From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 18:49:51 MST
Richard Steven Hack wrote:
> Samantha:
>
> At 04:22 AM 2/24/02 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>
>> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 11:01:07AM -0500, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Codified physical law"? I'd like to see some support for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. It is a strange turn of phrase. To me the argument that
>> natural rights grow out of the fact that humans, by virtue of their
>> specific nature, require certain conditions in order to live and
>> thrive most optimally and a subset of those are basically rights to
>> their own person, property and pursuits - the so-called "negative
>> rights" - comes closest to a justification for natural rights.
>>
>
>
> I have yet to see someone explain to me how the human need to breathe,
> eat, sleep, and excrete and reproduce translates into a "right" which is
> somehow a physical law. This is nothing but hand-waving.
>
Since those things are not what distinquishes humans from other
animals they are clearly not a sufficient place to look for a
nature based justification of what humans rights. Reducing the
argument to such inanities is worse than hand-waving.
> "Codified physical law" is hand-waving. There is the physical universe
> which includes biology and evolution. There are human concepts of
> same. The map is not the territory. A human concept is not a physical
> law (in fact, "physical law" is a merely a human concept - and there are
> scientists who are not so sure that there ARE "physical laws" operative
> throughout the Universe).
>
Are you claiming that human beings hae no specific nature and
that their nature does not lead to certain conditions being more
optimal for their well being, particularly concerning their
interaction with other people and instutions of same? You have
to claim this if you are going to utterly dismiss the argument.
Physical laws are not the end and be all of what is real and
important. They are the basis of reality but do not utterly
contain everything in reality, if you see what I mean.
>> Give the above notion of natural rights the natural rights exist
>> regardless of whether they are honored by any particular ruler or
>> mob. Judging the actions of the rulers or mobs is done relative to
>> supporting or denying these "natural rights", these requirements for
>> human well-being. This seems much more reasonable than attempting the
>> reverse, judging the concept of natural rights on the basis of whether
>> this or that leader or group would honor and uphold them. Saying
>> they are a social contract, in my opinion, makes a similar mistake.
>> It puts the emphasis on upholding these rights rather than on whether
>> certain "rights" naturally are required by dint of the nature of human
>> beings.
>
>
>
> This still begs the question: why is the concept "rights" needed? You
> have basic human physical needs. Why elevate them to "rights" unless
> you are trying to score points in a moral debate? A principle of
> Objectivist epistemology, I recall, is that concepts should not be
> multiplied beyond need.
>
I already answered that question. And the second one by
implication. It is a principle of Objectivism that rights are
objective, derivable from reality. If so there is no
multiplication of concepts beyond need. What exactly would you
base ethics on if not on some understanding of what is required
for human beings to function optiomally together?
>
>
>> What your nature requires relative to the actions of others or their
>> refraining from certain actions for your optimal functioning does not
>> change based on how they do in fact act toward you. Natural rights
>> therefore are not a matter of social contract. Social contracts, if
>> they are rational, grow out of these "natural rights" - not the reverse.
>
>
> Human behavior as individuals and groups is based on human "nature",
> i.e., the structure of our bodies and brains and our physical and
> cultural evolution - and to an enormous degree on our primate
> evolutionary heritage. This behavior considered as a whole can be
> modeled by various sciences and by economic theory a la Von Mises
> praexology [or is that praxeology - I can never remember the spelling
> :-} ] Such an economic analysis leads to the conclusion that coercion
> on a large scale or as a general principle of behavior is not productive
> for a group of sentient conceptually processing entities as a whole. No
This is a way of arriving at much the same thing. You seem to
be quibbling more over semantics.
> "natural rights" are needed - it is simply not productive and therefore
> not conducive to survival and therefore not in the best interests of
> such entities to engage in coercion as a behavioral principle.
>
Your first assertions does not justify your derived conclusions
as you have not grounded it in anything but opinion thus far.
> The reality, however, is that humans as part of their basic nature as
> biological entities fear death. This translates into the same basic two
> reactions as any other animal: fight or flight. In humans, with
What do humans have that other animals do not have? It is there
that we must explore.
> imagination and conceptual processing capability, this is expressed in
> two ways for each reaction. Fight: 1) self-development or controlling
> one's personal being (examples might be bodybuilders, martial artists,
> whatever). 2) Concern with understanding and controlling external
> reality (examples might be scientists, technologists, etc.) Flight
What is required to freely act on the basis of one's thinking
and conclusions? Without that freedom, can humans make most
effective use of their superior abilities to think and model
reality?
> Response: 1) Stand up and wave your arms and try to attract the
> attention of the "gods" who might give you more life if you stand out
> from the herd (examples: anyone in the public eye and anyone who tries
> to establish themselves as morally superior to everyone else, e.g.,
> priests and philosophers and moralists of every stripe); 2) Tear down
This is simple libel. Not all people of these groups do
anything of the kind.
> everyone above you and stamp on everyone below you (examples: virtually
> everyone, especially politicians).
>
My, you are cynical, aren't you?
> Instead of recognizing the universe has plenty of resources and the way
> to survive is to use our conceptually processing capability to take
> advantage of those resources, i.e., fight response, - defy and defeat
> death by using our mental and physical resources - the vast bulk of the
> human race (at least 98-99%) engage in flight response, producing a
> Darwinian competition "war of all against all" which leads to the world
> you see around you.
You almost had it but you keep getting mired in too simple
stimulus/response levels.
>
> See Alan Harrington's work "The Immortalist" - probably the most
> important book ever written on the impact of death on human society.
>
> Without relieving the species' fear of death, there is no way you are
> going to override that fear and its flight response with talk of
> "rights", when those "rights" are merely concepts that will be accepted
> or rejected based on the individual's fear reactions.
>
Irrelevant. It is only by exercising our ability to think and to
understand our universe and act on that understanding to a
high degree that we can ever hope to long postpone or even
largely defeat death. Therefore that which increases our
abilities in these areas, our freedoms to pursue them and our
freedom to act on our conclusions, is the most essential
solution to the general problem as you set it up. Those things
required for such an increase are thus logical requirements of
any system governing the interaction of human beings (ethics).
One concept/phrase wrapping such requirements and delineating
them is "natural rights". We may argue about what is and is not
such a requirement but I don't see how anyone can logically
fault the general basis in our own nature for their being such
requirements.
> The only rational argument for non-coercion is based on economic
> self-interest which in turn is based on the economic interest of the
> species as a whole. This argument, however, cannot override genetically
> inbred fear, either.
>
More assertion?
> The issue of "rights" is IRRELEVANT to the issue of personal survival
> which is the only valid human purpose. Personal survival demands
> dealing with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be. One can
> certainly proceed on the basic of a principle of non-coercion, but
> trying to convince any significant portion of the species of the
> validity of this is a waste of time and therefore counterproductive.
>
More assertion. Personal survival is not the only valid human
purpose. The world as it is includes what is required by human
nature for our own best functioning and the best function of our
organizations, society and species as a whole. It is not
counterproductive to point out where our best interests lie in
anything more than the extreme short-term.
> Mike's notion that because human nature derives from evolution and the
> physical universe that this translates a concept into a "natural law" is
> an irrational and mystical concept. See Robert Anton Wilson''s "The
> Myth of Natural Rights".
>
That is not what he or I said and such an empty attempt at
parody is not a valid attempt at discussion.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:41 MST