Arguing Moral Realism with Individual Rights
The nature of action often depends on one’s own moral code. An individual’s morality offers a specific doctrine to rule oneself and dictate one’s way of life. Within the field of ethics, a multitude of moral decisions continue to be debated. However, are these morals objective or purely subjective? That is the primary problem needing to be tackled.
One must take a step back and focus on the origin of ethics, meta-ethics. The field of meta-ethics drops the opinionated ethical views and confronts the problem of essence.
Moral realists and anti-realists have long argued whether there are distinct moral facts.
The purpose of the following is to offer a proof of moral realism.
Firstly, a definition will be needed: moral realism states the belief in a meta-ethical doctrine that there are, in fact, objective moral values. Moral anti-realism states the belief in a meta-ethical doctrine that there are no objective moral values.
A common semantic error takes place within discussion, in which an individual will use moral anti-realism, moral relativism, and moral subjectivism as all synonyms of each other. However, moral relativism declares that morals are relative to the individual’s culture or social customs and moral subjectivism declares that morals are created by the individual. To simplify as well as better identify the skepticism presented, ‘moral anti-realism’ will be used.
The Individual Rights Argument
Individual rights (as talked about in one of my last pieces of work) are a necessity within the boundaries of societal action. Rights presuppose moral boundaries that allow the individual to retain ownership over their own body, disabling the moral grounds of external ownership.
The argument for individual rights not only argues of the existence of rights, but also argues of the existence of objective morals. Essentially, to argue for natural rights is to argue for moral realism.
A proof is shown:
P1) Individual rights (property rights) exist
P2) Individual rights presuppose moral boundaries
C1) An individual is placed with a moral boundary
Premise 1 can be proven through argumentation ethics (developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe).
Hoppe states that because both parties in a debate propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one’s actions and one’s words (a performative contradiction).
Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. Thus, Hoppe argues that arguing against the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.
Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument. Thus, property rights exist.
Premise 2 only means that individual rights specify a “fence,” if one will, in what is/isn’t allowed. The fence indicates a moral domain for all individuals. Individual rights forbid society from immorally and unjustly taking control of one’s own efforts and resources.
P3) A moral boundary (that is placed on everyone) implies a meta-ethical doctrine of objective morality
C2) Objective morals exist
If the moral domain is placed on everyone, then that indicates an objective morality (as objective morals adhere to everyone) which is shown in Premise 3 and Conclusion 2.
P4) Objective morals exist
P5) Moral realism is the belief in a meta-ethical doctrine that there is objective moral values.
C3) Moral realism is true
The previous shows the exact chain-link that the existence of natural rights implicitly proves the existence of moral realism.
The point of the article is not to argue for the existence of natural rights, but to rather present a fascinating chain-link that may have not been known before.
Arguing over the existence of rights is an entirely different argument (a proof was shown briefly in the expansion of Premise 1, argumentation ethics). However, if one desires a foundation of proving natural rights then argumentation ethics is a phenomenal start.
Sources/Credit:
The proof was developed by myself, however, credits to anyone that has presented something similar.
