At lunch, Mr. Parvelescu sits with Roderick, Lily and Justin. Roderick would not ordinarily consider dining with Justin, but sometimes it's handy to have a Communist at the table to serve up straw man arguments, like skeet.
True to form, Justin launches the conversation: "Locke's idea of natural rights is bogus. All rights are socially defined. There is complete consensus among social scientists on that point."
"A social scientist's job description is to study social phenomena," replies Mr. Parvelescu, "so it's not surprising that they ascribe all effects to social causes. That's like saying that fishermen are very engaged with fish; it's an obvious point, but of no relevance to you or me."
Justin keeps digging. "Everything is socially defined. Ideas are the superstructure of society; they reflect material relationships and ownership of the means of production. It's the only explanation that doesn't require resort to an uncaused cause, such as the idea of God."
Mr. Parvelescu demonstrates the patience of Job. "I see that you have read Marx for Dummies. First, I would simply note that Marxists never apply the concept of historical materialism to themselves; if ideas simply reflect the means of production then what precisely causes people to believe in Marxist ideas? And if ideas are simply an effect, what is the point of discussion? You can dismiss Locke as a 'bourgeois' philosopher, I can dismiss Marx as an alienated crackpot. and that's the end of it. What happens then? Do we settle the matter with a brawl? The presumption of a discussion on political philosophy is that ideas are powerful, and that they merit discussion and debate.
"Moreover," says Mr. Parvelescu, who is developing a head of steam, "as a matter of philosophy, you must believe in human rights that are independent of socially defined rights. One can debate the nature of those rights or their source - some would say that rights come from God, others would say they are inherent in nature -- but belief in objective human rights is a necessary predicate of any critique of existing socially defined legal rights. Without a belief in absolute rights, you have no place to stand.
"Consider, as a case in point, the question of slavery in the United States. If you believe that rights are purely a social phenomenon, you must believe that since black persons in the South had no legal rights, the institution of slavery was okay because it was socially accepted. The slaves, of course, weren't happy with it, but there would be no foundation for anyone not directly victimized to oppose it.
"In fact, we know that there were many people in the United States who opposed slavery on moral grounds, and it's impossible to reduce their opposition to material self-interest. From the perspective of moral philosophy, enslaved persons always had natural rights, even before the American laws and Constitution recognized those rights. And this belief in objective rights is the engine that motivated the likes or Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison."
Justin tires of serving as Mr. Parvelescu's punching bag and retreats. Meanwhile, Roderick notes that Lily's hand, which has rested on his inner thigh for several minutes, appears to be crawling in the general direction of his crotch.
"I must say," says Roderick, squirming, "you certainly do work hard at explaining this stuff."
Mr. Parvelescu feigns modesty. "I'm just a mouthpiece for the Author," he says, glancing upward.
"Um..what Author do you mean?"
"Why, the same Author who created you and everything else in our world."
Roderick thinks that Mr. Parvelescu may be working too hard, and needs some rest. Jeez, the very idea of an Author.
