From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:34:37 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BuKn5B.1qq@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
>Date: 14 Sep 92 14:05:35 GMT



> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>> If life is justifiable at all, then it must be possible 
>> to justify the means to necessary to sustain life.  And if
>> life cannot be sustained without leaving persons the
>> unrestrained freedom to pursue those means to sustain 
>> themselves under the objective conditions of existence, 
>> then it is this necessity which justifies us in saying that
>> people have a right, a human or natural right, to things
>> like life and property, etc. ...


>    More Randian gobbledygook.  What does "if life is
>    justifiable" even mean?   What does it mean for 
>    life to be "justifiable"?   

>    I'm alive.  I like being alive.  I would prefer to 
>    remain being alive.  But this, by itself does not
>    give me some kind of "right" to remain alive.  Nor
>    is there some natural "reciprocity rule" in nature 
>    that requires that I grant to others what I prefer 
>    for myself, even though some sophomoric Usenet
>    posters may try to invoke such a rule from time 
>    to time.

>    Moreover, it can be amply demonstrated that freedom
>    is not necessary to remain alive.   And let's not hear
>    and romantic nonsense about "man qua man" unless you
>    are prepared to offer objectiv, operational definitions
>    of terms like "reason" or "rational".


>---peter


>   

Pete, Why "operational" definitions?  This methodological assumption would 
obviously beg the question in favor of a nontranscendtalist account of human 
rights, wouldn't it?  Not that I'm wedded to such an account, mind you. 

Actually, my post was not rabid radoid double-speak, but in fact Herbert 
Spencerian double-speak!  Here's the passage, as best as I can remember, 
which seeks to ground the objective character of human rights and its link 
with freedom:

  	Those who hold that life is valuable,  hold, *by implication*,
	that no man ought to be prevented from carrying on life-sustaining
 	activities. If life is justifiable, there must be a justification
	for performance of those acts essential to its preservation; and
	therefore a justification for those liberties and claims which
	make such acts possible.

		   - -	HS, The Man Against The State, 81.

Now, I wouldn't for a moment think of resting my views in political 
philosophy on authority, but I thought it best to clear myself of any charge 
of randiodism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------