ethan_a_dawe
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by ethan_a_dawe
-
-
Nothing left but heckling, Ethan?
It's a bitch, ain't it?
Michael
No, it isn't.
Okay Michael,
I'll head out. Some day you may publish your treatise and I'll read it then and give it it's due. I assure you that I look forward to it.
Despite your claims, you haven't shown me anything to prove your point. I honestly wanted to give your ideas a hearing after the nasty turn it took on RoR. I spend a great deal of time thinking about things, and have gone rounds in my head and with people about Objectivism as I learned and integrated. That will never stop. I will always be willing to listen to a challenge, as that's the only way to learn and understand. I'll refrain from saying more becasue I find I regret saying nasty things, even if I feel they are deserved. You and I don't argue the same way, and I'll leave it at that. Make of it and my brief visit what you will.
Ethan
-
-
Ethan,
Do you know what a differentia and a genus is?
Why don't you give me what you think rights are using that formula? And please explain what you consider to be the genus and what is the differntia. That shouldn't be too hard for an Objectivist. After all, this is pure Objectivism 101.
You keep yapping that I am not discussing theory or evidence and whatnot, and keep ignoring the theory and evidence that actually is discussed, including quotes from Rand. Sorry, but that's a hoot.
Incidentally, I have always stated that I speak in my own name. I use the Objectivist moniker merely as a point of reference, like one would with Existentialiast or Romantic, not in the sense of a card-carrying member of a movement to save the world.
Thus it is difficult for me to pile it on Rand. I always quote her words as she wrote them. I may use her epistemological structure to come to different conclusions than she did at times, but I never misrepresent what she actually wrote. And I especially avoid the "Objectivism teaches this..." approach of channeling her like the plague.
If you want to see it piled on Rand in grand style, take a look at this mess: Importance of Philosophy Dictiomary. This was done in the name of Objectivism by a self-proclaimed spokesman for Rand (which he isn't in fact).
If you want to get a good idea of the size of the mess, I have provided some good tools right here on OL, especially on this thread. But here, let me do some of your homework for you to make it real easy. Get the Lexicon (for free online) and the ITOE Study Guide by Didion. Unfortunately I have to use a Wayback Machine link for that excellent study because the site is no longer up. So here is the quote of the definitions page to make it even easier (a couple of his page numbers are wrong, but if you use the Index, you can find the term):
The following terms are those that Ayn Rand defines in the pages of ITOE. Page numbers refer to the Second Edition trade paperback. The paragraph numbers refer to the paragraph on the page in which Ayn Rand defines the term. A partial paragraph at the top of a page is considered to be paragraph 1.abstraction - pg 10, par 2
adjective - pg 17, par 3
adverb - pg 16, par 5
axiomatic concept - pg 55, par 2
commensurable - pg 13, par 6
concept - pg 13, par 4
Conceptual Common Denominator - pg 15, par 2
conjunction - pg 17, par 3
definition - pg 40, par 1
epistemology - pg 36, par 4
existent - pg 5, par 5
extrospection - pg 29, par 3
fundamental - pg 85, par 1
grammar - pg 37, par 4
implicit - pg 57, par 3
introspection - pg 29, par 3
invalid concept - pg 49, par 5
knowledge - pg 35, par 3
language - pg 10, par 3
love - pg 34, par 4
man - pg 44, par 4
mathematics - pg 7, par 3
measurment - pg 7, par 4
number - pg 63, par 5
percept - pg 5, par 4
preposition - pg 17, par 2
Rand's Razor - pg 72, par 2
reification of the zero - pg 60, par 4
similarity - pg 13, par 5
spiritual - pg 33, par 6
unit - pg 6, par 7
word - pg 40, par 2
You can throw in OPAR if you like (use the Index), but that's Peikoff, not Rand. Still, he claims to represent Objectivism, so it is instructive.
Now, all you do is compare one against the other. Give it a try. You apparently represent that IOPD mess and find no problem at all with it. At least you frequently advocate in defense of the author. Please correct me if I am wrong.
But if you do the donkey-work, you will see that some of the things are OK in the IOPD, but some of them are really out there and are totally misrepresentative of Rand's ideas. This is from a guy who says he speaks in Rand's name and is out to save the world.
One day when I have nothing to do but piss away my time and correct the bs published by others, I will make a comparative chart of that mess and publish it. Or, who knows? Maybe that thing will get a much needed overhaul before then.
But that's what I call piling it on Rand. Not a person questioning her view of human nature and other concepts under his own name.
Michael
Again, you didn't answer the questions put to you.
This "I'll show you mine of you'll show me yours" thing has become tiresome.
That and your not partiucularly veiled jabs at Joe :poke: are par for the course here. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE OZ HAS SPOKEN!
I'll keep reading occasionally to see if you actually answer the questions I and others have put to you regarding your own assertions. :logik:
-
Ethan,
I am enlightened that you know what I think. At least I know where to look when I am get in doubt and no longer know. I am relieved.
I suggest you take more care of what Ethan thinks than what Michael thinks, but that is only a suggestion. In my opinion, that would be more productive on a very selfish level. But, of course, you are free to do as you please.
Michael
:no:
Michael, I don't mean to suggest that I know what you are thinking. When I say "you must think" I mean that is my conclusion based on what you have said. Of course your answer was not an answer, just a smoke screen. Now below your answer to Ellen is just that as well. You haven't answered my question, which is just asking you to define and prove what you have said on this thread. My suggestion to you is that you stop looking for the smart-ass teacher responses and start actually proving something. So far we have baseless assertions. I want to know what your theory is! Stop telling me how I've got it all wrong. Start showing me how you've got it all right. Anything else is BS obfuscating the issue. At this point I think you don't have any proof of your assertions. That will change only if you prove it. If you say that your belief is good enough for you and your not going to explain it, fine. Just don't keep telling the rest of us how wrong we are. I gave up faith ong ago.
Ethan
-
-
Laure,
Call it anything for an infant but right to life if rights are defined strictly in terms of NIOF. That's just too hypocritical for my taste.
I don't think the right for children to starve to death was what the Founding Fathers had in mind with that phrase.
As to the rest of your points, I have been aware of them since the beginning. They fall into contradiction when a child is defined as a human being needing care.
I agree with you that rights are supposed to be for all people. It just doesn't work out that way, not even in theory. I can't live with that contradiction. I will live out here in the real world.
Now I am going to be interested in seeing how my words get twisted into meanings that are the exact opposite of what I stated. It has already started.
Michael
Define: What is a right to life? What is a right?
You have taken this phrase, "right to life" and made a lot of it. I don't see the contradiction that you are talking about.
You say people here don't understand what you're saying or twist it. All of us? I'm not known for being particularly stupid, and I don't think the others posting here are either. Are we all just narrow minded or dogmatic?
You have made statements that things are a not as we would say. You say we are wrong. You say that you are figuring this out. If you are figuring it out, then I don't think you know that Rand was wrong.
This debate is a waste until you can put your money where your mouth is. You need spell out exactly what you mean and show why it is so. You haven't done that yet. Please don't bother to tell me how my question is wrong and how I'm wrong. Just answer your own statements as to children having rights, what those rights are, and what that means to others. Focus on that. Write it down. Put it up for scrutiny. Then I can read it and see. Anything else here is just waste and words.
Ethan
-
Michael,
For someone who doesn't like government, and doesn't like being told what to do, you seem strangely willing to support a law for punishing people who don't do what you think should be done. :logik:
In any case, I look forward to seeing the final conclusions you draw in your investigations. Once you have it all together and thought out I'll read it and discuss it then. I assume we'll see it here sometime?
-
Rather than babies in forests, neither of which Objectivish types generally seem to be particularly fond, can we try another situation which might be more Objectivist-friendly and which more clearly outlines the lack of cost, effort, inconvenience or long-term, unchosen obligations to another human in an emergency situation?
Let's say that a man named Wesley is visiting an industrial facility which contains huge machines, some of which shred large pieces of metal. As his tour guide is instructing him about some of the machinery, Wesley sees a worker get hit by a large pipe that has fallen from above. The plant foreman, who has been standing next to a control panel, sees the accident as well and runs to help the victim. As he's running, he points back to Wesley and the tour guide and yells, "Don't move! Stay right where you are for your own safety and for everyone else's!"
Wesley happens to be inside of a little room which contains the control panel that the foreman was monitoring before the accident, and the tour guide happens to be just outside of the room. When the foreman reaches the accident victim, he looks up and realizes that a fuel line has burst, which is why a part of it fell and hit the worker. He punches an emergency button near him which triggers an alarm, shuts down all fuel-driven machines within the plant, and automatically closes and seals the door to the control room in which Wesley is standing (the system was designed to isolate the control room and its inhabitants from being exposed to hazardous liquids, gasses or fire). So, Wesley is now locked in the control room, and his tour guide and everyone else are locked out.
When the alarm sounds, the plant's brilliantly creative and heroic owner, Hank, who is standing near a metal shredder which was not automatically shut down because it is powered by electricity rather than fuel oil, turns to look at what is happening. When he does so, his clothing snags on the track which feeds scrap metal into the machine. He's being dragged into the machine, and he starts yelling for help. No one can get to him in time to either free him from the track or to push the emergency stop button on the machine. The only chance is for Wesley to hit the master electrical shutdown button in the control room in which he's locked. There are only a few seconds left in which to act.
Everyone is screaming at Wesley to push the large red button right in front of him. He looks at it. He places his hand over it. Then he pulls back and says, "Fuck all of you. Like your individualist boss over there, I've just decided that I'm not obligated to care for another human being. I don't accept duties or unchosen obligations, and this situation is just a slippery slope which will lead to a society in which I am forced to expend all of my time and money caring for hapless industrialists, their workers and their stupid, arrogant children." With a smug grin, Wesley lets Hank get pulled into the machine and ground into bits.
1) Does this scenario change things? Should there be no legal repercussions to Wesley's intentionally avoiding putting forth the minimal effort of pushing a button to save another human being while incurring no cost or risk of harming himself?
2) If, after Hank is ground to bits because of Wesley's intentional lack of action, one of Hank's employees eventually gains access to the control room in which Wesley is locked, and beats the hell out of him, breaks his nose and jaw, blinds him in one eye and permanently damages one of his arms, should the worker be charged with violating Wesley's rights?
3) If the worker is charged and found guilty of assaulting and crippling Wesley, would the judge who is hearing the case be immoral if he was so disgusted with Wesley that he threw out the verdict or imposed a fine of one cent?
J
I would act to save Hank by pushing the button. But.....
1) No he is not legally required to act.
2) Yes, he could be charged for assaulting Wesley.
3) If the judge ruled thus and confirmed that his ruling was based on thinking Wesly should have acted then it would be open to appeal.
What if Wesley went to hit the big red button and accidently hit one that casued a bunch of other workers to be injured or killed? Then he get's to court and say's he tried to do the right thing but was in error or confused? What if he claims that but the judge thinks he did it becasue he hated Hank and the other workers? What if What if What if.
Scenrios like these tell you nothing.
-
Ethan,
You want me to show you what I can't because I have not reasoned that far. What part of "I don't have the solution" was difficult to understand?
I was under the impression that you had concluded that babies had a right to life that required action by those able no matter how related. Is that not true?
What I mean is, you have argued against others here and asserted that something is so. Now, if you just have a hypothesis that that is the case, that's one thing. That's fine. If you start telling other people they are wrong and that you don't accept their view I would assume that you had a conclusion or proof. Maybe not. You say you're still working this out. But you also claim others are blanking things out and are insistent that a child has a right that extends to a requirement on unrealated people. I'm just reacting to your claims. I'm doing so in good faith and with what I think is clear reason. Perhaps the others here can say if I'm making myslef clear or not.
E.
-
You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of building it should give you the answer. Please explain your process so I can see how you have arrived at the child having a right to life.
Ethan,
That's totally backwards. You don't start with a conclusion. On a metaphysical level there are no rights for anyone or anything. There is only existence. Philosophically, rights pertain to the branch of politics. The concept of rights rests on metaphysics, not the other way around.
This is very indicative of the problem with understanding I have experienced on this issue. You appear to be debating to win some kind of pre-determined position or arguing to arrive at some kind of pre-determined conclusion—or expecting me to do the same. I'm on another wave-length entirely.
When I start from the ground up, I start from the ground up. I empty my mind of prejudice.
Why not start with Socrates?: "I only know that I do not know."
Then one can look, see, integrate, learn and conclude.
The way I have typically expressed this time and time again is that the proper manner of conceptual thinking is make a cognitive identification, and only after that has been done, to make a normative evaluation.
I do not subscribe to Peikoff's admonition that all existence is normative by nature to a human being. I have seen too often people who follow this replace facts with their beliefs and opinions. Normative only works conceptually if the cognitive part is correct.
Rights are normative by definition. They belong to politics, which sits on ethics, which is the normative branch of philosophy.
Michael
Michael,
I know that. EDIT (That you don't start with a conclusion. That's why it's called a conclusion.)
You said you are building this from the ground up.
You said the child has a right to life.
You said that you don't agree with the positive/negative right thing.
I'm saying show me how you have built from the ground up to that right to life.
I'm saying show me how that translates into an obligation.
You are saying you think it does.
I don't want to hear how the Oist version is wrong, or Rand said this or that.
I don't want to rehash this from the old angles.
I want to hear YOUR grounds-up reasoning since YOU SAY that's what you are doing. You are saying that you believe that this right to life exists and is legally enforceable. Show me how you arrive there. (CAPS for accent not "yelling")
-
What do you mean by a right then? What is your definition?
Ethan,
You haven't been reading me correctly. I have been constructing the definition from the ground up and I have stated clearly I do not have the answer. And I have essentially been asking you these questions. All I get is recycled jargon, not concepts.
I reject recycled jargon. This is too important.
Michael
This is a repeat of my post #96 which seems to have gotten overlooked in the debate.........
Okay, let's throw away Rand's comments and all that has come before this and start fresh with what you've said.
You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of building it should give you the answer. Please explain your process so I can see how you have arrived at the child having a right to life.
Ethan
-
-
What do you mean by a right then? What is your definition?
Ethan,
You haven't been reading me correctly. I have been constructing the definition from the ground up and I have stated clearly I do not have the answer. And I have essentially been asking you these questions. All I get is recycled jargon, not concepts.
I reject recycled jargon. This is too important.
Michael
Okay, let's throw away Rand's comments and all that has come before this and start fresh with what you've said.
You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of building it should give you the answer. Please explain your process so I can see how you have arrived at the child having a right to life.
Ethan
-
Ethan,
As I stated above, I reject the postive/negative categorization of rights in the manner it is used by Objectivists and libertarians because of a problem in defining human nature.
So to answer your question on your terms, which is based on the postive/negative categorization of rights on a metaphysical level, I have no answer.
Human nature is what exists ar root. Not postive/negative rights. That categorization comes later in analyzing human conduct and it is merely one form of categorization.
Michael
Michael,
Rand was talking about positive and negative rights. You can't quote her and then claim she meant some other type of rights. You have specifically quoted her on the childs "right to life." What do you mean by a right then? What is your definition? The negative rights in Objectivism are just identification of what we are as human beings. What is it in our nature that puts an obligation for our well-being onto another? Furthermore, if you were right, and babies had this right that causes obligations, then we WOULD be obliged to deal with all the unwanted babies of the world, wouldn't we? Then, by continuation, the governement would justifiably be able to require us to pay for any and all of them?
-
Ellen,
The original example was merely to feed the child and take him to safety—not assume long-term care for him. The rebuttal to that has been that it would be perfectly legal for an adult with plenty to sit days in the wilderness in front of an abandoned child and watch him starve to death, all the while eating at will right in front of him. It would be legal, as the argument goes, but people would call him bad names for doing that. They use harsher language, but that's all it amounts to.
But since you brought it up, I am not against the government providing facilities to care for abandoned and/or abused childred in orphanages as wards of the state until a proper home can be found or until they grow up, whichever comes first. I prefer privately funded orphanages, but in the absense of those, I believe that it is a proper government function to provide such care to ensure the child's right to life.
If that makes me an altruist and enslaver of mankind, make the most of it.
Michael
EDIT:
The implication is that the child has a positive right to be kept alive, to be fed.That's not just an implication. That's stated very clearly by Ayn Rand herself.
btw - Do you have any opinion about the derivation of rights, or do you prefer to accept the positive/negative rights model as a predigested metaphysical given that needs no thought?
Michael,
I think Ellen has the right of it. Rand had no intention to suggest that the child's right to life was a positive right that required action by people other than the parents. Again, I don't know of anyone who would willingly abandon the babe in the woods. I think that private organizations would be more than capable of handling any wayward children.
Can you agree with that?
-
Fine, but I certainly wouldn't take the seat-of-the-pants discussions that occur on these forums as anything resembling Objectivism, which is supposed to be a rational, systematic philosophy that provides a comprehensive world view useful for living on earth. Most of what I see here is based more upon emotional responses than careful reasoning.
(Boy, nothing pushes more buttons here than the abandoned, starving, crying baby in the wolderness who, BTW, is certainly dead and gone by now.)
Yes, that's Objectivism, which supposes to know too much about human being.
--Brant
Out of curiousity, who in this debate considers themselves an Objectivist? I know Dragonfly doesn't. How about any of you others. Note that I don't care if any of you are or aren't. I've never met another Objectivist face to face, so all my friends are not. :-)
How about you Barbara? You certainly have the longest exposure to the philosophy of anyone here. Do you consider yourself an Objectivist? If not, what parts of the philosophy do you disagree with or find wanting given your involvement during much of it's development?
-
I don't like that fruit.
Like is an emotional reaction. Why do you not like it? What is the root of your reasoning? It's to your own benefit to ask yourself these questions and understand why you do not like it.
I understand very well why I don't like Objectivists, I've endured them for many years. In general I get along much better with ex-Objectivists.
Well, I understand why too. Strange that you frequent places where you have to endure so much, but then you must get some value from it. I think our conversation is done as you clearly don't see the situation as being different and I don't think I'll convince you. Debates serve the purpose of checking one understanding and learning things. To me this last response suggests that you consider emotions to be valid tools of reason. I disagree. I check my emotional reactions to things and always question from where they arise and how, if they are incorrect, I may correct them. It's how I stopped making bad decisions in relationships.
Rather than listening to your short ripostes and comments about enduring those Objectivists who obvioulsy just don't get it I think we should stop wasting one anothers time. That way things won't devolve to a level of nastiness and epithet. :-)
-
-
Jeff,
There are several manners of examining this issue as you can see from some of the posts above. I will stay within Objectivism for this post. There is a contradiction involved on the identification (premise) level that has always made me uncomfortable, in addition to any emotional load this issue involves.
The Objectivist premise is that rights derive from ethics, which derive from man's nature. This is usually stated in Objectivism as a conceptual hierarchy:
Metaphysics (most fundamental)
Epistemology (based on metaphysics)
Ethics (based on metaphysics and epistemology)
Politics (based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics)
Man's nature (in terms of identifying it on a cognitive level) is usually sandwiched in between metaphysics and epistemology in Objectivism and not given a separate philosophical category. That's OK so long as we understand that man's nature is a valid category for contemplating philosophical issues.
Regardless of this detail, man's nature falls between two branches of philosophy that come before ethics in the hierarchy of fundamentality. In other words, if there is a logical breach (contradiction) between an ethical identification and a metaphysical one, the ethical one has to be corrected and rethought since the metaphysical one is more fundamental to the concept. That's just the way concepts are formed in Objectivism (and in life). Rand expressed this a gazillian times in Atlas Shrugged by saying "Check your premises."
For the record, it is also possible to redo the metaphysical identification if it is found to be wrong, but in that case, the entire philosophy would need to be revised since everything else rests on it. (An example would be if a white-haired white-robed dude suddenly came thundering down from the sky for all to see, making miracles happen left and right, then proclaiming that He was God. Our metaphysics would have to be... er... revised...
)But I am presuming that Objectivist metaphysics is correct, the axiomatic concepts are true, man as a living being needs values to survive and that man has conceptual volition as his principal means of obtaining those values.
So let's look at the definition of man under Objectivism. Man is a rational animal, with rational being the differentia and animal being the genus. Genus is the wider category. Man is not just a rational thing. He is a rational animal. This means that he has all the fundamental characteristics of animal, and the added characteristic of being rational, which distinguishes him from all other animals. Far too many Objectivist arguments treat man as if he were a rational thing, a "premise with feet" to use Robert Bidinotto's colorful phrase.
To my knowledge, there never has been a standard Objectivist definition of animal drawn up, but I certainly cannot see it excluding fundamental components like life cycle, birth, death, growth, reproduction, species and so forth. So a fundamental part of being an animal is coming into life—as a member of a species—in a relatively helpless state, growing and acquiring survival skills, becoming fully autonomous, then aging and dying. This is the natural state of all men if they are lucky enough to be born without a birth defect and not be squished or starved to death (or something else horrible) along the course of their lives.
This cycle and different states of it are fundamental parts of man's nature. Rationality is not the only characteristic. Man has animal-ness built in.
How we define human nature will determine how we define ethics, which is basically man's values (cognitive identification) and man's exercise of volition in obtaining those values (normative identification). And how we define ethics will determine how we define rights, which under Objectivism, are moral principles transposed to the social level.
Rand had no problem at all with stating this almost explicitly. For instance, in discussing severely retarded individuals in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Mayhew, p. 4, Rand stated very comfortably "since all rights rest on human nature..." That is her logical chain and it is mine. Human nature is more fundamental than rights. Human nature defines the needs and nature of rights because it defines the needs and nature of ethics.
Now in the same book, in discussing the rights of children (p. 3), Rand made a cognitive identification of the nature of children: "An infant can't earn his own sustenance, nor can a child exercise his rights and know what the pursuit of happiness is, nor know what freedom is and how to use it."
Rand stated clearly that a child cannot exercise these rights, but she also stated (quite correctly, in the same paragraph) "both the adult and the child have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Before continuing, let us make sure we understand the cognitive identifications going on here. Rand is not talking about two different animals. She is talking about the same animal (man) in different states of existence along a life cycle. A child is not one thing that has no rights, then transforms one day into another thing (adult) that has them. A man (or woman) is the same animal from birth to maturity. That is why he has the normative and political rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from birth and not later, when he has the biological survival skills to exercise them (basically, in Objectivism, this means a developed rational mind).
Many Objectivists treat children as if they were different animals from adults. This is simply more "premise with feet" thinking. Since Rand certainly understood that a child is merely one state of a human being and not a different species, she was very comfortable in saying (p. 3): "The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen."
Now, to be fair, Rand was talking within the context of parents. Back then, during the Ford Hall Forum lectures, the public was largely college students (Boston is a college city). The 70's was a time of widespread questioning parental authority. Thus there are many questions in Ayn Rand Answers that deal with parental relations that could have been broader. I believe this is the reason her focus was on parents in this case and not from any intention to exclude other considerations.
But getting back to the paradox, if the government exists to protect individual rights, if a child by definition is a citizen and human being, and if a child by nature has such rights but cannot exercise them (the right to life being the main one we are discussing, which is only assured by being supported by adults with functioning rational minds), there is no logical reason on earth why the right to life of a child should be excluded in a discussion of rights in Objectivism.
Now notice in your questions and arguments that this is precisely the right you exclude. You focus solely on the rights of the adult. And here we come to the contradiction. If both parties (adult and child) have fundamental rights and the government exists to protect those rights, what happens if those rights collide on a definitional level?
That is what happens here. That is the contradiction in the Objectivist argument. It is a premise problem. The normal manner of dealing with it by many Objectivists has been to do what you just did, simply ignore the rights of the child and focus solely on the rights of the adult. But ignoring this merely compounds the logical error. It implies that not all people have equal protection of rights under the law or that not all people have rights. For the logic to work, a new identification would need to be made, something along the lines of "at any given moment, the government exists to protect the rights of some people, but not the rights of others," or "a child is not a human being until it becomes an adult" or whatever. And, of course, this would be absurd.
Placing the burden for raising children on parents is the correct thing to do for protecting children's rights, but there are too many cases where parents are not available to simply use this formula as an all-inclusive treatment of the child's rights and pretend that the right has been fully protected. A child has the right to life, regardless of whether a parent is near or not. And this derives directly from his nature as a human being, since it sets squarely on the ethics of human values and the metaphysics and epistemology of man as a rational animal, which includes a life-cycle of growth from helplessness.
I have a whole bunch of other considerations, but for now this will do. While this is not a fully developed argument as to why there should be a legal sanction against an adult for depraved indifference resulting in loss of life (and I believe there should be, but I have not yet arrived at the full reasons), it does show that according to the internal logic of Objectivism, there is no valid logical case for sanctioning instances of excluding the right to life of children from legal concerns during moments of clear and present danger.
Something has to give. Something needs to be redefined or reworked. The logic is wrong. The premises contradict each other.
Michael
If the premises contradict and there are no contradiction, then you need to check your premises. :-)
Seriously though, you are looking at an extremely rare and narrow case, in our society at least. In how many instances would this crop up? Almost never. So it's a massive lifeboat situation. We'll set that aside for a moment. Suppose you have a law requireing the action, suppose that a person comes accross the child and the child is about to be eaten by a bear; Should you be legally required to act to save that child, probably resulting in you yourself being eaten? What if you are wounded and come across the baby? Legally responsible? You seem unsatisfied that everyone involved in these discussions would try to help the child. Suppose in one out of a hundred of these infinitesimally rare cases someone did nothing, is that worth legislation? Is this really a problem with Objectivism, or is it merely that the whole premise of this discussion is wrong?
-
That's not the same thing at all. In the case of a murder you are acting directly to kill someone. The legality of that is obvious. You can tie it directly in to an objective reason.
Killing by non-action can be equally effective. Suppose you drive on a road using the cruise control, and unexpectedly someone steps in front of your car, but at such a distance that you can brake in time to avoid a collision. I think that if you just do nothing but drive on with your cruise control on you're certainly guilty. Such cases may not be not the equivalent of murder, as there is no malice aforethought, but they are a form of manslaughter. It is a silly notion that failing to do something may never be punished.
In the case of the motorist, you are legally requiring an action. An action that may very well put you in danger. Why should that be LEGALLY required?I answered that already in my post #58.
The cruise control issue is different. That is obvious. You set the cruise control. You acted.
As for having answered my question, that wasn't an answer. Without that answer rationally and reasonably explained we cannot continue. You must answer why legally the person should be held responsible. What fact of reality requires that law? Your answer is a dodge in my opinion. If you'd like to continue with me then an answer to that question is my price. :-)
-
Should you be legally obligated to help? My answer is: yes,
Okay. Why?
For the same reason that it is punishable by law to kill a person.
That's not the same thing at all. In the case of a murder you are acting directly to kill someone. The legality of that is obvious. You can tie it directly in to an objective reason.
In the case of the motorist, you are legally requiring an action. An action that may very well put you in danger. Why should that be LEGALLY required?
-
-
-
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
In answer to the part about Luke calling Michael's (and your) views facist, I await your answer to Jeff's question about these laws. If you can provide an answer to that that shows why you think that rationally should be a law I will gladly listen.
As regards murderers and rapists they have actively sought out others to violate there rights. The baby is a question of positive rights as I see it. The babies "right to life" cannot be legally forced on another party. Perhaps your answer to Jeff will show me why you think it can. I'll give that answer due consideration.
As to religious people and immorality. People would not be immoral if they hold their belief due to wrng knowledge. Many hold their beliefs as a tradition and haven't really considered them carefully. Many beleive that we cannot know anything about such questions and can't be bothered to think about them. I wouldn't call them immoral. Then there are many who refuse to check their beliefs and will argue that they are right in spite of any evidence to the contrary. They would be immral in my eyes. By immoral I mean acting in a way that harms your life. Immorality is a buzz word and I wish to clarify it here. People hear you saying such and such is immoral and they get all upset.
Ethan
Regulation of Drugs
in Chewing on Ideas
Posted · Edited by ethan dawe
Bob needs to recognize that the choice issue was decided when the person chose to take the drug. Blank out? I don't think people should do crack (or any drug that harms them.) I respect their right to do as they please. I would help someone I thought I could help try to get off drugs. I don't think my money is wisely spent trying to stop people from getting drugs. Prohibition in the U.S. failed for a good reason.