wellspring/01-principles/01-03-equality-vs-the-morality-of-life-apologia.md

Wellspring: Apologia: "Equality" vs "Metaphysical identity" as the foundation for rights.

Wellspring is a constitution meant to govern humans who wish not only to live, but to live as humans. Or, in order to anticipate the advent of artificial general intelligence, Wellspring is a constitution intended to govern rational creatures which wish not only to live, but to live as rational creatures.

We do not wish to hold captive to our borders, any individual who wishes to live otherwise. If your theory of humankind differs from ours, we welcome you to seek greener pastures in any of the almost two-hundred odd polities which exist to govern humankind as something other than a rational creature.

Additionally, if you are a secularist or a believer in Judeo-Christianity, we make special appeals to you further down in this document which we hope you will find it edifying to read.

On "morality":

Morality for all living things generally:

Morality is a code of behaviour for a particular species of creature which describes the set of actions which promote the life of the creature based on objectively observed facts about its nature. Morality examines and bases itself on the objectively observed facts about (1) the requirements for a creature's survival as well as (2) the holistic total of the essential nature of that creature -- i.e, its metaphysical identity.

• A bird requires food to survive. One can tie down a bird's wings and feed it and enable it to survive; but for it to not only live, but to live as a bird (i.e, holistically), it must be able to exercise the characteristic capabilities which are bestowed on it by the nature of its species. Until the bird is able to embrace the holistic total of its characteristic nature such as flight, it is living as something less than a bird.
• Likewise a human requires food to survive. One can impound humans, nourish them and thereby enable them to survive; but for humans not only to live, but to live as humans, they must be allowed to exercise the characteristically human capabilities which humankind possesses by the nature of our species. Until an individual is able to embrace the holistic total of its nature as a rational creature and make full use of its rational faculty, it is living as something less than a human.

Note also that the pursuit of life allows and disallows a definite set of behaviours -- ingesting food nourishes while poison kills. Chocolate nourishes a human while it harms a dog. A moral code is an objective descriptions of the definite actions which promote or destroy the life of that species.

Morality consists of a code of behaviour to enable a species to live successfully as what it is. Notice that morality does not reference life in a social context -- morality pertains to the code of behaviour which a creature must follow in order to live successfully irrespective of its proximity to other creatures. In fact, a creature's observance of the moral code that sustains its life is most crucial when it has no assistance on hand. When there is no physician to heal you, your adherence to an objectively defined moral code becomes even more essential.

Morality specific to rational creatures such as humans:

Humans are born tabula rasa - their rational faculty is given to them but knowledge is not. Infants lack knowledge of even the most basic threats to their lives, and are drawn as much to a flame as to a nourishing meal. Yet humans must somehow follow the definite set of behaviours required by their nature in order to survive; or in fewer words, humans must somehow discover the objective facts that constitute their moral code.

• Humans meet their requirements for survival and all other needs for their flourishing by applying their powers of reason to the natural world, discovering the laws that govern nature, and harnessing nature to produce their needs. The essential and defining attribute of humankind is that it is the rational creature and its primary tool for survival is its reason.
• Rationality in other words, is both the means by which humans both discover the behaviours which promote their life (i.e, the objective facts which inform their moral code), as well as the means by which they pursue those behaviours.
• The moral code for a rational creature then, consists of the rational study of its both itself and its environment; and the taking of action to harness nature to promote its life (i.e, moral action). Indeed, the conscious use of reason is the essence of the moral code for human life.

A human who refuses to use their rational faculty will either live by predating off another human who does, or it will die. That is, it will either act as a predator on another human who has chosen to act morally, or it will die.

For the remainder of this document we will narrow our scope to the philosophy of the morality and rights of rational creatures specifically, such as humans.

On "rights":

The notion of "rights" arises when a creature, having a certain objectively required moral code to satisfy, must pursue that moral code in the presence of other creatures. Rights are the claims one may make to engage in the actions essential to meet one's moral requirements when one is operating in a social context. For a rational creature, this translates to the statement that rights are the claims it may make to engage in the actions which apply its rationally acquired knowledge to meet its requirements for life and flourishing qua rational being. Anything less would be to live as less than a rational being -- as less than human. This has several main corollaries:

• To hold a rational being back from applying its reason to its life is to oppose its very means of supporting its life; and therefore ultimately to oppose its life qua rational being, and reduce it to less than human.
• An objective fact about humankind is that we have limbs capable of exerting brute force and predating on other rational beings; but it's also an objective fact that we have a rational brain capable of directing these same limbs to labour to produce instead of to predate on those who do produce.
• A rational being's pursuit of its morality qua rational being consists of scientifically observing the objective facts about reality and learning knowledge of how to terraform nature to produce its needs for a holistic life -- in other words, a rational being pursues its requirements for life not as a predator or a brute, but through productivity.
• When a rational being has need for the produce of another rational entity, rationality, and therefore morality, demands that it engage in mutually voluntary trade -- that it exchange the produce of its own rational efforts (cognitive or physical) for the produce of the other.
• Ergo finally, due to the metaphysical nature of rational beings as rational beings, which must live as such, the moral code which preserves and promotes rational life demands rationality; and the right to pursue that moral code in a social context demands productivity.

A right therefore, cannot consist of a claim to predate on other rational beings (which would amount to treating the victim as less than human) -- whether on their minds, their bodies or their produce. A right for a rational creature consists solely of a right to exercise one's own capabilities toward the moral end of one's own life qua rational being, within a social context.

A rational creature which refuses to exercise its rationality to be productive, but prefers to predate and be brutish has voluntarily chosen to be a predator and a brute -- and the entire justification of private property law is that it preserves the life of rational beings to live qua rational being, and to free them from the predations of those who choose to live as less than rational beings. I.e, private property law is the set of restrictions which free individuals who are acting in line with an objective moral code, from the predations of the immoral.

Private property law is moral law and rights, which are claims to moral actions, require the concomitant protections of private property law. They go hand in hand.

The Morality of Life vs "Equality" and "God Given Rights":

The two foundations on which we have based individual rights heretofore have been "Equality" and "Divine commandment". Prior to the industrial revolution, it would have been impossible for philosophers to grasp the crucial role of reason in humankind's survival: indeed even Aristotle missed it in his time. Sir Francis Bacon deduced that "knowledge is power". And Objectivism completed that thought by observing that reason is essential to human life -- i.e, that reason is essential to humankind's discovery and pursuit of, its moral code.

In graduating past "equality" and "divine commandment" as the foundation for individual rights, we will not destroy individual rights, but instead cement them immovable, impregnable and sacrosanct.

Special appeal to Judeo-Christian believers.

It is important to specifically address the followers of Judeo-Christianity and convince them of an error they have accepted as being part of their bible's code of morality when absolutely isn't - we offer an olive branch to the (not insignificant) following of Judeo-Christianity to hopefully make it easier for them to graduate from the "equality" doctrine toward a "morality of life" based on objectively verifiable facts.

Does the Judeo-Christian bible actually support equality as the foundation for rights? What does it actually say?

A common bromide is that the Judeo-Christian god "created all men equal" -- curiously, this maxim appears nowhere in the Judeo-Christian bible. The Judeo-Christian moral framework does not say that their god created all men equal; rather that he created all men in his image. Those are two different statements with different ramifications. Judeo-Christian ethics is modeled not on equality as the impetus for morals, but on the contrary, it states that you should treat your neighbour as yourself because he was made in God's image, and has value in the eyes of his creator in spite of inadequacies clearly visible in him; not because he is your equal. Judeo-Christian believers treat the disadvantaged with respect because their god has a purpose for every individual. You are commanded to be like the Bereans - so search diligently and see whether this is so.

"Equality" is actually a humanist ethical foundation. In fact, the Judeo-Christian God proudly admits that He creates people unequally in order that when his purpose is fulfilled in a person's life, He (God) might gain even more glory in that He was able to accomplish His purpose through a flawed individual in spite of his flaws.

Objectivism's "Morality of life" based on the metaphysical identity of humankind is a better approximation of Judeo-Christian morality than "Equality" is.

The Judeo-Christian frameworks of rights asserts the sanctity of human life, stemming from the assertion that humans are created in God's image, and that God has a plan for each human life, and this breaks down in the following way:

• The reverence for humankind's "rights" in Judeo-Christianity start from its assertion about the metaphysical nature of humankind as a species: that every human is an instance of the image of God, and that, God's image being in him/her, that life is sacred.
• Judeo-Christianity then says that humankind, made in God's image, have value to God because He has a purpose for each human; therefore even if a human appears to be deficient to you, you must hold his life sacred because his life has value to God, and you don't know God's purpose for him.
• Furthermore, a human life requires a definite course of action, since there is an objectively verifiable course of action which preserves/promotes human life, and objectively verifiable actions which injure/destroy human life, and Judeo-Christianity commands that one love his neighbour as himself -- or, that one objectively treat one's neighbour in such a way as to ensure that one doesn't engage in courses of action which injure/destroy one's neighbour's life, in the same way that one might do so for oneself.
• In order for a human to fulfill God's purpose for their life, they require freedom both to act for the preservation/promotion of their own life, and freedom to act in pursuit of God's purpose, without interference from other humans or from kings and governments.

The Objectivist framework of rights breaks down in the following, comparable way:

• The Objectivist framework of rights also stems from the metaphysical identity of humankind as a species: that humankind as a species has a set of metaphyically common properties, attributes and requirements for life which can be observed and confirmed as objective facts. There is a definite course of action which preserves/promotes human life/flourishing (and that these are moral), and there are observable, objectively verifiable courses of action which destroy it (and that these are immoral).
• Objectivism then says that we can make objective judgments about which actions preserve/promote human life and which destroy it and that human morality consists of a code of action governed by objective knowledge of the definite course of action that preserves/promotes human life.
• In order for a human to pursue his/her requirements for life/flourishing, they require freedom to act in pursuit of that life and flourishing, without interference from other humans or from kings and governments.

We submit to the Judeo-Christian world that this framework of rights is a far stronger approximation of their own God's justification for their rights, than the justification given by the "Equality" framework.

Moreover, we submit for all peoples' evaluation, the objectively observable fact that the assertion of "Equality" is simply untrue on its face to begin with.

An appeal to non-Judeo-Christians:

In this section we will show how neither "God-given rights" nor "equality" suffice as common, objective legal foundations for human rights. A legal rights philosphy must be evident to all within a polity before all can be expected to subordinate their minds to it. Note that WS does not opine on whether or not a god exists; it merely points out that, in a polity where multiple world views exist (including atheists):

• "God-given rights" cannot act as a shared legal foundation for rights, since many people do not believe in a god, and those who do, don't agree on which god's commandments should be the objective standard for morality.
• "Equality" cannot act as a shared legal foundation for rights, since any rational person who observes the world around them can see that humans are not in fact, equal.

An objective morality is the only morality which can justly govern mankind.

A better way - a New Ideal to serve as the foundation for rights:

Our metaphysical nature as a species is a stronger bedrock and foundation for objective rights and morality than either of the traditional theories of rights - especially because it is not merely a theory, but rather a set of observable, objectively verifiable facts. There is no harm in acknowledging that we are not equal. The fabric of our defense of the rights of the individual will not come undone because there is an even better, objective foundation for rights waiting buttress it.

This more solid foundation is The New Ideal - the morality of life.