Right to life

I am aware of the other "rights" post here but it does not answer my question.

I am having a hard time trying to understand mans right to life according to the Objectivist view.
Man has a right to live and seek happieness because he simply exist?
To ask, "who says a man has a right to life" is not logical? The question should be, "who gave you the right to take a mans life". Correct?

Post 1

Sunday, June 1, 2003 - 2:59pm

I haven't understood this part of Objectivism yet either. Of course I believe in the right to life, but I don't yet understand Ayn Rand's justification of it. Apparently, according to Rand, the right to life follows from a consideration of man's nature as a living organism that is rational. The argument, whatever it is, wouldn't apply to other animals, which are living organisms but are not rational.

Post 2

Friday, June 6, 2003 - 1:25am

I think confusion is rife among Objectivists on this subject because they forget that rights are *concepts*, not metaphysical entities like thumbs. And in her differing pronouncements on the matter, I think Ayn Rand herself may have added to the confusion.

Rights are *moral* concepts derived from observing man's *metaphysical* characteristics (specifically the capacity to think conceptually, & make choices). Thus,the Objectivist view is lumped in with "natural rights" theories which *do*, mistakenly, view rights as something man is born with, like thumbs. And Objectivist folk end up scratching their heads & asking questions like those above.

The argument does *not* apply to animals, since - leaving aside rudimentary, borderline cases - they do not have those metaphysical characteristics. Rights can only apply to entities capable of conceiving them. No entity other than man is capable of having the discussion we're having right here. No entity other than man is capable of *respecting* the concept it alone can conceive - "rights." No other entity ever does, if you take the view that mice have rights & cats shouldn't eat them.

The concept "rights" is made possible *and* necessary by precisely those characteristics that it isolates & integrates PLUS the fact that the entity with these characteristics operates in a *social* context - i.e. with *other* entities capable of conceptual thought & choice. The moral imperative then is to form a concept in accordance with which all these separate entities with these shared characteristics can exercise them. Alone on a desert island the concept of rights is neither possible nor necessary. In a social context, it is both. And the minimum, first requirement of the implementation of such a concept is that these entities don't kill each other - i.e. the right to life. The right to life then paves the way to the exercise of the others.

So the full answer to the first question above, Why do you have a right to life?, is *not* simply, because you exist; it's because you exist as a conceptual, volitional being in the midst of *other* conceptual, volitional beings.

Post 3

Friday, June 6, 2003 - 3:13pm

Very fine points by Linz on this. I've often been perplexed by those who would totally sever the connection between volition and individual rights for precisely the reason that Lindsay points to.

Rand argued, in essence, that individual rights were the social recognition of the ~fact~ that human beings were beings of volitional consciousness. That volitional capacity goes to the depths of awareness: the ability to augment one's focus, consciously. That ability is essential to "man's survival qua man," which is why the human mind is the ~distinguishing~ characteristic ~tool~ for the achievement of human survival and flourishing.

Thus, rights are principles that relate to and protect the individual's capacity to choose ~in a social context~.

Cheers,
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog.htm
---

Post 4

Sunday, June 8, 2003 - 1:32pm

Linz you say I have a right to life because I exist as a conceptual volitional being ...,

I think it is the other way round, I am a conceptual volitional being therefore I have conceived the idea that I have a right to life.

Animals are not conceptual volitional beings and do not think about such things as a right to life, if they think at all, they assume (instictively) they have a right to life and act accordingly.

We humans, not having instincts to guide us, need to regulate our own activities and to develop various rules to guide and enable us to survive and prosper, amoung these are the right to life property and the pursuit of happiness, others that do not aid our survival are bogus.

Our survival as a species is the only guide to decide which rules to follow and which not.

Post 5

Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 12:28pm

You've hit the nail on the head quite forcefully Mark. Good explanation.
J

Post 6

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:28pm

I know this thread is quite old but I've got a question regarding the right to life.

We say animals are not conceptual volitional beings but neither are infants. If being a conceptual volitional entity is necessary for the right to life then do infants and toddlers have the right to life. If the argument against "pro-life" is that the fetus, being dependant on the mother for life, does not have the right to life then can we say that after the kid has left the womb it has the right to life? Is the infant considered the property of the mother/father to be done with as they please? I'm trying to reconcile right to life with the desire to not have a whole bunch of dead babies lying around.

Post 7

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 5:08am

Jason
I'm glad you've resurrected this thread - it's an issue I have been thinking over for a good while. Unfortunately, got to rush (work beckons), but on about Tues. I will post my reply. (I don't think "mainstream" Objectivists are going to like it much :-)!!}
Cass

Post 8

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 8:07am

Cass,
Controversial replies are the best kind. I'll be on the edge of my seat til Tuesday.

Post 9

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 5:24pm

There�s not really any controversy. Animals are not conceptual and can never become conceptual. Infants are not conceptual either, but they are pre-conceptual. This means that they have the tools of cognition: they can integrate sense data and begin to abstract and make logical associations, ultimately evolving into a conceptual mind. Animals don�t integrate, they�re instinctual.

Being a conceptual being isn�t the prerequisite for the right to life, being a human life is. The right to life exists because human life is the ultimate value. No ethical question arises in the face of its alternative: death.

To be entitled to the right to life you need two things: To be human and to be a life. Objectivists define life as self-sustaining, self-generating action, so this excludes embryos and fetuses, but includes sleeping people, people in a coma if they so will, etc. Objectivists define humans as the rational animal, so this excludes all other animals. Now this doesn�t mean that you lose your humanity and your right to life if you�re irrational for five seconds. It means that as a human, you have the capacity for rationality, so this includes infants, children, and unfortunately, the French and Michael Moore.

Once a newborn has left the womb, it can exist independently of that environment, so it is a self-generating life and attributed the right to life as a consequence. A newborn is not the �property� of its parents, in that they are not free to �dispose� of it. A newborn is a life in its own right, subject to full legal protection. Parents bear a moral responsibility to raise and care for the child as a consequence of their choice to have it.

Post 10

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 7:06pm