From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 00:16:17 MST
At 07:43 PM 2/26/02 -0800, you wrote:
<snip>
>it's the ability to abstract common characteristics from a set of
>concretes, perceptual or mental, and form a symbolic operator that
>distinguishes us from them and other terran animals.
Agreed.
>A "right" - from Rand (and Morris and Linda annehill, who did some nice
>parsing of this in their "The Market for Liberty," still probably the best
>introduction to anarcho-capitalism) - is an ethical sanction against
>interference with ones action. This presumes a clear understanding of the
>component terms - ethical, sanction, action.
>
>Rights are a negative concept, in that they define when we can properly
>forbid someone else from interfering with what we choose to do.
Okay, this is a definition I can understand - a right is a sanction against
interference with one's actions. It's shorthand meaning "don't coerce" -
but we can say that directly - so why do we need the concept "right"?
Maybe we should be defining the term "coercion" instead of the term
"right"? When we understand what coercion is - and its economic analysis
of its effects on society - maybe we won't need the concept "right"...
> Without rights and the structure of ethics and contract and the social
> mechanisms to interpret and enforce conflicts that arise as we bump into
> each other, we would spend much or our time simply protecting ourselves
> instead of being productive.
In other words, the economic impact of coercion is a reduction of the rate
of return on the investment in coercion to the general rate of return - as
I indicated elsewhere in my posts re rights.
>Assuming for a moment, as Rand does, that the pursuit of values necessary
>to preserve ones life and happinesss is inherently good - almost a tautology
i.e., life - survival - is the basis of values and action - agreed.
>if you take life as the moral standard - then we can each individually
>morally justify preventing interference with our actions aimed at that end.
Now, here, we presume the concept of morality as a given. I don't find the
concept useful. As someone in the Libertarian Connection years ago, libs
tend to view morality as a set of heuristics to be followed to maximize
utility in a social context - but most people view morality as a set of
rules enforced by guilt.
>
>Presumeably a "dumb animal" could do the same, by the same
>standard. However, the most precise formulation of the definition of
>rights does not use "moral sanction," but rather "ethical sanction,"
>taking "ethics" as the formal application of morality
>- the science of values - to the universe of society.
"Science of values"? I don't think so. While striving for a "science of
values" may be a laudable goal, you have a ways to go logically to
demonstrate that this translates into anything people recognize as
"morality". And I'm not sure the notion "science of values" has any useful
meaning any more than the term "morality" does. It sounds like defining
"Tweedledum" as meaning "Tweedledee"... There is ONE primary value -
survival. Every other value simply depends on how that value contributes
to the achievement of the primary value. To call this "science" is
unnecessary - the "science" lies in all human knowledge, especially the
actual physical sciences, economics, etc. We don't need a "science of
values" except to keep philosophers like Rand off Welfare (or script
reading - her profession in the early years)
>
>Morality, or "meta-ethics," as some would term it (although really
>meta-ethics - above or about ethics - should deal exclusively with the
>issues that delimit the field of ethics itself) would still be perfectly
>applicable to a man alone on a desert island. He would still have values
>and there would be choices to be made. He could act immorally - denying
>his own
>long term values - like the sailor in "Blue Lagoon" who drank himself to
>death, or he could focus on what the most rational course of action was
>and pursue it with total dedication, like Tom Hanks in "Castaway." He
>would not need ethics, however. It simply wouldn't apply.
Most references to morality - including Rand, I believe - do not limit the
term "immoral" to notions of conflicts in personal values, but precisely to
social actions which you assign to the province "ethics". Note that I do
believe Rand considered not following a rational course of action to be
"immoral", as well. But the primary purpose of morality in Rand and
everyone else is to denounce somebody else's behavior in a social context.
If you can characterize someone's behavior as being not in his objective
best interests, why bother to call it "immoral"? Is this not again
expanding concepts beyond need? What is the actual purpose of calling
someone "immoral" - is it not to by extension define oneself as "moral" -
and therefore superior? Is this not merely the same old, same old
Darwinian primate competition motivated by the fear of death? If you are
right, I am wrong; if I am wrong, I am dead - and that cannot be
allowed. That is how humans think...
>Ethics does apply to society, where it is essential in defining the proper
>boundaries that keep us from colliding in our individual pursuits, in
>creating a framework for efficient cooperation, and in specifying the
>rules by which conflicts should
>be resolved. A proper ethics optimizes the return upon our choice to
>partake in organized society.
i.e., optimizes the rate of return in non-coercion and reduces the rate of
return in investing in coercion - as I have stated. However, simple
economic analysis does this - once again, why do we need the concept of
"rights" ? Is the concept of "rights" merely a pre-economic,
pre-scientific concept that has been superseded by science and
economics? I think sooooo....
>A bad, corrupt ethics, such as the Judeo-Christian
>altruist standard, turns everyone against everyone and/or works to benefit
>the dishonest few who have rigged the game, at the expense of everyone.
Agreed.
>
>Because adherence to such an ethics is critically important to survival
Agreed that survival is the criteria.
>- the alternative being the universal use of brute force and the adoption
>of a predatory lifestyle - we place great value upon knowing that our
>companions are indeed "ethical," that we can safely invite them into our
>homes, do business with them without paranoid security systems, etc.
>
>Other human beings are, after all, the source of 99.999% of all the
>valuable things, experiences and ideas in our lives (which shows just how
>successful ethics has in fact been - even the corrupted ethics that
>currently prevail.).
Ah, I would hesitate to say that the notion of ethics has been "successful"
in controlling the behavior of the population vrs many other factors,
especially fear. I think this has been discussed many times in many
places, so I won't delve into it here.
>Further, and perhaps just as important, we, as well as probably all other
>mammals as well as birds perceive ourselves via open, honest interactions
>with our fellow humans. In fact, this is the ONLY way we can truly
>perceive ourselves, apart from the mere physical image in a mirror. Other
>sentient creatures provide a mirror to our consciousness, and thereby a
>check upon insidious loops of insanity parasiting off our mental machinery.
Ah, yes, Brandon's "visibility" notion. I have no problem with that concept.
>
>Since lower animals also need this interaction - as demonstrated by a
>plethora of deprivation experiments with mice, rats, monkeys, etc. - why
>do we not accord them rights as well? The reason is fairly simple,
>although subtle. We don't need to - usually.
>
>For example, we gain no advantage as omnivores in categorically renouncing
>meat-eating. It may
>be more healthy, but there will be times when that's all that is
>available. We deal with cows as we choose, without any inherent economic
>downside to our predation.
Agreed. This is basic - species only cooperate (or predate) when evolution
has put them in that niche. Humans have wider behavior capabilities, of
course, so we dredge up the notion of "animal rights" - any animal, if it
could understand the concept, would laugh at it....
>Try that with humans and not only will the general level of productivity
>suffer if you manage to become a little dictator, or a thief or con
>artiste, but you will be risking massive retaliation and be forced, if you
>are rational, to constantly expend energy and time watching your
>back. The more productive people there are, the better off everyone
>is. The more thieves there are, the worse off everyone is. Even the
>thieves are hurt by having too many thieves around.
A very good exposition of my point about the economic effects of coercion
and investment in coercion. Agreed. Again, since this can be established
by known economic facts about the behavior of humans in a social context,
what do we need the concept of "rights" for? Just to enumerate all the
individual ways we should not coerce? Or sum them up as "short-hand"?
<snip animal behavior comments as irrelevant to this post>
>
>(On the flip side of this, taking a leaf from Wilhelm Reich, the control
>mechanisms of society are largely about keeping people in a state of
>deprivation in terms of emotional interaction. Since this is one of the
>most important needs - especially in the formative years (see the most
>recent Scientific American for some real breakthrough research on the
>actual measureable brain damage that such deprivation causes - especially
>for boys), it is only natural that when the real needs are not met, then
>symbolic
>needs can be easilly substituted, pretty much a definition of
>neurosis. Once you've got someone hooked on symbolic substitutes, you've
>really got them, as the substitutes never actually satisfy the original
>real need.)
Agreed.
>I want to introduce some archaic terminology here, as there really is no
>good substitute. The term I'm bringing into play is "honor." This is
>something that nowdays is seen in parody more than elsewhere perhaps, and
>has suffered conflations similar to that of "hero" with
>"victim." O'well. I'm sure that there are better definitions, but off
>the top of my head, being "honorable" means not having anything about
>yourself, especially your motives, that you should rationally need to
>hide. Or, another perspective of the same issue, living in such a way
>that you would want yourself as a neighbor and a companion in times of
>peril. I.e., not living as a cheat or a predator.
I like the first definition. I'm not sure it's a *good* definition (i.e.,
encapsulates the essential characteristics of the notion), but I like the
idea. If you are truly powerful, as well, you should not need to hide
anything (except your security precautions from enemies and your immediate
plans from your competitors).
>In society, the primary beneficiary of a commitment to honorable behavior
>is not other people. It is ones self, in the most literal sense. A
>person who knows that he or she will behave honorably - meaning, among
>other things, respecting the rights of others and not taking unfair
>advantage of them, or treating others with justice as a central principle
>- does not have to constantly second guess his or her own
>reactions in fear that others will discover his real nature.
Agreed (leaving out the rights concept, of course).
>
>But then there's the rub... What happens when being honest is directly
>opposed to staying alive - as a Jew in NAZI Germany, for example? It is
>"civil society" that is required to make honorable behavior possible and
>profitable. In civil society, neither ones beliefs alone nor ones
>expression of them is likely to get one killed or beaten up.
>
>When civil society is torn apart and set against itself, as with religious
>wars, such as our current incredibly devastating War on Drugs, when people
>have to conceal who they really are, and can only open up to members of
>their own belief, tribe, gang, party, etc., then honorable behavior can
>become a liability.
>
>With the loss of honor as a basis for rational behavior goes also trust,
>as rights devolve to mere material economic utility, and we see a
>increasingly draconian use of force to enforce and protect them, as people
>lose their natural honor-based inclination to behave ethically regardless
>of whether a cop is watching. Then only iron-clad contracts can ensure
>compliance and various expensive economic mechanisms must be employed to
>provide the security necessary to carry out normal business - the sad
>situation in China, for example, for most of its history.
Agreed. My concept of the economic effects of coercion, again. And more
importantly, the *social* consequences of the idea of the state as a
monopoly on the use of coercion. The limited state justifications put
forth by Rand and others are entirely irrational and incorrect. The
Austrian economic theory that Rand relied on clearly demonstrates that
there is no such thing as a "non-coercive monopoly" (so-called "natural"
monopolies must compete against equivalent technologies). And because a
monopoly by definition cannot have competitors, the notion of a "limited"
state is impossible - ALL states MUST be imperialistic until there is only
ONE state society-wide.
>(It is damnably difficult to invoke a concept such as "rights," which we
>of the West have enough trouble keeping clear, when you don't first have a
>concept of objectivity. How, in practice, can you make the kind of
>precise decisions about property boundaries that we demand of our courts
>to resolve our disputes, if you can't agree that there is an objective
>reality? Answer: you don't, and it devolves to force. Who has power gets
>everything else. Who lacks power will lose everything. You get to build
>your dam if you are the strongest, slyest and meanest and can hang onto
>your stones long enough to pile them up. Otherwise, someone more capable
>in those areas will use your stone to build their wall.)
Agreed - although I don't agree that the concept of "rights" is necessary,
the basis for any form of social behavior must be objective. In my view,
economic analysis of the effects of coercion on social interactions between
sentient entities is sufficiently objective to qualify.
>To conclude then, rights are a way of conceptualizing the fact that in
>normal society - as opposed to various lifeboat situations - we have to be
>able to act with some assurance that the stone we used for a dam won't
>simply be carted off by the next passerby for his wall.
Two comments:
1) Even in a lifeboat situation, economic analysis and the objective real
world indicate that "two heads are better than one" - EVEN when it seems
that two heads are worse than one... Even Rand did not reason that one out
correctly. She accepted the notion that a lifeboat situation in which
ethical conduct was not possible could exist - I don't. I believe that
EVEN in a lifeboat situation, coercion is non-productive as compared to
non-coercion. I can't give you a precise economic analysis at this point,
but I'm sure there is one - after all, two makes a society...
2) "Rights are a way of conceptualizing" - so are other concepts. The
problem, again, is the baggage, the lack of precision, and the lack of
enforcement capability that the concept of "rights" entails.
> Both from a purely practical materialistic economic basis and from
> profound psychological needs, we need a structure of ethics based on rights
We need to have a means to induce people to act in accordance with their
objective best interests and their objective need to survive in a social
context. I'm not sure we need any structure other than the principle of
non-coercion and the social structure to adjudicate disputes in some
reasonably scientific manner... And this society has neither... And won't
while human beings behave as they do...
>- our ability to deny someone else the option to interfere with us.
"Rights" do not give you the *ability* - they give you a
*justification*. Not the same thing at all - especially when your opponent
does not accept your "right" and you do not have the power to coerce him to
do so.
> All rights are both a right to action - based on our fundamental need
> to act freely in order to survive and prosper - and a right to property,
> if only in our own bodies.
So we need freedom to act and property - now, again, why do we call these
"rights" instead of "obvious needs" or "economic needs" or "behavioral
needs" or whatever?
>Rights then are a fundamental part of the structure of society that makes
>civil society,and thus honorable behavior, and thus real emotional
>interaction, and thus personal visibility, and thus long-term sanity and
>happiness possible.
I would say the above substituting the word "non-coercion" for the word
"rights"...
>This also applies, as I've discussed, if you want a personal relationship
>with a lower animal. On some level, you have to respect their rights in
>that context, and by extension, other people are bound to respect the
>resultant rights of that animal. This is not some mystical metaphysical
>concept, but simply an application of practical ethics and the
>psychological need to maintain honorable relationships.
Primarily, what you've said is that if you beat up on an animal, he won't
like you and he won't behave well towards you or do what you want him to do
- just like a human. And just like a human, extending these simple
concepts into "rights" is unnecessary and counter-productive - you end up
with the PETA fanatics...
>In general, however, no one should have to conceal that he or she is a
>carnivore - just so long as you don't eat other people. ;)
I actually like Hannibal Lector - :-} (Not that I'd give him a chance to
get near me!)
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Phil
You got 'em!
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST