In yesterday’s post we talked about God as a basis for our fundamental human rights, and also a more materialist/biological basis for them. I made the point that it is a false choice that we have to believe in only one basis or the other. We can conclude that our rights are made manifest both in the personhood of God and in the inherent nature of the human species.

I would go further, though, and say that not only can these rights be simultaneously rooted in both sources, but they need to be. The materialist/humanist may say that since the same rights can be found in our biological nature we don’t need God for our morals to exist, but that simply isn’t true. If our rights are secured in our biological nature exclusively, it is insufficient. Those rights would then be inherently weak and artificial. Today we will explore why.

Circular Dependency)

Let us quickly summarize how the materialist/humanist view might describe the origin of our rights. In essence, we are members of the human race, and the human race’s survival and flourishing depend on certain qualities for its members. For example, “life” is a quality that is essential to humanity’s survival, and “liberty” is a quality that is essential to humanity’s flourishing. Thus, “life” and “liberty” are basic human rights because they are necessary to the experience of being a human.

We can describe this as a simple equation. If we call humanity “X,” and the preservation of life “Y,” then we can say:

Y is essential for X
So X must secure Y
And if X didn’t have Y, then there would be no X to require Y
So X is also essential to Y

And perhaps the failing is starting to become evident. Y is a basic human right only because X requires it, and it also only exists as a concept because X does. The link between people and their rights is therefore circular, and rights only exist within the context of people themselves. Rights therefore have no recognition outside the orbit of people, they are not anchored in anything deeper than ourselves. If we say our rights come from some sort of “natural law,” it can only be natural within the scope of people, but no further. To the universe at large, there is no difference whether a rock is thrown into the sea, or a person. Nature doesn’t care whether these so-called rights of “life” or “liberty” are meted out to a species. The universe allows drones whose sole purpose is to serve the queen (no liberty), and it allows species to go extinct entirely (no life).

Now why is this a problem?

Removing Rights on a Large Scale)

The fact that the rights only exist within the context of humanity means that they are essentially made up, a mirage caused by the distortion of being a human. Yes, they might be important rights for people, but there is no deeper, more grounded basis for them. As such, it is easy to logically get around the authority of those rights.

Suppose that there was a subset of people that started to see themselves separate from the rest of all other people. In our above equation, they do not see themselves as “X,” they see themselves as “W.” W would then exist outside of the equation that X requires Y, and Y requires X. Therefore, it may be necessary for X to uphold Y, but there is no reason why W must uphold Y also.

And this is not just a theory. This exact behavior has happened a multitude of times throughout history. Perhaps most famously, it happened when Nazi Germany declared themselves an Aryan race, separate from the race of humanity, and therefore morally justified in torturing and killing other races as needed. And from the materialist/humanist view, this atrocity is entirely logical. Why would the Aryan have any more obligation to observe the rights of Jews, than the Jews would have any obligation to observe the rights of cattle?

And Nazi Germany was no exception. It has been the rule in all the world for thousands of years that one nation, upon defeating another, would enslave the defeated people, all because they were not part of the conquering identity. Humanity is constantly splintering itself into different collectives, viewing their group as more real, more elevated, more “human” than the others. Once you do that, then there is no reason not to enslave, or murder, or violate any rights of any outsider, because they are not the same humanity that you are, and their rights are local only to them, and your rights are local only to you.

Removing Rights on a Small Scale)

It doesn’t have to be so broad as an entire people seeing themselves as fundamentally distinct from another people, either. This separation of self from the species happens on a much more individual level.

Suppose I really do see myself as a member of the global humanity, and I really do believe that every other person and group of people also belongs to the global humanity, and I really do believe that we, as a collective, need to maintain certain rights for the betterment of us all. Could I not still carve out exceptions for myself, while still maintaining the rights for the broader humanity? I agree that X should not violate Y in general, but couldn’t I, a lower-case “x,” violate Y on a small scale? After all, poison is in opposition to the nature of a person’s life, and yet many will partake of alcohol, slightly poisoning themselves, and so long as that poison is kept beneath a certain threshold the person will still live. And in nature there are species where some of the adults will kill their own young, which is obviously in direct opposition to the continuance of that species, but if enough of the young do survive then the species can still go on.

So why can’t I permit myself to violate a human right on an individual level? Especially when it causes greater life and flourishing in me, personally? Maybe the victim of my theft will have a diminished quality of life, but mine will be increased, and so the population overall remains level. And if I kill my neighbor, what of it? So long as we don’t all kill our neighbors, the neighbor’s loss will have negligible effects on the whole.

I can even agree that society should prosecute and punish those that thwart its general human rights, that they are justified in condemning me if they catch me. But if they do not catch me, then there is no other authority that I have to answer to. Because, once again, I have violated a right that applies only to humanity, and if humanity cannot punish me for it, then there is no larger, universal law that I have to answer to.

This is why the materialist/humanist worldview by itself is insufficient. By its cyclical, self-contained nature it is easy to start making exceptions to it, creating entities that are outside of the humanity-rights circle. This view of people and their rights, taken to its logical conclusion, is nothing short of horror!

Tomorrow we will see why adding God as another basis for our rights answers all of these limitations, though, and how it does so in a way that cannot be broken.