Foundation for Human Rights
Contrary to Charles B. Thaxton and Stephen C. Meyer (“Human Rights: Blessed by God or Begrudged by Government,” Opinion, Dec. 27), there is a scientific basis for human rights.
Supernaturalism, as the authors seem to realize, provides no basis for rights or for anything else. God-given “rights,” like government-given “rights,” are not rights at all but revokable privileges. And what theism induces is not a belief in human dignity but its opposite: humility, self-abnegation, a feeling that one’s mind and life on earth are essentially worthless.
The scientific alternative described by the authors is clearly no better. A mechanistic, reductionist view of human nature (Marxist or biological) leaves man as rightless as earthworms or bacteria.
But this is a false dichotomy. In fact, the theistic and mechanistic views are two sides of the same coin: both deny the necessary foundation for human rights: man as a rational being.
It is man’s biological nature--specifically his free will and ability to reason--that distinguishes him from other living things and, as Ayn Rand has shown, creates the need for a moral code, including rights. Just as man needs reason to survive, so he needs freedom to act on his judgment.
Human rights exist, not as mysterious gifts from a supernatural being, but as factual conditions of existence for man.
DR. MICHAEL S. BERLINER
Executive Director
Ayn Rand Institute
Marina del Rey
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
