RE: Rights Natural or Otherwise (was RE: What is the meaning of this?)

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 01:27:34 MST


Samantha writes

> > Now, the phrase "natural rights" packs a lot of meanings, I'm
> > afraid, that I don't know much about. I once tried to get a
> > discussion going here about that, in which some of the
> > natural rights advocates would offer an explanation suitable
> > for a materialist.
>
> If you don't know much about them then it seems pretty pointless
> and inflammatory to claim they are "mythological".

It isn't inflammatory when you are questioning the *existence*
of something. For example, I don't know much about Shiva or
Chaugner Faugn, but I consider them mythological. I have yet
to be shown a good enough case (so far) to change my mind
about their existence.

> I do not consider the simple fact that human beings have a
> specific nature as mythological. Given a specific nature I find
> it difficult to escape the corollary that that nature implies
> certain requirements in settings with their fellow beings for
> best functioning.

Independent of culture and history, now? Yes, I am the
first to agree that there is a human nature---there have
indeed many objective commonalities discovered in almost
all societies. Edward Wilson was the first with "incest
taboo", but there have been many since. The early 20th
century notion that anthropologists could discover
*anything* about us has been thoroughly debunked.

But that's still a far cry, IMO, to divining some kind
of "rights" from all this.

> If the only "real" rights are legal rights, the invention of
> some society or other, then on what grounds would you object to
> the inventions of some societies as opposed to the inventions of
> others? On what grounds would you call a society "evil" re
> its treatment of its citizens? How do you define what a "good"
> society would be like and what "legal rights" it would promote?

Most excellent questions! Due to a happy confluence of (what we
ordinarily think of as) highly ethical treatment by a government
coincides with what makes that society very competitive. But
advanced thinkers, e.g. Mancur Olson "Power and Prosperity, Outgrowing
Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships", have known for decades that
(a) the security of individual legal rights (b) economic prosperity
(c) large amounts of social and economic freedom (c) technological
advancement (d) enormous regard for private property, all go together.

So in a careful discussion, we might avoid notions like "good" and
"evil", though its extremely tempting when considering ancient and
modern states that treat people terribly.

I find that arguments about the Singularity even clinch the above,
because it gives a direction to time and history more powerfully
than old allusions to "progress" did.

Lee



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST