Letr me go back again to a society of two. No. Make it a village of one: A body, a mind; Freedom to think--freedom to act. I call this the natural right because in sensible terms it is irreducible.
A spacecraft lands; Now we have a society--of two. Our choices now make a difference to someone else. There is no God (no-one has introduced that concept). Two (may we assume rational to save time?) people...sit down together and say: How ought we to live--in that we are forced to share a common environment, and a shared segment of time? I guess they could fight and argue for a couple of decades as they put together a million or so specific agreements based on (what else) agreement. Or they could try to use their REASON (we said they were rational) to try to identify some fundamental RIGHTS that would guide them in their subsequent agreements.
If they were truly rational, might they not figure out that their separate bodies and minds are FACTS (at least within the limitations of their reason), AND within the limitations of their reason, other facts could be discovered? Would they not say: "My existence requires FREEDOM, because without that my intentions of self interest cannot be realized. I cannot eat if you have a fundamental right to prevent me; I cannot survive if you have a fundamental right to prevent me--BUT NEITHER CAN YOU.
So there is a choice: We can use MIGHT as the fundamental moral premise--or we can use the rational principle of separateness, and freedom, and responsibility, and accountability (all of which follow from reason). Now these two people are rational so we know which system they chose.
Now if I was one of two people on the planet, and I had to decide on a fundamental premise that took account of reality the way it was (within the limitations of the rational mind)--I would say: What we are is what we were in a village of one. Nothing has changed except that now there is a need to share a common environment. I had absolute freedom within the laws of nature then. This IS my nature--a separate and free mind and body. Is there any sufficient and necessary cause that would cause me to reasonably determine that my fundamental nature and freedom had changed merely because another human being wishes to share my environment? The rational answer is, "NO". Your walking into my village has not changed what was--a priori; It has only brought in the question of: what are moral choices. The fundamnetal RIGHT to exist, and to be free--has not changed. Nor is there an obligation to change my opinion of these fundamentals regardless of the "agreements" the two of us agree to. My existence includes my freedom, and both are primary. They are NOT up for agreements. If you threaten either one of them, I will kill you or I will be killed. PERIOD.
Beyond my freedom to be left alone which is really my freedom to exist...I participate in all the normal social activities and debates. But my RIGHT to be left alone is not on the table. If you wish to kill me...you must risk being killed.
These fundamental RIGHTS (as I said before), stand outside of all social contracts...and (otherwise) moral decisions. |
