Towards the beginning of the speech, he gives the following definitions of rights:
- • A sphere of action in which you can act and in which it would be morally wrong for anyone to interfere with you violently or with the threat of violence. (4:26)
• You have the best moral claim to exercise a range of control over your physical body. (17:30) <--- Not an exact quote, but I think it accurately represents what he was saying in that section of the speech.
Starting at 24:25, he explains a fundamental basis for determining how big the sphere of action defining where we have the moral authority to exercise control is. He provides several options (citing Murray Rothbard):
- 1. I don't have the moral authority to exercise control over anyone. Not even myself.
2. I have the moral authority to exercise control over only a portion of everyone, including myself.
3. I have the moral authority to exercise control over another group of people.
4. I have the moral authority to exercise full control over myself and no one else.
Now, as a Christian. I've had several discussions with atheists pointing out that they have no fundamental basis upon which they can say that murder and rape are any more wrong than dissolving an Alka-Seltzer tablet in water. However, if they replied with the argument outlined above (which I just came up with as a result of thinking through my beliefs and trying to think of an argument I'd make against them if I were an atheist), I don't know what response I'd have. I say this because this seems to provide a naturalistic basis for morality, which is something that Christian apologists have long argued against.
Can someone explain to me where the logical error is in this line of argument? I would greatly appreciate it.