It may surpise you that thousands of Americans die every day (from all sorts of things). We have a right to life. But that right is our own individual responsibility. I wish everybody in this world could get medical treatment at Johns Hopkins, eat at 5 star restaurants, and own a 5,000 sq. ft. home. However, the only way the government can “give” health care (or any other good or service) to anyone is by taking something from someone else. This redistribution of wealth is stealing. It is immoral, unethical, unconstitutional, and just plain evil. Forcing one group of people to pay for another group of people’s health care destroys both the giver and the reciever in the long run and will leave our country in ruins.

Thanks, Connor, for keeping up the good fight.

You can probably guess his (well articulated) answer. :)

The philosophers Hobbes or Rousseau would be quick to argue that “naturally,” humans have no rights. No right is “naturally” enforced.

Any specific rights, like money, are only meaningful when a majority of people believe they exist, and more importantly are willing to restrain their behavior to that respect. There is nothing “natural” about this, it is a function merely of the mores of a particular society. And again the only “authority” that ultimately compels another person to honor your rights is their belief in their value. This is the essence of Social Contract.

So, even the rights to life and liberty are void when only a few care to honor them. This is like trying to spend Pesos at your local Wall-Mart. In this sense the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence are NO different from any other presumed right. For example if most people in Denmark believe that basic health care is a “fundamental” right, then it is……at least in Denmark. The government in Denmark intervenes in this because if they didn’t, then people would be quick to complain that the government policy was violating their rights.

It is a specialization, not a generality, to claim that the D.of I. rights are more “fundamental” then others.

I apologize if my comments about LDS theology were distracting. I only mentioned it because, as I stated in my original comment, religious individuals have the advantage of knowing by faith what the outcome of an empirical study of man’s nature will be. For religious individuals, an empirical study would be unnecessary because it would simply demonstrate what they already know to be true: mankind recognizes natural law, i.e., mankind recognizes the difference between good and evil. However, this doesn’t bear on the merits of my original argument.

Even if someone doesn’t know why mankind has a moral sense or where it comes from, it is still possible for them to observe the moral sense in action and note its existence. In other words, knowledge about the origin of the moral sense is not needed for an honest observer to recognize empirical evidence of its effects. That is why my argument does not require a person to believe in God to understand natural rights.

Carborendum, in your argument against my position you again return to the presently irrelevant question of where this moral sense comes from: No matter which way you look at it we in and of ourselves do not have that ability. We either get it from God or someone else tells us what is right & wrong.

This is actually a false dichotomy since these are not the only two logical options. A third reasonable option is to believe that natural law is inherent in mankind’s nature, giving him the ability to see action in terms of right and wrong. But let me reiterate that the source of man’s moral sense is not relevant to my argument. The argument relies on empirical evidence of mankind’s moral sense in action.

By way of illustration, let’s talk a bit about gravity. Modern science does not know where gravity comes from or why it exists. We can measure gravity and we know that in some way it correlates with mass, but we don’t know what causes it. It is simply an observable phenomenon. Our inability to explain what causes gravity does not mean that gravity does not exist or prevent us from using it; we know it exists because we are able to observe its effects. Similarly, man’s moral sense can be observed without knowing where it comes from or why it works.

Now, on to the Greeks.

Let me just note at the outset that man’s moral sense is far more difficult to observe in action when we are talking about national movements. Nations do not have a moral sense, so it comes down to the individuals within the nation itself. And since national action is necessarily group behavior, there are likely going to be many different dynamics obscuring each individual’s moral sense.

So instead of discussing the Illiad, I will focus on an example from the Greeks that deals with individuals rather than groups. Consider Plato’s “Apology.” In case this is an unfamiliar reference, the “Apology” is Plato’s recollection of the trial of Socrates. Darryl, you argue that the Illiad shows that the Greek moral code was to glorify the warrior for his ability to kill. But consider the villains of Plato’s Apology–Anytus, Meletus, and Lycon. They are not the villains of the story because they are not good warriors and can’t kill well, it is because they falsely accuse Socrates. If the Greek moral code was based on prowess in battle, it would not make sense for Plato to present Anytus and company as villains for falsely accusing Socratese. Consider also the reasons that Anytus, Meletus, and Lycon present to justify executing Socrates: “That man Socrates is a pestilential fellow who corrupts the young.” Apology 23d. If the Greek people had truly lived in a moral world where might was right and where, as you put it Darryl, the men honored in society were those that were best at killing, then neither Plato nor Socrates’ accusers would have bothered to explain why killing Socrates was okay. Remember that even if Plato’s account is not 100% historically accurate (he may have slanted things in favor of his hero), Plato was writing to persuade his readers. It would be nonsensical for him to argue about the need for honesty or condemn an execution based on false evidence if these arguments did not have persuasive power over his readers. In other words, Plato relied on his readers’ innate moral sense to give his arguments persuasive power.

Finally, Darryl, I want to respond to your comment about the problem of comparing inquiry into natural law with scientific inquiry. Your objection is that empirical study is definitely essential to our discovery of physical laws, but can easily lead us astray as well. If we don’t understand the logical derivations behind what we observe, we can greatly misconstrue what causes it. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that empirical observation alone is insufficient to provide a useful system of either morals or science, since a failure to draw the appropriate conclusions from the empirical observations will lead us to incorrect general laws. I heartily concur. I don’t believe that simply observing empirical evidence of mankind’s moral sense is enough to guide political action. Just as science has taken many wrong turns throughout its history, political philosophy also has taken many wrong turns. Knowing, however, that mankind has a moral sense to rely on is a reason to hope that just as science is slowly correcting some of its errors. Political philosophy can slowly overcome its errors as well. That is why discussion and debate are important; it permits us to test our political philosophy against this moral sense.

There are a couple things about your argument that I don’t think are quite understood.

First, have you ever read the Illiad? The Greek culture at the time glorified killing. The moral code also included a safeguard in honor that prevented fellow countrymen from killing each other. You might say that there is their justification in breaking natural law: that they are not fellow countrymen and therefore can be killed for conquest and glory. But if you really read the words Homer uses, the actual killing was the culture. The men honored in society were those that were best at killing. The moral code was dominance, no second thought to killing those that threatened your “oikos”, or village.

Second, your main approach is a bit flawed.

Just like natural physical laws, natural moral laws can be discovered through empirical study.

This is not entirely true. Empirical study is definitely essential to our discovery of physical laws, but can easily lead us astray as well. If we don’t understand the logical derivations behind what we observe, we can greatly misconstrue what causes it.

This is what the Scientific Revolution was all about. Previously, Aristotle’s writings were customary beliefs. He used deductive logic to make conclusions about what he observed. Many of his conclusions were able to find truths that have been very important to society today. But, he also was lead on paths that diverged very far from the truth because he depended on deductive reasoning from mere observation without understanding the true causes behind what he observed. The earth being flat is the most common example. This is why science today involves so much math, derivations, and experimentation. The logical proof supports the observation.

I believe you are correct in that we can observe that people have certain tendencies towards moral behavior, but this merely produces a need for reasoning to support particular behaviors independent from those observations. This is what I meant by an explanation.

I’ve been trying to read up a little on the sources provided by Connor (mostly that from Thomas Hobbes) to answer this question. Hobbes does provide some convincing arguments, but the most sound reasoning, in my opinion, involves God as the source of morality. Everything else seems like trying to swallow a camel.

The only way to “irrefutably” show the correct moral standards that should exist must be within the realm of morals, or things regarding the spiritual. These truths come from the Father of our spirits. Once proven with eternal truths, this knowledge can then be applied to our lives in society, not the other way around.

I’m really having a hard time figuring out how you could have construed what I said to mean what you just said. It is almost like you were TRYING to mess up my comments.

You said: Evidence of this moral sense is clear to the honest observer

This is what I disagree with.

We agree on the definitions of motivation vs. justification. Yes, there could be some debate about the word “code” as part of that definition. Point made.

You state that there is a pre-existing sense of morality in every man because of the Light of Christ. There you go bringing God into it.

Wasn’t your premise how we can judge right and wrong WITHOUT God?

You said: Here is an argument for natural rights that doesn’t rely on God.

Sure sounds like it.

Here is my point:

A) For LDS, we believe in the Light of Christ as our guide.
B) For others who believe in God, they believe in something similar–if nothing more than the written word of their chosen holy scripture.
C) Atheists believe in tabula rasa. Which essentailly says there is no right and wrong until someone tells you so.

No matter which way you look at it we in and of ourselves do not have that ability. We either get it from God or someone else tells us what is right & wrong. But if it is some other man, where did he get it from? . . . Trace it back, it was because God told someone.

Citing examples of murder and tyranny do not prove that the moral sense doesn’t exist…

This was not my direct point in this regard. Check the context. You specifically asked:

In what society has it been acceptable . . .? . . . NONE
(emphasis added)

I cited examples. Your rebuttal is:

it merely shows that individuals are adept at ignoring their moral sense or deceiving themselves.

In today’s world with today’s morality, I’d be more inclined to agree with you.

But thousands, even just a few hundred years ago, that was the way of life. No one in the applicable societies objected or protested or even complained about it. Do we have any records of Greeks or Macedonians protesting Alexander’s conquest of Persia? No.

They complained about how he was becoming more Persian than Greek, or they complained about not being treated fairly themselves. . .

We have no records of ANYONE in these societies saying:

Hey, wait a minute. Is this a just war? Is our cause honorable? Are we treating our enemies with fairness?

What? Do you think the entire 1/3 of the globe (or so) was just deceiving themselves? If they had this as part of their moral compass, surely there was some philosopher (there were plenty) that would have written such a comment. But no. NONE.

Show me some examples of where I am wrong and I’ll recant. But that is simply the way it was. If entire societies that cover so much of the globe can simply ignore their moral compass that MUST agree with consistent moral code, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there were that many evil people in the world.

Do you really believe that?

You misunderstood most of my argument.

Concerning your first objection. It is true that sometimes motivation and justification are different. Motivation is responsive to the question ‘why does one WANT to do something?’ Justification is responsive to the question ‘why is it PERMISSIBLE to do something?’ While important in other contexts, this distinction has no bearing on my argument. I am concerned here with justification not motivation. Your claim that justification requires a pre-existing moral code is not entirely objectionable (I would only strike the term “code” since it implies formal written rules). The point of my argument is that there is a pre-existing moral sense in man that illuminates natural law. This pre-existing moral sense is what demands a justification when an individual seeks to violate natural law.

Your second objection also misses the point. I am not arguing that no one violates natural law. I am arguing that humans have an innate moral sense that informs them of what is right and what is wrong. Citing examples of murder and tyranny do not prove that the moral sense doesn’t exist, it merely shows that individuals are adept at ignoring their moral sense or deceiving themselves as to the rightness of their actions. As to your statement that there are few instances in history where kings justify their wars, that is clearly counter-factual. Even a cursory study of the history of warfare proves otherwise. There is always some justification provided: vindicating national pride, recovering ancient territorial rights, spreading religion, etc. Sometimes the justification is as simple as “the king is the anointed of God, so whatever he wants is just,” but there is some justification.

Your third argument is also misdirected. I am not arguing that the majority should define morality. I am arguing that within each individual there is a moral sense of natural law. Often this moral sense expresses itself through social customs, political philosophies, and legal systems. These phenomena of social interaction do not define natural law, they attempt to express it. Almost invariably, these efforts to express natural law are tainted by selfishness, fear, thoughtlessness, or arrogance, but again, that doesn’t belie the existence of the moral sense itself.

Your discussion of the origin of the term “conscience” is interesting, but for clarification, I am using the term “conscience” in its common sense: as a consciousness of right and wrong.

You also make a pass at LDS theology and claim that Many already have a firm sense of right before they are born. Others have a firm sense of wrong before they are born. Most are in between.
As I understand it, the LDS position is that “the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil;” Moroni 7: 16
Perhaps what you meant is that some desire right, some desire wrong, and others haven’t made up their minds yet. That would be consistent with LDS theology, but your original assertion is not.

Finally, you discuss moral theory. You are correct in stating that a moral theory requires a fundamental grounding. But as I stated at the beginning of my original comment, this argument for natural law rests on empirical observation of the nature of mankind. I am not seeking here to explain where natural law comes from, I am simply pointing out there is clear, irrefutable evidence of it as it expresses itself through the nature of mankind.

Just wanted to say that I am thrilled to see you quote H. Verlan Andersen. He was my grandpa.

http://cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html

Insurance hasn’t failed because of its premise (people deciding to pay a premium in order to balance out the highs and lows and hedge against risk), but because of the profit motive being applied to life and death. As Dennis Kucinich says, statistics clearly show that we’re already PAYING for universal coverage- we’re just not getting it.

Evidence of this moral sense is clear to the honest observer. In what society has it been acceptable, without some justification . . .

You quite quickly jump to the conlcusion that NO society has ever condoned these “evil” behaviors. You then erroneously jump to the conclusion that because so many agree, it must be so.

First, let us define the difference between justification and motivation / motive. Motive is anything that emotes or promotes an action. ANY action requires some motive otherwise, why do it? Without motive, it must be an accident or chance, etc. Justification is using other principles of morality to excuse the breaking of the principle in question.

This can be outlined by our relationship with the Middle East. They certainly have some motives for attacking other cultures. Are they necessarily Justified? This has been debated extensively on this blog.

Justification requires that there is a moral code in place to begin with. To state that unjustified breaking of a moral code to prove that there is a moral code shows circular logic.

Second, man’s history is replete with figures of individuals killing for no moral reason. This is not just individual criminals. What do you think imperialism is about? One king wants what another king has. So he takes an army to go kill that king to get it. This was certainly condoned by the populace. Was this not wonton murder? If not, I believe your moral compass may be off.

Few instances in history ever show the king promoting any justification to the people. He just wanted it. Conquering was a way of life.

Third, there is no way to make an reasonable argument for morality by majority. If you truly believe in life, liberty, & property (for instance) as fundamental values, then how can you say the majority believed in this when the US was WAY ahead of its time. Look at other nations at the time of the Revolution.

The fact is that given the right group of people, there is no such thing as a self-evident truth. One must first have morality to judge morality. It is circular until you realize that it begins with God.

You mention a conscience. The older definition of that word indicates a self-awareness of one’s effect on one’s surroundings. The modern definition of conscience indicates that we also make judgments on those effects.

If we accept the tabula rasa ideology, then judgment must still be taught. I’m learning from raising lots of kids that it is quite common for children to be born without self-awareness either. This must (and thankfully can) be taught.

If we believe in spirits, others may still apply the tabula rasa ideas if they believe the spirit was generated at the same time the body was.

But for LDS, the spirit was pre-existent. Many already have a firm sense of right before they are born. Others have a firm sense of wrong before they are born. Most are in between. No matter which one we are, our life experiences will shape our conscience further.

All morality begins with teaching us right and wrong to begin with. Who teaches it? God. Anyone else got it from someone who go it from . . . who got it from God.

Any moral theory must go through a series of cause and effect until you reach a “fundamental” level. That is where you either believe it or you don’t. That is where God comes in. Take God out of it, and you have one man’s opinion over another.

Here is an argument for natural rights that doesn’t rely on God.

Just like natural physical laws, natural moral laws can be discovered through empirical study. The difference is simply the subject of study. When a scientist seeks physical natural laws, his topic of study is the physical world. Similarly, a political philosopher seeking moral natural laws must focus his efforts on the moral world. This doesn’t mean a study of religion. Unfortunately, many religions have lost sight of man’s innate moral sense by overemphasizing ritual and hierarchy. What I mean by ‘moral world’ is what we commonly refer to as the conscience of man.

Evidence of this moral sense is clear to the honest observer. In what society has it been acceptable, without some justification, to wantonly kill other humans? In what society has it been acceptable to take property from others without some kind of justification? In what society has it been acceptable to enslave or imprison another without justification?

None.

Now, when you present this argument, you will invariably hear the objection that many societies in the past have condoned such behavior. But on closer inquiry, you will discover that in every example put forward, the society made some effort to justify the violation of these natural rights.

For example, a common objection is that if there existed such a moral sense inherent in mankind, then why did it permit the practice of enslaving Africans and Indians? Even the U.S. Constitution turned a blind eye to the issue. Clearly this violated natural rights.

The answer is that in an effort to justify slavery, society turned to the racial, cultural, and educational differences between the slavers and the enslaved. Society sought to justify what at heart they knew was wrong. If the there had been no moral sense whatever, there would have been no attempt to justify slavery. The question “why do you have the right to enslave those people?” would not have made any sense, and would have required no more justification than “why not?”

Clearly, the reasons people devise to justify violating the rights of others are usually bogus. Racial, cultural, and educational differences clearly do not justify enslaving another person. Nevertheless, that the justification was bogus does not eliminate the fact that the moral sense inherent in the human mind demanded a justification of some kind.

This same analysis will apply to the problems of hereditary monarchy, socialism, communism, and any other philosophy that condones the violation of natural rights. The very fact that the philosophy exists is a testament that the right is recognized. Otherwise, there would be no need of a philosophy to justify the violation.

Thus the philosophy of natural moral law does not necessarily depend upon divine law but on the nature of mankind. Just as the natural physical law depends on the nature of the physical world. Honest study of the nature of mankind and one’s own conscience will reveal natural law.

Voila, an argument to justify natural rights sans reference to God.

Now, that said, the religious individual has the advantage because he or she knows by faith what the outcome of such a study of man’s conscience will be. Man’s nature is a rough reflection of God’s nature. God created man in his own image and gave him the power to discern good from evil, so as long as the conscience is not numbed by persistent sin, the honest individual can be led to recognize natural rights. The trouble is clearing away the false efforts to justify violations.

I’m sorry – what I meant to say was that I actually wrote “property” when I meant to refer to the other freedoms Connor mentioned in his comment, freedoms that I of course agree can be inferred from the Constitution.

But I disagreed that those particular rights were a given from Constitutional language while others were obviously undue government intervention into the private sector. Of course, I guess we have the judicial branch, and the coercion test Connor indirectly proposed (i.e. freedom of assembly involves no undue obligation into another citizen’s freedoms while some other non-”rights” clearly do). That seems as good as any. So as usual I’m thinking aloud without any specific point in mind. Sigh…

If I start talking gibberish again just let me know :).

What? I’m just a bit confused here.

You said:

I do think we are in danger when we “infer” right to property from “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

I then explained why it wasn’t an inference per se–but a reference to source material.

Then you said:

I was referring to Connor’s “rights to assembly” inferrence, etc.

That is to say, you were NOT referring to Life, Liberty . . .

What am I missing?

I’m not much of an “original intent” guy, meaning that I believe the Constitution exists only to upholds particular values and liberties and not as an end in itself. Or at least I’d prioritize such values over extra credit reading from the time.

At any rate this stuff can be subjective.

There is no “inference” of property from pursuit of happiness. John Locke’s writings (widely read at the time) and the Virginia Declaration of Rights both declare that the fundamental rights of individuals are:

Life, Liberty, & Property.

Although, I particularly like the wording from Virginia.

When the founders were writing the Declaration, they were mimicking this declaration of rights. But they realized that a good nation of FREE people should not tolerate slavery. At the same time they realized that the Southern states would point to the Declaration (the basis of what our country is about) and say

See, we were promised to be able to keep our property. Slaves are property. So you can’t take our slaves away.

So, they wisely pre-empted such discussion with the declaration being changed from “property” to “pursuit of happiness”. I’m not aware of whether Jefferson penned this in his first draft or if it was by others during a later revision.

So, when people say “property” instead of “pursuit of happiness”, it is because of earlier documents, not the Declaration.