A priori truth is embedded in the reality of existence, given the nature human life occurring in a realm of time, space, and form. It may appear simplistic due to the tautological statements made regarding a priorism, some even say that they are mere definitions, yet truth claims made through a priori reasoning offer perspectives on humanity’s place in the universe and how to make practical use of knowledge to improve living conditions, which is the purpose of all science.
We, who are looking for answers to this scientific inquiry, can use a priorism to test truth claims. The range of application is unlimited, yet actual a priori truths are limited to those things that do not require experience of a phenomena to validate. In other words, once we need to go out into the world to test our claim, we have left the field of a priorism and have entered into an empirical inquiry.
For instance, the truth claim that two parallel lines do not enclose a space requires no physical testing to validate. Because we know the definition of parallel and line we can know that no matter what length the lines are, as long as the run parallel to each other, they can never enclose a space. Simple as it may be, this truth claim tells us something about the real world.
In the realm of human action and social organization, a priorism can tell us things about the nature of rights. The US Declaration of Independence appeals to a priorism by stating that the truths it addresses are “self evident”, meaning they require no empirical testing for validation, and are derived from “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”, that is, embedded in the fabric of reality.
Notice the separation of “laws of nature” and “nature’s God”. This indicates that the way creation works, the nature of reality, is distinct from religious belief. In other words, a priori truth and the validation of individual rights require no specific religious dogma.
With this in mind, how can a priori truth claims be tested for validity?
Since a priori truths are derived through thought experiments, the test processes require conceiving of all possible alternative claims. If an alternative is conceivable, the inquiry needs to move into the empirical method.
Can you conceive of two parallel lines that actually do enclose a space? Of course not. To do so requires the lines to be something other than parallel. It requires a change in the nature of parallel lines.
Returning to the realm of human action, social organization, and rights, we can use a priorism to test the claims in the Declaration of Independence.
The first step requires stipulating operative terms. For purposes of testing the definition of “All Men” means every individual human being, “created equal” means the principles are universally applicable to to everyone at all times, “endowed by their creator” means by fact of human existence within the realm of time, space, and form, and “inalienable rights” means inseparable.
For purposes of illustration, the test is on the right to life. This does not address issues like abortion, the rights of children, parental obligations, or anything that requires positive obligations, providing sustenance to another, or other issues that convolute the test. For this reason, the test takes as given the adult human being absent mental or physical impairment that makes them dependent upon anyone else for their basic functions.
This inquiry simply focuses upon the right to life, which, like all verifiable rights, are actually statements of negation: the right to not be killed.
As a priori testing shows, any rights claims that require positive action from another are readily dismissed as privileges or agreements conditionally held with another and cannot, by definition, be rights.
While rights are social constructs, they only require observation and non-action from others, rather than positive action or contributions on another’s behalf. (Robinson Crusoe, alone on his island, has no need of any rights whatsoever until Friday shows up. Then the two of them need to come to agreement on the standards of their interactions, what belongs to who exclusively, and what things are reserved from interference by the other.)
Does every human being have a right to life and if so, where does it come from? The answer comes from analysis of conceivable alternatives.
One: The right to an individual’s life is conditionally held by another. Whomever this “other” may be has the authority to revoke the individual’s life at will. This is the fuhrerprinzip where each individual is subject to the omnipotent master and may be at any time sacrificed in service to the leader’s whims. This cannot be true while adhering to the principle of equality. An individual that wants to live cannot be subject to death for the preferences of another while enjoying equal rights. Can anyone conceive of a world where every individual’s life is conditioned upon the caprice of another? Such a world is devoid of rights, properly understood.
Two: An individual’s life is conditionally held by society as a whole. Permission for the individual’s continued life requires communal agreement. For the same reasons as Alternative One, leaving the individual subject to the communal will cannot be done with equality. A fifty-one percent majority electing to murder the forty-nine percent minority does not overcome the universality of equal rights. Similarly, can an individual’s life be in all but name only while waiting for social consensus? How long would anyone last if continued living required the permission of seven billion others? Which leads to the other confounding questions: what is the definition of society, how is the in-group delimited, how are the groups chosen, and by whom? Clearly, this alterative is even more unworkable than the first.
Three (the null set): Individuals have no rights. Their lives can be snuffed out at any time, by any one, for any reason. Bellum omnium contra omnes. This destroys the very notion of rights to begin with. Social conventions are directed toward acceptable behavior with which people can live together without conflict, and contemplating a reality devoid of rights invalidates the nature of the present inquiry altogether.
Four: An individual’s life is theirs alone. Everyone is entitled to an exclusive sphere from which all others are prohibited from interfering. No one has the right to deny another’s right to life without negating their own. This is the only approach that allows universal application for everyone at all times. In other words, only an individual right to life is conceivable given the fact of human existence within the realm of time, space, and form.
Conclusion: A priori inquiry proves the individual right to life is embedded in the fact of human existence. The individual right cannot be separated from the individual and made conditional upon the will of another, whether it be an individual or group. All other rights formulations are inconceivable within the nature of known reality. The right to life is a priori valid.
This does not address the issue of property, living space, personal space, trade or anything further than illustrating a priori reasoning in the development of rights.
Similarly, it does not address supernatural phenomena or the possibility of mystical revelation or divine intervention. These are, however, not provable a priori claims and are squarely within the realm of empiricism. Generally speaking, relying upon mysticism is no basis for enduring social mores, let alone government policy.
There are other works using a priori reasoning that have successfully justified property rights and I recommend the works of Hans Hoppe, among others, to you for further inquiry.