Unnatural Rights?

In an effort to define the difference between natural and contractual rights, a certain philosopher has challenged the presumption that natural, universal, or inherent rights exist at all.

I’ve similarly and inadvertently challenged my own assumption on the matter as well, in asserting You Have no Rights without corresponding obligations, and that You Deserve Nothing, if you haven’t earned it.

In the past I’ve use ‘natural’, ‘inherent’, and ‘universal’ rights interchangeably.  But in order to deeply examine this issue, I will separate their meanings based on their underlying definition.

First up: Natural Rights

For a moment, imagine you are the only person in the world, or – less depressingly – you are in the middle of wilderness with no means of interacting with other human beings.  Nothing is artificial.  You are in a State of Nature.  What are your rights?

Let’s examine the classics:

Life: While obviously nobody ever had the right to live forever (at least in our present bodies), in society we generally associated the right to Life as the right to not be murdered by anyone (or suffer lesser assaults).  Potentially, one could even argue it entails the right to call on others to help defend one’s self, but for now there is nobody else around.  In nature?  With nobody around, you certainly won’t be killed by another person, but what about wildlife?  They certainly don’t care about your right to life.  In Nature, I think anyone could accept a right to Life – which is the right to defend one’s self from threats to one’s well being.  So, rest easy fending off those bears.  Is Life a natural right?  Defined as the right to defend one’s self, certainly.  

Liberty: Can you do whatever you want in nature, and feel no remorse?  Within your abilities, yes.  Though your potential is severely limited in isolation compared to society, you can do what you are able.  Liberty can be defined as your ability to do what you want – free from restraint –  so long as it does not harm another.  It can also be viewed as the ability to choose how to expend the time we have remaining in our lives.  With no others to impact in a state of nature and nobody to restrain your free will, Liberty is a natural right.

Property: In the ‘John Locke’ sense of the term, Property means that you can appropriate yourself what you want from nature for your own benefit – so long as there is effectively as much remaining to satisfy the needs of the rest of mankind.  By yourself, in the wilderness, there are no other human needs to fulfill, so you can drink as much from the stream as you’d like, pick as many berries as you’d like, and eat whatever meat you can capture and kill.  There will be nothing immoral about feeding yourself, clothing yourself, or fashioning tools for yourself from nature to help make your life easier.  The only limitation from a spiritual standpoint would be to avoid waste, which – on your own – is more of a practical guideline than a moral one.

Property could also be defined as the right to not have what is yours taken from you by others.  Like Life, in a State of Nature, no other humans are around, but the bears that don’t respect your life probably won’t have qualms about eating your food either. In nature, your right to Property is essentially just the echoes of your former society saying, “good luck.”

I would contend that, with above conceded definitions, the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property do exist in nature, but their relevance is extremely limited.  In general, people speak of rights as something they are due from other people.  Rarely do you find the need to defend your rights from yourself.  Still, I think these natural rights are important to understand as a baseline minimum.  No human is ever born into a state of nature, but so long as they choose to stay with a society, one must understand what they are sacrificing for the benefits of that society (and what they are not).  The only right of Life and Property in nature is the right to defend them, but the right to Liberty is nearly absolute.  

But what about rights and obligations between people?  Universal Rights

Returning from the wilderness to the reality of society, one might ask, are there universal rights between humans?  For instance, is there a right and obligation to Life that universally binds people to not murder each other, at a minimum?

Before answering, let’s specify that here universal here means ‘applying to all people, in all cases, at all times.’  

Whether you want to focus on morality or legality, the answer must definitively be ‘no.’  In ancient Sparta, unhealthy babies could be murdered legally and – what was viewed at the time – morally.  It was not considered wrong or illegal in that society.  Even today, and districts controlled by the Islamic State, murdering individuals is both legal and considered righteous.  (Of course in these situations those doing the killing don’t consider it murder, but this is precisely the point)

An important thing to note here is that your personal view of what is right and wrong may be able to be applied universally for yourself.  For instance, you could sit here and condemn Spartan, Nazi, or Islamic State practices, but not everyone would agree with you.  The morality is individual, not universal.  And while it seems obvious to me that murder or theft is wrong, in order to truly explore philosophy we must accept that we could be wrong about anything at any time.  Is there something we condone today as ‘right’ that a few hundred years from now will be chalked up next to burning ‘witches’ alive in the history books?  The answer is: probably.

With seven billion people walking the earth today, many more in our past, and hopefully more in our future, we can not find a universal acceptance of right and wrong on any subject, at any time, across any geography, or even within a single society.

In this context, we cannot definitively determine any universal rights among mankind.  (Kudos, Duke/Kefer)

Does that mean we have to worry about getting murdered, enslaved, or robbed by everyone we encounter?  Inherent Rights

Now that we explored the rights of an individual in a vacuum, and the rights of all individuals in all cases, let us explorer a similar line of reasoning.

After you’ve killed a beast in the wilderness, and are harvesting it to eat, another human may stumble out of the brush.  In that instant, knowing no universal rights, you have yet to exit a State of Nature.  In that moment, the man emerging from the brush is no different than another wild animal with regards to safety and security of yourself and your possessions.  You do not know his beliefs.  Perhaps he is a cannibal.  What’s he doing here anyway?

Our ability to communicate, however, could establish some rights and obligations between two or more individuals.  The stranger in the wilderness could offer you his belt in exchange for a slab of meat, and you may accept.  Until this occurred there would be no reason to believe this exchange would be fair or moral.  There may be no universal beliefs, but in this specific case, two individuals have manifested beliefs that this specific exchange would be morally acceptable.  Presumably with nobody else affected by the trade, a micro-case of right and wrong has been created (the wrong here being the refusal of one party later refusing to uphold their end of the deal).  Of course, this subject is a large one with many aspects, the contract.

One might say, didn’t you have the ‘right’ to make that contract?  If so, doesn’t all mankind have the universal right to contract?  Of course not.  I could not possibly say that I have the right to create a contract in which I exchange one dollar for all of your worldly possessions.  The right to contract is not universal.  It requires consent.  You seek to rephrase: then you have a universal right to contract with those that consent.  But this is not correct either.  To offer a trade is simply the exercise of the natural right of Liberty.  When nobody is within your sphere of influence, your actions cannot possibly harm another.  When there are others around, a contract is simply a manifestation that the action(s) in question are viewed by affected individuals as (net) beneficial.  The agreement is a confirmation that your action does not harm the others impacted, in their own opinion.  A contract is the checkpoint from transferring your natural right to Liberty into society.  To contract is no more right then it is an  obligation – a requirement to form a society.  It is also an expression of goodwill toward one another, since the alternative would have been to proceed with your desired action without regards to the wellbeing of others involved.

So then, what of inherent rights?  Since there are no universal rights among mankind, wouldn’t there also be no inherent rights in a society?

Not so, I would say.  If we can accept that every contractual society is created for personal benefit.  Whether we agree to form a nation together or simply a single instance of exchange of goods or services – there is no doubt agreements are made to the perceived net benefit (despite obligations incurred) of all consenting parties.

To this end, one could argue that under all manners of society – unless otherwise stated in the contract – certain rights and obligations are inherent (or at all times implied).

For instance, would it be practical, prudent, or necessary to – for every agreement in the world add the phrase “and we promise not to kill each other” ?  No.  If you have reached the point of a legitimate, consensual contract, there is an understanding that both sides perceive a greater benefit gained than sacrifice they are obligating themselves to.  A contract is a manifestation that parties intend to respect the others’ well being, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered to contract in the first place.

Therefore the the terms “Don’t kill me and I won’t kill you as long as our contract exists” is implied.  To not be killed by others in your society would then be an inherent right (which would carry a corresponding obligation to not kill them).  Likewise, lesser forms of injurious assault could logically be included in these implied terms.

Therefore, the natural right to defend one’s life from external threats (‘Life’) is inherently at all times extended to encompass a right to-not-be-injured by those under contract – unless expressly stated to the contrary in the agreement itself.

A contract is a consensual limitation on one’s natural liberty.  In nature, one holds no obligations to anyone for anything.  Under contract, one specifies the obligations to another they explicitly agree to, in exchange for the perceived greater benefit.  Inherent then, in this contract, is the preservation of all remaining liberty not otherwise sacrificed under the contract.  All liberty is natural, therefore liberty not willingly sacrificed to be part of a society is inherent.

But what of property?  In nature, under no agreement with anyone, a man might expect to have to defend the fruits of his labor from anyone or anything.  Legitimate property is merely the static result of of the specific way one has chosen to expend one’s body and time – one’s Liberty and Life.  To take someone’s property then, is undisputably injurious to that person.  If it takes a man an hour of undesirable labor to feed himself for the day, and before he eats, another takes his food, the thief has effectively wrongly imprisoned the victim for an hour.  Theft of property then is undoubtedly an assault on another’s life and liberty – albeit slightly less obvious.  Therefore, relief from theft of one’s property by others you’ve reached agreement with is likewise implied, or inherent, unless otherwise stated in the contract.  One important caveat – property rights are only as inherent as the legitimacy of the property is obvious.  When their is not an agreement as to who actually owns the property, such terms would have to be spelled out in the contract to firmly establish what is inherently protected for each individual in the society.

In this sense, I think it is appropriate to assert that Life, Liberty, and Property are all inherent rights – in the contexts I’ve stated – for any people that have entered into an agreement with one another.  Every legitimate contract between individuals carries these terms, whether or not they are in writing.  If one shirks the obligations he has incurred under a legitimate contract, they then have sacrificed their rights the agreement has granted as well.  They walk through their former society as a wild beast, whose life, freedom, and possessions are no longer guaranteed to be respected by others.  

However, like the natural rights themselves, these inherent rights may also be explicitly sacrificed by a willing individual that views the rewards to exceed the injuries suffered.

There is much more to be discussed on this topic, but at present this reasoning will serve as a foundation that natural and inherent rights do exist, at least in some capacity.  We’ve discussed some of the most commonly recited examples through history here, and we’ll define a litmus test in another article to help tackle the subject should the question ever arise on other specific subjects in the future.

A Call for Universal Human Dignity

By Sean Diamond

Preamble

As we stand on the shoulders of giants and the progress of human innovation steadily ratchets up the ceiling on the realm of possibility, human society must vigilantly attend to the foundation on which that innovation was permitted to thrive, lest both crumble. As we continue to accrue the technological capital to allow a few in our society to approach a power that our ancestors would have considered god-like, we have the responsibility to ensure that even the lowest among us are able to live beyond the means of the kings of those same ancestors. It is with these sentiments that a call is issued for society to pursue and preserve a universal dignity for all of its members.

Tenets of Universal Human Survival

While nature abhors permanence and no individual being will live forever, the threshold of dignity cannot be bestowed upon someone who is unable to survive. Therefore, to support human dignity, these tenets of Universal Human Survival should be sought first and foremost for current and future generations.

1. Clean Water, Air, and Food
2. Basic Healthcare and Exercise
3. Personal Safety and Shelter
4. Reproductive Agency

Tenets of Universal Human Dignity

To ensure that no person is subjected to mere subsistence or servitude and that each person is able to experience as dignified an existence as nature will allow, a mutual bond between humans living in a free and modern society must concede the following tenets of human dignity to each individual member of society so long as it does not preclude the survival or dignity of another or put an undue burden on the society as a whole or the environment that supports it.

1. Information and Education
2. Communication and Expression
3. Organization and Identification
4. Mobility and Exploration
5. Creation and Productivity

The Call

Similar to the physical laws of the universe, human society must counter entropy with work to prolong the values that we hold most dear. It is only through persistence of innovation and quality of character that human greatness can forestall the perils of time. By asking to ensure the rights of current and future generations, these Tenets do not leave room for waste, sloth, or pollution. However, where and whenever circumstances and technology permit, society should endeavor to cleave the tenuousness of human survival and dignity from unstable economic pressures, leaving only as much linkage as is necessary to perpetuate the institutions and systems that support Universal Human Dignity.

See the next article in this series: A Proposal for Universal Human Dignity in America

…or download the entire document here: Universal Human Dignity – Sean Diamond

Eric Diamond’s ‘The Meaning of Life’

The Meaning of Life is this: Crank the flywheel.  These rules are simple:

1)      Learn as much as you can about the knowledge and discoveries from the past

2)      Discover new knowledge, previously unbeknownst to mankind

3)      Effectively communicate as much of this information as you can to future generations

When pondering the meaning of life, I always think about it in the context of human beings.  I feel a sense of great fortune, having been born into this unique species, most obviously distinguished from all others on our planet.

What distinguishes us?  All animals have the ability to pass some level of innate knowledge on from one generation or another.  Through some combination of genetics, and observed survival behavior, lesser animals still know to eat, drink, breathe, maintain body temperature, and reproduce.  Mankind has transcended this cycle through one means: sophisticated communication.

The initial breakthrough – whether it was hieroglyphics or some other means – broke a barrier that has forever plagued every species until that point and continues to plague every species besides mankind since then.  This barrier is that animals spend their entire lives learning the same lessons as their ancestors spent their entire lives learning.  Through mankind’s ability to communicate, we are in the unique position of being able to learn second-hand through the discoveries of others.

Einstein could have never theorized on relativity if he had to learn from scratch, what took Newton and other great physicists before him their entire lives to discover.

I believe the true meaning of life (which we all inherently understand, even if unrecognized) is to ensure the perpetuation of our species for as long as possible.  At current, there exists no near-term, obvious threat to the extermination of the entire species.  This can blur the lines of what is necessary to ensure the continuance of mankind.  On a micro-level, this might simply mean surviving, reproducing, and raising one’s child to prepare to do the same.

But let us say we discovered a dinosaur-ending sized asteroid on a collision course with Earth.  Wouldn’t we all simultaneously forget political animosities and work together to avert the end of our species? (see generally, Armageddon)

On this foundational gift of communication that we have all inherited, however, we can start to recognize that the ultimate species-ending threat that we do not yet have the ability to overcome is still unknown at this time.  It could be some type of biological disease, derivative of climate change, alien invasion, or the singularity.

Without a direct, short-term threat to humanity, we do not know exactly what to prepare for, so it is our duty in the meantime to at least speed up the already-spinning flywheel of knowledge we have stumbled across at birth.  It is our job to provide that unknown future generation – the one that most overcome the zombie apocalypse – with as much knowledge as possible, to increase their odds of overcoming that threat.

It is our job to develop new technologies in harvesting energy, accelerating knowledge transfer, and exploring our universe, and continue to study medicine and biology.

I’ve stated 3 points to pursue in fulfilling the obligations we’ve inherited with our lives of leisure and ease (compared to the other species, and our own Neanderthal ancestors).  At a minimum, we each must do our best to maintain what we have by achieving the first and last points.  The flywheel will spin at the same speed we when we die as it did when we were born, if we just ensure that discoveries of geniuses from past generations live on.  Ensuring this, in whatever way we can, is our minimum obligation.

In discovering new knowledge, and adding that to our species’ perpetual capital, we have sped up the flywheel – we can proudly say we’ve done our part in mastering the universe.  Like compounding interest in a financial investment, even small gains can amplify into wealth (of knowledge) beyond our wildest dreams over long periods of time, as derivative gains are built upon them.

It does not take genius intellect to participate in this endeavor (though it certainly doesn’t hurt).  Courage, curiosity, work ethic, sacrifice, and selflessness can also lead to breakthroughs.  The first man to break the 4-minute mile discovered a new ability for mankind through nothing but sweat and grit.

The digital era and internet has further eased our burden in communicating knowledge to future generations.  But great investors do not stop once they’ve reached a million dollars and go bury their money in the ground.  This incredible new capital should continue to be improved, while we simultaneously exploit learning and discovering more with our increased time available.

Let us work toward these ends and one day die happy, knowing we lived well.

 

Luke’s Response

I really enjoyed this essay Eric.  This topic, on perpetuating future human life, is something I’ve thought a lot about and done quite a bit of research on.  If anyone is interested there is a well argued dissertation by Nick Beckstead here that makes the case that we have a moral obligation to address any type of existential threat to the human species – even if the likelihood of the apocalyptic type event occurring is minimal (even .0001% chance) because the outcome would be infinitely devastating – not just to the current race of people but all future generations.  My response to this argument, and to Eric’s statement that the meaning of life is to “ensure the perpetuation of our species for as long as possible”, is that ensuring this perpetuation is an act of compassion and can only be enhanced by an aggregate increase in the level of compassion across humanity.

Many arguments have been put forth that in the next century that the human species will face daunting challenges that may threaten our survival. While there are many ideas about how to tackle various existential threats to humanity individually, through reducing nuclear and biological weapons, reducing our carbon footprint, etc. what if we had a way to potentially reduce all manmade existential threats? If a program was put forth that could reduce the odds of all manmade existential threats, even if it was a miniscule reduction, it ought to be pursued because of the exponential future benefit such an effort could produce. For this reason I believe:

1. that an increased level of compassion, altruism, and selflessness across the whole of humanity could potentially reduce all manmade existential threats
2. an increased level of compassion is achievable through education
3. that it is possible to achieve a global consensus on the ideals and goals of compassion
4. that it is feasible to spread educational messages of compassion through existing and improved educational and informational channels

These statements, I think will serve as launching points for future posts and discussions on feasibility, in the meantime I put them forth as seemingly plausible stances. Thousands of years of religious practice and teachings would assert that the knowledge of compassion can be transferred and, with discipline, compassion can be practiced.  According to Beckstead’s postulates, I need not prove that compassion will eliminate or significantly reduce a threat, I only need only demonstrate that through acts of compassion the threat has a chance of being reduced.  It is easy to imagine the innumerable ways compassion would reduce to inclination to use weapons, to pollute the environment, to consider lives beyond one’s own.

Compassion can and should be addressed at varying stages of intellectual and emotional development of a child.  Yet rather than serving as a focal point in the modern curriculum, it is often an afterthought in both school and home life.  I’m not saying that compassion is more important than other subjects in relation to helping the future of humanity -who knows what technology might ‘save’ us one day.  But we should seek to establish compassion as a pre or co-requisite to other knowledge.

A proposal and agreement can be made across all nations that promotes the primacy of compassion in education. The Charter for Compassion (http://charterforcompassion.org/), a recently launched international commitment to compassionate thinking and action that has been signed by religious and secular leaders across many nations, is a hopeful first step in showing that compassion as a global educational goal is desirable and feasible.  

Knowledge itself cannot ensure the future of the human species.  Careful consideration of how and why we use this knowledge will certainly take us further in the direction of perpetuation.