The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

[ernestm]

I am so bold to share a link to my own blog on this article because it stems from a discussion with President Obama in 2015 on some Lockean theory concerning natural rights of which he as unaware, despite being a professor of constitutional law. Half a dozen constitutional lawyers have reviewed prior drafts of it, as well as several state supreme court judges. However on sharing it publicly, there was a lot of confusion about facts they knew which it did not state. So I rewrote it extensively, until the only comments I got on it were that it must be wrong because Jefferson was a bad person.

https://yofiel.com/gnosticism/rights2.php

As the article does state, this is not taught in the USA public school system because of its theistic basis. So while the theory is quite well known in philosophy schools in Europe, where I learned it, it's unlikely you will have encountered it before.

[Gertie]

That was an interesting read for someone whose own country has no constitution and got where it is in a more haphazard fashion.

You seem to commend Jefferson's position as being about as good as we can do, regardless of whether we share the religious beliefs he grounds it in?

Jefferson intended that secular law restrict human interference upon divine judgment, while progressively enhancing quality of life. The Declaration of Independence therefore defines 'the laws of nature and of nature's God' as a Lockean social contract whereby U.S. citizens grant the Government the right to impose taxes and restrictions, in exchange for honoring natural rights as inalienable ('equal for all'). Based on Locke's Augustinian premise thatall are born equal in the eyes of God, that He may best judge us in the afterlife, Jefferson deduced the USA's three natural rights as follows:

LIFE is the primary right,because God should decide when we die, not us, otherwise free will interferes with God's ability to provide salvation to all souls. The right to life includes rights to water, food, protection from heathens by national defense, and more recently, shelter and national health too.

LIBERTY, the secondary right,enables unfettered choice between good and evil. Under this right we may also choose the pleasures of the natural world that best suits each of us. This right justifies a free market, under regulations to protect rights to life, freedom of religion, and ancillary rights which promote equal treatment under a just and loving God.

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is an additional rightbecause it enables all to act for the greater good. This unique right to the USA might account for its early success and growth. While we may choose which happinesses to pursue, the greatest happinesses arise from 'acting for the greater good,' yielding 'a more solid and permanent happiness' in heaven, if not before. This right justifies government sponsorship of education, libraries, museums, parks and recreation, public TV and radio, education, and scientific research. And most significantly, in the founder's time, the wealthy would choose to provide charitable support to unfortunates as necessary to earn the greatest happiness of all.

Jefferson described natural rights as sacred but not divine, because they derive authority fron God, but are only a human interpretation of 'Divine Law.' Authority promulgates to the secular definition of Constitutional Law, and thence to common law, as perAquinas. The Right to Property is in Jefferson's view a civil right accorded to a person's station in society, leading to higher taxes for those who own more property. Hence property is not an inalienable natural right.

Isn't the problem then that if we don't share Jefferson's religious views, individually and societally, we have no primary justification for the above being the basis for a society's social contract? It's effectively imposed, peacefully unchangeable and unchallengeable by the populace, who may not share his foundational beliefs.

[ernestm]

That was an interesting read for someone whose own country has no constitution and got where it is in a more haphazard fashion.
Isn't the problem then that if we don't share Jefferson's religious views, individually and societally, we have no primary justification for the above being the basis for a society's social contract? It's effectively imposed, peacefully unchangeable and unchallengeable by the populace, who may not share his foundational beliefs.

Well what I would say is that Jefferson was very clever to define the pursuit of happiness the third natural right rather than possession of property, because it provides grounds for a government to provide state-funded education, public TV and radio, etc.

But in the USA people on the right wing, who include the 'moral majority' (the Christian right wing in the USA), philosophy schools in the majority of private universities, and even most of the libertarian party as well as republicans, raise major objections even to the right to life over the right to liberty, resulting in their reveling in rampant gun violence and outright hatred of public healthcare, let alone the unfair burden of paying for all children's education and worst of all, paying for the arts.

So they wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that religion should not be the basis of natural rights, although their objection is not really based on the religious aspect, but its evil commie consequences.

[Gertie]

That might be their objection, but obviously there are plenty of reasons not to want your most fundamental rights to be theocratically grounded and justified, frozen in a particular point of theological interpretation - especially in our modern, globalised world.

[ernestm]

I'm sorry, but that just sounds petulant to me. I like going to libraries and national parks.

[GE Morton]

Well what I would say is that Jefferson was very clever to define the pursuit of happiness the third natural right rather than possession of property, because it provides grounds for a government to provide state-funded education, public TV and radio, etc.

Egads.

It does no such thing, nor did Jefferson intend any such thing. Jefferson stated his view of the proper scope of government in his First Inaugural Address: "What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp

The right to pursue happiness is just that --- the right to pursue it, i.e., to act as you see fit to obtain it, without interference from the government or other people, as long as you don't interfere with their similar pursuits. Similarly for the right to life: it constrains others from killing you, but imposes no obligations upon them to provide you with food, shelter, or any other necessity of life. Securing those is your responsibility, no one else's.

I tried reading the essay you linked above, but gave up after wading through three paragraphs of utter nonsense, indicating no familiarity with the history of or rationale for that concept whatsoever.

You need to go back to square one on that topic, my friend.

[ernestm]

Jefferson stated his view of the proper scope of government in his First Inaugural Address

Jefferson changed his stance quite alot when he was running for President. What I find disturbing is the disgustingly facetious, pompous, and self-important tone you affect when revealing your ignorance.

[Gertie]

I'm sorry, but that just sounds petulant to me. I like going to libraries and national parks.

Petulant? OK.

I don't like having my right to have an abortion decided by some bloke who had particular religious beliefs I don't share. In fact I don't like my access to healthcare or libraries and parks dependant on that either. His particular religious beliefs should have no bearing on my rights. And it's theocracies which often put a stumbling block in the way of organisations like the UN establishing a universal grounding of Human Rights, which we can cohere around in our modern inter-dependant global world. And potentially benefit millions of people who most need rights.

[GE Morton]

Isn't the problem then that if we don't share Jefferson's religious views, individually and societally, we have no primary justification for the above being the basis for a society's social contract? It's effectively imposed, peacefully unchangeable and unchallengeable by the populace, who may not share his foundational beliefs.

That is not a problem because the concept of natural rights, as understood by both Locke and Jefferson, does not derive from nor depend upon any particular religious views. They derive from human nature and the nature of human societies, which both assumed were "God-given," but are easily verifiable empirically. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" just means, "We are born with them; we bring them with us into the world."

[Gertie]

Isn't the problem then that if we don't share Jefferson's religious views, individually and societally, we have no primary justification for the above being the basis for a society's social contract? It's effectively imposed, peacefully unchangeable and unchallengeable by the populace, who may not share his foundational beliefs.

That is not a problem because the concept of natural rights, as understood by both Locke and Jefferson, does not derive from nor depend upon any particular religious views. They derive from human nature and the nature of human societies, which both assumed were "God-given," but are easily verifiable empirically. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" just means, "We are born with them; we bring them with us into the world."

It's their sacredness which justifies their inalienability, and of course in reality it's still a person of his time prioritising this or that aspect of being human as foundational to rights, now and forever, because God doesn't get it wrong.

I think it's a problem in practice too. In practice, you end up with the highest judges in the land presumably trying to understand the finer points of Jefferson or whoever's religious understanding from clues in the texts to decide if I'm allowed to have an abortion. It's ridiculous.

Philosophical notions of rights should be able to better than dance on the head of Jefferson's special holy pin.

And if I happen to live in a country with a different institutionalised notion of God's relationship with his creation, I might be killed for adultery, apostasy and so on. Whether I believe in that god, or understand god differently.

[GE Morton]

It's their sacredness which justifies their inalienability . . .

Oh, no. "Inalienable" just means "cannot be revoked." They can be violated, of course, but not revoked, or extinguished, because they rest on unalterable biological, historical and empirical facts.

. . . and of course in reality it's still a person of his time prioritising this or that aspect of being human as foundational to rights, now and forever, because God doesn't get it wrong."

"God" has nothing to do with it. They are prioritized the way they are because they are aspects of self-defense, which is the highest priority of nearly all animals.

I think it's a problem in practice too. In practice, you end up with the highest judges in the land presumably trying to understand the finer points of Jefferson or whoever's religious understanding from clues in the texts to decide if I'm allowed to have an abortion. It's ridiculous.

I doubt you could find a single US Supreme Court decision which invoked anyone's "religious understanding" of any constitutional right. Roe v. Wade certainly wasn't decided on that basis. That court is currently considering a challenge to a Texas law which conflicts with the rights declared in Roe v. Wade. But the issue the court will have to decide is one of federalism, i.e., the powers of the States v. those of the federal government. No religious arguments are being made, on either side. (I agree, of course, that would be a ridiculous, as well as unconstitutional, basis for deciding whether abortion should be lawful).

Philosophical notions of rights should be able to better than dance on the head of Jefferson's special holy pin.

Well, that's the point. There is no "Jefferson's holy pin." Ernestm's analysis of rights is contrived, ahistorical nonsense.

[Gertie]

GE

Well, that's the point. There is no "Jefferson's holy pin." Ernestm's analysis of rights is contrived, ahistorical nonsense.

OK, I really have no idea about that, I was pointing out the problems with the position ernest outlined in the article.

I'm fine with the notion that human nature is the appropriate foundation for rights, but as you know I'd say all sentient beings. And if we're not using the sacredness of our nature as created by some perfect, unquestionable god as justification for the unalienalibility of rights, and morality generally, then we have to look elsewhere.

You and I agree on the qualiative nature of consciousness as our grounding - wellbeing. And to me it seems 'natural' that inalienable rights are the appropriate measure to ensure basic wellbeing needs and opportunities are met.

Locke and Jefferson saw it differently, and the patina of ''sacred'' or ''natural'' implies their views are unchallengeable by dint of religion, or reasoning from nature. By my view, all morality rooted in our nature as sentient beings. I simply regard some things as inalienable rights (unalterable by governments) on the basis of how necessary they are to wellbeing.

You take an agent based approach, while I'm more directly consequentialist I think.

[GE Morton]

Locke and Jefferson saw it differently, and the patina of ''sacred'' or ''natural'' implies their views are unchallengeable by dint of religion, or reasoning from nature.

Oooh, don't lump those together. Reasoning from natural facts and from religion are two different things.

By my view, all morality rooted in our nature as sentient beings. I simply regard some things as inalienable rights (unalterable by governments) on the basis of how necessary they are to wellbeing.

Things to which one has natural and common rights are necessary to well-being, but being necessary for well-being is not sufficient to establish a right to something. One only has rights to things one has gained rightfully (hence the term).

[Gertie]

Locke and Jefferson saw it differently, and the patina of ''sacred'' or ''natural'' implies their views are unchallengeable by dint of religion, or reasoning from nature.

Oooh, don't lump those together. Reasoning from natural facts and from religion are two different things.

By my view, all morality rooted in our nature as sentient beings. I simply regard some things as inalienable rights (unalterable by governments) on the basis of how necessary they are to wellbeing.

Things to which one has natural and common rights are necessary to well-being, but being necessary for well-being is not sufficient to establish a right to something. One only has rights to things one has gained rightfully (hence the term).

Then you're still left with the problem of justifying 'rightful'.

You can justify 'rightful' by reference to this or that aspect (take your pick) of being human being instilled by God.

Or by reasoning from this or that (take your pick) aspect of nature.

Or... you can think afresh, reassess the notion of 'rightful' and say it's the special qualiative nature of sentience which is the appropriate foundation for right and wrong, and reason from there that ensuring basic well-being is therefore 'rightful'.

[Leontiskos]

Then you're still left with the problem of justifying 'rightful'.

You can justify 'rightful' by reference to this or that aspect (take your pick) of being human being instilled by God.

Or by reasoning from this or that (take your pick) aspect of nature.

Or... you can think afresh, reassess the notion of 'rightful' and say it's the special qualiative nature of sentience which is the appropriate foundation for right and wrong, and reason from there that ensuring basic well-being is therefore 'rightful'.

But it's not fresh. It's just another form of nature-reasoning. You are just drawing from different purportedly natural facts, such as sentience or well-being.

It's their sacredness which justifies their inalienability...

That is correct. Natural law reasoning had become debatable in the time of Jefferson and even Locke, but theistic grounding still held strong. It is no accident that they grounded their views in theism. Morton's claim that it is an dispensable accident has no textual basis in the thinkers themselves, and therefore is not supportable.

Obviously we now live in a day when theistic grounding has also become destabilized, and this has caused our compact to move in a Hobbesian direction. See my thread, "Is Democracy Moral? Is Libertarianism Good?"