What Are Rights and Where Do They Come From? by Harry Binswanger

Join special guest Harry Binswanger for this entry in the series of Ayn Rand Institute webinars on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and its application to current issues. His topic is the one principle on which our very lives depend: the principle of Individual Rights. This concept—which the United States of America was based upon—has now vanished from the public understanding with tragic results. In his discussion, Binswanger will present the Objectivist theory of what rights are (their metaphysical status), how we establish them (their epistemological status) and what they mean in political practice.

Harry Binswanger explores another one of life’s big questions: What Are Rights and Where Do They Come from?

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

[justifiably_stupid]

Very awesome to have Harry talk to us with such clearity and certainty. Thank you :)

[jocr]

as autonomous beings each and everyone has it within their 'power' to do as they please. this will surely lead to conflict. to minimize conflict and reduce harm to self an individual may grant to another 'a right' in that the grantor says 'i have done right by you by doing or not doing a certain thing'. if the grantee shall reciprocate, conflict is removed and peaceful mutually beneficial actions can be taken.

[infinosim]

35:50 "I wouldn't approach it."

I love Harry. The only intellectual left at ARI willing to state the blunt truth.

[johngleue]

I love Harry's take on the FDA. I hold the same vitriol towards them. I've even thought about the great minds that would potentially still be alive today without so much regulation stifling innovation just as he brought up. Great job, Harry!

[kitchencarvings]

You have such a gift for explaining complex ideas in a way that they are easily understandable. you are one of my favorite Objectivist speakers, Dr. Binswanger.

[braytonbushby]

Harry B looking good for 75! Please do more videos! Thank you.

[UFO]

46:35 Please, Dr. Binswanger, please back that up.

[CptChandler]

“God creates communism”

that’s one hell of a bumper sticker.

[Deltelly]

I don't mind admitting I'm a bit stuck. You say, "The mind MUST be free and you MUST be free to act on your mind and it's as simple as that". I was hoping the explanation would go deeper but just gets stuck at MUST, which like the word ought is just saying it is an imperative e.g. rights are right because they're right. What am I missing? I've always thought of rights just as things people in a society agree to give each other for all our benefit. Is that different from what Ayn Rand is saying? Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

[ObjectiveZoomer]

Oh boy, an argument for why the law should be able to intervene in animal cruelty. Well, the best I can imagine is that if a person is acting so irrationally that they present a danger to themselves such as a suicidal person or a lunatic on the street, the state can step in to protect them because they are not acting rationally. Not just that they're lacking reason, but they appear to not have a rational faculty either permanently or temporarily. If a person is so irrational that they would torture an animal, that person is clearly not rational enough to be treated like a rational person and could be stopped. We know that doing things like lying, cheating, stealing, and killing harm. The person that does them. You could say that a person torturing animals is harming their own mind and that it would be right to step into protect them from themselves.

[zacball]

He says things like, "There is no such thing as a society", which I get. There are only individuals. But he also says around 36:00 that some things are "society's problem". If society doesnt exist, how can it have a problem, and further how could what does not exist solve something? Or is that the actual point he's making. That it isnt actually a problem per se to be be solved. It's as much a problem as society exists?

[justifiably_stupid]

Was this webinar featured on the ARI app?

[maxbnb]

Rights do not come to us from nature, which knows no rights except cunning and strength.
So what then do we base our rights upon?
Modern science and evolutionary theory would tell us that all men are not created equal. Men are born with a variety of traits, some are strengths and some are weaknesses. 
So if science does not present evidence of “rights” and we do not believe that “rights” come from God or some Supreme Being, where do they come from? 

Philosophically, we are left with some notion that rights come from ourselves – either we as individuals demand and fight for them or the government grants them to us. But are those actually rights in the traditional sense or simply benefits of where we live and which way the political winds are blowing?

If "Rights" do not come from God, then it will come from State.

[michaelwolff]

how can anyone take this guy seriously....???

[asstone]

The notion that man is born free, that total freedom is his natural state, and that all rational men want to be free is a myth that got developed in the Age of Enlightenment by French philosophers who hoped that their philosophy would inspire the rise of a new kind of human material which is untainted by the belief in God and cultural traditions and would be ready to fight and die for a new atheistic utopia of reason and science. These philosophers believed that God and cultural traditions are the two major forces which hinder people from being free.

Since the Age of Enlightenment, this myth of total freedom and the hope of an atheistic utopia has been perpetuated by several powerful schools of modern philosophy.

Most people (who are not obsessed with philosophy and utopian politics) want to be part of religious and cultural groups which can give them a sense of belonging and security. In Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, the character called Ivan Karamazov says: “I tell you, man has no preoccupation more nagging than to find the person to whom that unhappy creature may surrender the gift of freedom with which he is born. But only he can take mastery of people's freedom who is able to set their consciences at rest.”

Dostoevsky was not a utopian like the Enlightenment philosophers and their modern counterparts—he was a man of wisdom.

[michaz.]

There is no such a thing as 'rights'. We born without any 'rights', but we need ('to live and prosper') some 'possibilities' and virtues in our life - so we should fight and care for them.

[michaelbarclay]

...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

[maxbnb]

Ludvig von Mises:

There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at.

From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement. State and government are not ends, but means (p. 716).

[HoteDonkey]

This word salad is unclear and confused. Rights don’t exist and they certainly don’t guarantee anything. I would refer you to UPB framework that uses simple clear language to more easily express the morality of universalized principles. No one knows what the word “epistemology” means. Stop using it. I suppose ownership could be interpreted as a “right” but ownership is a universal principle, that is immoral to violate.