Natural rights and egoism

[Noleaders]

Because both sides argued convincingly, this was a dynamic debate. The egoists were quite persuasive in maintaining that everyone should act, not from duty, but from their own perceived self-interest. The natural rights advocates were correct in maintaining that without some system of morality which predates contract, libertarianism is not feasible. Perhaps the way out of this conflict is to stop viewing egoism and natural rights as antagonistic positions. If rights are, in fact, based on man's nature then it is in a man's enlightened self-interest to act according to them. This statement asserts two things: there are rights based on the nature of man and one should give priority to them in guiding one's actions. The first assertion is a point of fact for which natural rights theory provides the philosophical justification. The second assertion - that they should have high priority - is a value judgment for which egoism provides the solid basis of long-term, enlightened self-interest. Thus, there is no contradiction in the term "natural rights egoism."

Discuss

[thelastindividual]

Nonsense on stilts

Why do people keep coming up with lame justifications for natural rights? It's a lovely idea that we all have inviolable rights and that the universe will strike down anyone who breaks them but it just ain't happening. Plus I could probably come up with several instances where acting in one's self-interest would go against said rights

[Noleaders]

It's a lovely idea that we all have inviolable rights and that the universe will strike down anyone who breaks them but it just ain't happening.

No one claims natural rights are the same as de facto rights. Just like legal rights arent de facto rights, yet they are still considered useful for guiding what de facto rights are enforced. Normative rights are there for guiding what legal rights, and by extension de facto rights, we should enforce, not what is enforced.

Plus I could probably come up with several instances where acting in one's self-interest would go against said rights

Probably, but the question is about enlightened self interest. Do you think its in your interests to have rights in general protected?

[thelastindividual]

Probably, but the question is about enlightened self interest. Do you think its in your interests to have rights in general protected?

Yes but I wouldn't necessarily claim that there is a certain set of rights that should be upheld, although it does seem natural that most people would choose to uphold the basics like right to life, property etc

[Noleaders]

Bump

This was an interesting subject, thought i'd clean up all the spam.

Continue discussing.

[Noleaders]

Probably, but the question is about enlightened self interest. Do you think its in your interests to have rights in general protected?

Yes but I wouldn't necessarily claim that there is a certain set of rights that should be upheld, although it does seem natural that most people would choose to uphold the basics like right to life, property etc

What about the right of individual sovereignty? That seems like a pretty key concept from an egoist perspective.

[shawnpwilbur]

Probably, but the question is about enlightened self interest. Do you think its in your interests to have rights in general protected?

Yes but I wouldn't necessarily claim that there is a certain set of rights that should be upheld, although it does seem natural that most people would choose to uphold the basics like right to life, property etc

What about the right of individual sovereignty? That seems like a pretty key concept from an egoist perspective.

But does it make any sense, from an egoist perspective, to talk about a "right" to individual sovereignty?

[Noleaders]

Yes, in a sense, it does because when egoism is constructed into a system that system is based on replacing existing relations with "the union(s) of egoists" which exists to protect the sovereignty of those who make up the union(s). This is, like any ethical theory, arguing that society should try to emulate a prescriptive ideal, which happens to be individual sovereignty. The argument of whether or not this is the same as a "right" may just be a matter of semantics.

[Zazaban]

Everybody wants freedom, so individual freedom will happen. Invading other people's freedom will simply set a precedent for that happening to you. It's a right, but it's a subjective right, not a natural right. The difference is quite significant, as natural rights imply some sort of objectivity, some sort of metaphysical reason for something being a right, which can lead to some bizzare logic. Sort of like the 'it's written in the bible' sort of mentality. Natural rights are apparently right because they're natural, and they're natural because they're right. Subjective, egoist rights are right simply because it is in the interest of those effected. No nonsense about some higher order, just what people bloody well want.

[Noleaders]

I've never seen anyone argue that natural rights are natural because they are right and right because they are natural, the argument is usually along the lines of "invading someone's freedom is always wrong because_____". The metaphysical arguments are obviously quite different, but that wasn't my point, i was arguing that in practice they could come to similar results.

[thelastindividual]

As far as I understand it natural rights are normative rather than 'everyone should do this at all times because if they don't their rights gland will dissolve their organs and melt their brains'. From what little I've read of Roderick Long's defence of natural rights I have to say the case is convincing, does anyone know of any communist or collectivist conceptions and defences of natural rights?

[thelastindividual]

Reading through 'The Nature of Law' again I just spotted something. Long distuinguishes between 'voluntary' (Using things like social pressure and boycott's to secure compliance) and 'coercive' (Using force) law however IMO social pressure and boycotting are still coercive actions.

[Guest]

Natural Law/Rights are comically ridiculous concepts. Rid your mind of them:

[url=http://www.libmansworld.com/pdf/wilson_natural.pdf]Natural Law; or: Don't Put A Rubber
On Your Willy[/url] (badly scanned PDF; you'll have to rotate a few upside-down pages)

The Myth of Natural Rights (can't find it online; no longer have a copy to scan)

Such nonsense is clung to because it is believed that without them we will devolve into savagery. It's really quite funny to watch the Rands and the Rothbards and the Longs frantically try to rescue these silly ideas. They remind me of theists who think a deity is necessary to keep our heads above the abyssal waters.

[thelastindividual]

Natural Law/Rights are comically ridiculous concepts. Rid your mind of them:

Care to make your own argument?

Such nonsense is clung to because it is believed that without them we will devolve into savagery. It's really quite funny to watch the Rands and the Rothbards and the Longs frantically try to rescue these silly ideas. They remind me of theists who think a deity is necessary to keep our heads above the abyssal waters.

Again, natural rights are normative concepts not de facto concepts. I fail to see how a set of rules which are in the self-interest of everyone to uphold are 'silly' or 'comically ridiculous' concepts, indeed if no such rights exist on what basis do you uphold your critique of capitalism since the workers have no right to ownership of the means of production? Or the state? Why, if there are no normative ethical standards, is it wrong to hold a monopoly on the use of force?

[Guest]

Care to read?

Your problem is the same as most people: you've got rights on the brain. Most rights-talk is backwards: "I have a right to do X." Do you? Or is it that nobody else has a right to STOP YOU from doing X? Yes, that makes much more sense, now doesn't it?

We invented rights. This scares people, because it means their rights can be revoked. But is that really likely, outside the distortions of the state? I don't think so. We grant one another rights as we deem them necessary to grease the skids of society.

If I'm alone on an island, do I have rights? Of course not. It's ridiculous. Take privacy for example. I wake every morning, wash myself naked in the surf, write my diary on a piece of bark and leave it laying in the open, etc. I have no right to privacy, because I don't NEED one. The concept is absurd in my situation. But say a dinghy with a few storm-tossed strangers arrives. Instantly, the concept of a "right to privacy" becomes meaningful. Does that mean I am instantly endowed with one? Of course not; I have to appeal to the others for it. They're likely to grant it, if I return the favor. So now when I wake in the morning, they grant me a right to privacy as I wash, and I return that right. They promise not to read my diary, I do the same. Etc. Calling this a "natural right" only confuses matters. It's a mystification, whether you mean it to be or not. It isn't even natural in the sense that we have a natural proclivity to such agreements. Those agreements are consciously made, they don't just happen. It may APPEAR that way, given that we live under coercion, so that it appears as though everyone naturally agrees to grant one another rights; but the existence of coercion gives the lie to that notion. In a free society, we'd have to get together and deliberately hash out what our rights will be.

Really, I'm NOT going to continue this. You might as well be telling me you believe in Yahweh. It's fucking nonsense.

Read.