Political Theory

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Black Bloke — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:14:05 GMT

Here's an excellent read for your excellent question: Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences? by Dr. Roderick Long

The whole thing should be read, but I think "5. First Digression: Counterfactuals and Moral Knowledge" will be more direct interest to you.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

dchernik — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:39:38 GMT

The nature of which natural law theorists speak is first the kind-essence or species such as “humanity.” Natural laws describe the proper functioning, as well as pathologies, of human nature. Secondly, it is individual-essence and habits, that is, “personality,” in particular. Thirdly, it is about the fulfillment of habits in acts. Thus, kind-nature is for the sake of its powers; habits direct powers into various avenues and are, in turn, for the sake of acts springing from them. For example, it is within human power to operate complex machinery. The actual ability to fly a plane or write a computer program is a habit. And flying is an act. Now the chief act of any living creature is happiness. The fundamental property of human nature is the search for happiness. So, natural law tells human beings how best to achieve happiness. The problem is that pleasures or expected utilities resulting from divers habits conflict with each other. Studying natural law is useful if the goal is to discover how best to maximize pleasure, considered formally or in Mises’s words, “rightly understood.” It turns out, for example, that structuring society according to the teachings of economics results in a world which, far from being red in tooth and claw, is on the contrary civilized and peaceful. Thus, natural law is a set of technologies. It is all the causal regularities put in service to human ends. And insofar as every end is itself a means to the desideratum of happiness, it includes information of which ends are destructive of happiness, of which ends are best left unsatisfied or, better, driven out of the soul.

Natural rights are those human rights respecting which promotes social cooperation, general welfare, and human flourishing and happiness; and results in the fastest improvement in the standard of living of the immense majority of the population. In other words, natural rights emerge from the body of natural law as elucidated by natural and social sciences, especially as it pertains to human happiness.

Obeying natural law makes human actions as successful as they possibly can be relative to the society’s level of economic and technological development. Natural rights are the rights which, if respected, are most conducive to such success. In this sense natural rights can be likened, perhaps surprisingly, to rule utilitarianism.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

ktibuk — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:57:33 GMT

The ultimate utility for a living organism is survival.

Struggling for survival is in the nature of every living organism.

There you have it.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:30:58 GMT

IIRC Roderick Long has one on his website. Search this forum or Long's site.

-Jon

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

scineram — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:56:04 GMT

I have not read it but what do you think of The Myth of Natural Rights by Robbins? Is there a concise critique available?

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Donny with an A — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:03:25 GMT

The answer to the question is "That depends on what natural rights view you have in mind"?

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

krazy kaju — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:07:37 GMT

Do natural rights support veganism? Herein lies the answer to your question.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Brainpolice — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:27:19 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Then you're glossing over the fact that utilitarianism itself is in need of justification (i.e. the principle it is based on is by no means obvious and cannot just be taken for granted, no more than NR can). If you want solid arguments for NR, look up Douglass Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl's Norms of Liberty and Liberty and Nature and Veatch's Human Rights; Fact or Fancy? and For an Ontology of Morals. Very few libertarians merely just assert you have NR. They offer arguments for it.

-Jon

It also tends to assume happiness or utility as a value or end, which must be justified in some manner. Utilitarians can either simply assume it without justifying it, establish it deontologically, or cease to be utilitarians and go for something else.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:58:24 GMT

Need him for what?

-Jon

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

scineram — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:54:53 GMT

Where is Len when we need him? Long time no see.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:44:45 GMT

Then you're glossing over the fact that utilitarianism itself is in need of justification (i.e. the principle it is based on is by no means obvious and cannot just be taken for granted, no more than NR can). If you want solid arguments for NR, look up Douglass Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl's Norms of Liberty and Liberty and Nature and Veatch's Human Rights; Fact or Fancy? and For an Ontology of Morals. Very few libertarians merely just assert you have NR. They offer arguments for it.

-Jon

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Donny with an A — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:39:10 GMT

You might be interested in checking out Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia and David Schmidtz's book, Elements of Justice.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

mtew — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:27:52 GMT

Thanks for all of your responses.

I do feel like I’m in a bit over my head here. I haven’t studied ethics or philosophy much. Most of what I understand about natural rights comes from reading Aristotle and the underlying ethics of Rothbard’s writings such as Man, Economy, and State. I understand that Mises did use a utilitarian basis for defending his views, but I’ve never been able to accept that point of view.

My problem, I believe, is that I have a hard time accepting the idea that rights simply exist and all we are doing is recognizing these rights. How do we know what rights humans should have and what rights they should not? At what point did we become satisfied that we’ve figured out what rights we have, given our nature? What about human nature gives people certain rights and bars them from others? Banned, you mentioned that human beings never had the right to use violence against others to give up, but why? When I try to find rational answers as to why, I find myself appealing to utility. It’s true, as macsnafu said, that doing so does require a broad use of the term utilitarianism, and I accept that, I just found it was an interesting point. Sometimes I do feel like a child constantly asking “but, why?” and it is frustrating. But I haven’t seen a convincing explanation as to why humans have these rights.

Honestly, when it comes down to it, it seems like I just “feel” that human beings should have these certain rights, but I’m not satisfied with that. I do thank you for being patient with me, though. If anybody can point me in the direction of some good reads on the subject, I’d be very appreciative.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

Brainpolice — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:18:58 GMT

I'd like to turn it around and say that most utilitarians actually assume some deontological principles, and the rest of them are amoralists.

Re: Are natural rights backed by utilitarianism?

banned — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:14:53 GMT

mtew:
Basically it comes down to the fact that if everybody gives up their right to violate property rights, then society as a whole will be better off.

But no such right exists.