The ethical principles proposed in my previous article “Vote for yourself” 1. No individual or group may violate the private property of another individual. 2. No individual or group may initiate the use of force or aggression against another individual or group. (They are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin) have been either not embraced or not understood completely from the feedback I have gotten. So I figured I would try to explain a bit more on the subject.
It’s a scientific fact that property rights derive from our nature. Exclusive self-ownership is an inescapable reality of being human. You are by nature bound to the responsibility of staying alive if you want to exist. You must eat, drink, sleep, and think, etc. for you, no one else can do it for you. If someone else wants your lungs because they feel that they need them more than you, do they have a right to your lungs or are they your property by nature? You are bound to exclusive responsibility to your lungs. You are bound to exclusive responsibility to care for your lungs however you choose to, but you can’t choose to live without breathing. Your lungs and the rest of your mind and body are your property by nature. If you create a painting, it is exclusively your property by nature. It didn’t exist until your mind and body created it. Your fingers held the paint brush, your mind and consciousness controlled the movement of your arm and fingers to make the painting. Your mind and body are made up of organic matter and energy attached to a genetic code. Organic matter and energy exist in nature and because of nature. Nature is a universe of matter and energy. Your mind, body and anything created from that is therefore your property right by nature. Every human being is equally made up of organic matter and energy; therefore, equal property rights derive from nature. You are bound to self-ownership over the effects of the behavior of your mind and body both in terms of ethical conduct and property creation. Property rights stand on the foundation of self-ownership but I use the two terms interchangeably. (Just so we don’t get confused with semantics, try not to think of “property” so much in the context of plots of land with a house, protected by man-made law.) My essential description of ethics (moral behaviors) is; universally favored conduct intended to sustain life.
Some folks say that ethics are just subjective and cannot be made universal and objective. I suppose if there is some idea that not existing is favored over existing, then ethics could be subjective. But if we are going to think rationally then we must establish that existing is favored over not existing. And since human beings have equal rights of self-ownership, there must be universally favored conduct that can be observed, organized and categorized. If living is favored over not living then there must be universally favored conduct or behavior that is objectively required for human beings to sustain life.
Every action of human behavior is a favored choice over alternative choices. There are nearly limitless amounts of choices for humans to make, but not all choices are equal, and some choices are universally favored over others. Not killing or not being killed is universally favored over killing. Not being stolen from is universally favored over theft (another obvious proof natural property rights). Not assaulting or not being assaulted is universally favored over assault. Truth is universally favored over false. The concept of true vs. false is a relative term based on what is known, but that doesn’t mean it’s subjective. Health is universally favored over sickness. The concept of healthy vs. sick is relative, but not subjective. “Drinking clean water is favored over drinking dirty water” is a universally true statement, not subjective, but “clean” and “dirty” are relative. If I say “I like tomatoes”, that is a subjective opinion. Nutritional science says “tomatoes are healthy”, that statement is an objective fact. Choices are optional but not equal, however; consequences are not optional and not subjective. If ethics (moral behaviors) are universally favored conduct relating to objective consequences, then universal ethical principles are not subjective.
Morality is optional, but the effects and consequences of moral choices are verifiable and objective. I can choose not to eat and drink, but I can’t choose to live without eating and drinking. I can choose to rape someone or not, but I can’t choose to not violate someone’s equal right of self-ownership while raping them. It’s pretty obvious that things like rape, murder, theft, and fraud are immoral and the reason why is because they violate equal self-ownership (property rights). If there is any human that is superior to another and by nature owns someone else and the effects of someone else, or is able to for example, steal from someone without violating their equal self-ownership rights, then I should retract my proposal for the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights principle. But I’m sure no one can logically say that we don’t have equal property rights.
When I talk about moral behavior, I’m not talking about how humans should behave; I’m just observing and organizing how humans do behave. You can’t extract a “should” from an “is” (even though the brilliant Ayn Rand tried to, and even though her conclusions had some flaws and contradictions; her premises were valid and I humbly stand on her shoulders and on the shoulders of other giants for a more vivid perspective). I’m not proclaiming what morality should be, I’m just observing favored conduct from all rational humans that are conscious of property rights.
The scientific method of finding truth includes using logic, empirical verification, consistency, and universality. The rules of the scientific method can be used to find objective truth about anything from tomatoes, to the behavior of matter and energy, to the behavior of organic matter in biology, to the behavior of favored conduct in humans. The science of nutrition says that eating a dozen donuts and a pound of bacon at every meal is unhealthy. That rule isn’t saying you should or should not eat the donuts and bacon, it’s just showing what is healthy and what is not healthy. Just like the science of ethics is saying the initiation of force and aggression and violation of equal property rights is immoral, it’s not telling you that you should be moral or not. Just because lots of people eat junk food doesn’t mean the science of nutrition is subjective. Just because lots of people make immoral choices doesn’t mean the science of ethics is subjective. Eating well is optional like ethics is optional.
The non-aggression and property rights principles proposed are based upon the observations of the preferred default conduct in the way rational humans coexist and sustain life. These principles are not a proposition to be moral, they are a proposition to avoid being immoral. If I come up with some positive moral rule that says everyone should pursue pleasure, it will result in contradictions because it violates property rights. If I claim that something like “do unto others as you would have done unto you” is moral, I would be incorrect and contradictory. If I wanted others to have sex with me then I should have sex with others with or without their consent. What if I want someone to play the guitar for me, should I play the guitar for them too? They might not want that. These are subjective claims of false ethics and they are full of contradictions and self-ownership violations. Many cultures have come up with ethics like this claiming that they are universal. Just because there are many different subjective claims of ethics doesn’t mean they are valid.
Beware of any moral rule or political rule that is based upon positive law. When rules are in the context of positive law it probably has good intentions to help others and promote justice but there is a destructive tyrannical down side that is unavoidable. Positive law (positive rights) always violates equal self-ownership rights because some profit at the unconsented expense and sacrifice of others. Negative law (negative rights) doesn’t intend to promote justice it only intends to prevent injustice. The non-aggression principle and respect for property rights principles are in the category of negative law; therefore it can be universally applied without causing tyranny. Here’s an example of positive law. You must give your earnings (property) to a group of people; they will keep a portion of that property for themselves and distribute the remainder to a group that they determine is in need of that property even if it has poor quality results. If you refuse to give them your property, they will eventually lock you in a cage where you will probably get raped. If you refuse to go into the cage, they will shoot and kill you. Here’s an example of negative law. No one may take a portion of your earnings by force, even if they have good intentions. You may voluntarily contribute your property to anyone in need, and you are free to choose a charity that provides the most efficient high quality results. Positive law doesn’t result in a net benefit. Negative law allows a benefit with no monopoly of force.
Virtues like honesty, courage and loyalty are more in the category of emotions or attitudes and can’t be measured the same way as ethics, so these are subjective and not universal. If my neighbor asks me what the combination of my safe is, then it’s probably not a good idea to be honest with him. Or if my dentist asks for my bank account number while cleaning my teeth, well honesty is not a good idea.
Just like in biology or nutrition, there are extreme examples of exceptions to the rule or “grey areas” with ethics but they don’t invalidate the science. In biology a cow can be born with 2 heads, or with 3 legs. These are deviations from the standard biological category that describes a cow, but the rule is it’s still a cow. What if a guy is allergic to tomatoes and eats a bunch of them and gets sick. Does that mean the science of nutrition is invalid? Does it mean that the statement “tomatoes are healthy” is a subjective opinion? Of course not, the science of nutrition is valid and can make an objectively true statement on the health value of tomatoes based upon logic, universal consistency, and empirical verification. External variables change the outcome, not the rule. There are some random and unavoidable situations in life that might make you think the non-aggression and property rights principles are invalid or subjective. That isn’t true. What if I got lost in the woods during a snow storm and I need water and warmth or else I will die. If I come upon a cozy house with fresh water and no one is around to invite me in, is it immoral of me to break in the house without consent? No, that is a situation where morality is no longer a choice that has alternatives. In situations like this there are a limited amount of favored choices that can be made and choices become necessary to survive rather than optional, so it’s not subjective when avoidable alternative choices are limited. I’m sure when the homeowner found out why his house was broken into he would understand and not feel as violated knowing the context of the situation (if he is rational).
Some people say that ethics originate from culture, family, country, and religion, etc. And since there is such diversity in these things, then ethics must be subjective. When ethics are measured in that context it is subjective because it can’t be verified logically or scientifically, so it’s not a valid theory of ethics. You see, culture, country, religion etc. are concepts of the mind; they don’t exist in the physical world of matter and energy. These are just concepts of aggregating individuals into a group. These concepts can’t be verified by the 5 senses. You can’t touch, taste, hear, smell, or see these concepts. Try showing me a picture of your family without the individuals, or a country with no individuals, or a forest with no trees. True ethics can’t be scientifically or logically verified from any of these origins. They don’t stand on a foundation of primary principles. Ethics must be verified by understanding the laws of nature and the effects of human behavior in the reality of matter and energy. Ethics must be based upon the axiom of equal self-ownership. We are each bound to the sovereignty of our mind, body, and the effects of our mind and body. Ethics can’t be measured without applying it to the foundation of equal property rights and individual sovereignty. There is no rational way around that.
Throughout history, the implementation of ethics in any society has been primarily arbitrated by a predatory ruling class with the intent of controlling others. Instead of mindlessly absorbing what some “elite authority figures” claim to be ethical, I would rather discover ethics based upon a foundation of primary principles. I prefer a society with rules, not rulers. Don’t just blindly believe what I say about this stuff; discover it for yourself by using critical thinking. The study of morality can be a bit tricky but just remember to use common sense and use Occam’s razor when logically necessary to keep it simple. Doesn’t it sound like common sense to say “it’s wrong to violate the equal rights of others” even besides arriving at that conclusion using logic and science? Like with most things in life, the study of ethics is always a work in progress and I look forward to discovering new perspectives. Thank you for your time.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle
