Political Theory

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

AJ — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:20:04 GMT

Thank you, Lilburne.

Well, I agree nothing in that passage sounds collectivist. I don't see why he phrases things like that, but then I often think that of Rothbard.

Unrelatedly, I'd really like to know how he sees natural law as any kind of "science." Even if it's backed by scientific findings, such as those you mentioned in your blog article, the natural law itself wouldn't be a science. It would still just be a persuasion method, since he seems to deny consequentialism. Or is he refering to praxeology? (doubt it)

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:01:13 GMT

In tEoL, Rothbard wrote:

The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a “science of happiness,” with the paths which will lead to his real happiness.

This use of "man" seems to use the meaning "mankind", "human beings in general", or "the human race". "The human race" is not a delimited concrete set or collective of humans (not even one that contains all humans presently living); it's a class, a purely abstract category. So Rothbard is speaking on a very abstract level. He's saying, "man-as-a-class should pursue ends which are most harmonious with the nature of man-as-a-class".

It's hard to understand how that has any bearing on an individual man-in-particular.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

AJ — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:45:51 GMT

Lilburne:
"Mankind" I think of as a class. "All the individual humans currently living" or "those particular 48 humans" I think of as collectives.

I am not sure I disagree, and I have not read TEOL, but can you articulate the difference? On the face of it, "mankind" seems to be a collective.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:32:53 GMT

zefreak:

Interesting question. I feel like we are finally getting to the bottom of the frenzied natural rights debate that has been taking place on this forum recently.

I'm so glad you feel that way, zefreak. I really felt that to avoid everybody talking past each other, as has largely been happening regarding natural rights, there needed to be some targeted threads that go straight to the cruces of the matter.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:27:25 GMT

AJ:
imply that an individual would be devoting his selfless allegiance to a group, hence greatest-good-for-greatest-number collectivism? If Rothbard was wrong, we should expect that deducing from his mistaken premises can lead to any number of fallacious results, such as collectivism and other Statist fallacies.

AJ, you may very well be right about what you say above regarding Rothbard's theory. However, I do think there is an important distinction between a class and a collective. "Mankind" I think of as a class. "All the individual humans currently living" or "those particular 48 humans" I think of as collectives.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

AJ — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:11:51 GMT

Lilburne:
"Mankind" in the man/mankind problem found in Rothbard's writings involves mankind as a class, not any given number of men as a collective.

Do you mean Rothbard is only a collectivist as regards all humankind? Doesn't this:

Lilburne:
Moreover, an individual is a member of a great number of classes. Why should his selfless allegiance be to any one in particular?

imply that an individual would be devoting his selfless allegiance to a group, hence greatest-good-for-greatest-number collectivism? If Rothbard was wrong, we should expect that deducing from his mistaken premises can lead to any number of fallacious results, such as collectivism and other Statist fallacies.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

zefreak — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:52:21 GMT

Interesting question. I feel like we are finally getting to the bottom of the frenzied natural rights debate that has been taking place on this forum recently.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:37:28 GMT

AJ:
Isn't the former utilitarianism and the latter consequentialism? Utilitarianism, being for all people - being "greatest good for greatest number" - has been the justification for many Statist atrocities, so it seems out of place in libertarian thought. It sounds like collectivism. I think you're familiar with this, but just in case, and for other readers, I recommend G. Edward Griffin's excellent presentations on this subject.

I'm definitely not in favor of utilitarianism. I'm not sure if natural rights theories qualify as utilitarianism either. "Mankind" in the man/mankind problem found in Rothbard's writings involves mankind as a class, not any given number of men as a collective.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

AJ — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:37:41 GMT

Lilburne:
Even if one discovered the optimal consequences to be aimed at for mankind, what is it in natural rights theories that binds the individual man to act toward those consequences, especially when an opposite course might be more beneficial to the individual man?

Isn't the former utilitarianism and the latter consequentialism? Utilitarianism, being for all people - being "greatest good for greatest number" - has been the justification for many Statist atrocities, so it seems out of place in libertarian thought. It sounds like collectivism. I think you're familiar with this, but just in case, and for other readers, I recommend G. Edward Griffin's excellent presentations on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA&feature=related

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Andrew Cain — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:17:42 GMT

Lilburne:

Thanks AC. But do you mind if we talk about the consequentialism question on the is/ought thread? I'd like to focus on the man/mankind problem here.

I apologize, I thought this was a broader topic concerning both.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Thanks AC. But do you mind if we talk about the consequentialism question on the is/ought thread? I'd like to focus on the man/mankind problem here.

Re: Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Andrew Cain — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:55:21 GMT

No doubt there are consequentialist arguments for natural rights. However, when a consequentialist takes up the natural rights for the sake of establishing general rules [ also know as rule utilitarianism ] then they stop being consequentialists. They had consequentialists reasons for accepting natural rights but once these rights are respected for their own sake then they are natural rights theorists.

Natural Rights and the Man/Mankind Divide

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:45:40 GMT

In other threads I asked two questions which I think need to be answered for traditional natural rights theories to be tenable:

Does it make sense that human morality would be a matter of rigorous deduction?

and

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?

Through the course of discussing the second question, I've come to believe that the only coherent way traditional natural rights theories can cross the is/ought divide is by recognizing the fact that they are basically consequentialist, and that matters of right/wrong are basically matters of smart/stupid. (For exactly why this is, read the thread.) This is rather odd, given that natural rights theories are often presented as contrary to consequentialist theories.

Taking the consequentialism of natural rights theories as supposed, there is yet another big problem. Even if one discovered the optimal consequences to be aimed at for mankind, what is it in natural rights theories that binds the individual man to act toward those consequences, especially when an opposite course might be more beneficial to the individual man? Why ought a man choose the objective good for "man as a class" over the objective good for himself?

And as I argue in my article For a New Libertarian Ethics:

Moreover, an individual is a member of a great number of classes. Why should his selfless allegiance be to any one in particular? If his membership in a class imposes some magical "ought" upon him, why wouldn't he be just as much bound to act in a manner which promotes the fulfillment of the nature of a broader class like "primate", or a narrower class, like "welfare recipient"?

In short, how do natural rights theories cross the man/mankind divide?