I am resolved, as was Locke, Jefferson, Rand, and many other philosophers; that all humans are, as humans, unique and equal; and that it follows from this that they have a natural right to life, which means the right to freely pursue the qualitative happiness symptomatic of the fullest flourishment of life.
A “right” is a moral concept. It has no meaning outside of the context of morality, and morality requires an understanding of terms such as “value” and “freedom” to be meaningful. A value presupposes an entity for which something can be of value, and such an entity must have the freedom to choose that value or work against it inorder for morality to have meaning or applicability. First, I want to discuss that concept of “value,” how it can only be applied to living things. Second, I want to discuss how only human living things have the “freedom” which requires morality and rights.
- The concept of “value” does not apply to non-living things. A rock does not have anything to gain or lose. It may change it’s form but never cease to exist. Living things, however, do have something to lose, their life. Life is a process which must be sustained. It is a built-in, intrinsic value for living things. If action is not taken to preserve and promote the life of an organism, it dies. So, value can be applied to living things.
This is not enough yet to make the concept of morality meaningful. If a living thing does not have the freedom to choose not to pursue its intrinsic value, then its actions in promoting and protecting its life, its intrinsic value, are still descriptive, not prescriptive. It makes no sense to tell a tree that it ought to pursue life. A tree does that anyhow. Most living things do whatever their natures allow to protect and promote their lives. It, therefore, makes no sense to say living things have a" right" to attempt to survive. Moral terms are not applicable to living things which must do what they do by their natures.
- Human beings are different. They have some automatic functions but not enough to flourish. Human beings must cultivate their language and an ability to reason, and they must choose to employ reason or accept the consequences of not employing reason. Humans must use their judgment. Their natures are not complete. With their freedom, they participate in creating their own natures within generalizable parameters. Some of those parameters include respecting the “rights” other humans to participate in creating their own natures.
The idea of respecting human rights is included in Kant’s philosophy, in the categorical imperative and in the dictum that one ought to treat each individual as an end, not as a means. It is included in Sartre’s philosophy when he says that choices we make are made for everybody. This is just another version of the categorical imperative, that one ought not do what one would not prescribe for anyone else in that situation to do. It was a way of keeping his relativism from becoming too personal, too private, too irrelevant. Versions of the golden rule are other ways of looking at respecting equal, human rights. We shouldn’t do to others what we don’t want them to do to us. It is the libertarian ideal of doing whatever we want as long as we allow others to also do what they want. We have a right to pursue happiness but not by violating another person’s right to pursue happiness. That is what is meant by “equal” right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a condition of existence required for the proper survival of all human beings. That is what is meant by “natural” or “unalienable”
I open myself to questions.
bis bald,
Nick