Obligations and Rights

[BobKKKindle$]

It has become clear, after spending time on these boards, that many Socialists advocate Socialism as a political ideology because they feel a profound need to deal with the vast inequalities of wealth and income that exist under Capitalism. This is especially true of Socialists from wealthy families (such as myself) who do not have a direct material interest in the abolition of Capitalist society. However, I have yet to find a clear ethical basis for this. Is there a case that can be put forward for the idea that every human has an obligation to aid the less fortunate members of society and ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities regardless of the economic assets that they command? I understand that humans are inherently social beings and that the creation of wealth is a social process, but why does there exist a moral and ethical imperative to help others, especially when we put our own interests at risk or consciously undermine our own interests?

In debate with those that support Capitalism, it is often suggested that we are under no obligation to help others and that we should further our self interest (which apparently yields a net social benefit). How should such an argument be countered?

In relation to the above, from where do we derive our conception of a 'right'? When we speak of someone having a righ to the provision of healthcare, or to freedom of speech, where is our basis for claiming that these concepts are 'right' to which no-one should be denied?

Any help would be much appreciated.

[gilhyle]

Just a few comments:

My own view is that it is unwise to try to rationalise a general sense of obligation that all human beings owe each other. The idea is superstition - a sort of secularised version of the idea that we all owe some 'God' a duty of obediance. Many attempts have been made to rationalise it, with various points of reference ranging from some common spirituality to the impossibility of sustaining meaning consistently unless we support a human community. Many of the rationalisations are projective - live by this idea and the outcome will be good. Those projective ethical justifications have no regard to whether it is rational or not and are distinctively modern (i.e. post 1800).

Taking a step back from this, it is a general feature of human beings that they use short-hand behavioural rules to guide them in life. Trivially, if everyone else looks up into the sky its probably a good idea to look up, even though you dont know why you are looking (other than to copy others). More significantly (and problematically): tell the truth. Most significantly (and a bit less problematic): dont kill people as a way of winning a discussion.

These short hand rules exist for a range of reasons, varying from the common sense reason that such rules reduce our need to assess each situation independently (thus slowing us down considerably and increasing the risk of error) to the fact that we live in societies dominated by vested interests who try to distort our behaviour at the pre-rational stage to protect their own material interests.

These moral rules and the associated moral sense are worthy of some respect - they can be key levers in mass human behaviour at its best. But it is a mistake to try to rationalise them as if they were not the a-rational internalisations of the experience we have of the society we live in. It is a mistake to say that because these behaviours are widespread they must be rational and to try to articulate a putative rationale for them. That is superstition - no less superstitious than rationalising an eclipse as a sign of doom.

It is a fact of life, a given for socialists, that the mass of people who live by their labour in a society either do (or do not) have the moral sentiment to support those in poverty, to eliminate extreme advantage which accrues to the wealthy, to act in solidarity with each other for mutual betterment etc. It is not something to be explained or created by socialist ideas - it is something to be relied on and built on. What socialist ideas should explain and rationalise is HOW those sentiments can be built on to realise them.

That does not mean that the ethical ideas of capitalism cannot be attacked. It is a speculative nonsense to suggest (as Spinoza and then Adam Smith famously suggested) that the greatest benefit of all accrues from each pursuing their self interest. This might happen, but it would be an accident were it to happen and it is in no way assured. Modeling theory will show that you can construct a model where it happens - but it also shows that if you vary the assumptions to insert impediments to equal competition between all persons, the optimal outcome disappears. And in the real world, inheritance, living in wealthy countries, educational opportunity, restraints on behavioural options, etc are all unavoidable thus eliminating the optimal outcome. For self-interest to be assured to create the optimal outcome you have to go instantly from T1 (Time One) to T2 (Time Two) at which an optimal outcome of T1 occurs and then reset the whole world again back to equivalence and go from a new T1 to a new T2. What you cant do is go from T1 to T4, T5, T6........ and still get the optimal outcome from an initial T1 and in any case we cant get to T1 in the first place !

As to the concept of 'rights', this term stretches well back into the middle ages and, indeed, (if you accept the validity of the translations) back much further. What is clear is that in its modern form it derives from the claims of the bourgeoisie against feudalism. Feudalism was a law based society with certain benefits accruing to certain social status. The bourgeoisie adapted this idea and ascribed certain benefits as appropriate to property and to each individual. Primitive socialism then toyed with the idea of using the same way of expressing things and that way of expressing things constantly recurs as working people seek to express their perspective and do so in the language of their oppressor.

We could spend our time correcting that - on the grounds that it is pure superstition to ascribe 'rights' to a person as inherent or inalienable when a right is merely a benefit which society allows. But that would be a mendacious way to proceed. It is far less important to correct the use of the concept of rights than to leverage off the sense of indignation it embodies to build something better.

[freakazoid]

I believe that people do have certain inalienable rights. And that these come from, you guessed it, God, :P. Although I can understand how everyone would disagree with me on that point, :(

[gilhyle]

'Natural Rights' theory .....a lot of people would agree with you. ;)

[najrO]

Well, I think that it is about solidarity. If you can identify with fellow human beings, it's difficult to deny them what they need. I think it's nonsene to construct terms like "justice" and talk about devine ethics. I think that everyone of us will see the reason for solidarity if we listens to our concience.
As Sartre says, the only actions that can be justified, are the ones that comes out with a yes, if you ask yourself if every human being in the world could be doing the very same thing. If no, then you probably shouldn't either.
This is the only justified or "real" ethics in the world, every other system of ethics or morale are constructed and chosen.
The point is that we have chosen solidarity because we identify with the suffering. We see the paralell to our own structures and we wouldn't wanna end up like them, and i think that deep down we know that it is our systems of colonialism and now "free trade"-imperialism that have fucked things up and are still fucking things up for the whole world. Guilty concience is the reason for all the charity going on, and though we like to make theories and analysis about it, I generally think that guilt is a reason for our solidarity with fighting groups of people all over the world.
But if we really want to see a different world order, the poor part of the world and the poor people in our society har to take action against those of us that are rich.
So, morally, we should all give up our wealth in solidarity, and join the battle. But we don't so technically we are all hypocrites. But then again, Engels owned a factory.

Wow, that was a messy post. Sorry about that, i just sorta drifted away...

[RedLenin]

because they feel a profound need to deal with the vast inequalities of wealth and income that exist under Capitalism.
It's a lot deeper than that, at least for me. For me it has to do with the dramatic divergencies in standards of living, the fact that people are starving to death all around the world and other never lift a finger and live in absolute luxery. The motivation for such ethical feelings is pure empathy, nothing more.


Is there a case that can be put forward for the idea that every human has an obligation to aid the less fortunate members of society
No. There are no "rights". The motivation to care about the less fortunate is an emotionally-based desire stemming from our hard-wired human empathy.


but why does there exist a moral and ethical imperative to help others
There doesn't. We choose to help others and, in the case of communists, help others to liberate themselves. Ultimately this is just a decision based on an emotional desire.


How should such an argument be countered?
Looking out for only yourself is really against the social nature of humans. Most people help others when they are faced with a situation in which it is immediately possible to do so. It only makes sense that, if you see the oppression and misery that exists in the world, you will want to go out of your way to end that. Humans are hard-wired to care, at least to some degree, about other human beings. It is in our nature to be ethical and look out for others. However, our conceptions of morality change with our social circumstances.


In relation to the above, from where do we derive our conception of a 'right'?
There is no such thing as a "right", not in the classical sense. When someone says that someone has the "right" to free speech, they are implying that they themselves would desire to be able to freely speak. The concept of a "right" is a reflection of our personal desires onto other people. These desires are basically universal to everybody; life, freedom, food, health care, etc. A "right" is really nothing more than a universal human desire and, because of it's universality, it is considered to be something that should not be violated. Of course, there are always exceptions to any moral rule, so the concept of "inallienable rights" is quite a poor concept. The concept of rights ought to simply be replaced with human well-being. And of course, the reason we project "rights" onto other people in the first place is because of our hard-wired human empathy.

If, like me, you come from a middle class existence, the motivation for being a revolutionary is empathy toward other human beings and a desire to make the world a better place.

[Guifes]

I would personaly say that it's not god who put's these obligations upon you, but rather your own conscience. I refer to Kant for further explanation.

[Idola Mentis]

Aristotle observed that developing families, towns and cities are part of what people do; ants build anthills, birds make bird's nests, people build colonies. He might have been on to something there. But because he was a Hellene, and therefore unshakeably convinced of the superiority of all things hellenic, he then went on to use the hellenic oikos, kononia and polis as a model for deducing other "natural" properties of how people live together. A provincialism which seems ridiculous today.

There is a myriad of forms of living available to us, if we just take the time to imagine and communicate them. Communaly manipulating our environment to make it more hospitable is an activity enforced by our biology, but the shape our cooperation takes is clearly up to us; that's why we're so adaptable only rats and chickens can outdo us for sheer numbers.

There is something to natural right, in a limited sense, I think. We are alive today because of the acts of people who followed certain maxims; if we do not follow the same maxims, we are unlikely to survive to breed. No people after us to continue them. I don't think there's anything mystical about it; it's just that there are some assumptions we need to make for any human cooperation to work over an extended period of time. Any rationale which gets people to respect these are fine by me. Anything which offers an excuse to ignore them I can't help but see as dangerous on a level not usually covered by that term. Texas-sized asteroid dipped in weaponized ebola dangerous.

Scary thing is: modern capitalism seems to be such a rationale. Are we forgetting how to be human? Pulling out the nuts and bolts which has kept us together and shambling along - more or less - up until now? One thing is changing what a human is - we do that all the time. Quite another is removing the things which is absolutely necessary for us to function together without being constantly drugged or whipped.