Altruism


Barbara Branden

Recommended Posts

NOTE FROM MSK: Post deleted for preaching racism and wholesale slaughter of human life. This poster is now on moderation.

Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 567
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I say it was those who started the wars in the first place.

"It takes two to tangle". Discussions about who started what are juvenile. What's more important is who stops fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say it was those who started the wars in the first place.

"It takes two to tangle". Discussions about who started what are juvenile. What's more important is who stops fighting.

True. Unfortunately Kolker met some people in the Death Camps as a child who penetrated his being with new substances and thoughts. Sometimes he feels guilty, other times quite happy. Its this contradiction he tries to resolve, I mean, what does a chimney look like?

One so inclined should want to see them as often as possible.

It's okay Robert, I :heart: You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a primal temptation to Bob's argument and it is a way of cheating both metaphysics and volition. It goes something like this:

1. I am not a bigot and it is bad to be one because all living things fight for the same thing, survival, regardless of group.

2. A group attacks me.

3. Now it is good to be a bigot. The evil ones—all members of that group—do not deserve to exist, not even the innocent. I don't have to think anymore about it to be right, just hate and slaughter.

4. Another person molded my soul. I am not to blame. I am a bigot and I couldn't help it. I do not choose my spiritual path. That's the way the universe is.

Call it the Metaphysical Bigot Turn-Off-Thinking Switch.

To be a member in good standing of that club, all you need is to be attacked. Then you can say that the means justify the ends, become a bigot and feel you are right and good.

Bigot always whimpers, too, when Bigger Bully uses Bigot's means for Bigger Bully's ends. Bigot does not see the irony when Bigger Bully says, "I learned this trick from you."

:)

I personally mold my own soul to every extent I can. I honor my volition and intelligence by honoring the same in others.

Tribal metaphysics sucks.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care how many babies die as long as my enemies are destroyed. If one sets out to make scrambled eggs one should not scruple at the breaking of egg shells. The ends justify the means. They always have and they always will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I find it difficult to respond to this atrocity. Some things ought to be self-evident to civilized people -- hell, even to the uncivilized. This is precisely the philosophy -- this vast contempt for human life -- that made possible the hundred million innocent deaths in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China. Congratulations, Ba'al Chatzaf: you have captured the stance of these mass murderers exactly. If I shared any part of your mentality, which I do not, I would say that in justice it ought to be your baby who is one of the broken egg shells.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I share your revulsion at some of the arguments that were presented -- particularly by Luke Seltzer -- in the Solo discussion of whether or not, morally and legally, one ought to rescue a baby found starving in the wilderness. There are, unfortunately, two types of Objectivists. There are what I call the fundamentalist Objectivists, who, if Ayn Rand wrote that one ought not to sacrifice oneself for others, conclude that since minutes, perhaps hours of one's time would be required in order to rescue the baby, to do so so would be an act of altruism. And there are the Objectivists who consider it idiotic and depraved to consider this a sacrifice in the light of the value -- an innocent human life -- that is involved.

Further, with regard to the purely legal issue, there are (as I pointed out during the discussion) valid legal arguments as to why the refusal to save the baby should be considered criminal -- "depraved indifference" being one of them, as well as the fact that one would be an accessory to the murder of the child whose parents had initiated a murder by abandoning it.

Please, do not judge all Objectivists by the fundamentalists.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

In another thread you puzzled about sense of life. Well, here it is clear as day. I can't walk past an infant in distress. I would never characterize Jews or any other ethnic group as a race enemy, although Jews made my life hell in Hollywood and have much to answer for in their conduct of American finance and foreign policy. The point is that I walked away. Not being filled with hate, I'm free to smile a lot. I'm an individual, not a footsoldier in any clan or nation. It's easy to overlook the historical importance of individuals. They don't have a great deal in common with each other, except the knowledge that beaten paths are for beaten men, or something like that. It's actually precognitive. We like being alive.

The United States perhaps accidentally, lacking a native creed, endorsed the individual who wanted out, wanted something better for himself personally. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, etc. But huddled masses don't go anywhere. The few, the proud, the individual seeker, disobedient buccaneer came by hook or crook. Our history is a subject that US schools do a very poor job explaining. It ain't about voting or taxes or lawmaking.

The American sense of life is liberty, untouched by inherited hubris or grudge. Each infant gets equal protection of the common law. He's a free citizen in his own right (someday) and until then he deserves to be fed and sheltered and cared for by anyone who wants to pitch in. A lot of folks do. That's why Mike mentioned Christianity. Americans like the idea of loving their neighbors and barn-raising and quilting bees and whatnot -- a nation of chumps.

You belong to a tightly-knit inbred tribe of cutthroats and pricks (a term used in the financial press to describe Bear Stearns). It's an entirely different sense of life, that you see yourself surrounded by enemies. I think that's why you resent Ayn Rand and her legacy: it's benevolent, doesn't treat people like meat.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tribal metaphysics sucks.

Michael, in early February you gave Bob K. an ultimatum. The full text of your post to him is here.

The next such outburst will be deleted and I will moderate your posts. I am only keeping this one up as the last example.

Please carry through with the declaration of intent, and let's not have any further rounds of this. It became old long ago.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bob has justified his position on war by stating he isn't really human, he has only managed to mostly pass as one to casual acquaintances and observers. Amsberger syndrome, or is it Hamsberger? Don't tell me. If I wanted to know I'd have remembered the spelling.

When challenged he only basically restates his position without really considering or engaging the challenge.

The only thing tolerable about it is he has no allies here I know of.

He has been called a "troll" on Rebirth of Reason who has "infested" Objectivist sites for years. I don't think he's any such thing and could care less what he's "infested." I've done the same, I suppose.

He has repeatedly criticized people here for scientific ignorance while implicitly demanding a critical blank check for his humanistic philosophical ignorance. In effect he says if you aren't into science and mathematics you're worth less than zip because of the space you occupy.

"The ends justify the means" is antithetical to Objectivism and any moral moral sensibility, but not to him. So why is he here? After all, he is "more intelligent than most Objectivists" anyway. There are plenty of scientific sites, I suppose--or are the scientists too busy doing science?.

As someone who has actually seen war I can say it's ignorance, stupidity and crap on Bob's part. I closely interacted with the civilian population in my little area of operation in Vietnam. Some of them were Viet Cong aka Vietnamese Communists. Didn't know who was who. "God damn the collateral damage" would have meant killing all the ostensible civilians in the province capital Moc Hoa, Kien Tuong, South Vietnam.

I have never heard any American soldier express Bob's sentiments about war and I knew some very bad American soldiers, including an American officer who actually liked to kill the enemy, didn't believe in taking prisoners and came back to America to kill his Cambodian wife so he could marry his cousin and run for the Presidency of the Czech Republic. He was convicted. Three trials, only one juror out of 36 hung a jury. 35 voted "Guilty!" He never told me "God damn the collateral damage!" It's not that he would have had scrupples necessarily, he just didn't see the PRACTICALITY! Where is Bob going to get his soldiers?

He glories in the American bombing of Japanese cities in WWII, but the airmen didn't glory in it. They wanted the war to end as quickly as possible so the death and destruction would stop--so they and their friends and American soldiers wouldn't die. That's why they were there--to help bring it to an end. It was total war. Sherman through Georgia. Why the US was in that war in the first place is a different question, but any war is cruelty that "cannot be refined."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has actually seen war I can say it's ignorance, stupidity and crap on Bob's part. I closely interacted with the civilian population in my little area of operation in Vietnam. Some of them were Viet Cong aka Vietnamese Communists. Didn't know who was who. "God damn the collateral damage" would have meant killing all the ostensible civilians in the province capital Moc Hoa, Kien Tuong, South Vietnam.

Well put. I think Robert McHitler is compensating for his illnesses, making big bombs to prove he's a real man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record and for those who do not wish to click on Ellen's link, here is a post I made on Feb 7, 2008.

Michael

After we kill our enemies and their children, wreck their property and wipe the memory of their existence from off the earth, then we might profitably consider limited government.

Remember Amalek and and do not forget.

Delenda Islama est. We will make a Desolation and call it Peace.

Bob,

What the hell is this? You are preaching desolation? The primitive tribalism of killing off family lines?

I looked up Amalek because I did not know what it was other than some Biblical tribe. Then I read that the Jews did to Amalek what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews—a "sacred war of extermination," except the Jews got away with it. The Nazis didn't. In our modern times, the Jews would not be allowed to get away with it again. Nobody is allowed to do that anymore even though they might try. Thank God I live in modern times!

You are preaching genocide. You are preaching racism on a site devoted to reason. What is wrong with you?

I will not have this on OL, especially not as a regular feature. There is flexibility here and that is sometimes misconstrued as weakness. Well, you have stretched the goodwill to the limit with your preaching of racial hatred.

The next such outburst will be deleted and I will moderate your posts. I am only keeping this one up as the last example. I simply do not have time to babysit you anymore to get at the decent part of your thuggish primitive soul. You are a grown man. Take your racism elsewhere. OL is not the venue for it.

Racism is disgusting and contemptible.

Your kind of mentality never learns and I am tired of having this crap near me. It has stopped being an intellectual challenge and has started becoming an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of every person of goodwill and productivity who reads OL.

I totally reject your worldview as a step backwards in mankind's evolution.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care how many babies die as long as my enemies are destroyed. If one sets out to make scrambled eggs one should not scruple at the breaking of egg shells. The ends justify the means. They always have and they always will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I find it difficult to respond to this atrocity. Some things ought to be self-evident to civilized people -- hell, even to the uncivilized. This is precisely the philosophy -- this vast contempt for human life -- that made possible the hundred million innocent deaths in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China. Congratulations, Ba'al Chatzaf: you have captured the stance of these mass murderers exactly. If I shared any part of your mentality, which I do not, I would say that in justice it ought to be your baby who is one of the broken egg shells.

Barbara

I just want to remind Barbara that I beleive the context of that discussion on SOLO/RoR was whether there should be a law requiring one to rescue the baby. All involved seemed to agree that they would rescue the baby, but were almost all against the idea that they were obligated to do it, and legally punishable if they didn't. That context is everything, and leaving it out would make a lot of people appear to be monsters. I don't think we want to be doing that.

Ethan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I share your revulsion at some of the arguments that were presented -- particularly by Luke Seltzer -- in the Solo discussion of whether or not, morally and legally, one ought to rescue a baby found starving in the wilderness. There are, unfortunately, two types of Objectivists. There are what I call the fundamentalist Objectivists, who, if Ayn Rand wrote that one ought not to sacrifice oneself for others, conclude that since minutes, perhaps hours of one's time would be required in order to rescue the baby, to do so so would be an act of altruism. And there are the Objectivists who consider it idiotic and depraved to consider this a sacrifice in the light of the value -- an innocent human life -- that is involved.

Further, with regard to the purely legal issue, there are (as I pointed out during the discussion) valid legal arguments as to why the refusal to save the baby should be considered criminal -- "depraved indifference" being one of them, as well as the fact that one would be an accessory to the murder of the child whose parents had initiated a murder by abandoning it.

Please, do not judge all Objectivists by the fundamentalists.

Barbara

Note that my reply above, was to this post by Barbara. I hit the button that replied to her post above it accidently.

E.

Edited by ethan dawe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to remind Barbara that I beleive the context of that discussion on SOLO/RoR was whether there should be a law requiring one to rescue the baby.

Ethan,

With all due respect, that was only part of the context. At times and for several posts and tangents, that was not the context at all.

I agree that the legality was discussed some.

I personally tried to discuss how Objectivism was viewed and several other issues. In general, the response was very unflattering to the philosophy (or, more specifically, how the philosophy is viewed and practiced by some individuals who agree with each other).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I referred to a 'Baby in the Woods' discussion on Rebirth of Dogma. This was in a topic called "Altruism Against Freedom." As the thread developed, it was argued that there should be no criminal law that mandates a person to pick up the baby and rescue it from death by exposure.

It was argued by some hardliners (Luke Setzer among them) that while it was a good and moral thing to rescue the baby, to enforce this through law (whether by penalties against 'depraved indifference' or other strictures) was grossly immoral and evil.

(emphasis added)
William, I share your revulsion at some of the arguments that were presented -- particularly by Luke Seltzer -- in the Solo discussion of whether or not, morally and legally, one ought to rescue a baby found starving in the wilderness.
(emphasis added)
I just want to remind Barbara that I beleive the context of that discussion on SOLO/RoR was whether there should be a law requiring one to rescue the baby. All involved seemed to agree that they would rescue the baby, but were almost all against the idea that they were obligated to do it, and legally punishable if they didn't. That context is everything, and leaving it out would make a lot of people appear to be monsters. I don't think we want to be doing that.

One of the oddest things about that thread's progression, Ethan, was the disjuncture between morality and law.** If there was universal agreement that the right and moral thing to do was to rescue the baby from exposure and death, and that a bad and immoral thing was to leave it to die, then WTF is the point in cursing and shunning those who hold that law should reflect basic, universal human values?

In many minds, law (justice described) is a reflection of morality, a code of ethics made concrete. If evolution has given we humans emotional toolkits inclined to reject cheaters, reject theft, reject murder and unprovoked violence, and to be repelled by sociopathic actions -- then what are laws but a particularly human formalizing of the rules of thumb normal human beings live by?

I note you took part in the slurring of humanity in that thread, not only accusing MSK of evasion and non-objectivity, but also playing "me too" with those who asked to be removed from membership at OL.

Micahel,

Unless you come clean on this railroad morality you'll have to take me off the list as well.

[link]

Hmmmm. So, you side with those who called MSK a 'pathetic piece of shit,' Ethan, and you ask that your OL membership be cancelled, as a result of MSK's contributions to the thread in question. Now you pop into this thread on MSK's list and show that you did not digest the particular posts that Barbara responded to. Whatever you 'beleive,' I covered the point you wished her to be reminded of -- and she acknowledged the context you pretend was missed ("morally and legally").

Ethan, why don't you pay attention, evince some integrity, put your money where your mouth is, and piss off?

** -- Setzer on law, morality and the "ick factor"

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, that was only part of the context. At times and for several posts and tangents, that was not the context at all. I agree that the legality was discussed some. I personally tried to discuss how Objectivism was viewed and several other issues. In general, the response was very unflattering to the philosophy (or, more specifically, how the philosophy is viewed and practiced by some individuals who agree with each other).

Michael:

Also with all due respect, I think you are misrepresenting Ethan here. The point he brings up was the sentinel issue back then in those discussions, and apparently this was not understood by you. The argument that most of your opponents were trying to make was that a requirement by law that one individual be obligated to aid another in an emergency situation (e.g., Good Samaritan law) was wrong in and of itself. The arguments against your position back then were that: (1) it would violate the principal of individual autonomy by requiring that the personal context of the victim automatically supersede that of the one required to provide aid; (2) it would supplant the moral decision-making of each individual with an imposed rule, leading to both the erosion of moral development in some people as well as an increase in moral resentment against others in general; (3) there was no special legal categorization necessary for children. They were humans, and as such, they got the same protection of their rights as all humans, neither more nor less.

You suggest that your attempt to try and discuss other issues at that time also yielded responses that were unflattering to Objectivism. As a participant in those discussions, I believe that almost all of the objections you received to those side issues related to what was perceived as an attempt to make an end-run around the legal issue noted above. The resistance you experienced to these attempts were principally due to to your failing to address the legal issue head on and offer a sufficiently well reasoned argument for your position - or conceding the point to your opponents and then moving on the the side issues. I must confess that I was perplexed at the time by your apparent failure to understand this, and I was somewhat angered by your wholesale moral condemnation of those of us who argued against what we perceived as a position based more on emotionalism than rational principles. Your statement that the legal issue was not part of the context of these other issues is simply incorrect.

There are a few people who call themselves Objectivists that fit into Barbara's category of fundamentalist Objectivists, but the overwhelming majority of the people arguing with you back on RoR were not of this mold. As was said over and over, these individuals would be willing, by their own moral convictions, to aid others in emergency situations in most conceivable cases, so the case of the "abandoned baby" was just another example in a long, torturous history, where the emotionalism of a subject was attempted to be used to make another run around individual rights and personal autonomy and superimpose a universal rule of conduct of behavior on all people, regardless of context.

I'm not interested in thrashing through this topic again in detail. But I thought it important to set the record straight.

I do think that this is an important issue, but not for any of the reasons that have come to light in either the discussions here or on RoR. If one is to develop a well defined moral system which instructs one in how to make decisions and act (in a moral sense), then an examination of emergency situations by imagination can be a good way to test the limits of one's moral thinking and also aid one in being better prepared to act rationally and responsibly should one find oneself in such a circumstance. It can be a good thing to give some though to the issue of, in general, just how much aid one is willing to extend to others and at what personal cost. But this is a completely different issue from that of deciding what is and what is not proper territory for the government to impose legal obligations on its citizens.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I referred to a 'Baby in the Woods' discussion on Rebirth of Dogma. This was in a topic called "Altruism Against Freedom." As the thread developed, it was argued that there should be no criminal law that mandates a person to pick up the baby and rescue it from death by exposure.

It was argued by some hardliners (Luke Setzer among them) that while it was a good and moral thing to rescue the baby, to enforce this through law (whether by penalties against 'depraved indifference' or other strictures) was grossly immoral and evil.

(emphasis added)
William, I share your revulsion at some of the arguments that were presented -- particularly by Luke Seltzer -- in the Solo discussion of whether or not, morally and legally, one ought to rescue a baby found starving in the wilderness.
(emphasis added)
I just want to remind Barbara that I beleive the context of that discussion on SOLO/RoR was whether there should be a law requiring one to rescue the baby. All involved seemed to agree that they would rescue the baby, but were almost all against the idea that they were obligated to do it, and legally punishable if they didn't. That context is everything, and leaving it out would make a lot of people appear to be monsters. I don't think we want to be doing that.

One of the oddest things about that thread's progression, Ethan, was the disjuncture between morality and law.** If there was universal agreement that the right and moral thing to do was to rescue the baby from exposure and death, and that a bad and immoral thing was to leave it to die, then WTF is the point in cursing and shunning those who hold that law should reflect basic, universal human values?

In many minds, law (justice described) is a reflection of morality, a code of ethics made concrete. If evolution has given we humans emotional toolkits inclined to reject cheaters, reject theft, reject murder and unprovoked violence, and to be repelled by sociopathic actions -- then what are laws but a particularly human formalizing of the rules of thumb normal human beings live by?

I note you took part in the slurring of humanity in that thread, not only accusing MSK of evasion and non-objectivity, but also playing "me too" with those who asked to be removed from membership at OL.

Micahel,

Unless you come clean on this railroad morality you'll have to take me off the list as well.

[link]

Hmmmm. So, you side with those who called MSK a 'pathetic piece of shit,' Ethan, and you ask that your OL membership be cancelled, as a result of MSK's contributions to the thread in question. Now you pop into this thread on MSK's list and show that you did not digest the particular posts that Barbara responded to. Whatever you 'beleive,' I covered the point you wished her to be reminded of -- and she acknowledged the context you pretend was missed ("morally and legally").

Ethan, why don't you pay attention, evince some integrity, put your money where your mouth is, and piss off?

** -- Setzer on law, morality and the "ick factor"

William, I did just that. I also started to engage Michael in an email discussion after the fact about the heated debate, though we never finished it, which is my fault. I also followed his continuation of the discussion in threads later here. I came back after a time. In my discussion I told Michael that I didn't agree with Jason or any of us hurling epithets. Never-the-less, I didn't agree with what Michael was saying. At all. It wasn't right as I saw it. Michael doesn't seem to have a problem with me popping in now and again. You may, but I don't particularly care, given your habit of peeing on whomever you like. You are witty and funny at times, but I care not a bit for your evaluation of me. Save your breath. That said...

As for the moral versus law point. The case of the babe in the woods is a decidely emergency situation. Sure, I would find anyone who happened upon the babe and ignored it for no good reason to be the vilest sort of sub-person. I would, however, not support a law that said that anyone MUST on pennalty of LAW help another. That isn't right. It's a non-issue however. I don't know of anyone who would avoid helping the child for any reason, Luke included, other than it directly threatening their own life, and that probably wouldn't stop 99% of people either. I doubt Rand would have had a problem with that either....unless you try to make it a law.

I took issue with what Barbara said because, if you asked Luke if he would leave the babe in the woods he would say NO. He would also say that he is free to do it without fear of LEGAL action. I'm sure he would expect that IF he did ignore a lost bade in the woods that, despite not being legally subject, he would be ostracized from society to the point of not being able to enter a single local place of business or count on a single friend. THat would be the right reaction to someone who behaved thus. Morals relate to the self. It's is imoral to have mystical beliefs, becasue they are harmful. Should they be illegal too? HELL NO!

Those are two very fine points. Barbara's statement is at best a misnunderstanding of his position, and at worse an out of context smear. I'm sure she can speak to that herself. I would encourage anyone who thinks that Luke is a fundamentalist baby killer or who wishes to know what Luke really thinks to ask him directly yourself. It is fortunate that he is easily available and still around so that you can safely get his side of the story. No need to rely on the words of another. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, that was only part of the context. At times and for several posts and tangents, that was not the context at all. I agree that the legality was discussed some. I personally tried to discuss how Objectivism was viewed and several other issues. In general, the response was very unflattering to the philosophy (or, more specifically, how the philosophy is viewed and practiced by some individuals who agree with each other).

Michael:

Also with all due respect, I think you are misrepresenting Ethan here. The point he brings up was the sentinel issue back then in those discussions, and apparently this was not understood by you. The argument that most of your opponents were trying to make was that a requirement by law that one individual be obligated to aid another in an emergency situation (e.g., Good Samaritan law) was wrong in and of itself. The arguments against your position back then were that: (1) it would violate the principal of individual autonomy by requiring that the personal context of the victim automatically supersede that of the one required to provide aid; (2) it would supplant the moral decision-making of each individual with an imposed rule, leading to both the erosion of moral development in some people as well as an increase in moral resentment against others in general; (3) there was no special legal categorization necessary for children. They were humans, and as such, they got the same protection of their rights as all humans, neither more nor less.

You suggest that your attempt to try and discuss other issues at that time also yielded responses that were unflattering to Objectivism. As a participant in those discussions, I believe that almost all of the objections you received to those side issues related to what was perceived as an attempt to make an end-run around the legal issue noted above. The resistance you experienced to these attempts were principally due to to your failing to address the legal issue head on and offer a sufficiently well reasoned argument for your position - or conceding the point to your opponents and then moving on the the side issues. I must confess that I was perplexed at the time by your apparent failure to understand this, and I was somewhat angered by your wholesale moral condemnation of those of us who argued against what we perceived as a position based more on emotionalism than rational principles. Your statement that the legal issue was not part of the context of these other issues is simply incorrect.

There are a few people who call themselves Objectivists that fit into Barbara's category of fundamentalist Objectivists, but the overwhelming majority of the people arguing with you back on RoR were not of this mold. As was said over and over, these individuals would be willing, by their own moral convictions, to aid others in emergency situations in most conceivable cases, so the case of the "abandoned baby" was just another example in a long, torturous history, where the emotionalism of a subject was attempted to be used to make another run around individual rights and personal autonomy and superimpose a universal rule of conduct of behavior on all people, regardless of context.

I'm not interested in thrashing through this topic again in detail. But I thought it important to set the record straight.

I do think that this is an important issue, but not for any of the reasons that have come to light in either the discussions here or on RoR. If one is to develop a well defined moral system which instructs one in how to make decisions and act (in a moral sense), then an examination of emergency situations by imagination can be a good way to test the limits of one's moral thinking and also aid one in being better prepared to act rationally and responsibly should one find oneself in such a circumstance. It can be a good thing to give some though to the issue of, in general, just how much aid one is willing to extend to others and at what personal cost. But this is a completely different issue from that of deciding what is and what is not proper territory for the government to impose legal obligations on its citizens.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Thank you Jeffrey.

Indeed the legal thrust was the central issue to my arguements and from my recollection, most of the other posters as well. Luke included.

If Michael missed that in the quickly rising tide of epithet, it is unfortunate. While Jason Quintana was making the same point, he did enter into the discussion quickly and peppered his posts with swears and insults. That didn't help set the tone of the discussion and probably put Michael on the defensive. He had recently battled Michael over other things, but that tone is rarely helpful in having a serious discussion. I myslef have occasionally fallen into that trap and found myself later appologizing, not for my position, but perhaps my tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF is the point in cursing and shunning those who hold that law should reflect basic, universal human values?

There are two ways to create law, either by fiat or by adjudication.

Dictators, popes, communes, and legislators decree positive laws by fiat, which are written down and codified: you must do this and refrain from that, or else you will be punished. The lawgivers are irresponsible. They can decree anything they wish, including basic, universal human values like regulation of commerce, compulsory education, standing armes, farm subsidies and whatnot.

The other way to create law is by adjudication, A v B in a court of law, offering claims and defenses in a specific case. Forget juries for a moment. We're not talking about questions of fact. Common law cases often present novel legal questions which the trial judge and appellate courts have to decide. When it reaches the highest court of appeal, their decision becomes law. Courts are also competent to interpret constitutions and void unconstitutional whims of dictators and legislators.

I hope and trust you see the difference. Legislators can decree 'thou shalt save all infants in peril' and claim it's right and good to enforce it. Common law courts can't. All they can do is hear A v B, a specific civil case lodged by one plaintiff against one respondent. Sometimes it can be a class action, but never 'All babies in peril' v 'You The People.'

Unfortunately, you can't have two contradictory systems of fundamental law-making. Either fiat or adjudication, not both. America started with common law (case by case adjudication, treating each person as a separate entity). It led to the Declaration of Independence and remained effective until the Civil War, which ended civil due process in favor of Congressional fiat and Executive Orders.

Today, it's simply a matter of legislating whatever you wish. Punish indifference? - sure, why not. Dueces wild in lawmaking. All you have to do is make a campaign contribution or run for office. No child left behind. It takes a village. Whatever.

A proposed Objectivist system of law

A book with wider discussion of the issues

W.

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffery,

Unfortunately you came into the discussion at the end back then. I was irritated with all the name-calling and apprehensive that it would start again in that environment, so I did not hash it out with you.

But if we are going to go there, then one question was never addressed to my satisfaction, or the satisfaction of many people: what about the right to life of the baby?

In the so-called Objectivist version that was argued back then (which I do not consider as Objectivist), only the rights of the adult were protected. It was legal for an adult to watch a baby starve to death up close (with other restrictive conditions argued back then to make it good and ugly) although several said they wouldn't do it and would find it morally repugnant.

I still get a total blank-out over this with some posters (and I have heard and mulled over all the arguments). I cannot dismiss the right to life of a baby so blithely and I will not lend my voice to a moral argument that permits this.

I do not have the solution, but the one defended on RoR back then is wrong due to oversimplification. Of that much I am certain.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethan: 'I took issue with what Barbara said because, if you asked Luke if he would leave the babe in the woods he would say NO. He would also say that he is free to do it without fear of LEGAL action. I'm sure he would expect that IF he did ignore a lost bade in the woods that, despite not being legally subject, he would be ostracized from society to the point of not being able to enter a single local place of business or count on a single friend. THat would be the right reaction to someone who behaved thus. Morals relate to the self. It's is imoral to have mystical beliefs, becasue they are harmful. Should they be illegal too? HELL NO!...

"Barbara's statement is at best a misnunderstanding of his position, and at worse an out of context smear. I'm sure she can speak to that herself. I would encourage anyone who thinks that Luke is a fundamentalist baby killer or who wishes to know what Luke really thinks to ask him directly yourself. It is fortunate that he is easily available and still around so that you can safely get his side of the story. No need to rely on the words of another. :-)

Ethan, it was not my intention or desire to smear Luke. Yes, he certainly did say that he personally would help the starving child. But he wrote:

"I have generally found MSK a likeable person and I still consider him a friend, but the fascistic stand he takes on this issue has left me fuming and checking my premises about the character of MSK.

'As I understand him, MSK takes the position that government may justifiably punish any adult who could help the stranded child of another but does nothing instead.  I could not disagree more strongly.  What he advocates is not freedom, but fascism.

"If that is indeed his position, I must necessarily label him a fascist and act accordingly."

It is particulary this -- the glib equating of disagreement with fascism -- that characterizes Objectivist fundamentalists.

As to the idea that anyone who would allow the baby to starve would be socially ostracized: if that were sufficient punishment for what both Michael and I believe to be the legitimate province of the law, we would need no laws against murder or child molestation, for surely murderers and child molesters would be socially ostracized if their crimes were revealed -- except, of course, by other murderers and child molesters..

I just did somewhat of a double take on your statement that "It's is imoral to have mystical beliefs, becasue they are harmful." I would add to the category of fundamentalism the view that everyone who believes in God is immoral. People hold mistaken ideas for all sorts of reason. It is the height of presumption to assume that "harmful" or "mystical" views can be arrived at only through evasion.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot build a political/legal philosophy out of queer, unusual, unlikely situations. However, if you know a child is being abused and do not report it to the authorities you are complicit in the abuse.

Not quite four years ago I found two kittens abandoned in the desert. They wouldn't have lasted much longer. We stopped at the end of our street to pick up some likely rocks and they came staggering up to us. Did I ask what would an Objectivist do? No, now they are cats running all over my house having a good time at my expense. Oh! The sacrifice! The altruism! I'm sure only an "Objectivist fundamentalist" would have abandoned them in the first place. John Galt: "I swear by my life and my love for it I will not rescue any baby abandoned in the wilderness!" Come, become an Objectivist and BE HAPPY! You too can walk right by abandoned, starving, crying babies and feel no guilt! No remorse! And just forgetaboutit! Go home and screw your Dagny in oblivious/blivious exaltation! The highest height for the highest passion! No need for, no room for, babies in adult Objectivism land! And fuck your neighbor, if not his wife! Don't you see: OBJECTIVISM HAS ALL THE ANSWERS! OBJECTIVISM IS PURE! OBJECTIVISM IS PERFECT! JUST RATIONALLY APPLY THE PRINCIPLES!!!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] for what both Michael and I believe to be the legitimate province of the law [...]

Barbara:

Can you please explain under what principle you believe that the requirement for Good Samaritan laws fall under the justifiable purview of the government. I'm particularly interested in an analysis that ties these laws to the issue of rights and wonder if you see the case of helping a child as being different from that of helping an adult. In other words, should a situation involving extending aid to a child impose legal obligations on an individual that would not exist if an adult were to be in a similar situation?

Regards,

--

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] for what both Michael and I believe to be the legitimate province of the law [...]

Barbara:

Can you please explain under what principle you believe that the requirement for Good Samaritan laws fall under the justifiable purview of the government. I'm particularly interested in an analysis that ties these laws to the issue of rights and wonder if you see the case of helping a child as being different from that of helping an adult. In other words, should a situation involving extending aid to a child impose legal obligations on an individual that would not exist if an adult were to be in a similar situation?

Regards,

--

Jeff

I'm curious as to why you don't start with the humanity of the situation? Adult/child, what's the dif.? Legal obligations? Who cares how much the law fucks you over when you gratutitously abandon a fellow human being to die? Do you imagine I'd be there as a character witness? If I were your personal friend I'd take you out back and, being a natural thug of course, beat the holly shit out of you. Who cares about you and your fucking "principles" if you don't know how to be simply human?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now