Skeptical Due Diligence: Rights Not Endowed By a Creator

[Hlafordlaes]

I am in a state of flux. For me there is a direct relationship between the fundamental issues raised and protections against authoritarianism. What, for example, is the argument against a majority in a democracy preferring, say, the imposition of a religion or an ideology? What arguments make sense and which do not in waging war and dealing with enemies? Immigration, refugees? Aren't these pressing topics of the day, given growing authoritarianism and intransigent faithism?

I, of course agree with all those stating that any policy or political formulations are by nature consensual and relate to preference, and a divergent problem in aleC's terms. My point or goal, really, is to reaffirm that which provides answers to the questions above. This requires arguing for human rights as being more fundamental than law. And this in turn requires arguing for such rights themselves, now without backdooring God. Equality is harder to argue without that easy fix, but in the end, we are better for it.

Granted any such arguments must be in the end a consensual statement, not based on science. I think, however, there might be far better and far worse ways to go about it, and would like to do so herein. To make matters more difficult, and certain to cause misery from fly-by posters, is that any formulation of equality and rights, to be acceptable, IMO would have to rely on some core nugget that is palatable to the religious and non-religious alike.

Too, if made explicit, any formulation serves as foundational argument for subsequent discussions that admit of being in the domain of rights, law, and government. Suffice it to say, there are many threads touching on these topics. Anyway, I thought these same thoughts would immediately spring to mind for everyone else, like "yeah, let's do this," so I am stepping back and rethinking. Kinda, wtf? So it's just me, I guess, who thinks the barn is on fire.

 

[Mark6]

This is the same for me as when a Christian asks where an atheist would get a sense of morality without God. The answer is in their failure to look at it from an atheist point of view in the first place: in a world that is without God, Christians must have gotten their morality without God, too. So atheists could easily, and in fact did, get ours from the same place where Christians really, actually got theirs.

Is that your actual answer to Christians (or other theists) who ask you this question? If so, I think it is a very weak answer. The obvious response is "Yes, you got your morals from the same place I got mine -- from the God! Even if you refuse to recognize it."

 

[AdamSK]

I always thought Atlas Shrugged did a good job of explaining this. Rights are inherent in the process by which man exists and works. Violence against those rights impedes the process, disrupting the producer. From Rand's narrative in Atlas Shrugged this is as clear with respect to human creation as it is with wrecking any other machine.

 

[Minoosh]

My point or goal, really, is to reaffirm that which provides answers to the questions above. This requires arguing for human rights as being more fundamental than law.

I am no kind of expert but thinking in terms of a Creator would IMO be pretty much a default position in in 1776. Not universally, perhaps, but for most people. The words have a ring of inevitability, which I believe was the intended effect. Men will be free. It's their destiny. Truth will prevail. The language enshrines ideals that do not have to come from divine authority, yet those ideals form what amounts to a religion, just as Confucianism amounted to a religion in China. There is a right way to live - and a right way to think. Creating an independent union based on individual rights was seen, or sold, as a sacred duty. The natural order of things.

It could be argued these guys were starting what amounted to a new religion. Were they sincere? They probably were, in an affirmations-type way: Describe the society you want to be and declare it is so. But they had to have realized the contradictions that were going to blow up in their faces at some point.

Are there rights more fundamental than law? Common human decency? Nope, that doesn't work - too subjective. The simplest code of behavior I can think of is the Golden Rule. But that's not a right; it's an admonition. I really can't think of any action that would be universally considered a violation of human rights.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I always thought Atlas Shrugged did a good job of explaining this. Rights are inherent in the process by which man exists and works. Violence against those rights impedes the process, disrupting the producer. From Rand's narrative in Atlas Shrugged this is as clear with respect to human creation as it is with wrecking any other machine.

I don't do objectivism, or haven't for years. Pls refresh me on the core argument of equality, for starters. My working assumption is that I afford no rights to those not my equals, so equality comes first. What say Randists?
...

There are no more magic wands to waive away the obvious: humans are not created, and they are not equal. The house of cards crumbles. Screw rights. Gimme.

I say people have no rights. I can readily observe the huge inequalities across a wide range of attributes. Government or not, no agency or person may make that argument and not be laughed at. I'd like to hear a defense of these so-called rights, quite obviously a whiny liberal invention to hold back winners. I'm a winner. What is yours is now mine, as I can take it, and you cannot stop me.

If laws are what give rights, in my (fictional) country, the laws grant what we superiors feel appropriate. We do not allow our lessers free rein to wreak ignorant havoc.

In general, the natural state of all animals is pure competition. Losers lose, winners win. Rights are an invention to hold back the wiser and the stronger. Survival of the fittest, including use of any forms of subterfuge, ambush, overwhelming force, is the name of the game. The best must not hesitate to take what they can, dominate the weak, and to order society in their favor. The least must follow in acquiescence or fall behind.
​

Stop me before I begin to argue that women and gays should have no rights, or that equality means the dictatorship of the proletariat... please, stop me... or don't... heh, heh! moneycashwealthpowerallMINE...

/devil's advocate mode

 

[ChristianProgressive]

2 points:

The DoL is not part of the constitution and has no legal force.

The legal system abounds with "legal fictions" (eg corporations) so an atheist legal scholar should have no difficulty in regarding God the same way.

In and of itself it has no legal force, but it shows the intent of the people who created and ratified the document that does have it. Thus it must be considered in interpreting Original Intent.

 

[AdamSK]

From the Atlas Society website...

Rights are fundamental political principles. As such, they are based in morality. They summarize how human beings ought to be treated in a social context, and what are the fundamental ways in which we ought to deal with others. Objectivism holds that there is basically one fundamental right: the right to live free from force. Other rights apply, extend, or support this fundamental right.
Rights are "natural" in the same way any true principle is natural: It is based on facts of reality. See my FAQ "Why Should One Act on Principle?" for more details.
So people are not "born with" these rights. In fact, that is absurd; rights are principles we discover and learn to apply. What people are born with is the natural capacities for reason and independent living, and the biological need for material goods, that are the essential bases for individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4079-natural-rights

A Randian version of the Declaration might look something like this...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station by which the Progress they have demonstrated and the Wonders they have wrought makes it clear that they have Earned and hereafter Deserve, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be thoroughly demonstrated by all Experiences of History, that all Men rightfully claim the products of their own Creativity and Labor, and that if any Society is to continue to function according to the Nature of Man, it must acknowledge and protect certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Delvo]

Is that your actual answer to Christians (or other theists) who ask you this question?

I actually don't get asked things like that. I was referring to seeing such questions here or at YouTube, or hearing of cases in which other people were asked in real life. I have used that answer once at ISF. There was no response.

The obvious response is "Yes, you got your morals from the same place I got mine -- from the God! Even if you refuse to recognize it."

If they say that, then they eliminate their own claim that belief in God is necessary for morality. But also, the same thing I said, in a less abbreviated form, could be expressed in a way that makes it explicit that I was talking about Godless methods of developing morality. In fact, the one time I have used it here, it was embellished with a few extra sentences like "You didn't hear God's voice. You didn't eat a magic fruit. You just heard what other people said about it and saw consequences of other people's actions."

 

[AdamSK]

The claim is not usually "only those who believe in God can be moral."

No, instead the claims are:
1) Without belief in God there is no good reason to be moral.
2) It is only possible for anyone to be moral because of God.
These claims withstand the existence of moral atheists.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I always thought Atlas Shrugged did a good job of explaining this. Rights are inherent in the process by which man exists and works. Violence against those rights impedes the process, disrupting the producer. From Rand's narrative in Atlas Shrugged this is as clear with respect to human creation as it is with wrecking any other machine.

Ayn Rand is full of sophist claptrap as usual. In nature there is no such thing as "inherent" rights. There is only power. What you have a "right" to in nature is limited by your power. If you don't have the power to take what you want and the power to keep it once you've taken it, you don't have it.

Rights (as in things you should have and should be able to keep as a matter of right and wrong) are a product of the social contract. You have the rights that society agrees that you do, no more, and no less.

That's why, if nothing else, you should gladly and willingly pay your social dues/taxes and agree to generous provision for others even if you yourself aren't eligible at present.

And before anyone starts ranting about "tyranny" or any of that BS, I'll simply point out that it's no different whatsoever from the "natural" rights theory in it's underpinnings.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

From the Atlas Society website...



http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4079-natural-rights

A Randian version of the Declaration might look something like this...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station by which the Progress they have demonstrated and the Wonders they have wrought makes it clear that they have Earned and hereafter Deserve, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be thoroughly demonstrated by all Experiences of History, that all Men rightfully claim the products of their own Creativity and Labor, and that if any Society is to continue to function according to the Nature of Man, it must acknowledge and protect certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Doesn't work. Can't claim an "inalienable" right to life from nature when in nature if you are too weak to take and keep what you need to live, you die.

 

[Loss Leader]

My question to you is this: in the absence of a belief in any supreme being, what for you, or for us as skeptics, is the proper formulation for the statements italicized above? How do we argue these truths today?

I personally think these rights flow from a free market economy. Assuming the morality of the free market, the ethics require every person to have the same access to it. If all people are not competing from an even footing, the market is not free. It favors one group or another. Life, liberty and property are the minimum necessary elements. The pursuit of happiness part probably relates to Ben Franklin's taste for older women.

 

[fuelair]

Interesting question, as I've run into a couple of folks in RW that claim an atheist shouldn't benefit from civil rights as stated in the BoR.

Seriously.

May they have sexual congress with an Orangutan under circumstances not of their preference nor of their choosing!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Beerina]

"Endowed by their Creator" should be treated as poetic for inherent and unalienable, from an atheists' point of view. It is important to get away from the unfortunate history where rights are given by a king. Too many democracies just think things are peachy now that they, elected officials, get to do the granting.

 

[Border Reiver]

"Endowed by their Creator" should be treated as poetic for inherent and unalienable, from an atheists' point of view. It is important to get away from the unfortunate history where rights are given by a king. Too many democracies just think things are peachy now that they, elected officials, get to do the granting.

Inherent - maybe

Inalienable - not hardly! Violent felons in the US lose their right to "keep and bear arms", voting rights depend on your ability to produce correct pieces of paper or to not be in prison, property is often lost if you are arrested and not returned and that whole no search and seizure without reasonable cause can be ignored if you're the wrong skin colour. And if the State does violate said rights your recourse is to go to court where the deepest pockets often win.

 

[AdamSK]

Doesn't work. Can't claim an "inalienable" right to life from nature when in nature if you are too weak to take and keep what you need to live, you die.

I didn't say the right comes from nature. I said the right is a necessary component of a functioning society, based upon MAN'S nature.

"Inalienable" not in the sense that "it is impossible to remove it." Rather, "inalienable" in the sense that removing it is destructive to the social order and contrary to the most fundamental of moral principles (from a Randian perspective).

 

[quixotecoyote]

I didn't say the right comes from nature. I said the right is a necessary component of a functioning society, based upon MAN'S nature.

"Inalienable" not in the sense that "it is impossible to remove it." Rather, "inalienable" in the sense that removing it is destructive to the social order and contrary to the most fundamental of moral principles (from a Randian perspective).

So, "natural and inalienable" in the sense that it is neither natural nor inalienable.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I personally think these rights flow from a free market economy. Assuming the morality of the free market, the ethics require every person to have the same access to it. If all people are not competing from an even footing, the market is not free. It favors one group or another. Life, liberty and property are the minimum necessary elements. The pursuit of happiness part probably relates to Ben Franklin's taste for older women.

A "free market" will never be "fair" and a "fair" market cannot be totally free in the real world.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'd say, endowed by right of sentience. Maybe. Idk.

Sorry for missing this comment earlier. I'd say most definitely sentience and subjective inner life are the core, but probably an impossible thing to discuss on ISF, because ISF. My fault for not being mindful of some things before starting this thread. At this point, I am leaning toward working my position up into a series and posting it in a more formal setting as I've recently done with one or two other topics. So, my apologies to thread posters, who are welcome and free, of course, to continue on whatever comes to mind on the topic.

Modernized social contract, hierarchy of democratic argument, and the key role of human equality as foundation for rights, as well as the proper regard of which as differentiator between dictatorship and democracy, here I come. Meanwhile, depending on state of health and grandness of gumption on any given day, my two main obstacles, I'll share my thoughts in this thread.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The DoL is not a foundational document of our shared delusion (a government) but the manifesto explaining to the King why, exactly, his colonists were shooting his soldiers.