A Short Essay Concerning Rights, Purpose, and Morality

A Note on Standards

In this essay I will attempt to hold myself to certain standards of justification and testability in
the hope that it will remove a number of problems that could possibly be used against my arguments. I
will hold my arguments to the epistimological standards of empirical foundationalism. In this I mean
that I will require my lines of reasoning to have a firm base of knowledge that can be gained from
experience.

Introduction to Rights

It is commonly held that we as humans are in possession of some sort of inalienable rights, of
which life and liberty are present almost universally, given the assumption that rights exist at all. Many
seem to accept this with a form of blind faith – trusting that these rights exist with little justification or
faulty reasoning. Then there are such as I who hold at the very least the process by which the
conclusions are met to be insufficient. Faulty assumptions such as uncomfirmable histories of a state of
nature or supernatural cause ruin all that follows from them, for their foundations are based upon
assumptions of the unconfirmable.

All that can be used for a truly adequate “state of nature” would have to come from either the
present or the annals of history itself, or else it is not applicable except in theory to either. While the
conclusions that I will attempt to prove in the following pages may very well have been reached by those
means, I hope that my methods will prove more satisfactory to you, oh hypothetical reader, for this is
written for you, and for our mutual speculation.

The first, and perhaps largest, grievance that I have against past analysis of rights is one of
semantics – the difference between a right and a privilege. Also, we must differentiate clearly between
proposed inalienable rights, or natural rights, and what we will refer to as social rights.

And inalienable or natural right would be either bestowed upon us by a supernatural source,
such as a god, or be a natural source such as the state of nature. A social right would be derived by the
social construct that we live under, and is dependent upon the social policies of the time, and how we
respect them. To further differentiate between that which would be considered natural or social,
natural rights will be considered as descriptive – unavoidable and unbreakable. A social right would be
considered to be proscriptive and such that it “ought not” be broken. This leads to the nececity to make
a distinction between a right and a privilege in the context of social rights.

A right, in this context would be considered to be inalienable by the society in which it is

present, and would be represented as such in the social construct. A priviledge on the other hand would
be a “social right” that may be taken or diminished for a reason. Thus the category of social rights is
comprised of rights and priviledges, the former of which will be refered to as “true social rights”; the
later will be refered to as a social priviledge.

Qualifications
 As with social rights, natural rights may be examined and divided under the same lense. If a
proposed natural right can be diminished, then it is not only a priviledge, but also fails to be strong
enough to truly be considered a natural right. This being said, if at any point in time two proposed rights
came into contradiction of their personal maximization, one or both cannot be considered rights, but
rather conditional priviledges.

To hold true to the standards that I have set upon myself, I am required by them to deny the
provable existence of natural or inallienable rights, for as they can only be derived from either an
untestable or supernatural force, we cannot hope to gleam true knowledge of them, their orgin, nor
their workings. This leaves only social rights as provable by the standards that I have set for myself.

Contradiction of Rights

Out of all possible rights, only two sorts of rights exist – those of existance and those of action.
These two categories of rights are exhaustive of all possibilities. Existence is the simple state of being
whereas anything one may do while in existance is of action. In more familiar terms, these things are
life and liberty – the two most commonly proposed rights.

As said previously, if at any point in time proposed rights come into contradiction, one, the
other, or both must be a conditional priviledge. A proposed right must be able to be maximized without
contradiction to itself as well to be considered to be a right.

A young man by the name of Leopold has killed an innocent, who we will call Bobby, in cold
blood. We will place ourselves in the seat of the Judge and must determine the fate of Leopold. In this
example, the proposed rights of life and liberty have come into conflict. By killing Bobby, Leopold has
acted in such a manner that his liberty was maximized, yet he infringed upon the life of Bobby. As the
Judge, we are left with three broad options – no penalty, the death penalty, or a non-death penalty. If
no penalty is put upon Leopold, then life is a priviledge and liberty is a right. If Leopold is killed for this
action, then neither life nor liberty are rights, but rather priviledges. If a non-death penalty is imposed,
then life is a right and liberty is a priviledge.

Without any other basis to judge upon, we are stuck in a state by which we cannot decide. To
mend this problem, and lead to a conclusion, a foundation upon which judgement may be cast is
required. To do this, we must develop a system of morality to determine the correct way to proceede.

Biological Foundation

Life, on its own, is a concept that is exceedingly difficult to pin down. When put against the
opposing state of death, however, it becomes more apparent. Life will be restricted from an indefinite
beginning to the time of one’s death. Death is the termination of the biological processes that sustain a
living organism. From this definition of death, life becomes a state completely dependent on ones
biological processes. Upon this, a new concept may be introduced – the purpose of life. If life can be
accepted to be the biological process that go on prior to ones death, then the purpose of life would be
that which is done by a life form prior to its death.

If both life and death are functions of a biological state, then so will be the purpose of life. So,
then, what is the purpose of life? The most direct route towards the answer to this question would be
through the analysis of the purpose of various organs. If there exists an organ, or group of organs, that
one possesses that do not simply provide for one’s ability to live, or rather, survive, then they will be
organs made for a purpose other than sustaining one’s life, assuming that they serve a purpose. If a
complete organ could be taken, without replacement, and one could yet survive at the same level that
they could prior to its being taken, then it must either serve no purpose or provide for one’s biological
purpose. The only organ that could be removed in such a manner would be those of a reproductive
purpose. Thus we are biologically built to survive and reproduce prior to our deaths.

A true biological purpose to life would have to be able to operate when maximized. If we are
built to survive and to reproduce prior to our deaths, then these will be components of the purpose of
life, yet if they are self defeating, they must either be cast out or modified accordingly. Were
reproduction maximized, it would result in an infinite population, in an ideal world devoid of scarcity,
and would then function as the sole biological purpose. As we live in a scarce world, such a purpose
would result in overpopulation and then a die-back as resource scarcity peaks, and becomes
counterproductive and contradictory as this may result in an entire population dying. For this reason,
the purpose of life, then, would become the ensured sustainable survival of a species into a
hypothetically infinite number of generations, or, the longevity of the species.

Aspects of Survival and Advancement

Based upon the conclusion that the purpose of life is longevity of the species, a few observations
may be made concerning the path that an individual may follow, naturally, towards this end. As we are
biological units, and this purpose of life is biological, we are naturally inclined towards this end, and will
follow a certain bath towards it.

Should an individual not be able to survive, they will naturally be more inclined towards
ensuring their own survival rather than the survival of those around them. Take for example an instance
in which a mother hamster eats her young in times of stress to ensure she lives. By sacrificing those
around her that would not be able to survive without her, she has advanced herself so that she will be
able to survive to procreate again, and thus, further the species. This is survival of self, and the first step
towards longevity.

Assume now that you are a human that is able to survive, yet your community is starving to
death, and therefore cannot survive. As you are part of the community, and would not be able to
survive yourself without them, you would be naturally inclined towards ensuring that their ability to
survive is satisfied, as your survival is dependent upon it. This is survival of species/group, and the
second step towards longevity, as well as the combined survival of self’s of all concerned members.
 Once one’s survival of self and survival of species/group is satisfied, then all those concerned
will be able to further the longevity of the species. Such a process would be of the following form,
where advancement is the method by which both categories of survival are achieved.

If one’s own survival (survival of self) is not satisfied, they will attempt to advance themselves till
they can survive. Once this is attained, one is naturally inclined, and now able, to concern themselves
with the survival of their species/group. This, in part, contains everyone else’s survival of self. Once
these two things are met, one may begin to concern themselves with the longevity of their species.

The Biological Imperative

Generally speaking, if an object serves its intended purpose it is good, while if it does not serve
its purpose it is considered to be bad. A plow that does not cut the earth is surely as bad as a guard dog
that is deaf, mute, blind and toothless. It is the duty of an object to hold to its purpose, and contrary to
duty to go against it. As we are built to serve a specific purpose, it is then our duty to serve this specific
purpose. Such action would be good while serving this purpose, or, rather, bad while detracting from it.
For a member of any given species, it is dutiful to act in such a manner that longevity is not threatened,
and dutiful to uphold the longevity of the species. Furthermore, it is against duty to act in a manner that
threatens the longevity of the species. From this, we may begin to formulate a biological imperative by
which an action may be judged to test if it is in line with longevity or not.

Such an action, or maxim, must be both not in contradiction with itself when maximized, nor in
contradiction to the longevity of the species. The base formula that will be used for such a purpose will
be drawn from the works of Immanuel Kant, and modified for these purposes in respect to the new
source of duty. The Biological Imperative will read “Act only in accordance to that Maxim whereby you
can at the same time will it to be a universal law without contradiction to itself nor the Longevity of the
species”. Furthermore, what has already been laid out allows for the use of consequentialist analysis to
eliminate duty conflicts for the following chain of reasoning.

That which is beneficial to only one member of a species is of less benefit to the species as a
whole than that which is beneficial to two members of a species, provided that these benefits are
mutually exclusive between the two groups yet equal for each member of said groups. As it is dutiful,
and therefore moral, to do that which benefits the species as a whole in order to achieve longevity, then
it is of greater moral standard to act in a manner that benefits the species most heavily. As individual
survival is the first component towards reaching longevity, any added benefit to that individual will be
regarded as “spill over” into the survival of the species/group, for once one is able to attain survival of
self, they may concern themselves with the survival of their species/group. An action that provides for
the survival of the greatest number, and in the greatest manner is of higher duty than an action that
provides for the survival of a lesser number.

As such, a rough outline may be made that exhibits the order of duties, where actions that
benefit the species to a lesser extent are inferior to actions that benefit the species to a greater extent.
Such an ordering would be structured from the largest scale to the smallest. While a truly exhaustive
ordering of duties would be immensely difficult to draw out, and quite possibly impossible due to the
quantity and complexity of varying situations, the basic concept of how to order duties may be easily
explained. A differentiation must be made between the expectation put upon those who can survive
and those who cannot.

For those who are unable to achieve survival of self, the highest duty is to advance oneself to
the level at which they may survive. If one cannot provide for their own survival, they cannot be
expected to think about the protracted future as their immediate needs are not being met. Survival is a
necessary condition for longevity, and therefore must be attained before longevity can be worked for.

For those who are able to survive, the highest duty is to the world as a whole. This is inclusive of
the planet itself as well as the entirety of the world’s population. If a duty conflict were to arise
between two equally numbered groups of people, one of which cannot survive unaided, the other of
which can, it would be of higher moral standard to aid those who cannot survive, for it would have a
greater impact upon the longevity of the species as a whole. If a duty conflict arises between two
people, both of which have the same level of survival, it would be equally moral to aid either one.

It must be reiterated that before the consequentialist analysis may take place, an action must
pass the biological imperative test.

Effectively, this creates a middle way between deontology and consequentialism in such a
manner that they are unified without picking between the two becoming arbitrary and convoluted.
Actions must first pass the Biological Imperative before they can be called dutiful. If duties come into
conflict, than the duty that can be proven to be the most beneficial takes precedent over that which is of
less benefit. Should two conflicting duties be of both equal benefit and equal harm, then it would be
equally good to do either action.

Conclusion on Rights

Now that a basis upon which we may judge right and wrong has been established, we may
decide the outcome of the conflict between life and liberty. The previously given situation was as
follows.
 A young man by the name of Leopold has killed an innocent, who we will call Bobby, in cold
blood. We will place ourselves in the seat of the Judge and must determine the fate of Leopold. In this
example, the proposed rights of life and liberty have come into conflict. By killing Bobby, Leopold has
acted in such a manner that his liberty was maximized, yet he infringed upon the life of Bobby. As the
Judge, we are left with three broad options – no penalty, the death penalty, or a non-death penalty.

No Penalty

If no penalty is put upon Leopold, then life is a privilege and liberty is a right. The reason for this
not being able to be a true right is similar to the reason that life and liberty cannot coexist as rights –
that people act in a manner that is not beneficial to the species.

For so long as people act in a manner that is not moral, we will need reflections of morality in
the form on restrictions to aid the longevity of the species. For so long as restrictions are needed to
ensure longevity, punishment must be in place to modify the behavior of individuals who do not act
upon their duties. If everyone were to act in a manner that was in line with longevity, then there would
be no need for restrictions, yet people to do not act in such a manner. Thus, we require laws and
enforcement as limiting factors upon the liberties of individuals and groups to maximize the benefit to
the species, and avoid such issues as the tradgedy of the commons. For these reasons, liberty cannot
function as a true social right until people act in the correct manner. This, however, would then result in
self imposed restrictions of liberty, diminishing it to the point that it is still a privilege, taking the form
“one may act however they wish, except if X” where X is any restriction upon action. Unbridaled liberty
cannot serve as anything other than a privilege.

The Death Penalty

If the death penalty is imposed upon Leopold, then neither life nor liberty are rights, but rather
privileges. While a wide variety of arguments against capital punishment exist already based upon
application, amongst other things, I will argue based upon the moral system developed above.

The questions become “is capital punishment self contradictory?” and “is capital punishment
beneficial towards the species when maximized?”. Should it fail to satisfy either of these terms, then it
is immoral and cannot held to be the right answer.

To the first question, the answer is yes. To end one’s life because they have ended someone
elses life is self defeating, for it affirms that there was nothing wrong with killing in the first place.

Non-Death Penalty

If a non-death penalty is imposed upon Leopold, then life is a right and liberty is a privilege. As
this is the last option given, the conclusion is self evident, yet I will defend it none the less.
 If this is to be considered the correct option, then it must pass the same tests that the previous
two have failed. In regards to contradiction to itself, it passes. If everyone were to respect life as a
right, then life as a right would be upheld. If everyone were to have a non-death penalty imposed upon
them for murder, then the life would be upheld as a right. In regards to longevity, if everyone were to
respect life as a right, it would be beneficial to the species as a whole, and it completely in line with the
system of morality.

Furthermore, while it has been argued in the past that liberty is necessary for life, it is necessary
to exist in order to act – to have liberty it is necessary to live. Therefore, life is a necessary condition of
liberty; the result of which is liberty being a conditional social privilege whereas life ought to be
considered a true social right.

Clarification

To strengthen the above, I will breifly go into a few defences against some predicted refutations,
and basic clarifications as well as catigorization in the scope of already established schools of ethical
thought.

Firstly, I expect there to be some misunderstanding over the right to life if a situation were to
arise where it would be beneficial to the species as a whole to take a life. To this, I would refer one to
the already established concept of survival in respect to longevity. For one to be able to be concerned
with longevity, their survival of self must be satisfied as well as the survival of the species/group. This
being said, if one’s life, or the lives those in the species/group in general, are threatened, then longevity
is not an immediate concern. This leads into self defence being justified, including killing in self defence
of oneself or ones group.

This leads into an answer to a classic moral dilemma. Suppose you are in a situation very much
like that of Anne Frank. You are trapped in a hiding place whilst those searching for you are nearby with
various family members, including children. One of the children begins to cry. Suppose that you cannot
stifle the cries of the child, and that if the crying continues, you and your family will be found. Based
upon the the established system of morality, you are now in the step in which you must ensure your
survival as well as the survival of those around you, and are morally obligated to silence the child. If no
other option is available, one may kill the child to ensure the survival of those around you. Rationally
speaking, this is acceptable for a number of reasons. Not only are you saving a larger number of people
through this action, including oneself, but you are also ensuring that your group may propogate in the
future, which is of higher benefit to the species.

Consider a modified Trolley problem in which the child is on one track and the entirety of the
group is on the other. Should you choose to kill the child, your group will survive. Should you decide to
not act, both your group and the child will die. In both cases, the child dies, yet in the first case
members of breeding capability are allowed to live, providing a higher benefit.

On a separate topic, the biological imperative is built to change over time, and to adapt to new
situations. While some would call this relativism, I would disagree. It is relativistic only in the sense that
with changing situations it is willing to adapt accordingly.  All issues would still have to pass the same
test, rather than being judged by their own imperatives.

In regards to who chooses when it changes, take for instance the population difference between
China and Canada, the former of which is generally considered overpopulated whereas the later is
scarcely populated. Should China stop procreating and Canada continue? In short, yes. The one child
act was for this reason, since they realized their population crisis.  Migration of peoples to areas that can
support the added population is also historically shown.  Optimistically, a democratic society would be
able to predict the consequences for certain actions fairly accurately.  Somewhat more realistically,
individuals and groups would respond to natural drivers, hopefully in line with the maxim, though it is
accepted by the answer to #1 that nontraditional/moral means of advancement are to be expected
should traditional means of securing ones survival not be attainable.

Another question that has been asked of me is “How could we have it so that our morality is
informed by our best interest in the long run?” Procreation alone is not the only factor in the longevity
of the species, though it is a necessary factor.  An example that ties into the above would be the issue of
global climate change.  Generally, those who accept it as fact believe it to be a bad thing.  As the
western world is of a socioeconomic level such that we can begin to concern ourselves with longevity,
we concern ourselves with such long term harms to some degree.  In third world countries that are still
unable to provide for base survival to any reasonable degree, survival and advancement is the main
concern resulting in industrialization regardless of long term effects.  This is to be expected because they
have not yet reached the point at which longevity may begin to be their concern.

Kant, whose categorical imperative I modified for my own purposes, was not a consequentialist
about duty conflicts, but I believe that he should have been. From reading Groundworks, I believe that
Kant did not dig deep enough to find a foundation.  From what I gather, the concept of duty was based
upon good will, and that duties are derived from laws.  Civic laws result in civic duties whereas rules of a
club result in duties for the club goers, etc.  By not taking a cause for those laws into account and digging
to a deeper foundation, I think he missed a large portion of why we have the concept of "morality" in
the first place.  A simple glance reveals that laws are established to promote public order.  While it does
follow that we have a duty towards order, he does not address why order is desirable in the first place,
which consequentialism seems to do.