I don’t know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula:
__ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, […] therefore __ should __.
But how can any deductive argument like this derive a “should” from an “is”?
For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense?
Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?
Sorry, you need to explain why it can’t be done. The so called ought-is-gap is no axiom.
Juan are you saying there is nothing that needs to be explained about inserting “ought” wherever one pleases into a deduction?
The only possible way to “cross the is/ought divide” is to assume that a certain end is universally desireable. That is, the only possible way to “cross the is/ought divide” is to assume a “want”.
If you want to live, then you should follow me.
If you want the human species to prosper, then you should instill these rights.
Um, what Ryan said. o.o
I don’t think your question makes sense ?
Anyway, I’m expecting a proof of the validity of the so called is-ought gap. And NO, saying that Hume said it exists is not a proof.
A natural rights theory based on that conception is basically no different from the crude amoralism of Jacob Bloom, because it makes right-and-wrong into a matter of smart-and-stupid.
I didn’t even mention Hume; you’re the one who keeps bringing him up. Deriving ought from is makes no sense to me. I understand syllogisms. So if you construct an argument with a chain of “is” statements, you may very well convince me. I don’t understand is/ought hybrid syllogisms. Making is/ought syllogisms and placing the burden of disproof on me is akin to saying some nonsense like, “All bachelors are men; all men are human; therefore all bachelors have humans” and then challenging me to prove the “is/have” divide.
Not quite. As Rothbard pointed out, all of us living have demonstrated that we possess the want to live.
I’d also point out that natural rights isn’t a should, but a may. I may defend my own body against someone else’s.
Even if it is a universal measure of what’s smart and what’s stupid, it’s still just a matter of smart and stupid.
The basic premise is that all humans want to live and maximize their happiness, and if they want to do that they need to behave certain ways to form a cohesive society where individuals create value for each other through mutually beneficial action instead of detracting value through zero sum/negative sum actions. And people are said to have the “right” not to be involuntarily subjected to negative sum actions.
So it is not really a religious type of virtue/sin morality, it is describing behaviors as irrational or rational in the context of wanting to be alive and happy.
Again this formulation is basically no different from moral nihilism. Rational/irrational, smart/stupid: same idea.
And having a non-smart/stupid conception of right/wrong is not inherently religious.
It is a fact that humans have no ‘natural’ authority over each other. It is a fact that interpersonal relations are either coercive or not. It is a fact that nobody can produce a ‘logical’ justification for authority, in other words, “All men are created equal”. If you think that some men have a claim to be obeyed by other men explain how that’s so.
You “should” not be a criminal, i.e. one who uses the property of others as he had ‘authority’ to do so, but you are free to be a criminal anyway - it’s called free will.
Okay. So consider “you ought not do X” as an advice. The real point is that X is morally, objectively, wrong. You are free to do X anyway - free will - but doing X is not a good idea so you should not do it.
That is not an objective fact, because it entails a value judgment. “No natural authority” means that one should not be able to command people. Denying the necessary validity of that statement is not making the reverse value judgment (one should be able to command people). It’s just saying that you have not objectively demonstrated anything by saying that.
Like I said above, I am not claiming anything regarding how men ought to behave. I’m just claiming that you haven’t demonstrated anything regarding how men ought to behave yourself.
Again right/wrong being reduced to smart/stupid…
Well no one objectively has any “authority” over you. You can pretend they do, but they don’t.
Pretty much.
Beware the hidden premise
As seen in the other thread..
C1) Murder should not be permissible
Luckily for me no nonsensical claims of human nature are necessary in order to take this derivation apart. Even if the premises above are true, it does not follow.
See if you can spot the hidden premise..
P1) It is in man’s nature to survive
P2) Man cannot survive if murder is permissible
—P3) Man ought to fulfill his nature
C1) Murder ought not be permissible
So then most “natural rights” theories are consequentialist? It’s right if it’s smart (conducive to ends) and it’s wrong if it’s stupid (not conducive to ends)?
Whether they realize it or not.
I don’t think I made any value judgment. Do you mind telling what value judgment you are referring to ?
Do some people have authority ? - if yes, please explain why. Divine authority maybe ? Or is it the will of the majority ? or ?
Well, from the fact that natural authority doesn’t exist it follows that nobody is justified in commanding people. I don’t see why you need to introduce the word “should” except to play the silly “is ought” game ?
I don’t think so. I’m stating that doing what’s wrong makes you evil, not stupid. I could have said “X is evil so you ought not to do it - but of course you can be evil if you wish”
Most of what follows is a summation of what I’ve learned recently regarding the Objectivist viewpoint on the subject.
Man is a living organism. All living organisms are conditional entities facing two fundamental possibilities: life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining action. Death is non-action.
Each living thing has tools with which it pursues such action. Man’s tool is reason. Each individual man uses his reason to guide action–action which is life-sustaining. A man’s life is the source and prerequisite for his values.
Rights are of no use to the last man on earth. Rights are the principles which allow men to live together in a society as equals. The fundamental right is the right to sustain and protect one’s own life. This right follows from the fact that men are alive, and the actions of men are oriented towards remaining alive. In the words of Samuel Adams, rights are the “evident branches of…the duty of self-preservation.”
The only is/ought divide is the most basic one of all: man is alive, therefore he ought to continue living. I’m not sure what’s controversial about this divide. We all have crossed it and will cross it with every action we take other than that of suicide. Calling this a divide is like calling an anthill a mountain with a gaping chasm at its peak.