On Medium: Thomas Paine and the Perils of “Natural Rights”
Read on about humanism, the conservative’s cherry-picking of natural norms, and the naturalistic fallacy of appealing to natural facts to ground human rights.
The American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand had any interesting take on natural rights. She believed that, since intellect is both the distinguishing trait of mankind and its primary tool of survival, every man has a natural right to exercise his intellect to the utmost degree without inference from others. She put it much more persuavely than I just did here, but that was the gist of it as best as I can recall.
Of course, this rationale would only work for intellectual rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The mere fact that humans are intellectual animals wouldn't mean that we necessarily have the right to bear arms or be provided with life saving medical treatments. But when we limit this argument to what it pertains to: the human intellect and its capacities, it does make a lot of sense. Certainly, putting limits on a man's capacity to think certain thoughts and express them through speech or art seems as absurd and unnatural as confining a cheetah to a cage where there is not even enough room to walk, let alone run. Cheetahs run. Fish swim. Humans think, speak, and make art.
I'll admit that her argument is not strictly logical, but no moral imperative ever could be.
I don't know what it adds to Aristotle's teleology. Either way, it commits the naturalistic fallacy, I think. As cognitive scientists have studied, we also have the natural tendency to commit numerous fallacies, thanks to our mental blind spots. Do we therefore have a natural right to err in our thinking? We have the ability to do so, but does that make it right in any sense? We should have the freedom to think, but that doesn't mean we're right to commit fallacies.
Well, I suppose that may be the case. Total freedom would also entail the freedom to make mistakes. Only some hypothetical God could be at once totally free to do whatever He wants, but also incapable of committing errors or doing evil. That's a paradox that only a theist could accept.
The American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand had any interesting take on natural rights. She believed that, since intellect is both the distinguishing trait of mankind and its primary tool of survival, every man has a natural right to exercise his intellect to the utmost degree without inference from others. She put it much more persuavely than I just did here, but that was the gist of it as best as I can recall.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this rationale would only work for intellectual rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The mere fact that humans are intellectual animals wouldn't mean that we necessarily have the right to bear arms or be provided with life saving medical treatments. But when we limit this argument to what it pertains to: the human intellect and its capacities, it does make a lot of sense. Certainly, putting limits on a man's capacity to think certain thoughts and express them through speech or art seems as absurd and unnatural as confining a cheetah to a cage where there is not even enough room to walk, let alone run. Cheetahs run. Fish swim. Humans think, speak, and make art.
I'll admit that her argument is not strictly logical, but no moral imperative ever could be.
I don't know what it adds to Aristotle's teleology. Either way, it commits the naturalistic fallacy, I think. As cognitive scientists have studied, we also have the natural tendency to commit numerous fallacies, thanks to our mental blind spots. Do we therefore have a natural right to err in our thinking? We have the ability to do so, but does that make it right in any sense? We should have the freedom to think, but that doesn't mean we're right to commit fallacies.
DeleteWell, I suppose that may be the case. Total freedom would also entail the freedom to make mistakes. Only some hypothetical God could be at once totally free to do whatever He wants, but also incapable of committing errors or doing evil. That's a paradox that only a theist could accept.
Delete