Comment by rramadass | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rramadass | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>How do you prevent that from slipping down to the nadir (imo) of “nobody is entitled to survival”?

Simple; the reality of my "Existence" gives me the right to Survive using any and all means.

Here is a passage between Hump and Wolf Larsen from Jack London's The Sea-Wolf.

[Hump] “What do you believe, then?” I countered.

[Wolf Larsen] “I believe that life is a mess,” he answered promptly. “It is like yeast, a ferment, a thing that moves and may move for a minute, an hour, a year, or a hundred years, but that in the end will cease to move. The big eat the little that they may continue to move, the strong eat the weak that they may retain their strength. The lucky eat the most and move the longest, that is all. What do you make of those things?”

...

[Wolf Larsen] Again, what’s it all about? Why have I kept you here?—”

[Hump] “Because you are stronger,” I managed to blurt out.

“But why stronger?” he went on at once with his perpetual queries. “Because I am a bigger bit of the ferment than you? Don’t you see? Don’t you see?”

“But the hopelessness of it,” I protested.

“I agree with you,” he answered. “Then why move at all, since moving is living? Without moving and being part of the yeast there would be no hopelessness. But,—and there it is,—we want to live and move, though we have no reason to, because it happens that it is the nature of life to live and move, to want to live and move. If it were not for this, life would be dead. It is because of this life that is in you that you dream of your immortality. The life that is in you is alive and wants to go on being alive for ever. Bah! An eternity of piggishness!”

> the reality of my "Existence" gives me the right to Survive using any and all means.

According to what system of law? Enforced by what level of violence? You might declare certain things to be “your rights”. But without a big stick to defend those rights they are nothing but useful thinking.

I thought the listed passage from The Sea-Wolf made my point clear. Here is the key point again;

But,—and there it is,—we want to live and move, though we have no reason to, because it happens that it is the nature of life to live and move, to want to live and move. If it were not for this, life would be dead. It is because of this life that is in you that you dream of your immortality. The life that is in you is alive and wants to go on being alive for ever.

"Natural Law" gives me the right for Survival. The Theory of Evolution/Survival of the Fittest lays out the environment/circumstances which control/modulate this but the instinct to Survive is inborn in all living organisms.

Another passage from The Sea-Wolf which drives home the point;

[Hump] “God made you well,” I said.

[Wolf Larsen] “Did he?” he answered. “I have often thought so myself, and wondered why.”

“Purpose—” I began.

“Utility,” he interrupted. “This body was made for use. These muscles were made to grip, and tear, and destroy living things that get between me and life. But have you thought of the other living things? They, too, have muscles, of one kind and another, made to grip, and tear, and destroy; and when they come between me and life, I out-grip them, out-tear them, out-destroy them. Purpose does not explain that. Utility does.”

“It is not beautiful,” I protested.

“Life isn’t, you mean,” he smiled. “Yet you say I was made well.

...

“Stability, equilibrium,” he said, relaxing on the instant and sinking his body back into repose. “Feet with which to clutch the ground, legs to stand on and to help withstand, while with arms and hands, teeth and nails, I struggle to kill and to be not killed. Purpose? Utility is the better word.”

In essence, you're deriving an "ought" from an "is" [1]. I'm not convinced that the presence of an inborn instinct X justifies a "right to X".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Not quite. The "is-ought" problem has to do with deriving "moral oughts" from "factual is'" which is quite rightly untenable (independent of any specific worldview).

The instinct to Survive has nothing whatsoever to do Morality/Ethics; it is a biological imperative.

No laws of physics gives you the right to survival. You will survive if you have the physical ability to do so in a given environment. And you won’t if you don’t. Anything else is self-delusional. You can claim whatever rights you want until somebody sticks a gun in your mouth.

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand in what i have written but, let me try restating it;

The Instinct to Survive is inborn and every living organism exercises it as a "Law of Nature", but whether and how it will actually Survive is modulated by The Theory of Evolution/Survival of the Fittest. They are two different things. That instinct is what makes an organism do anything and everything to try and survive to pass on its genes.

That has nothing to do with your original “I have a right to survive”. You have no such right. You either survive or you don’t. That’s it. “Rights” are a human construct that only exists if you have the power to enforce it.

You are still not getting it, the phrase i used was;

>the reality of my "Existence" gives me the right to Survive using any and all means.

I am born -> I Exist -> Existence gives me the birth right to use any and all means to try and survive.

I absolutely get your point. I just disagree. And you are not getting my point: “Birth rights” doesn’t exist. It is all in your head. You might use the idea of “rights” to justify to yourself what you are doing. Others will use other made up justifications (gods, ideologies, skin colour, race etc.) But it is a made up human idea. Lions doesn’t need to appeal to its “birth right” to kill you. Evolution doesn’t care about your “birth rights”. You either survive or you don’t. That’s it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com