c




 

 

 


 




(This is a very abridged version of what I am working on, but contains the majority of the
ideas that will be examined in much deeper depth and support in the finished project.)

A 


 would be something that u

 
  ,

 
 




1) Only if we are in the state of nature do we have true natural rights.

2) We are in the state of nature.
3) If there is a true natural right, then it was Ǯbestowedǯ upon us by the state of nature, only if we
exist.
4) If we do not exist, then we have no true natural rights.
5) If something is a true natural right, then it cannot be taken away, nor diminished, by any means.
6) Everything can be taken away and/or diminished.
7) Therefore, in the state of nature, we have no true natural rights.

There are four individual instances in which this conclusion would be false, the first relying
on the fifth premise being false, the second instance relies on the sixth premise being false,
the third instance lying upon the third fourth and fifth premises being false, and the last
instance relying upon the third fourth fifth and sixth premises being false.

By the definition of a true natural right, you cannot upset fifth premise, and through basic
deduction, you cannot upset the sixth. The third and fourth premises rely upon the
assertion that we have true natural rights only if we exist. This, I believe, is self evident.

Therefore, you cannot show an instance in which we do indeed have true natural rights,
and my conclusion is proven given that you accept the premises to be true as I outlined and
explained.

These things being said, I may state that there is no such thing as natural right. This does
not mean, however, that mankind cannot bestow upon itself rights, but these rights would
not be "natural rights" for such a thing does not exist.

These, then, must be j


 (not to be confused with True Natural Rights), and would be
defined as  u
 

 
 
 
 uu 


 
. If it ought to be taken for any reason, then it must be a   
.

All proposed rights of men fall, when broken down, into two all encompassing categories; existence
and action Ȃ   and   . For these things to be true rights, as defined, they cannot be taken
nor diminished for as true rights they must be maximized of else they would be conditional
privileges. A j



  would be the ability to unhindered whereas a j




  would be the ability to u unhindered. It must be noted that no restriction of these rights
would be allowed by the definition unless that restriction comes exclusively from that individual
that is being restricted.
These things being said, if two proposed true rights conflict at any instance, then one or both are
not true rights, for if one true right diminishes another, then they contradict their definition. So, 




 u
u



u

u



.

Consider the following scenario: Person A kills Person B. Person C must decide how to proceed.

Person C has three options:

1) 
!  - (Ñ 

Ñ
  
)
2)  
! - (Ñ 
Ñ
  
)
3) " 
! , Such as Imprisonment - (Life  Ñ
  
)

The means by which the penalties will be examined will be by deciding which, exactly, is the ·

  
c.

A most desirable outcome will be defined as the  

u 

·orality, for the sake of this argument, will be defined as follows; the following being an excerpt
from a separate writing of mine.

1) To develop this , I will draw upon the works of both

Immanuel Kant as well as both Jeremy Bentham and
James ·ill to create a mixed
Consequentialist/Deontological system of morality.
2) To do this, I will say that it is the duty of the populous
to uphold the meaning of life. This results in it
becoming moral to uphold the meaning and immoral
to contradict it.
3) A means to analyze the relationship between the
meaning of life and morality is to utilize Immanuel
Kantǯs categorical imperative, but slightly modified in
form, and with conditional restrictions.
4) The ·odified Categorical Imperative would read DzAct
only in accordance to that maxim whereby you can at
the same time will it to be a universal law without
contradiction to the meaning of life.dz [The meaning of
life being to achieve longevity of ones species]
5) To utilize this, one must use a specific event to dispel
contradictions that can occur when generalizations
are used.
6) An example of this would be the issue of
homosexuality. As a generalization, homosexuality
would be immoral for the fact that if everyone were a
homosexual, the species would die out. When
applied as a specific, however, in the form Dzis it moral
for some to be homosexualsdz with the addition of
certain known facts such as that some heterosexual
people are unable to read children as well as the fact
that the world is over populated, homosexuality can
be likened to people who choose not to or are unable
of having children, and is no longer immoral.
7) Upon this system of moral analysis, we can begin to
formulate a structure upon which laws would be
justified. To do this, it must be said that something is
lawful if it is moral and unlawful if it is immoral.
8) To avoid prima facie conflicts, an order of duties must
be established. This would only take effect if there
are two conflicting duties that are mutually exclusive.
9) Such an order of duties would be constructed along a
consequentialist analysis of the deontological system
outlined above in points 35-37, and would take the
following form.
1) First and foremost, one has a duty to the

  , as an entity as well as
the entire populous.
2) Secondly, one has a duty to 




. This includes both the
entire populous of the nation, and the
entity of the nation itself. Without the
nation, there is no protection, no order,
no unification, no enforcement of Dzthe
meaningdz, and no way to easily advance
oneself under Dzthe meaning
3) The third level of duty is to  

inside the nation. Through Utilitarian
Democracy, the will of the majority is
what is best for Dzthe wholedz. However, it
must be clarified that Dzthe majoritydz is not
indicated by race, ethnicity, religion, or
any other group, but rather voter will.
Also, along with Dzthe majoritydz, one must
also recognize that in the context that it is
 put in, the minority will also be
represented, as will be discussed later.
4) The fourth level is 


as a group. By being in a position where
their own lives are hindered, their ability
to fulfill DzThe meaningdz is hindered. It is
the duty of the fortunate to raise those
less fortunate than them to a level at
which they may no longer worry about
sheer preservation of self, but may
advance to the point where they are
concerned with preservation of the
whole.
5) The fifth level is 

 as
a singular, for the same reasons as for
those less fortunate as a group.
6) Lastly, the lowest level of priority is 







who is at a
level at which they may fulfill the
meaning. People are inherently equal
from birth and must have an equal
opportunity to advance. No one person is,
morally, greater than any other.

If there were a prima facie conflict inside one level, such as a

conflict that deals with helping two people of equal
disadvantage where it would be a mutually exclusive action,
and an analysis of the causal relationships of each action
proves to show complete equality between the two persons
in every way, then either person would be equally moral to
assist.

j
   

 


j 
·
  
c

1) If people act in a manner that is not beneficial (immoral), then we need law (restrictions).
2) If people act in a manner that is not beneficial (immoral), then they should be punished
(enforcement).
3) If people act in a manner that is beneficial (moral), then we do not need laws (no
restrictions).
4) If we need law (restrictions), then we need punishment (enforcement).
5) People act in a manner that is not beneficial (immoral).
 6) Therefore, we need law (restriction) and punishment (enforcement).

So, as long as people act in a manner that is not beneficial (immoral), liberty cannot function as a
true right, as it would not be the ·ost Desirable Outcome, for it would be worse than our present
situation.

Now, with Liberty as a true right eliminated as a path towards our goal of a most desirable outcome,
we are left with two choices. Either both life and liberty are privileges, or Life is a true right, the
former being the society in which we live today and the latter being an option not yet explored.
Should it prove that the latter is the most desirable outcome, then the former must be rejected.

As stated previously, we live in a world in which both life and liberty are considered privileges.
This is mandated, in part, for the same reason that a true right to liberty is not desirable.

Let us assume that the world that we live in can be improved upon. Given this, in conjunction with
the fact that liberty, as a true right, is not desirable, and therefore not a means by which we can
improve, as well as the assortment that we currently reside in a state of both life and liberty being
privileges, we are only left with Life as a true right to be desired.

1) The world can be improved upon.

2) It is not the case that Liberty as a True Right is desirable.
3) If Liberty is a True Right, then the world will not be improved.
4) If both Liberty and Life are not True Rights, then the world will not be improved.
5) Both Life and Liberty cannot be True Rights.
6) Therefore, If and only if Life is a true right will the world be improved.

 
   
u
 u
  


 






  



     
 
u 


u
u

 
u
 u