Objectivism versus Natural Rights?

[PDS]

Thanks again to George and Stephen. I need to block out some serious time - like three months - just to pursue these. Pufendorf and Vattel are among forty or so in "The Founders' Libraries." Conservative scholars Forrest MacDonald and Donald S. Lutz compiled inventories of the books and authors cited by the Founders and by others in their generation. This helps on several levels. It is interesting in its own right, of course, but also provides a context for constitutional originalism. (Vattel, for instance held that both parents must be citizens for their child to be a "natural born citizen.") Relevant here, these all help to understand the Objectivist theory of (natural) rights, as existing within that tradition. I still remain ignorant about why Yaron Brook would say that Objectivism is not a natural rights philosophy. (As for everyone else, it is nice that you have your own theories.)

Online Library of Liberty

Founding Father's Library: A Bibliographical Essay by Forrest McDonald

Forrest McDonald is Professor of History at the University of Alabama and has written a number of introductions to Liberty Fund books.

Source: This essay first appeared in the journal Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought , vol. 1, no. 1 January/March 1978 published by the Cato Institute (1978-1979) and the Institute for Humane Studies (1980-1982) under the editorial direction of Leonard P. Liggio. It is republished with thanks to the original copyright holders.

The Most Commonly Read Books of the Founding Generation by Donald S. Lutz

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution made it clear what authors and texts had influenced their own thinking on the idea of liberty. Donald S. Lutz has examined the speeches, letters, journalism, and theoretical works of the founding generation in order to draw up a composite "library catalog" of that generation. His list includes most of the texts on the Goodrich Seminar Room list and a few more besides. Lutz's "top 40" texts (actually 37) by frequency of citation by the founding generation are listed below.

St. Paul

Montesquieu

Sir William Blackstone

John Locke

David Hume

Plutarch

Cesare Beccaria

...

Thanks to Ghs, Stephen, and MM for this information. Really good stuff.

[anthony]

Mulling it over some more, I'm not so sure this is settled. After accepting it as inarguable for a while, I'm wondering what certifies that a man has rights, automatically.("Naturally").

Why so?

Rights are a fabrication, after all. Therefore, metaphysically man-made, not metaphysically"given". If a natural rights adherent is confronted by Attila who's rampaging through his town, and confidently asserts "I have rights, you know!", it's not probable that Attila will meekly back off. All that protects the man is 1. that other people respect and uphold those same rights; 2. the man has an agency of sorts with 'bigger teeth' to defend him from potential Attilas.

In other words, it is not the man who "has rights" (or does not)- it's other people who respect (or don't) the CONCEPT of rights. Which means they must have reasons for that, which also follows that they have objective standards.

I am becoming further convinced of Craig Biddle's argument, and the key is his reference to rights as a 'principle' - with Objectivist morality, epistemology and metaphysics to back up the principle. Otherwise, rights (to action, ie, to life)) are a floating abstraction, detached from reality - and always under threat.

[Guyau]

.

An outline of Adam Mossoff’s* lecture “The Philosophy of Natural Rights” (lecture for ARI/OCON) is here.

[BaalChatzaf]

Mulling it over some more, I'm not so sure this is settled. After accepting it as inarguable for a while, I'm wondering what certifies that a man has rights, automatically.("Naturally").

Why so?

Rights are a fabrication, after all. Therefore, metaphysically man-made, not metaphysically"given". If a natural rights adherent is confronted by Attila who's rampaging through his town, and confidently asserts "I have rights, you know!", it's not probable that Attila will meekly back off. All that protects the man is 1. that other people respect and uphold those same rights; 2. the man has an agency of sorts with 'bigger teeth' to defend him from potential Attilas.

In other words, it is not the man who "has rights" (or does not)- it's other people who respect (or don't) the CONCEPT of rights. Which means they must have reasons for that, which also follows that they have objective standards.

I am becoming further convinced of Craig Biddle's argument, and the key is his reference to rights as a 'principle' - with Objectivist morality, epistemology and metaphysics to back up the principle. Otherwise, rights (to action, ie, to life)) are a floating abstraction, detached from reality - and always under threat.

Without sufficient fire power (or a protector with such fire power), I have no rights.,

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Mulling it over some more, I'm not so sure this is settled. After accepting it as inarguable for a while, I'm wondering what certifies that a man has rights, automatically.("Naturally").

Why so?

Rights are a fabrication, after all. Therefore, metaphysically man-made, not metaphysically"given". If a natural rights adherent is confronted by Attila who's rampaging through his town, and confidently asserts "I have rights, you know!", it's not probable that Attila will meekly back off. All that protects the man is 1. that other people respect and uphold those same rights; 2. the man has an agency of sorts with 'bigger teeth' to defend him from potential Attilas.

In other words, it is not the man who "has rights" (or does not)- it's other people who respect (or don't) the CONCEPT of rights. Which means they must have reasons for that, which also follows that they have objective standards.

I am becoming further convinced of Craig Biddle's argument, and the key is his reference to rights as a 'principle' - with Objectivist morality, epistemology and metaphysics to back up the principle. Otherwise, rights (to action, ie, to life)) are a floating abstraction, detached from reality - and always under threat.

Without sufficient fire power (or a protector with such fire power), I have no rights.,

Ba'al Chatzaf

You always have rights, they just aren't necessarily protected if not actually violated. Or, you have "violated rights."

While I'm getting a little semantical here, your statement is basically true. People who want their rights protected have to live in a country that does that or take over its governance and point its guns at rights' violators. It is bottom line force vs force, with governmnt having the bigger guns reflected in the overall legal system. Consent of the governed means consent of the governed who want their rights to be protected--the others get rightfully screwed because they want to screw us but can't.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

You're right, I should have worded that: helping others cannot be moral.

You consider helping others as immoral then?

It is immoral only when it is a self-sacrifice and irrational.

[Brant Gaede]

You're right, I should have worded that: helping others cannot be moral.

You consider helping others as immoral then?

It is immoral only when it is a self-sacrifice and irrational.

I think "immoral" is too frequently used by Objectivists. "Wrong" sometimes does better. "Immoral" is more for an attack mode. "Wrong," for discussion and evaluation.

--Brant

[anthony]

.

An outline of Adam Mossoff’s* lecture “The Philosophy of Natural Rights” (lecture for ARI/OCON) is here.

This is fascinating, if only from the schematics. A pity following pages aren't available.

I think I'm put off by the term "natural 'rights'". Natural self-sovereignty ? Natural self-ownership ?

Clumsy, but truer to my mind. That is, 'self-ownership' independent of a Creator, government, or

other people. Never granted, or permitted, but implicit in the fact of existence of any human.

A man could wash up on the shore of any foreign country, and be no less a sovereign individual.

Self-evidently.

If that's what is meant and accepted by "natural rights", I still think it's a misnomer, but I'll go with it.

(Of course, there is still the necessity of the explicitly defined - and therefore 'objectified'- individual rights

which follows from that.)

[George H. Smith]

.

An outline of Adam Mossoff’s* lecture “The Philosophy of Natural Rights” (lecture for ARI/OCON) is here.

I have some problems with the charts, but it's difficult to say how serious my disagreements are without knowing more about Mossoff's lectures.

The placement of "God" at the apex of each chart is somewhat misleading. If an O'ist were to do a schematic of Newton's theory of physics, would he also list "God" as the source of Newton's natural laws? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it would certainly be as justified to do this with Newton as with Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

.

An outline of Adam Mossoff’s* lecture “The Philosophy of Natural Rights” (lecture for ARI/OCON) is here.

This is fascinating, if only from the schematics. A pity following pages aren't available.

I think I'm put off by the term "natural 'rights'". Natural self-sovereignty ? Natural self-ownership ?

Clumsy, but truer to my mind. That is, 'self-ownership' independent of a Creator, government, or

other people. Never granted, or permitted, but implicit in the fact of existence of any human.

A man could wash up on the shore of any foreign country, and be no less a sovereign individual.

Self-evidently.

If that's what is meant and accepted by "natural rights", I still think it's a misnomer, but I'll go with it.

(Of course, there is still the necessity of the explicitly defined - and therefore 'objectified'- individual rights

which follows from that.)

Human or individual rights express my preference. I'd use "natural" for descriptive purposes, but not as a modifier--that is human rights are natural in that they refer to moral social needs considering the nature of man, but they do not exist as such, not in man or men.

--Brant

[Xray]

I think I'm put off by the term "natural 'rights'". Natural self-sovereignty ? Natural self-ownership ?

Clumsy, but truer to my mind. That is, 'self-ownership' independent of a Creator, government, or

other people. Never granted, or permitted, but implicit in the fact of existence of any human.

A man could wash up on the shore of any foreign country, and be no less a sovereign individual.

Self-evidently.

If that's what is meant and accepted by "natural rights", I still think it's a misnomer, but I'll go with it.

(Of course, there is still the necessity of the explicitly defined - and therefore 'objectified'- individual rights

which follows from that.)

The term natural rights is probably here to stay because of its history.

I don't like the term 'natural' either because arguing with nature as a premise can be problematic Strictly speaking, one cannot even derive the "right to life" from nature, for all life sustains itself by feeding on other life.

For many millenia, "man's nature" also involved the killing of his fellow men, which is why none of us would sit here today if our stone age ancestors has acted on the NIOF principle ...

Nature does not endow man with any rights. Rights are a cultural construction, and in many instances their purpose is to prevent man from acting on his "natural" impulses.

[George H. Smith]

.

An outline of Adam Mossoff’s* lecture “The Philosophy of Natural Rights” (lecture for ARI/OCON) is here.

This is fascinating, if only from the schematics. A pity following pages aren't available.

I think I'm put off by the term "natural 'rights'". Natural self-sovereignty ? Natural self-ownership ?

Clumsy, but truer to my mind. That is, 'self-ownership' independent of a Creator, government, or

other people. Never granted, or permitted, but implicit in the fact of existence of any human.

A man could wash up on the shore of any foreign country, and be no less a sovereign individual.

Self-evidently.

If that's what is meant and accepted by "natural rights", I still think it's a misnomer, but I'll go with it.

(Of course, there is still the necessity of the explicitly defined - and therefore 'objectified'- individual rights

which follows from that.)

Human or individual rights express my preference. I'd use "natural" for descriptive purposes, but not as a modifier--that is human rights are natural in that they refer to moral social needs considering the nature of man, but they do not exist as such, not in man or men.

--Brant

The historical importance of the "natural" in "natural rights" is as a term of contrast. "Natural rights" have always been distinguished from "positive rights," i.e., the rights decreed and enforced by a government. If the only rights we can legitimately claim are those granted to us by government, then we are in deep shit.

I discussed this issue in more detail in several of my Cato Essays, especially here:

http://www.libertari...-natural-rights

Ghs

[anthony]

I think I'm put off by the term "natural 'rights'". Natural self-sovereignty ? Natural self-ownership ?

Clumsy, but truer to my mind. That is, 'self-ownership' independent of a Creator, government, or

other people. Never granted, or permitted, but implicit in the fact of existence of any human.

A man could wash up on the shore of any foreign country, and be no less a sovereign individual.

Self-evidently.

If that's what is meant and accepted by "natural rights", I still think it's a misnomer, but I'll go with it.

(Of course, there is still the necessity of the explicitly defined - and therefore 'objectified'- individual rights

which follows from that.)

The term natural rights is probably here to stay because of its history.

I don't like the term 'natural' either because arguing with nature as a premise can be problematic Strictly speaking, one cannot even derive the "right to life" from nature, for all life sustains itself by feeding on other life.

For many millenia, "man's nature" also involved the killing of his fellow men, which is why none of us would sit here today if our stone age ancestors has acted on the NIOF principle ...

Nature does not endow man with any rights. Rights are a cultural construction, and in many instances their purpose is to prevent man from acting on his "natural" impulses.

Jeez, Xray.

Just for a moment there I thought we could be in accord, for once. Damn.

First, it is the "rights" part of natural rights I am uneasy with - not the "natural".

And yes, "nature does not endow man with any rights" - true.

However, nature endows man with LIFE. Nature endows man with his sense of self-hood,

and with a capability to reason.

Amazingly, well before "cultural" or any sort of rights were codified, man did not kill off all

his fellow men. Why not? I believe, but can't prove, that there always existed just enough

reason and morality to avoid that. So this once savage man who has been led to a New Age of

goodness, peace and light by"cultural" or "human" or "positive" rights - in this brief passage of time since the last major conflict, and then only in specific locations of the world - is not an argument that convinces me.

[Brant Gaede]

.

An outline of Adam Mossoff’s* lecture “The Philosophy of Natural Rights” (lecture for ARI/OCON) is here.

This is fascinating, if only from the schematics. A pity following pages aren't available.

I think I'm put off by the term "natural 'rights'". Natural self-sovereignty ? Natural self-ownership ?

Clumsy, but truer to my mind. That is, 'self-ownership' independent of a Creator, government, or

other people. Never granted, or permitted, but implicit in the fact of existence of any human.

A man could wash up on the shore of any foreign country, and be no less a sovereign individual.

Self-evidently.

If that's what is meant and accepted by "natural rights", I still think it's a misnomer, but I'll go with it.

(Of course, there is still the necessity of the explicitly defined - and therefore 'objectified'- individual rights

which follows from that.)

Human or individual rights express my preference. I'd use "natural" for descriptive purposes, but not as a modifier--that is human rights are natural in that they refer to moral social needs considering the nature of man, but they do not exist as such, not in man or men.

--Brant

The historical importance of the "natural" in "natural rights" is as a term of contrast. "Natural rights" have always been distinguished from "positive rights," i.e., the rights decreed and enforced by a government. If the only rights we can legitimately claim are those granted to us by government, then we are in deep shit.

I discussed this issue in more detail in several of my Cato Essays, especially here:

http://www.libertari...-natural-rights

Ghs

I then prefer natural rights to negative rights.

--Brant

negative rights is somewhat offputting

[anthony]

Sobering but also encouraging essay, Ghs. Goes to prove that philosophical

ideas come to fruition, finally - although this time the nasty, inferior idea (in

the Mills, Bentham tradition) won out. Could one say Bentham, almost single-handed, with his "Nonsense on stilts" rejection of natural rights ("Natural rights are mischievous fictions and anarchical fallacies that encourage civil unrest, disobedience, and resistance to laws."[JB]) paved the way to the cattle stockyard

that is present Europe?

Secure and obedient - for now - with their positive rights.

"How can the legislators possibly know which measures will promote the greatest

happiness, for the greatest number?

By respecting the natural rights of individuals."

[Ghs]

Top-down collective Utopianism, or bottom-up individualism - it is really as simple

an ideological divide as that, it appears.

[BaalChatzaf]

Top-down collective Utopianism, or bottom-up individualism - it is really as simple

an ideological divide as that, it appears.

Has anyone ever dissected a human being with be best available technology or scanned a human being with the best available technology ever found a human right inside of a human being. Are human rights objectively real? If so, where and how are they located in the Space-Time continuum, what are they made of and what laws properly describe them?

Nonsense on Stilts is philosophy totally lacking an empirical grounding.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[MrBenjamatic]

You're right, I should have worded that: helping others cannot be moral. I should have been more specific. That sentence I thought about only for a second before posting it and now I realize was wrong.

Still false: On the contrary, it is often totally rational and moral to willingly help others (i.e.strangers).

Where do you get this stuff? If you don't understand rational selfishness, don't fake it. Ask. Read. There must be dozens of pertinent threads on OL.

In terms of Objectivist ethics, the worst harm is to misrepresent something to yourself, only secondarily to others. And some people are not as honest and as forthright as you, and knowing your ignorance, will cynically use your statements against you (or against Objectivist ethics in general.)

Helping others cannot be moral. It is right to sustain your existence. In order to sustain your existence you have to think and you can only think with your mind and no one else's. This is self-evident to me. You cannot think for another. As YOUR mind and no one else's is YOUR means of survival and NO ONE ELSE'S, how can it be moral to sustain anothers existence when they alone can think for themselves? If thinking is mans only means of survival, and he can only think with his brain and no one else's, how can it be moral to help another if you can't think for him and faith is evil. You cannot help another in any important way because you can't think for them. Thinking is the virtue upon which all other virtues must be based on as without thinking, you cannot sustain your existence. This conviction Rand said and I understand and know (knowledge being sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). I do not take Rand on faith, that would be stupid, haha. I laughed after I wrote that. Independency is a virtue because you and no one else can think for you and no one else, because you must act on the judgement of your mind and no one else's and the only alternative is not judging and dying or death by faith (which is usually a slow death). It is right to act on the honest and rational judgement of your own mind. Depending on others to make reality-judgements for you (faith), depending on others to sustain your existence is an evil death wish. How can it be immoral to, in some cases, receive help, and, at the same time how can it be an absolute that helping others be moral. That is a contradiction. That being said, morality (virtue) consists of sustaining your existence. I've helped others but helping those others niether contradicted my life-purpose nor my reason nor that which is required to sustain my existence. I agree with Rand when she said that helping others is neutral and only evil so long as it is an irrational sacrifice (redundant but included because of the existence of altruists who hold death as a greater value than life). I know I'm rationally selfish, and, I think, so do you.

Also, if helping others was moral, it would be moral for Dagny Taggart to have refused Galt so to continue helping her own destroyers destroy her.

[Brant Gaede]

You're right, I should have worded that: helping others cannot be moral. I should have been more specific. That sentence I thought about only for a second before posting it and now I realize was wrong.

Still false: On the contrary, it is often totally rational and moral to willingly help others (i.e.strangers).

Where do you get this stuff? If you don't understand rational selfishness, don't fake it. Ask. Read. There must be dozens of pertinent threads on OL.

In terms of Objectivist ethics, the worst harm is to misrepresent something to yourself, only secondarily to others. And some people are not as honest and as forthright as you, and knowing your ignorance, will cynically use your statements against you (or against Objectivist ethics in general.)

Helping others cannot be moral. It is right to sustain your existence. In order to sustain your existence you have to think and you can only think with your mind and no one else's. This is self-evident to me. You cannot think for another. As YOUR mind and no one else's is YOUR means of survival and NO ONE ELSE'S, how can it be moral to sustain anothers existence when they alone can think for themselves? If thinking is mans only means of survival, and he can only think with his brain and no one else's, how can it be moral to help another if you can't think for him and faith is evil. You cannot help another in any important way because you can't think for them. Thinking is the virtue upon which all other virtues must be based on as without thinking, you cannot sustain your existence. This conviction Rand said and I understand and know (knowledge being sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). I do not take Rand on faith, that would be stupid, haha. I laughed after I wrote that. Independency is a virtue because you and no one else can think for you and no one else, because you must act on the judgement of your mind and no one else's and the only alternative is not judging and dying or death by faith (which is usually a slow death). It is right to act on the honest and rational judgement of your own mind. Depending on others to make reality-judgements for you (faith), depending on others to sustain your existence is an evil death wish. How can it be immoral to, in some cases, receive help, and, at the same time how can it be an absolute that helping others be moral. That is a contradiction. That being said, morality (virtue) consists of sustaining your existence. I've helped others but helping those others niether contradicted my life-purpose nor my reason nor that which is required to sustain my existence. I agree with Rand when she said that helping others is neutral and only evil so long as it is an irrational sacrifice (redundant but included because of the existence of altruists who hold death as a greater value than life). I know I'm rationally selfish, and, I think, so do you.

A mind desperately in search of dogmatism will find it. It is a quest to turn philosophy into something with metaphysical substance, like a club to hit people like me over the head with.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

Brant, are you an Objectivist? I'm just curious. I don't remember your other posts so I can't say. Also, I think I stress the positive (the moral) before and much more than I stress the negative (the immoral), so I can't see how I've been metaphorically hitting people with philosophical clubs.

[caroljane]

Brant, are you an Objectivist? I'm just curious. Also, I think I stress the positive (the moral) before and much more than I stress the negative (the immoral), so I can't see how I've been metaphorically hitting people with philosophical clubs.

Not to preempt Brant who always speaks for himself, but you have proclaimed your intent to hit your architectural regulator foes over the head with philosophically-based logic.

[MrBenjamatic]

Brant, are you an Objectivist? I'm just curious. Also, I think I stress the positive (the moral) before and much more than I stress the negative (the immoral), so I can't see how I've been metaphorically hitting people with philosophical clubs.

Not to preempt Brant who always speaks for himself, but you have proclaimed your intent to hit your architectural regulator foes over the head with philosophically-based logic.

Hahaha! You're right. My point was that it is constructive to stress the moral before the immoral and nonconstructive and probably damaging to stress the immoral before the moral.

[PDS]

You're right, I should have worded that: helping others cannot be moral. I should have been more specific. That sentence I thought about only for a second before posting it and now I realize was wrong.

Still false: On the contrary, it is often totally rational and moral to willingly help others (i.e.strangers).

Where do you get this stuff? If you don't understand rational selfishness, don't fake it. Ask. Read. There must be dozens of pertinent threads on OL.

In terms of Objectivist ethics, the worst harm is to misrepresent something to yourself, only secondarily to others. And some people are not as honest and as forthright as you, and knowing your ignorance, will cynically use your statements against you (or against Objectivist ethics in general.)

Helping others cannot be moral. It is right to sustain your existence. In order to sustain your existence you have to think and you can only think with your mind and no one else's. This is self-evident to me. You cannot think for another. As YOUR mind and no one else's is YOUR means of survival and NO ONE ELSE'S, how can it be moral to sustain anothers existence when they alone can think for themselves? If thinking is mans only means of survival, and he can only think with his brain and no one else's, how can it be moral to help another if you can't think for him and faith is evil. You cannot help another in any important way because you can't think for them. Thinking is the virtue upon which all other virtues must be based on as without thinking, you cannot sustain your existence. This conviction Rand said and I understand and know (knowledge being sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). I do not take Rand on faith, that would be stupid, haha. I laughed after I wrote that. Independency is a virtue because you and no one else can think for you and no one else, because you must act on the judgement of your mind and no one else's and the only alternative is not judging and dying or death by faith (which is usually a slow death). It is right to act on the honest and rational judgement of your own mind. Depending on others to make reality-judgements for you (faith), depending on others to sustain your existence is an evil death wish. How can it be immoral to, in some cases, receive help, and, at the same time how can it be an absolute that helping others be moral. That is a contradiction. That being said, morality (virtue) consists of sustaining your existence. I've helped others but helping those others niether contradicted my life-purpose nor my reason nor that which is required to sustain my existence. I agree with Rand when she said that helping others is neutral and only evil so long as it is an irrational sacrifice (redundant but included because of the existence of altruists who hold death as a greater value than life). I know I'm rationally selfish, and, I think, so do you.

Also, if helping others was moral, it would be moral for Dagny Taggart to have refused Galt so to continue helping her own destroyers destroy her.

This borders on nonsense. Has it occurred to you that, on a thread where George Smith and other serious thinkers are posting relevant points about natural rights theory and history, discretion on your part would militate in favor of simply piping down?

Have you found the time to finish Rand's Capitalism yet, in advance of these pronouncements of yours?

People I respect tell me that you are not engaged in parody on this site. I suppose I cannot dispute that premise. In that case, and assuming you are not jacking with all of us, a little humility would seem to be in order--and please, in advance, spare me a speech about Randian heros did not have humility. You haven't quite established yourself as a Randian hero yet.

[caroljane]

I have the ability to learn the role of Queen of the Night for example, and to sing it.

But I don't have the ability to get anybody to listen to me beyond the first few notes.

Not even the cat?

Now this is funny Ninth. I was looking for any new rendititions of these nearly impossible to sing songs, and stumbled on the facts that on his deathbed Mozart re-heard it sung (as it had been), and that it went on Voyager 1 as an example of Earth music.

How glorious is humanity.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Has anyone ever dissected a human being with be best available technology or scanned a human being with the best available technology ever found a human right inside of a human being.

Bob,

You keep looking in the wrong place, then blaming the sun for not providing light when you shut your eyes.

(This is typical for strict determinists.)

You can never see the whole by destroying it or slicing it up.

Here. Let me paraphrase you. "Has anyone ever dissected an apple with the best available technology, or scanned an apple with the best available technology, and ever found an apple inside of an apple?"

How's them apples?

You can only see a whole by stepping back and seeing it against a background.

And you can only see the sky by looking up, not down.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't call myself an Objectivist. This doesn't answer the question I've been asked, but you can work off it.

--Brant