Natural Rights and Existential Responsibility
The idea of natural rights grew out of the Enlightenment and is linked most closely to the writings of John Locke. To Locke, there are certain rights that each of us have, that are universal. In a state of nature, the reality in which we find ourselves, according to Locke, individuals are "in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or dependency upon the will of any other man." To him, there are bounds to the law of nature that require that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." He wrote in the 1600s and so did not have to face the intellectual challenges brought against this idea by the emergence of nihilism that found voice from, among others, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. Their interpretation of the meaninglessness of life and how we humans deal with it was interpreted (perhaps misinterpreted is a better word) by movements such as Nazism, to justify conquest and death on a mass scale, which was only stopped by the Allied powers in World War 2.
So can the idea of natural rights survive the challenges from nihilism? Our current world is figuring that out as I type, and I will enter the fray. Out of nihilism came existentialism, whose most famous adherent was Jean-Paul Sartre, whose most famous phrase is that man is "condemned to be free," but for him it is not necessarily the freedom with limits that Locke describes. Natural rights, to him are a phantom from a false God. They are just a claim. He argues, however, that each of us is responsible for our actions in a very broad sense. Not only do we have to accept our choices as our own, but our actions are choosing values for all of humanity. Our actions are an example for all, whether we want to admit it or not. We are defining what humanity is each time we make a choice, whether it be mundane or significant.
For Sartre, "man is responsible for what he is, thus existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. When we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men...To take a more individual matter, if I want to marry, to have children; even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances or passion or wish, I am involving all man in monogamy and not merely myself. Therefore I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man." We are all an example for each other, and how we live our lives is defining the type of life and values that we would choose for all humanity. It is a significant responsibility, and I would argue ultimately not a responsibility that the Nazis and other totalitarian movements accept. The Nazis stared into the abyss of the death of God, and blinked, falling back on a world where it was justified to murder on a mass scale, conquering by force, gassing millions who were "not like them." They were not choosing for all humanity. They did not accept all of humanity.
I have written before about Camus and I will do so again because he did his damnedest to chart a path through meaninglessness and away from nihilism. His book, The Rebel, faces directly the reality that man finds himself free without a God to tell him what to do, a world which does include absurdity. He analyzes how this absurd world has led to the mass killings of the wars of the 20th century, if it is justified or if there really is a better way for humans to live. He ends the introduction to this book thusly:
"Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is." (aside: another way of saying he is condemned to be free). "The problem is to know whether this refusal can only lead to the destruction of himself and of others, whether all rebellion must end in the justification of universal murder, or whether, on the contrary, without laying claim to an innocence that is impossible, it can discover the principle of reasonable culpability."
Reasonable culpability. This is an important phrase, and I argue one that reaches back in time to Locke's state of nature. In this world where we accept we are responsible for our actions, and that by choosing certain actions, we are choosing for all of humanity, the idea of natural rights begins to come into focus. For when we accept that we are in this position of responsibility, we accept that everyone else is also in this position. We are all responsible for what humanity is and will become. In this reality, in this state of nature, if we truly accept it, this means that we must let others be free, too. For Camus, "rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of love" and "real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present." Locke's statement that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" makes sense, and is a value that all of us can choose for one another. It is certainly a value I choose to emulate for the rest of you. I hope you will too. Humanity depends on it.
So can the idea of natural rights survive the challenges from nihilism? Our current world is figuring that out as I type, and I will enter the fray. Out of nihilism came existentialism, whose most famous adherent was Jean-Paul Sartre, whose most famous phrase is that man is "condemned to be free," but for him it is not necessarily the freedom with limits that Locke describes. Natural rights, to him are a phantom from a false God. They are just a claim. He argues, however, that each of us is responsible for our actions in a very broad sense. Not only do we have to accept our choices as our own, but our actions are choosing values for all of humanity. Our actions are an example for all, whether we want to admit it or not. We are defining what humanity is each time we make a choice, whether it be mundane or significant.
For Sartre, "man is responsible for what he is, thus existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. When we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men...To take a more individual matter, if I want to marry, to have children; even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances or passion or wish, I am involving all man in monogamy and not merely myself. Therefore I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man." We are all an example for each other, and how we live our lives is defining the type of life and values that we would choose for all humanity. It is a significant responsibility, and I would argue ultimately not a responsibility that the Nazis and other totalitarian movements accept. The Nazis stared into the abyss of the death of God, and blinked, falling back on a world where it was justified to murder on a mass scale, conquering by force, gassing millions who were "not like them." They were not choosing for all humanity. They did not accept all of humanity.
I have written before about Camus and I will do so again because he did his damnedest to chart a path through meaninglessness and away from nihilism. His book, The Rebel, faces directly the reality that man finds himself free without a God to tell him what to do, a world which does include absurdity. He analyzes how this absurd world has led to the mass killings of the wars of the 20th century, if it is justified or if there really is a better way for humans to live. He ends the introduction to this book thusly:
"Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is." (aside: another way of saying he is condemned to be free). "The problem is to know whether this refusal can only lead to the destruction of himself and of others, whether all rebellion must end in the justification of universal murder, or whether, on the contrary, without laying claim to an innocence that is impossible, it can discover the principle of reasonable culpability."
Reasonable culpability. This is an important phrase, and I argue one that reaches back in time to Locke's state of nature. In this world where we accept we are responsible for our actions, and that by choosing certain actions, we are choosing for all of humanity, the idea of natural rights begins to come into focus. For when we accept that we are in this position of responsibility, we accept that everyone else is also in this position. We are all responsible for what humanity is and will become. In this reality, in this state of nature, if we truly accept it, this means that we must let others be free, too. For Camus, "rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of love" and "real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present." Locke's statement that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" makes sense, and is a value that all of us can choose for one another. It is certainly a value I choose to emulate for the rest of you. I hope you will too. Humanity depends on it.
posted by Warrior Poet at 8:37 AM
3 Comments:
"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"... YET, it is done every day in the name of love... Does that harm extend to emotional harm, or is it strictly referring to physical harm? Such a paradox for the human species, for they are the only species that kills for the thrill, rather than for food, or protection of their young, etc. "Disrespect" is a term used so loosely in today's society, that it has no meaning. One must learn to "Respect" (especially their elders) before they can began to know what "Disrespect" feels like... I submit that those who claim they have been "disrespected" before first knowing what "respect" is all about, do not have "reasonable culpability", and will therefore, influence future generations to be condemned, period! Which, of course, will bring about the need for another rebellion between the moral and immoral people that remain. This world is a violent circle... Always has been, always will be... Such a shame. For those who follow Genesis... The very first son, killed his own blood brother! Case closed! --Keef
Cutting to the "heart" of the matter here... I would argue that physical harm is definitely included in this ought, but emotional harm is more complicated. I would say for man-made laws, it should stick strictly to physical harm. Emotional hurt and its consequences should not be regulated by a state. However, there certainly are times when someone ought not to harm someone emotionally. On the other hand, there is much wisdom in the schoolyard "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" mantra. It is not easy to define when someone ought not to hurt someone emotionally. Some people are hurt emotionally easily, and others should probably not be blamed in all of those cases. Certainly, the closer 2 individuals are, the less likely they should willingly hurt the other's emotions, though hiding emotionally hurtful things may be even worse because it includes deception (a type of fraud) on top of the (potential) emotional hurt.
I certainly believe in respecting one's elders, and respecting most people in general. Yes, violence is an ever present reality to humanity we may never quite extinguish, but we all have a choice over whether we perpetuate it or not ourselves...
Right On!
Post a Comment
<< Home