Jun

The Proper Origin of Rights

By Norman

This article was submitted by my good friends (and LCC readers) Doug Douma and Lydia Ingram. Though I personally take a “concordist” position that deontological rights are in harmony with Biblical revelation rather than ultimately nonsensical, Doug and Lydia present an interesting case and I know we can have an interesting discussion around this great topic. Many thanks to Doug and Lydia!

Libertarianism is founded on the belief that individuals have universal rights – specifically rights to life, liberty, and the possession of property. Despite fairly widespread recognition of these rights, their universal defense (that is, an explanation of why these rights apply at all times and in all places) can often be difficult to articulate. Three predominant sub-groups within libertarianism attempt such a defense, each with a unique approach. Consequentialist libertarians focus on utility, deontological libertarians look to nature, and Ayn Rand’s followers turn to what they term ethical egoism. At first glance, each of these seems to offer a reasonable defense of universal rights; but closer inspection reveals their flaws. Conscientious defenders of liberty realize that without a solid defense, protection and preservation of rights cannot be guaranteed. Fortunately, there is a firm defense to be found within the pages of God’s Word. In the Bible, God lays out laws and moral constraints, commanding humans to obey. In so doing, God establishes man’s basic human rights; these rights are based on morality and morality originates in God. Therefore, the origin and only solid defense of rights are found, not in utilitarian economics, nature, or egoism, but in the Word of God.

Consequentialist libertarians would disagree, believing they need only look as far as the utility of rights in order to find a suitable defense of them. They believe that rights of life, liberty, and property ownership should be protected because those rights lead to positive utilities, such as prosperity, efficiency, or happiness. The argument quickly falls apart, however, as soon as one realizes that there is no practical unit of measurement for utility. Neoclassical economists devised a unit called a utile, but this concept should be discarded as nonsense. The utility of rights is ultimately immeasurable because happiness, efficiency, and prosperity are impossible to quantify. Even if one could measure a single individual’s happiness, prosperity, or efficiency, these things could not be aggregated across all people. The total utility of rights for a society is indeterminable, and therefore, the consequentialist defense must necessarily be discarded, at least insofar as using it as a solid defense of universal rights is concerned.

Deontological libertarianism’s argument is not quite so easily dismissed, though ultimately, it, too, is a flawed defense. Deontological libertarianism claims that rights are based on the moral principle of non-aggression: You leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone; to do otherwise would be immoral. This principle is derived from the concept of self-ownership, meaning that a person ought to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. Murray Rothbard argued that self-ownership is a natural law because it is what is naturally best for man. In his essay, “Justice and Property Rights,” Rothbard writes:

Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

In Rothbard’s estimation, man’s end goal is “to survive and flourish,” and rights must be preserved and defended as a means to that end. If, however, there is a single case in which ignoring rights helps a man to survive and flourish, then logically, rights cannot be considered universal because they would no longer be applicable at all times and in all places or for all people. The unfortunate truth is that there are plenty of instances in which infringing upon another’s rights can secure one’s own survival. That is precisely how nature operates: survival of the fittest. If stealing or killing advances one’s position, then nature seems to encourage the decision to do so. Nature, then, can be deemed as neither the source of nor a defense of universal rights, as “rights” by nature’s standard are entirely situational. Because that which is situational cannot also be universal, it is necessary to conclude that situational rights are no rights at all.[i]

Ayn Rand’s view is even less helpful in the search for a defense of rights because her argument based on ethical egoism, like deontological libertarianism, actually contradicts the universality of rights. At first glance, Rand’s worship of life as mankind’s highest goal and value seemingly implies that rights are also to be valued. After all, life and happiness are relatively difficult to attain if one doesn’t first have the right to pursue them. However, an ethical egoist does not believe he is morally bound to respect the rights of others if doing so would end his own life or happiness. Thus, to the ethical egoist, rights are not universal, but situational. This is a frightening thought – it is impossible to expect one’s rights to be respected by others if there is no actual reason or motivation for others to do so. Without universal constraints on people’s interpersonal moral decisions, universal rights cannot be effectively defended.

That is where Scripture comes in. Scripture provides the moral constraints necessary to establish the existence of and the defense of universal rights. Three examples of interpersonal moral constraints laid out by God in the Bible are “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The first two laws[ii] establish individuals’ rights to life and to the possession of property. The third provides the moral constraint that allows men to expect their rights to be recognized by others. When a man loves his neighbor as he loves himself, he understands that any action that would be detrimental to himself should never be taken against others. No one wants to be harmed, therefore no one should initiate harm on another. The moral constraints against killing, stealing, and so forth, are primary ethical norms. They are, to coin a term, “non-rights.” Man does not have the right to kill or to steal. From these Biblical maxims, one can logically derive the universal rights of life, liberty, and property.

Whenever it is said that one ought or ought not to perform some action, there must be a reason or motivation to abide by such a statement. The motive to restrain oneself from infringing upon the recognized rights of others is simple and entirely self-serving. Simply put, abiding by ethical laws is in alignment with man’s most basic ethical goal: his own best interests. Generally speaking, a man will seek what is best for himself. Perhaps this means seeking utilities such as happiness and prosperity. Perhaps it means “to survive and flourish.” It stands to reason that as man’s creator, God is also aware of that which is best for man. Scripture declares that a right relationship with God should be man’s highest goal. A relationship with his Creator endows a man with fulfillment, wholeness, and happiness. A relationship with God sets man up to survive and flourish eternally. While mankind’s eternal salvation has been secured by the death and resurrection of Christ, man is still responsible for living out his life on earth in a way that is God-pleasing (man does this not to earn salvation, but in response to that which has been done on his behalf). The deepest kind of satisfaction can be attained in both this life and the life to come, but only if one has a right relationship with God. Recognizing and respecting the moral constraints God established is part of that.[iii] If a man is motivated to achieve his goal of happiness and satisfaction, then logically, he should seek to remain in a right relationship with the One who can provide that desired end result, both now and in eternity.

A person whose only goal is his own self-interest in this earthly life could easily believe that rules, ethics, and rights can all be violated for his own sake. Any system, then, that sets a goal solely applicable in this life necessarily excludes acknowledging rights. If man’s goal is “goodness” or “happiness” only in this life, then he need only acknowledge the rights of others when it is in his own best interest, and never otherwise. In that case, rights are no longer universally applicable rules to follow and are therefore no longer rights. If life ends at death, then it makes perfect sense that one should do whatever he can to make himself happy during his lifetime, even if that means causing harm to others. However, Scripture reveals that there is more to life than the years spent on Earth. Life extends into eternity and man does not have to sacrifice his acknowledgement of rights in his earthly life in order to reach his goal of happiness and fulfillment in eternal life. A person whose goal is his own self-interest in this earthly life AND in eternal life will recognize that the means to this end goal involve the recognition and defense of rules, ethics, and rights – not as way of earning eternal life, but as a way of enjoying completeness with the Creator, Savior God.

Scripture, then, acts as revelation to Christians. It reveals man’s universal rights and identifies God as their source. It provides awareness of the possibility of eternal life and of the beauty of a relationship with God. With that knowledge comes a motivation for respecting the rights of others. The origin of and motivation for respecting the rights of mankind combine to form a solid basis for the universal defense of the rights Libertarians hold so dear.

So ultimately, rights are not something that should be defended simply by observing their utility within a society. Nor are rights something that can be defended solely by saying they come from nature, for nature would more often have men violate each other’s rights in an effort to survive. Rights are instead established by God Himself and preserved for posterity in the Bible. Scripture provides the origin of rights and the defense of their universality. Rights do not have to be ignored in certain cases in order to reach the end goal of happiness or fulfillment because life does not end with death, and happiness and fulfillment are found in a right relationship with God. And a right relationship with God is attained through Spirit-inspired faith and obedience to God’s Word. Libertarians who desire to know and discuss the source of their inalienable rights should therefore look not to worldly philosophical arguments, but to the Bible and its author, our author, God the Creator.

[i] Another problem inherent in Rothbard’s view is that it doesn’t give self-ownership to those who by nature can’t “choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish.” Therefore, in his view, a person in a coma has no rights, nor does a fetus, nor an infant. Only the Christian view is consistent, giving all humans rights at all times and in all conditions.

[ii] Not all of the laws in the Bible establish rights, only those that deal with interpersonal action. The law to remember the Sabbath and the law against worshipping idols are personal, not interpersonal. Although breaking these laws may indirectly affect other people, the laws themselves are not direct moral constraints on interpersonal interaction. Therefore, it must be noted that Biblical Law goes beyond interpersonal actions and addresses personal concerns as well. In this sense, libertarian rights are established from only a subset of the laws of God.

[iii] To preemptively address a potential issue, it may be important to note that rights only exist as they apply to relationships among men, as morality only applies to men. Rights don’t constrain God, nor do they constrain nature. To say that man has a right to life means that all other people ought not to kill man; it does not mean that God ought not to kill man nor that an animal or a volcano ought not to kill man.

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Ayn Rand, Bible, christian libertarian, ethics, libertarianism, Objectivism, philosophy, rights, theology, theonomy, utilitarianism

Related Content:

Categories : Articles

http://Jairedhall.blogspot.com Jaired Hall

Interesting article, Doug Douma and Lydia Ingram. I’ll write more later, as your arguments raise some interesting issues (how can a discussion of rights not?).

Question, though. I notice you interpret the commandment re: killing/murder as “do not kill” which essentially outlaws all killing and equates “to kill” with “to murder.” Do you come to this based on your translation of the original Hebrew or because it fits your worldview/presuppositions/understanding of scripture better?
http://Jairedhall.blogspot.com Jaired Hall

Interesting article, Doug Douma and Lydia Ingram. I’ll write more later, as your arguments raise some interesting issues (how can a discussion of rights not?).

Question, though. I notice you interpret the commandment re: killing/murder as “do not kill” which essentially outlaws all killing and equates “to kill” with “to murder.” Do you come to this based on your translation of the original Hebrew or because it fits your worldview/presuppositions/understanding of scripture better?
Doug Douma

Jaired,

Good question. I’ve just started studying Hebrew a few months ago, so I’m not an expert on the precise meaning of that commandment. My basic understanding is yes, it does mean murder. This does not mean that ALL killing is wrong. Killing in self-defense is not wrong. See Exodus 22:2 – “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.”

So, to answer your question, I hope I’m getting my views from Scripture, but I know that everyone (definitely including myself) has presuppositions that affect their understanding.
Doug Douma

Jaired,

Good question. I’ve just started studying Hebrew a few months ago, so I’m not an expert on the precise meaning of that commandment. My basic understanding is yes, it does mean murder. This does not mean that ALL killing is wrong. Killing in self-defense is not wrong. See Exodus 22:2 – “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.”

So, to answer your question, I hope I’m getting my views from Scripture, but I know that everyone (definitely including myself) has presuppositions that affect their understanding.
Daniel Hewitt

Great article. The reservation I have about the conclusion is that even the New Testament does not recognize the libertarian tenet of self-ownership, what we consider to be the most basic human right. Granted, the New Testament version of slavery was much softer than the Old Testament version, and not anything close to what the term “slavery” conjures up in our minds today.

This is why I’m comfortable with being a consequentialist libertarian despite its obvious flaws that the authors describe, which I acknowledge to be true….I’m okay with the cloudiness surrounding a discussion of rights.
Daniel Hewitt

Great article. The reservation I have about the conclusion is that even the New Testament does not recognize the libertarian tenet of self-ownership, what we consider to be the most basic human right. Granted, the New Testament version of slavery was much softer than the Old Testament version, and not anything close to what the term “slavery” conjures up in our minds today.

This is why I’m comfortable with being a consequentialist libertarian despite its obvious flaws that the authors describe, which I acknowledge to be true….I’m okay with the cloudiness surrounding a discussion of rights.
http://Jairedhall.blogspot.com Jaired Hall

Doug:
(For the record, I am no Hebrew scholar at all. Kudos to you for beginning to study Hebrew)

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the kill/murder issue.

Daniel:

Good comment re: New Testament / Self Ownership.

Along similar lines, in response to the original post, I want to point out that a sort-of rationale is given for the law against murder given to Noah: Because Man is made in the image of God, Man shall not murder other men.

This deserves a lengthier discussion, but I’ll throw the point on the table in brief:

We sure like the idea of having rights. However, the negative “thou shalt not steal” only implies the positive corrolary “thou hast a right to your stuff” but neither proves it nor outright states it, nor is the implication necessarily that strong.

Don’t steal means “You don’t have the right to steal” and may not say very much, if anything about “You have the right to your stuff.”

If murder is prohibited because God doesn’t like his image dishonored, we haven’t proved too much in the way of a right to life, have we?

If wee Nathaniel is eating a cookie that he’s sneaked from off the counter without or even against permission, and wee (but bigger) Edmund takes it away from him for himself, I’ll reprimand Edmund . . .

Nathaniel had the right to the cookie? Not so much.
http://Jairedhall.blogspot.com Jaired Hall

Doug:
(For the record, I am no Hebrew scholar at all. Kudos to you for beginning to study Hebrew)

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the kill/murder issue.

Daniel:

Good comment re: New Testament / Self Ownership.

Along similar lines, in response to the original post, I want to point out that a sort-of rationale is given for the law against murder given to Noah: Because Man is made in the image of God, Man shall not murder other men.

This deserves a lengthier discussion, but I’ll throw the point on the table in brief:

We sure like the idea of having rights. However, the negative “thou shalt not steal” only implies the positive corrolary “thou hast a right to your stuff” but neither proves it nor outright states it, nor is the implication necessarily that strong.

Don’t steal means “You don’t have the right to steal” and may not say very much, if anything about “You have the right to your stuff.”

If murder is prohibited because God doesn’t like his image dishonored, we haven’t proved too much in the way of a right to life, have we?

If wee Nathaniel is eating a cookie that he’s sneaked from off the counter without or even against permission, and wee (but bigger) Edmund takes it away from him for himself, I’ll reprimand Edmund . . .

Nathaniel had the right to the cookie? Not so much.
Doug Douma

Jaired,

My way of looking at rights is somewhat backwards from the normal. I focus on what one “ought not” to do in relation to other people. Your “right” to property, in my view, only means that other people should not steal from you. The bond between you and your property is not inherently unbreakable – God can take the property from you and that’s perfectly fine. The LORD gave and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

Daniel,

Likewise, I do not support a view of self-ownership. I do, however, support a similar view – that no one should own anyone else. This is similar to self-ownership in that no person should own another. Ultimately, however, just like possessions, your life is owned by God, not yourself.
Doug Douma

Jaired,

My way of looking at rights is somewhat backwards from the normal. I focus on what one “ought not” to do in relation to other people. Your “right” to property, in my view, only means that other people should not steal from you. The bond between you and your property is not inherently unbreakable – God can take the property from you and that’s perfectly fine. The LORD gave and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

Daniel,

Likewise, I do not support a view of self-ownership. I do, however, support a similar view – that no one should own anyone else. This is similar to self-ownership in that no person should own another. Ultimately, however, just like possessions, your life is owned by God, not yourself.
http://hora.blog.sme.sk/ Samuel Hora

Doug, if you don’t own yourself, how do you justify doing *anything*? Would it mean that if you made any free choices of your own, you would violate God’s ownership of yourself?

Any killing of your fellow man is wrong. Or would you say God rejoices when you kill someone in self defense? Surely not, but the responsibility and guilt do not fall on you.

“If, however, there is a single case in which ignoring rights helps a man” – the power of the deontological rights argument is that with the proper definitions of rights, ends and flourishing this hypothetical case is logically self contradictory and therefore cannot ever occur in the real world.

“there are plenty of instances in which infringing upon another’s rights…” – due to the discarding of the requirement of universal symmetry this argument is against a strawman. A non-universal asymmetric “ethic” is surely correctly dismissed, but the deontologist’s rights are by necessity symmetric and universal.
http://hora.blog.sme.sk/ Samuel Hora

Doug, if you don’t own yourself, how do you justify doing *anything*? Would it mean that if you made any free choices of your own, you would violate God’s ownership of yourself?

Any killing of your fellow man is wrong. Or would you say God rejoices when you kill someone in self defense? Surely not, but the responsibility and guilt do not fall on you.

“If, however, there is a single case in which ignoring rights helps a man” – the power of the deontological rights argument is that with the proper definitions of rights, ends and flourishing this hypothetical case is logically self contradictory and therefore cannot ever occur in the real world.

“there are plenty of instances in which infringing upon another’s rights…” – due to the discarding of the requirement of universal symmetry this argument is against a strawman. A non-universal asymmetric “ethic” is surely correctly dismissed, but the deontologist’s rights are by necessity symmetric and universal.
Daniel Hewitt

Samuel,

Actually I liked Doug’s point re. self-ownership. I agree that God owns my life (I should have been more precise in my earlier comment), yet he has also given me free will. These are not contradictory.
Daniel Hewitt

Samuel,

Actually I liked Doug’s point re. self-ownership. I agree that God owns my life (I should have been more precise in my earlier comment), yet he has also given me free will. These are not contradictory.
http://libertyintheson.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/do-animals-have-property-rights/ Do Animals Have Property Rights? « Liberty In The Son

[...] the animals of the earth. LibertarianChristians.com has a wonderful (and timely) post entitled The Proper Origin of Rights that explains this even better. But, in short, since only man was created with the ability to [...]
Doug Douma

Samuel, You bring up some really good questions.

You asked “would it mean that if you made any free choices on your own, you would violate God’s ownership of yourself?” The answer is Yes. I support the Lutheran position. Any, and all, of the free choices you make are in violation of God’s will. (For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin – Romans 14:23b). As a sinner you always choose sin. The only good that a person can do is by and through the will and power of God.

You are correct – a person is not to be blamed for killing another in the case of self-defense. Don’t worry though – there are plenty of sins to insure that everyone is guilty.

Regarding the “proper definitions” that you refer to – I’m interested in seeing these put forward. As a libertarian/anarchist I always naturally supported the “deontological argument” until I read Michael Huemer (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#5.3.3). He argues that any principle of rights functions as a moral side constraint on action, not a moral goal and that these two views (goals and rights) are inconsistent. Your goal, by virtue of being the goal, trumps the rights of others. If you want to maintain both a goal-based view and support rights the challenge is then to find a way in which they are fully compatible. I have done this with defining man’s goal as “glorifying God by finding your happiness in Him”. Since rights are part of His law, and you are to find your happiness in a relationship with Him, you should always follow rights.

I think it is extremely rare to find a situation in which Rothbard’s goal of “flourishing” is not in concert with acknowledging the rights of others. But, it is still possible. If there is a situation in which “universal symmetry” is not applicable then it is possible that your goal would be chosen above acknowledging the rights of others. One of these extremely unlikely situations is being adrift at sea in a boat with 2 people with a known high likelihood that the food remaining is only sufficient for one person to stay alive to reach safety. This situation, however rare, shows that it can be in your best interest, if your interest is “life” or “flourishing”, to kill and/or steal from the other person. In my view, however, “life” or “flourishing” is not your goal – your goal is a relationship with God which entails a Trust in Him and his Law not to murder or steal.
Doug Douma

Samuel, You bring up some really good questions.

You asked “would it mean that if you made any free choices on your own, you would violate God’s ownership of yourself?” The answer is Yes. I support the Lutheran position. Any, and all, of the free choices you make are in violation of God’s will. (For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin – Romans 14:23b). As a sinner you always choose sin. The only good that a person can do is by and through the will and power of God.

You are correct – a person is not to be blamed for killing another in the case of self-defense. Don’t worry though – there are plenty of sins to insure that everyone is guilty.

Regarding the “proper definitions” that you refer to – I’m interested in seeing these put forward. As a libertarian/anarchist I always naturally supported the “deontological argument” until I read Michael Huemer (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#5.3.3). He argues that any principle of rights functions as a moral side constraint on action, not a moral goal and that these two views (goals and rights) are inconsistent. Your goal, by virtue of being the goal, trumps the rights of others. If you want to maintain both a goal-based view and support rights the challenge is then to find a way in which they are fully compatible. I have done this with defining man’s goal as “glorifying God by finding your happiness in Him”. Since rights are part of His law, and you are to find your happiness in a relationship with Him, you should always follow rights.

I think it is extremely rare to find a situation in which Rothbard’s goal of “flourishing” is not in concert with acknowledging the rights of others. But, it is still possible. If there is a situation in which “universal symmetry” is not applicable then it is possible that your goal would be chosen above acknowledging the rights of others. One of these extremely unlikely situations is being adrift at sea in a boat with 2 people with a known high likelihood that the food remaining is only sufficient for one person to stay alive to reach safety. This situation, however rare, shows that it can be in your best interest, if your interest is “life” or “flourishing”, to kill and/or steal from the other person. In my view, however, “life” or “flourishing” is not your goal – your goal is a relationship with God which entails a Trust in Him and his Law not to murder or steal.
Christopher Bradford

I can’t help but throw my two cents into the rights discussion. I am not Christian so naturally I don’t believe that rights are derived from the commandments of god or from the bible. Also, I’d like to note that the bible doesn’t give humans a guide to ethics and ethics can exist and be concluded separately, so too can rights. (However I don’t indeed to have any further religious comments, for that isn’t the point here.)

So what are rights? I generally view rights has deriving from three axioms: self-interest, morally equality, and reciprocation. These axioms for negative rights transcend time and space and apply to all humans.

Everyone has self-interest. Everyone has an interest and ends to obtain in order to survive or just fulfill desires. It can be housing, food, a car, or even healthcare and welfare. Although I don’t advocate positive rights because they are in direct opposition to negative rights and thus they are nonsensical. Plus positive rights cannot be applied universally to all humans at all time and at all places like negative rights can be.

Are you morally superior than others? Obviously no. No one is – especially if we are all created in the likeness of god. Thus no one should be able to preform actions which are prohibited to others. Or no one has a license to dictate morals and interest onto others. All humans are fallible and this should be recognized as all humans are morally equal. Just to clarify my argument here. I am not arguing, for example, that since a man can do sexual actions to his wife that it therefore cannot be prohibited to others. This argument will be refuted with reciprocation of humans insecurity. The point of moral equality is basically the same has arguments against socialism and the fallibility of central planning, except here things like freedom of speech can be included and it is against any form of prohibition.

Finally there is a primordial fact of insecurity of human existence. There truly is not guarantee that our property or interest will be secure from thefts, betrayal, or coercion. Arnold Schwarzenegger can easily obtain my property through his brute strength should his self-interest determine that he really needed it. However, I’m really sneaky, so I could easily steal back my property in the night while Arnold sleeps. With the insecurity of property, we can agree to not steal such things and form reciprocal rights for one another. Whatever Arnold obtains it is his and mine is mine. Our property can be secure as a right only if we recognize reciprocation.

By self-interest humans need life, liberty, and property to achieve their desires and needs. No one is morally superior to take away these from others or impose duties and their own interest onto others. And through reciprocation humans can recognize the reason why rights are required by everyone.

Natural rights are an evolution of human thought. It is only through cognition and consciousness that rights are formed and maintained. They are very fragile but can lead to great wealth and happiness – because of this, rights will always need to be defended.

I hope this makes sense. It’s been awhile since I thought about it. I love that you have a blog to discuss these things because my friends never seem interested in the subject.
Christopher Bradford

I can’t help but throw my two cents into the rights discussion. I am not Christian so naturally I don’t believe that rights are derived from the commandments of god or from the bible. Also, I’d like to note that the bible doesn’t give humans a guide to ethics and ethics can exist and be concluded separately, so too can rights. (However I don’t indeed to have any further religious comments, for that isn’t the point here.)

So what are rights? I generally view rights has deriving from three axioms: self-interest, morally equality, and reciprocation. These axioms for negative rights transcend time and space and apply to all humans.

Everyone has self-interest. Everyone has an interest and ends to obtain in order to survive or just fulfill desires. It can be housing, food, a car, or even healthcare and welfare. Although I don’t advocate positive rights because they are in direct opposition to negative rights and thus they are nonsensical. Plus positive rights cannot be applied universally to all humans at all time and at all places like negative rights can be.

Are you morally superior than others? Obviously no. No one is – especially if we are all created in the likeness of god. Thus no one should be able to preform actions which are prohibited to others. Or no one has a license to dictate morals and interest onto others. All humans are fallible and this should be recognized as all humans are morally equal. Just to clarify my argument here. I am not arguing, for example, that since a man can do sexual actions to his wife that it therefore cannot be prohibited to others. This argument will be refuted with reciprocation of humans insecurity. The point of moral equality is basically the same has arguments against socialism and the fallibility of central planning, except here things like freedom of speech can be included and it is against any form of prohibition.

Finally there is a primordial fact of insecurity of human existence. There truly is not guarantee that our property or interest will be secure from thefts, betrayal, or coercion. Arnold Schwarzenegger can easily obtain my property through his brute strength should his self-interest determine that he really needed it. However, I’m really sneaky, so I could easily steal back my property in the night while Arnold sleeps. With the insecurity of property, we can agree to not steal such things and form reciprocal rights for one another. Whatever Arnold obtains it is his and mine is mine. Our property can be secure as a right only if we recognize reciprocation.

By self-interest humans need life, liberty, and property to achieve their desires and needs. No one is morally superior to take away these from others or impose duties and their own interest onto others. And through reciprocation humans can recognize the reason why rights are required by everyone.

Natural rights are an evolution of human thought. It is only through cognition and consciousness that rights are formed and maintained. They are very fragile but can lead to great wealth and happiness – because of this, rights will always need to be defended.

I hope this makes sense. It’s been awhile since I thought about it. I love that you have a blog to discuss these things because my friends never seem interested in the subject.
http://lesswrong.com Louie

Interesting and thought provoking article Doug.

I agree with you that deontology and nature clearly provide very weak defenses of rights… especially rights as complex as liberty.

But I’m not sure you can dismiss utilitarian arguments as easily. Certainly not in 3 sentences.

You suggest that “utility of rights is ultimately immeasurable because happiness, efficiency, and prosperity are impossible to quantify.”

No serious consequentialist utilitarian holds this belief so it’s unfair to assign them a belief and then say their system can’t work because of it. You should argue against the best, most thoughtful examples of utilitarian thinking, not straw-men.

But even if utilitarians did believe what you claim, why would it make them wrong? The biblical model makes happiness and prosperity immeasurably large too (or rather, exclusively, as opposed to the utility model). So I don’t see why you argue that the utility model should be discarded for a weakness it doesn’t possess and then later argue that the biblical model should be accepted when it contains the exact weakness that lead you to argue that utility “must necessarily be discarded.”
http://lesswrong.com Louie

Interesting and thought provoking article Doug.

I agree with you that deontology and nature clearly provide very weak defenses of rights… especially rights as complex as liberty.

But I’m not sure you can dismiss utilitarian arguments as easily. Certainly not in 3 sentences.

You suggest that “utility of rights is ultimately immeasurable because happiness, efficiency, and prosperity are impossible to quantify.”

No serious consequentialist utilitarian holds this belief so it’s unfair to assign them a belief and then say their system can’t work because of it. You should argue against the best, most thoughtful examples of utilitarian thinking, not straw-men.

But even if utilitarians did believe what you claim, why would it make them wrong? The biblical model makes happiness and prosperity immeasurably large too (or rather, exclusively, as opposed to the utility model). So I don’t see why you argue that the utility model should be discarded for a weakness it doesn’t possess and then later argue that the biblical model should be accepted when it contains the exact weakness that lead you to argue that utility “must necessarily be discarded.”
http://www.veritasnoctis.net/ Geoffrey Allan Plauche

Doug and Lydia’s accounts of Rothbard’s and Rand’s conception of rights are incomplete and, I think, misleading. They do not deal in any detail with Rothbard’s or Rand’s views. They neglect the importance of flourishing for both Rothbard and Rand, focusing instead just on survival and their own conception (not Rand’s) of ethical egoism.
http://www.veritasnoctis.net/ Geoffrey Allan Plauche

Doug and Lydia’s accounts of Rothbard’s and Rand’s conception of rights are incomplete and, I think, misleading. They do not deal in any detail with Rothbard’s or Rand’s views. They neglect the importance of flourishing for both Rothbard and Rand, focusing instead just on survival and their own conception (not Rand’s) of ethical egoism.
Doug Douma

Louie,

It’s interesting that you see more merit in the utilitarian approach to rights than a deontological one. I think most “pure” libertarians, i.e. anarcho-captialists, prefer the deontological approach.

It seems to me that utilitarianism can be applied in two different ways to attempt to establish rights. This depends on your ethical goal:

1) If your ethical goal is altruism (concern for others) then you might attempt to “maximize the total utility for society” by supporting rights. I do think the immeasurability and non-aggregate-ability of utility are fatal flaws. Also, there seems to be no way to know that this set of 3 rights (life, liberty, and property) provides a greater amount of utility for society than any other possible set of rights.

2) If your ethical goal is ethical egoism (concern for yourself) then you might attempt to maximize utility for yourself by supporting rights. But since your primary concern is yourself, you may not be obligated by your ethical goal to always support the rights of others.

Utility is an attempt to refer cardinal numbers to values. Values however are ordinal – we can value things only in relation (in order) to other things. This is why utilitarianism is fruitless. Its impossible to place a measurement on an ethical goal – I can only know that I value it higher than any other goal.

I should value that which is best for me, but what is best for me? I answer this with a form of ethical egoism called “Christian Hedonism”. The theologian, John Piper, describes Christian Hedonism as the view that “God is most glorified when I find my happiness in Him.” It is a concern for myself. That which is best for me is to be eternally happy in a proper relationship with God. He is my creator and knows what is best for me. He asks for me to acknowledge the rights of others, and since it’s in my truly best interest to follow Him, I should follow His commands.
Doug Douma

Louie,

It’s interesting that you see more merit in the utilitarian approach to rights than a deontological one. I think most “pure” libertarians, i.e. anarcho-captialists, prefer the deontological approach.

It seems to me that utilitarianism can be applied in two different ways to attempt to establish rights. This depends on your ethical goal:

1) If your ethical goal is altruism (concern for others) then you might attempt to “maximize the total utility for society” by supporting rights. I do think the immeasurability and non-aggregate-ability of utility are fatal flaws. Also, there seems to be no way to know that this set of 3 rights (life, liberty, and property) provides a greater amount of utility for society than any other possible set of rights.

2) If your ethical goal is ethical egoism (concern for yourself) then you might attempt to maximize utility for yourself by supporting rights. But since your primary concern is yourself, you may not be obligated by your ethical goal to always support the rights of others.

Utility is an attempt to refer cardinal numbers to values. Values however are ordinal – we can value things only in relation (in order) to other things. This is why utilitarianism is fruitless. Its impossible to place a measurement on an ethical goal – I can only know that I value it higher than any other goal.

I should value that which is best for me, but what is best for me? I answer this with a form of ethical egoism called “Christian Hedonism”. The theologian, John Piper, describes Christian Hedonism as the view that “God is most glorified when I find my happiness in Him.” It is a concern for myself. That which is best for me is to be eternally happy in a proper relationship with God. He is my creator and knows what is best for me. He asks for me to acknowledge the rights of others, and since it’s in my truly best interest to follow Him, I should follow His commands.
peter taylor

All have God-given rights, but all do not have the same rights:
1. Slavery was allowed in levitical law (2 of the ten commandments contain it)

2. Owning a slave under Levitical law was allowed, but not required

3. Adultry etc. was sin, but slavery ownership was not

4. Slave ownership was equal to property rights

5. Mosaic Law required the humane and regulated slavery

6. escaped slaves were not to be returned to their owners

7. Israelite servanthood was voluntary,and could only last for 7 years

9. Liberty, property rights depended on the citizenship rights in the commonwealth of Israel

10. Moabites and Ammonites had no citizenship or property rights, and therefore,they has restricted Liberties
peter taylor

All have God-given rights, but all do not have the same rights:
1. Slavery was allowed in levitical law (2 of the ten commandments contain it)

2. Owning a slave under Levitical law was allowed, but not required

3. Adultry etc. was sin, but slavery ownership was not

4. Slave ownership was equal to property rights

5. Mosaic Law required the humane and regulated slavery

6. escaped slaves were not to be returned to their owners

7. Israelite servanthood was voluntary,and could only last for 7 years

9. Liberty, property rights depended on the citizenship rights in the commonwealth of Israel

10. Moabites and Ammonites had no citizenship or property rights, and therefore,they has restricted Liberties
peter taylor

Sorry on point 7, the 7 years could be extended indefinately if the sefrvant made a vow to do so.
peter taylor

Sorry on point 7, the 7 years could be extended indefinately if the sefrvant made a vow to do so.
http://libertarianchristians.com Norman

@Peter: Take a look at my essay on slavery in the OT sometime:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2009/01/14/slavery-in-the-old-testament/
http://libertarianchristians.com Norman

@Peter: Take a look at my essay on slavery in the OT sometime:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2009/01/14/slavery-in-the-old-testament/
http://hora.blog.sme.sk/ Samuel Hora

Daniel: “God owns my life, yet he has also given me free will. These are not contradictory.” I do not dispute this, I agree that even when a human law punishes criminality, it still does not magically take away the possibility that a criminal could decide to break the law (ie. his free will). God’s ownership of yourself would not take your free will, but it would make anything you do on your own illegal.

Doug: “The answer is Yes. I support the Lutheran position. Any, and all, of the free choices you make are in violation of God’s will.” OK, that is a consistent position so far. However I’m really curious how can you derive and apply a law from that. How does your law effectively punish criminals here on earth (ie. those that transgress God’s will)? And who can pronounce the judgments except God?

“it can be in your best interest [...] to kill and/or steal from the other person.” Yes, I agree. But my subjective survival is not sufficient for establishing Rothbard’s universal ethic for all mankind. The symmetry in your example is once again broken, because the murder is contrary to the natural ends of the victim.

Consider a more interesting twist of your boat story: what if I owned all the food on that boat? Is it moral for me to not give it to the other person and thus prevent my starving? Under God’s law I believe it would be immoral, because God commands me to sacrify myself for the other. But if I didn’t sacrify myself and the other person would die, can anyone justly punish me when I survive and come home even though I did not cause any violence? I believe not. God’s law and personal morality is not the same as the ethics of the earthly natural law.

Similarly, a consenting homosexual act is an abomination in God’s eyes and is immoral. However, does that give anyone a just right to punish them violently today? I believe not. Only God can judge them. Theocracy is better than Liberty, but we can’t have theocracy here and today if there is no one to legitimately pronounce and carry out God’s judgments.
http://hora.blog.sme.sk/ Samuel Hora

Daniel: “God owns my life, yet he has also given me free will. These are not contradictory.” I do not dispute this, I agree that even when a human law punishes criminality, it still does not magically take away the possibility that a criminal could decide to break the law (ie. his free will). God’s ownership of yourself would not take your free will, but it would make anything you do on your own illegal.

Doug: “The answer is Yes. I support the Lutheran position. Any, and all, of the free choices you make are in violation of God’s will.” OK, that is a consistent position so far. However I’m really curious how can you derive and apply a law from that. How does your law effectively punish criminals here on earth (ie. those that transgress God’s will)? And who can pronounce the judgments except God?

“it can be in your best interest [...] to kill and/or steal from the other person.” Yes, I agree. But my subjective survival is not sufficient for establishing Rothbard’s universal ethic for all mankind. The symmetry in your example is once again broken, because the murder is contrary to the natural ends of the victim.

Consider a more interesting twist of your boat story: what if I owned all the food on that boat? Is it moral for me to not give it to the other person and thus prevent my starving? Under God’s law I believe it would be immoral, because God commands me to sacrify myself for the other. But if I didn’t sacrify myself and the other person would die, can anyone justly punish me when I survive and come home even though I did not cause any violence? I believe not. God’s law and personal morality is not the same as the ethics of the earthly natural law.

Similarly, a consenting homosexual act is an abomination in God’s eyes and is immoral. However, does that give anyone a just right to punish them violently today? I believe not. Only God can judge them. Theocracy is better than Liberty, but we can’t have theocracy here and today if there is no one to legitimately pronounce and carry out God’s judgments.
Doug Douma

Samuel,

These are some very good questions that you have raised. They are along the lines of what I have been thinking about regarding a possible follow-up article on a “Theory of Punishment”.

I wrote that “all of the free choices you make are against the will of God.” Sin is a condition and all of the choices you make are affected by sin. You are therefore always guilty before God. (ignoring for the time being that Jesus forgives your sins by his death and resurrection). With everything you do you break the law of God.

The real challenging question is that which you have brought up about punishment. Under what circumstances can a human punish another human, how much punishment is acceptable? I think the traditional Christian answer is that God establishes governments to this end on Earth. God certainly has allowed governments historically to be the arbiters of punishment, but that does not mean those in government are doling out the punishments ethically. As an anarcho-capitalism I believe there is a strong case against the ethical existence of government. I’m not sure I have an answer to the question, but I think the issue can be broken down into two categories.

1) What punishment is ethical in retaliation for the infringements on rights?
and
2) Is punishment ethical for any other reason? (drug use, homosexuality, etc.)

Regarding the first question, I support the anarcho-capitalist legal structure. I think this is similar to the “Judges” period in ancient Israel. In this system there is no government, no person or persons with a monopoly on the use of force. A victim (or the victim’s guardian) and his legal team would bring charges in a private court. The defendant and his legal team would either agree to the fairness of the court, request a different private court, or wave their defense. Once the trial has begun both sides will have by definition agreed to the decision of the court. If the defendant has been found guilty the punishment will be carried out by the agreed-to court. A defendant who has stolen $100 dollars should return the money. In addition, the defendant would be caught in a contradiction if he were to declare that it is not right for the victim to steal $100 from him. Therefore, the victim can take up to $100 additional from the defendant. (Exodus 22:4, 22:7, 22:9 had the right idea) I’ll spare you the rest of the details for now, but you can imagine there will be some challenging case variations.

Regarding the second group of unethical behaviors, I don’t have a developed theory. I’d be glad to hear your ideas. It seems to me that here the victim and the defendant are the same person and he would be very unlikely to bring himself to court. (not to mention the absurdity) It seems like the punishment is the crime! Its bad for you to do these things to yourself.
Doug Douma

Samuel,

These are some very good questions that you have raised. They are along the lines of what I have been thinking about regarding a possible follow-up article on a “Theory of Punishment”.

I wrote that “all of the free choices you make are against the will of God.” Sin is a condition and all of the choices you make are affected by sin. You are therefore always guilty before God. (ignoring for the time being that Jesus forgives your sins by his death and resurrection). With everything you do you break the law of God.

The real challenging question is that which you have brought up about punishment. Under what circumstances can a human punish another human, how much punishment is acceptable? I think the traditional Christian answer is that God establishes governments to this end on Earth. God certainly has allowed governments historically to be the arbiters of punishment, but that does not mean those in government are doling out the punishments ethically. As an anarcho-capitalism I believe there is a strong case against the ethical existence of government. I’m not sure I have an answer to the question, but I think the issue can be broken down into two categories.

1) What punishment is ethical in retaliation for the infringements on rights?
and
2) Is punishment ethical for any other reason? (drug use, homosexuality, etc.)

Regarding the first question, I support the anarcho-capitalist legal structure. I think this is similar to the “Judges” period in ancient Israel. In this system there is no government, no person or persons with a monopoly on the use of force. A victim (or the victim’s guardian) and his legal team would bring charges in a private court. The defendant and his legal team would either agree to the fairness of the court, request a different private court, or wave their defense. Once the trial has begun both sides will have by definition agreed to the decision of the court. If the defendant has been found guilty the punishment will be carried out by the agreed-to court. A defendant who has stolen $100 dollars should return the money. In addition, the defendant would be caught in a contradiction if he were to declare that it is not right for the victim to steal $100 from him. Therefore, the victim can take up to $100 additional from the defendant. (Exodus 22:4, 22:7, 22:9 had the right idea) I’ll spare you the rest of the details for now, but you can imagine there will be some challenging case variations.

Regarding the second group of unethical behaviors, I don’t have a developed theory. I’d be glad to hear your ideas. It seems to me that here the victim and the defendant are the same person and he would be very unlikely to bring himself to court. (not to mention the absurdity) It seems like the punishment is the crime! Its bad for you to do these things to yourself.
Doug Douma

Samuel,

Regarding your point on Rothbard, I’m not sure I have a good understanding of the way you are using “symmetry”. I think you mean that “since I don’t want to be killed, I also should not want to kill another”. But if I’m an ethical egoist, why would I care about the “natural ends of the victim?”

I think you are right-on with your boat example. No person can blame you – you have not infringed on another’s rights. But, I think God can still blame you for not loving the other person as you love yourself.
Doug Douma

Samuel,

Regarding your point on Rothbard, I’m not sure I have a good understanding of the way you are using “symmetry”. I think you mean that “since I don’t want to be killed, I also should not want to kill another”. But if I’m an ethical egoist, why would I care about the “natural ends of the victim?”

I think you are right-on with your boat example. No person can blame you – you have not infringed on another’s rights. But, I think God can still blame you for not loving the other person as you love yourself.
peter taylor

Samuel:

The will that is bound by sin (the world, flesh and devil)is truly not free. Only Adam, Eve (prior to the fall)and Jesus had/has free will. It is better to describe the human will of any sinner as having limited ability to make choices (the normal convention of human choices in this world), but the will is never free of the influences of sin and evil. If the evil will of the sinner must obey the Law of Jehovah (no abortion; no drug laws/enforcement etc.)then is bound by the Law of God. But for those under the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus; they are truly free indeed. So I submit that true christian liberterianism (liberty)is regarded by conventional Ayn Rand types as restrictive. This type of liberty is only understood by the NEW CREATION.

Hope I did not get too far off topic this time.
peter taylor

Samuel:

The will that is bound by sin (the world, flesh and devil)is truly not free. Only Adam, Eve (prior to the fall)and Jesus had/has free will. It is better to describe the human will of any sinner as having limited ability to make choices (the normal convention of human choices in this world), but the will is never free of the influences of sin and evil. If the evil will of the sinner must obey the Law of Jehovah (no abortion; no drug laws/enforcement etc.)then is bound by the Law of God. But for those under the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus; they are truly free indeed. So I submit that true christian liberterianism (liberty)is regarded by conventional Ayn Rand types as restrictive. This type of liberty is only understood by the NEW CREATION.

Hope I did not get too far off topic this time.
Samuel Hora

Doug, if the “rights” we need to discern for proper social interaction and law were in the same category as the “property right” of God to ourselves, you wouldn’t need two categories and we would have the same standard for punishing theft and homosexuality or drug abuse.
By breaking it down into two separate categories you acknowledge that there is something different about natural human rights that we have before each other and that are our guidance in constructing a universal ethic and law for our earthly society, interaction and living together as opposed to the transcendental God’s law, which is now “only” good for personal moral guidance, but has final judgment and consequences in the afterlife.

“But if I’m an ethical egoist, why would I care about the “natural ends of the victim?”” – you wouldn’t, but as I said earlier, your ethical egoism is not sufficient for discerning and establishing natural rights and proper law. Symmetry is a necessary property of any universal ethic. If you come up with some theory of rights, property and resource allocation and it’s not symmetric (eg. it does not apply equally to everyone) then it cannot be a just universal ethic.

“No person can blame you … God can still blame you” – I agree. This again shows the distinction between human natural law and God’s law. That’s why theocracy is not the same as liberty.
Samuel Hora

Doug, if the “rights” we need to discern for proper social interaction and law were in the same category as the “property right” of God to ourselves, you wouldn’t need two categories and we would have the same standard for punishing theft and homosexuality or drug abuse.
By breaking it down into two separate categories you acknowledge that there is something different about natural human rights that we have before each other and that are our guidance in constructing a universal ethic and law for our earthly society, interaction and living together as opposed to the transcendental God’s law, which is now “only” good for personal moral guidance, but has final judgment and consequences in the afterlife.

“But if I’m an ethical egoist, why would I care about the “natural ends of the victim?”” – you wouldn’t, but as I said earlier, your ethical egoism is not sufficient for discerning and establishing natural rights and proper law. Symmetry is a necessary property of any universal ethic. If you come up with some theory of rights, property and resource allocation and it’s not symmetric (eg. it does not apply equally to everyone) then it cannot be a just universal ethic.

“No person can blame you … God can still blame you” – I agree. This again shows the distinction between human natural law and God’s law. That’s why theocracy is not the same as liberty.
DouglasDouma

The comments have disappeared.
http://libertarianchristians.com Norman Horn

Working on it, Doug. The comments aren't deleted, according to Disqus, so I have to find them!
http://libertarianchristians.com Norman Horn

Okay, I think I fixed it…

Welcome

Recent Posts

Most Popular Posts

The Proper Origin of Rights

Subscribe to LCC

Sponsors

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Sponsors

Recommended Books

Tag Cloud

Who is behind LCC?

Essential Reading