can impose their will on the less powerful every single time. That's just the way the universe works....the physical universe, that is. If you know of another, please offer proof.

McQ and Billy: I'll look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the issue. I'm open to reason. That's how I got to the point where I am on this topic in the first place.

I would warn you, though....this argument:
"On the logic of sheer power and nothing more, there is no premise for outrage or action when a predator is successful over his victim."

...is invalid. It was my last fingerhold on the Natural Rights theory, but it's illogic. You won't prove anything by an argument from negative consequences.

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 20, 2004 03:35 PM

"The fact is, the most powerful person/group can impose their will on the less powerful every single time."

(yawn) Wake me when there's news.

That fact is not in dispute, Jon.

The question is whether they should: whether it is right for anyone to do that, and whether anyone subject to that sort of thing has a legitimate grievance against it.

"I would warn you, though....this argument: 'On the logic of sheer power and nothing more, there is no premise for outrage or action when a predator is successful over his victim.'

...is invalid."

It most certainly is not.

"It was my last fingerhold on the Natural Rights theory, but it's illogic. You won't prove anything by an argument from negative consequences."

Why not? How could you possibly endorse a "negative consequence"? Let me try to bring the issue into concrete example for you: on the argument that "the only real law is power," neither antebellum American blacks or European Jews under the Nazis had any complaint. If the only thing that counts is "power", then all arguments against American slavery or The Holocaust aare so much sentimental nonsense, and the only "negative consequence" is the enormous pile of bodies.

Now, that might not mean anything to you, but (and there is no better way to put this) serious people realize that "negative consequences" are to be avoided. This is probative to them. To an ordinary person capable of learning, the "negative consequence" of a serious burn is sufficient proof that touching a hot stove is generally not a good thing to do.

"Negative consequences" serve a very real and crucial purpose in human life, Jon. YOu can't simply wave them away like that.

Posted by: Billy Beck at February 20, 2004 04:04 PM

"(yawn) Wake me when there's news. That fact is not in dispute, Jon."

- - -But it's important. It establishes the way the *universe* works. You're arguing not about a fundamental and provable aspect of the universe, but a normative theory of human behaviour. You are describing "how we SHOULD believe".

Well, I won't argue. I agree that it's what we SHOULD believe. I agree that liberty and individual rights are the most consistent and productive view of human interaction

But, again, that's a normative argument, not an objective one.

"Why not? How could you possibly endorse a "negative consequence"?"

- - -I think you're missing the point, Billy. Perhaps I was unclear. Argument from (negative, in this case) consequences is a logical fallacy. It's emotionally appealing...and it's still a logical fallacy. "X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences."

You might make the argument that we, de facto, pay lip service to individual rights, but we don't practice them, and that would be a consistent, logical argument. But using a logical fallacy, even an appealing one like that, will prove nothing. I think you know that.

"(and there is no better way to put this) serious people realize that "negative consequences" are to be avoided."

- - -Do I get to be a serious person, or is that strictly reserved for people who already agree with you? I'm just asking. I won't ask you agree with me, but I would ask that you at least consider me a "serious person". I may be right, I may be wrong. I'm working that out, just as you are. In the meantime, I reserve the right to be serious about it.

""Negative consequences" serve a very real and crucial purpose in human life, Jon. YOu can't simply wave them away like that."

- - -They serve a real and crucial purpose in the animal world, too. Is it wrong to kill an animal?

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 20, 2004 05:11 PM

"Is it wrong to kill an animal?"

Well, chimpanzees, for instance, don't even think about it. They just kill each other.

So, think about this: What's the difference in putting the moral case to a chimp vs. a human?

That, right there, is where the whole argument for natural rights turns. Nobody in their right mind would even suggest a criminal indictment against an anmial, for the whole reason that they are incabable of reason.

We're not.

And here's a more general point:

That "agreement" thing is a ridiculous canard. This is not about people who agree or disagree me. It's far, far bigger than that.

Posted by: Billy Beck at February 20, 2004 05:45 PM

"[animals] are incabable of reason."

- - -But that's not true. Many animals are capable of reason, though to a lesser degree than humans. Do we give animals a degree of our rights? Do apes get the right to life, but not property?

Because, if "reason" is the basis for your assumption, then you have to extend it to anything with the ability to reason.

"This is not about people who agree or disagree me. It's far, far bigger than that."

- - -You're right. It's about objective reality. As far as I can tell, there is only matter and energy. Nature determines how they interact. It makes no comment on whether those interactions are right or wrong.

We do...but that is ethics. And ethics are personal. If we have a Standard, a Rule (like rights), then we must have an absolute by which that standard is judged. It must either pass or fail that rule.
A "God" provides one such absolute, but a god is not provable, so we're back to square one. Nature provides no absolute, just physics. So, we're left with ourselves. A very subjective matter, indeed.

So, that definition of what is right and wrong depends entirely on what the absolute is. What's the goal?
Individual survival? If so, then the only correct action is the personal utilitarian action.
Perhaps it is survival of the species? Then the absolute is a more collective utilitarian action.

Unfortunately, nature does not indicate an absolute standard. We can rationalize any one we choose, but reality makes no distinction between "right and wrong".

And until reality does so, I'm having trouble seeing how I would convince somebody else that my standards are reality.

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 20, 2004 10:59 PM

(shrug)

You're lost. If you can't even mount a defense of your own rights, you have no hope.

Posted by: Billy Beck at February 21, 2004 01:53 AM

"If you can't even mount a defense of God, then you have no hope."

You might hear that from a Christian, but it's not a particularly good argument.

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 21, 2004 09:32 AM

"A right" ...to something; as opposed to the word that means the opposite of "wrong", is a legal term describing the expectation created by a legally binding promise.
To have a right is no firewall. It is merely to have legal grounds for a claim for restitution if a loss is sustained by the promise being broken; i.e. the right being breached or violated.
Typically such rights are as reliable as the promises that create them. A "negative" right springing from a promise NOT to do something, for instance, is more reliable than a "positive" right that depends upon fulfilment of the positive duty undertaken by the promiser. A promise by A that B will do something for C, is generally regarded as invalid in competent legal circles. Thus covenants, conventions, declarations and legislation made by politicians promising that some (others) of any population will fund the welfare of the rest, create, at most, unreliable rights.

Yet a general assumption can be, and is made, that all adults hold the negative rights to their own life, liberty and property. Because civilized persons tacitly - and in polite conduct implicitly - promise not to meddle with each other's life, liberty or property.
Now if it is claimed by a wannabe meddler in other people's life, liberty or property that he or she never made any promise not to; then we know that he or she is no less a savage menace to peaceful coexistence than a wild Grizzly Bear wandering down the high street. Furthermore, by denying any such promise, tacit, implicit or literal, and - on being properly informed of its relevance - still refusing to exchange that promise with everyone else; he or she denies that he or she hold any of the rights so created. For one's promise is conditional on being reciprocated.
Therefore, there would be no violation of any right - so carelessly rejected - were he or she then treated exactly like we would treat a wild and savage Grizzly Bear in our midst. Tranquilize 'em, cage 'em, shoot 'em or return them to some fenced-in wilderness reserve.

Fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on one's point of view - this renders all politicians and government functionaries in the same category as the Grizzly.

Posted by: Grounded at June 10, 2004 06:35 PM