As I have delved deeper into various philosophies and ideologies, it has become apparent that there is a desperate need for a justification of the rights to Life, Liberty, & Property that is based upon sound logic and reason. In his two treatises on government, philosopher John Locke asserts three inalienable rights of human beings, endowed with these rights by Natural Law and our Creator, God: Life, Liberty, & Property. These three rights and their God-granted inalienability went on to shape our Founding documents. For one who wholly believes in a Creator, to consider these rights as inalienable and granted by that Creator’s authority seems to be a logically and reasonably held assumption. But what if one were confronted by a person who openly refutes the existence of a Creator, not even acknowledging the possibility of one? How would one prove and defend that these three rights are not only moral, but indeed inalienable? This is what prompted me to write on this topic: an argument for Life, Liberty, & Property, without God, for if you cannot defend these rights from any angle of attack, you are doomed to fail from the outset. Not only will I prove these rights’ self evident nature, but their interdependency upon each other. If one of these rights is lost, the others will necessarily fall as well.
The right to Life is necessarily placed foremost, for the rest are direct derivatives of this right. Without the right to Life, no other right can exist. When looking at the definition of the word “life”, common dictionaries state: “The animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.” I would like to place particular emphasis on the words “animate”, “existence”, and “individual”. The mere fact of existence implies a right to Life. As Ayn Rand puts it when describing her axioms of knowledge, “existence exists”. The fact that existence “exists” is the defense here, existence in tandem with a rational consciousness of a superior level. Existence is irreducible in the sense that the only way to disprove existence is to utilize the concept of existence. It is impossible; a paradox. Human beings are fascinating creatures in that upon the mind developing to a point where humans have the ability to make rational decisions of their own, Life becomes a choice. Any time before this development of rationality, a child is wholly dependent upon a human with a rational consciousness. If they do not have this rational mind taking the steps to take care of them, they will perish. Once this rationality does develop, thousands upon thousands of choices present themselves to the human. We are beings of volitional existence, our survival, our existence, our Life, only continuing so long as we make choices to prolong it. When our bodies need energy, we are alerted through pangs of hunger. These pangs are not volitional, but involuntary, natural reactions produced by our bodies. Volitionality enters the equation when one decides whether or not to sate that desire by consuming food. The body is dependent upon the rational being’s consciousness to choose to eat the food to continue living, otherwise the person will die. It is in this volitionality, in this concept of choosing to prolong one’s life through rational actions that the right to Life is justified. I’d like to bring the term “individual” from the definition of Life back to mind. Each individual rational consciousness must make these decisions for themselves, therefore creating an inherent responsibility to prolong one’s own Life. The instinct of survival is inherently buried within the mind to be carried out by the body. It is the rational mind, the rational thought process, that must be facilitated in order to meet the standards required to bring this instinct into fruition and, indeed, survive. It is wholly of and from the individual. Some may ask, what of children or the mentally handicapped? They are innately unable to make this volitional choice on their own. They lack the rational consciousness, and in the case on the handicapped, even the ability to reach this state of rationality. This in absolutely no way voids them of their right to Life. It is the parents’ responsibility to raise their children until they reach this stage of consciousness. As for the handicapped, it must be taken upon their direct relatives, whether family or some other relation, to sustain this person due to their lack of a rational state. Just because Fate has dealt someone an “out of the ordinary” hand does not deny them their fundamental right to exist. To make the decision of Life for another rationally aware being would be immoral, depriving the person of an inherently embedded concept. To make the decision of Life for one who is rationally incapable is just as immoral. In both cases, it would be violating the individual physically and mentally. Each person must choose to maintain existence, therefore establishing Life as a fundamental right. As for children, due to the fact that they will reach this stage of rational consciousness, the right is still maintained. No one has the authority to hinder another from prolonging their Life, even if that person will never be able to enter a rational state. Life is inherently instilled within each individual upon coming into existence, each “life” wholly belonging to each individual, existing completely separately from one another. Therefore, the right to Life is reliant upon individuality and its acknowledgement, and is a right due to the concepts of volitional existence and rational consciousness.
The right to Liberty is directly derived from the right to Life. Liberty can be said to be the freedom to choose how to live one’s own Life. Since we have established that humans are beings of volitional existence, it can be said that choosing whether or not to prolong one’s existence is the base and foundational Liberty from which all others flow. Choosing to survive is an exertion of Liberty, in and of itself. Without the right to Life, the right to continue to choose whether to continue living or not, no other Liberty can exist. Once humans reach that higher state of consciousness, doors open that they’ve never had access to before, or rather had, but did not have the capability to comprehend these doors’ existence. They start making their own decisions, searching for their true purpose and true happiness, even if these acts are being carried out subconsciously. The presence of a rationally capable conscious does not guarantee rationally based decisions, though. People may knowingly make choices that are in fact detrimental to their purpose or happiness based on no foundation of reason or logic. Regardless, it is their decision to make. If that is what they deem to be the superior decision for their Life, may I repeat, their Life, who is anyone else to stop them? To whom is each individual beholden to on this Earth? From where or whom do those who would control others derive their authority? From what logical, empirical source? There is none. There is no one. It is certainly not a government’s job, nor any man’s for that matter. As Jeremy Bentham contends, utility is achieved when the government leaves people alone to do as they please, or to exercise the liberties they have had since coming into existence. Liberty is implied by Life and existence itself, and each person shall have authority over their decision and solely their decisions. As far as to what extent one may exercise one’s Liberty, John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle” seems to be the best standard.
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Race, color, sex, or creed makes no difference in the equation. Chemically, biologically speaking, we all have the same functioning organs and organ systems (gender defining organs aside). There is absolutely no foundational argument as to why one human being can determine how another lives their life, or from where they gain the authority to do so. Liberty is an irreducible concept it that, even in a complete totalitarian state where the individual has no liberties, and to disobey the state is to be punishable by death, the individual still has the Liberty to disobey, even if upon disobeying, they are denied their right to Life. If one were to disagree with my argument for Liberty, they are in fact exerting their Liberty to disagree. Liberty is inescapable as a concept, thus proving it as a fundamental right. It is inalienable, inherent within each human being. Just as death is an inescapable fact, so it is with Liberty, no matter how hard nor to what lengths oppressors would try to restrain it.
Much like the right to Liberty, the right to Property is wholly dependent upon the right preceding it. Without the right to Liberty, there is no right to Property. Property stems from the rational being’s acceptance of volitional existence and is a direct product of the steps taken to ensure survival. As you can see, it starts with Life, Liberty being utilized to survive, thus bring us to Property. It cascades down logically in a natural fashion and progression. When a person decides to progress in growth of Life and Mind, they voluntarily exercise labor. The yield of this labor is effectively their creation. Whether they consume or utilize this yield directly, or whether they trade this yield voluntarily with another for their yield for mutual benefit, it is still the direct essence and product or their labor, thus making it essentially a part of their being. The efforts one pours into the their own survival and what is created from that is effectively their own to do with what they please. To seize one’s property, for whatever “justifiable” reason, is to deny any right to Property, and by consequence, any right to Liberty. If one does not strongly grasp the Liberty to maintain and use the fruits of their own labor as they deem fit so as to secure their right to Life, a very slippery slope is molded down which all liberties could slide forever, at least as many as is possible for a government or other person to control and limit. Property allows for the progression and improvement of one’s Life by facilitating the necessary steps and actions required for survival. It also creates a system of value through which trades and compromises can be made, voluntary contracts mutually benefitting each party. This trade helps to usher in more innovation through the gain of a wider breadth of knowledge, thus improving the overall quality of Life for all humans. It is no coincidence that the explosion of technological advancements ushered in by the Industrial Revolution occurred after the founding of America, bringing with it the first free market system to be truly utilized within the world. So not only is it beneficial and moral to preserve the right of Property for the individual, but it ends up benefitting all in society. It is truly remarkable what can be achieved via voluntary interactions. Therefore, Property is the direct product of one’s choice of accepting our volitional existence and to deprive someone of their property would essentially be depriving a person a portion of, not only their Life, but their Liberty as well.
In closing, the right to Life, Liberty, & Property are naturally inherent upon existence. To deny any of them is to deny all, for they are all mutually dependent. They derive their properties from one another, all these properties being intricately woven into a tapestry of the rights of Existence. It is morally reprehensible for one to exert their faux-authority to dictate these rights for anyone but themselves. While human beings do thrive through cooperation, it is the congregation of individual persons and their individual achievements that coalesce into the overall progress of mankind. The only way to facilitate this progress in undoubtedly via the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, & Property.
Until next time,
-Brad
No comments:
Post a Comment