Question about protecting those who cannot help themselves

[clarkems]

All,

While I am a newbie to the site I have been mulling over Objectivist philospohy and its application in day to day living for a number of years now.

I am considering the impact of being an objectivist living in a population of non-objectivists. In fact most of the public are not even aware of its existence. Of course a big screen production of "Atlas Shrugged" could go a long way to changing that. Even then I suppose the population will be far more polarized than apathetic on the issue after the release of the movie. (Expect unionist knee jerk reaction at least and perhaps left wing condemnation.)

I see Objectivist philosophy being intrinsically tied in with self esteem and rational living from an individual point of view. However I expect others I meet to be anywhere on the self-responsibility spectrum when I first meet them. So, in general in day to day living one needs to be able to deal with issues of others who do not live rationally.

I have seen writing where it is described that one can defend yourself if others, who are not living rationally, violate your rights. I agree, with the proviso of using rational thought to determine the degree of response. However the reverse situation is one that prevents me from making the jump from individual application to social application of the philospohy.

What about those who, for the reasons of : mental illness, physicall illness, lack of education, poor attitude development, cultural values, etc. cannot take responsibility for themselves, therefor being unable to live rationally? What if they are not even aware that they are not self-responsible?

One could take the extreme position that if they are not living rationally ( by whose definition and standards?) they lose their rights as an individual. That sets up some ugly "Big Brother" scenarios possible on grand scales where individual rights can be trampelled.

So, if individual rights are to be maintained, even for those who are not capable of taking care of themselves or being "self-responsible" how do we determine who we must take care of? In other words, if a state or society was "Objectivist", then what would we do with the drug addicts on the streets? By setting up clinics, providing free health care, re-education and rehab programs, etc. we are supposedly taking responsibility for them to varying degrees, depending on the individual case.

So, where do we draw the line on social welfare programs? How do we think this through using Objectivist, rational thinking without taking radical or even typical right or left wing views into the discussion?

[blackhorse]

Objectivism holds that no man may violate the rights of another no matter how good the intentions. EVER. It is because of the potential value that another may bring to us and also from our intrinsic value as rational beings that another person helps someone else who may be in certain unfortunate circumstances.

[Victor Pross]

Clarkems,

You could expand the issue of “social ills” beyond the question of drug addiction or the mentality ill. In general, I think you are speaking of those who cannot fend for themselves--and this amounts to the demand: ‘so in a fully Objectivist society, what happens to those individuals!?’

My answer is simple and to the point, although, granted, the issue is more complex than I can indicate now. But I would like to nip to give you an indication.

Briefly, those who are *truly unable* to fend for themselves must rely on private charity. Period. [This is, I believe, the essence of what you are asking, although you go about it threw the backdoor].

In a fully free society this is not a threat to those individuals—this implication is implicit in your post. It is only by a free society that all can thrive. There is no need to argue this point. All of history is one giant class room screaming this out.

The truly disenfranchised--is a very small minority--and it does not represent mankind in general. If they did, “man” would be a being incapable of survival. Since he is not, clearly, the problem is NOT as catastrophic as the Left, say, would have you believe. Also, the given society need not be "fully Objectivist"--just fully free. So mentioning the upcoming AS movie need not be viewed with the hopeful eye as in-- finally-- the "spreading of the word."

I get the idea that you regard "individual rights" as inimical to human beings--that is, those who cannot help or protect themselves. Why do I say that? I read the sub-title to your post. So it is freedom that is not man's natural state? Blackhorse got it right: "Objectivism holds that no man may violate the rights of another no matter how good the intentions. EVER."

More over, there is always a philanthropic element in every free society. They, like you, choose What, How, When and Why to distribute their energies or funds towards.

Would YOU like it otherwise?

Victor

Edited September 21, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael (clarkems),

You are in the right place to discuss this. I harbor several doubts about the plight of the helpless in Objectivist philosophy. I once heard Objectivism described as a philosophy for healthy productive adults, but not for the rest of mankind. There is a bit of truth in this.

Once in a bookstore, I was flipping through one of those books "Ethics for Idiots" or something like that. I saw Rand's name in the index at the end, so I looked up the page. There was a little blurb that stated quite clearly that Randian-type selfishness was ethically flawed for human beings because it did not include states of helplessness like the young, the elderly and the sick. As these are phases we all go through if we live long enough, then Objectivist ethics did not cover the whole of human experience - it was not universal .

That gave me real pause because there is truth in that observation.

I don't know how advanced you are, so if you already know the following, please forgive the explanation. A definition in Objectivism has to have what is called a differentia and a genus. The genus is the broad category and the differentia is the specific one, identified by a distinguishing characteristic. Thus Rand identified man as "rational animal" in ITOE (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) where "animal" is the genus and "rational" is the differentia. Then, as far as I have been able to discern so far, Rand essentially threw out the genus when she made her formulations, only calling on it when she needed to make some kind of declamation presented as fact ("man's needs include..." or "man has no choice about..." and so forth).

Her ethics is built solely on the fact that man is rational and very little else. Even her formulation of tabula rasa at birth did its best to ignore the "animal" part. Rand also stated quite clearly that man can program all of his emotions - that they were the result of conscious activity. This notion is wrong. All higher animals have emotions and they develop automatically. Rand paid a very high price in her own life for adhering to this notion. I believe it was an innocent enough error, but there is no foundation at all for it in reality. (Some emotions can be programmed, but certainly not all.)

Additionally, I find her "rational animal" definition inaccurate. I much prefer "rational primate." Otherwise, under her definition, if a rational dog were ever bred one day (and at the mutation rate of breeding of that species, I don't see why this cannot become a reality over time), we would have to call it a human being.

I have been critical of the fact that Rand did not include Human Nature as a category of philosophy. Here is a post of mine that discusses this (with virtues, values and so forth). Lo and behold, I found that the ARI website included it as a sixth category. You can read about this in the linked post.

One other word before the next comment. Rand often wrote that her view was all-inclusive on an issue. I have often found that this is the part most people refer to when they say she is wrong. If she is understood to deal with facets of an issue instead of the whole thing, you see that she is spot on with respect to the facet she covered, but her formulation is incomplete for the whole. That is my take on Rand in general - she is usually right but often incomplete.

At any rate, I started having some definition problems with rights because of these musings. If Rand's treatment of man's essential nature is incomplete (and boy, is it ever!), and her ethics derives from such view of human nature (technically, in her articles human nature is bundled with metaphysics, with epistemology sort of covering for some of what got left out), then there are parts of her ethics that need to be completed. When we get to politics, which is transposing ethics to the social realm, we have the same problem with incompleteness.

I do not have any answers at this point - only questions. I do know that part of being human includes phases of helplessness. A person does not stop valuing because he is young or grows old or has an accident or illness that lays him up in bed for a while, so ethics has to deal with all this if it is going to mean something to my life as an individual. I don't want the half-filled glass. I want it full.

There is also a serious problem with politics with all this. Individual rights are easily lost if you tamper too much with them. Statists are persistent little suckers who want nothing more than to do just that until all individual rights are lost.

If you are interested, I can point you to several discussions here on OL that chew on all this.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Clarkens, human beings, especially those living in a relatively free society such as ours, where suffering and deprivation are not the norm, tend to be generous to others. Consider the number of private charities in this country, consider such things as the outpouring of money and help for the victims of Katrina, for the victims of the tsunami, for the victims of 9/11, consider the vast sums of private money Americans pour into research on disease and drug addiction and mental illness.

You ask where "we" draw the line on social welfare programs. "We" do not draw such lines. To say so suggests that a single line is to be drawn for everyone, that there is to be a single rule, which society (in this case meaning the government) enforces, applying to such programs. In fact, each individual must use his own best judgment to decide who he wants to help, if anyone, to what extent, and in what form. You ask what, in an Objectivist society, "we" would do with the drug addicts on the street. There is no "we" in a free society to make such decisions or to do anything with other people. There is only you, and me, and our neighbors -- and if you or I wish to help the addicts, then we can do so, and we are free to attempt to convince our neighbors to join us.

Let me add that rights are not a function or whether or not one is living rationally. To quote Rand, "The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action -- specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." The right to life, for instance, means that you may take those actions necessary to sustain your life, and that no one may prevent you from doing so.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael (clarkems),

I would like to reiterate what Barbara said above. There is no "we." There is no compulsory "cradle to grave" handout program that would be morally acceptable. I especially agree with her about the generosity of those who are successful in a society where there is abundance. This can be observed and evaluated easily.

My doubts (even the ones about defining rights) are to be construed within that context.

About drug addicts in the streets, I know a little about that. There are two areas where I see government action necessary, but neither concerns rehabilitation of the addict.

The first would be if an addict became some kind of annoyances to the property owners who live nearby. Then such addict would have to be removed just like any public annoyance.

The second involves something I have seen in Brazil, and I don't know how the law works here in the USA so I don't know if it applies here. Sometimes parents or other adults will hook a young child - say around 7 years old or so - on crack or some other devastating drug in order to use him for selling drugs in the streets. Small children do not go to jail, so that's why they are used. I believe these children need some kind of legal protection against being poisoned. I most definitely would call induced use of narcotics at that age being poisoned.

In terms of government treatment programs for addicts, I kinda have to smile. That don't work at all. Volunteer programs are vastly superior. At least I have never seen anything too successful in this area with governments. (I once even knew a lady who worked on a government anti-drug campaign putting together TV commercials. I used to buy cocaine from her when I was active...)

Michael

[clarkems]

What wonderful and thoughtful responses to my earlier question! Thanks to everyone who responded.

Here's is what I have gathered (please forgive the crude and targeted summarization)

Human rights to freedom are inalienable and cannot be broken, otherwise tyranny and coercion are inevitable.

- I agree with this point.

Charitable works from voluntary rather than socially coerced means is how an Objectivist society would deal with persons who cannot help themselves.

- This one I agree with this to a point. Voluntary charitable work has made enourmous contributions over time but I am troubled when I think of the removal of some public programs that exist today.

The reason for posing this question is not to drive a point toward social programs, etc. That is not my point and I would like to re-iterate my motivation for asking at this time. What I would like to explore is how Objectivist philosophy would cope with current social issues were it able to exist at that level. I truly believe that rational thought can produce workable solutions without morality and sentimentality coming into play. This is not to say I would put forward a sci fi scenario like the "Borg" society, but to force my mind to reason out the issues according to an Objectivist "structure".

When I refer to "we" in my question above it was an accidental or subconscious slip that shows insight into where I was coming from. If I was to refer to it as "I" then I am very comfortable with Objectivist living. I will take responsibility for my actions and take my lumps when things go bad and take charity when I need it and when it is offered. The "we" can be split into two perspectives. One "we" would be a collective "I" of Objectivists, acting in rational terms and assuming a realtive degree of mental health and sanity. That is to say that narcissists, even thought they may be self interested, and others who would harm others through some sort of delusion or lack of social or self-regulation are left out of the equation. Another "we" would be laws of society, passed by some socially accepted institution such as our legal system, consitution and regulations.

To explore the example of the use of "we" as a law or institution I would go for something more simple than a social program at this point but just a law. If "we" as a social institution pass a law prohibiting dumping heavy metals in waterways, then Environmentalists rejoice, but in general the people living in that area have a higher standard of living. Perhaps it is a community of Objectivists who collectively banded together to lobby for the law since a company was manufacturing batteries nearby and had in the past contaminated the water supply. The owners of the company, now having to dispose of the metals somewhere else may feel that this is interfering with their right to freely produce the best battery in the world. This goal is highly respectable and they do have a point, but, they were not taking into consideration the impact of their process on their neighbours.

So, "we" as Objectivists, need to live in a world of non-objectivists and also realize that some others are unable to respect the rights of others. Also in some cases there needs to be some form of conflict resolution other than clubs and guns for situations where two competing, well intended, even Objectivist enterprises are in conflict over something like land use, resources, etc. This gives rise to the notion of courts, laws etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem that to apply Objectivist principles to social issues it would come into play as the creation of laws and institutions as collective Objectist individual's behaviours. It may also include individual, non-organized actions. Otherwise you would have a society relying on the ability of its individuals to act soley on free will which may be defined as, well for a lack of better words, anarchy? ( I say this in a very neutral non judgemental way - just trying to put words to thoughts)

Perhaps I should ask another question at this point. Is Objectivism generally perceived or defined as un-coordinated, non-collective invidual actions, which in society would manifest itself as an anarchy-like state or could it also be Objectist directed or principled collective actions which would manifest themselves in laws and institutions? Would human nature inevitably drive it to an institutional state and would that negate the effect of Ojectivism?

[Victor Pross]

Clarkems,

A brief answer: Objectivism position on “society” is the recognition of individual actions—that is, free individuals entering into relationships [whatever the nature of the relationship, business, friendships, romantic] they freely choose for the mutual benefit of all. It certainly would be “non-collective”—but not necessarily “un-coordinated”. If, however, you mean by “un-coordinated” that no third party—the government—is to dictate conditions of freely choosing individuals, then yes, it would be un-coordinated. A government’s only proper function is to protect individual rights.

Question: You seem to use concepts such as “collective” as it being “organized” and “freedom” as being a “state of anarchy.” Is their any truth to what I’m picking up? I ask the question with all sincerity and I understand you are still sorting these questions out. I respect that.

You: "This one I agree with this to a point. Voluntary charitable work has made enourmous contributions over time but I am troubled when I think of the removal of some public programs that exist today."

Some public programs? Which ones? And why?

Victor

Edited September 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[clarkems]

The absence of government is what I had suspected from previous readings. I suspect that would work if the whole population were Objectivist. In a mixed population I suspect it becomes more complex.

In the quote "A government’s only proper function is to protect individual rights. " one would assume laws, correct? This also assumes some sort of enforcement agency or institution such as courts, enforcement, prisons, etc. Would you agree?

In the question:

Question: You seem to use concepts such as “collective” as it being “organized” and “freedom” as being a “state of anarchy.” Is their any truth to what I’m picking up?

I feel that I may have chosen some "loaded" terminology in "collective", organized and anarchy. Essentially I am exploring how individual objectivists would interact. By collective I mean to work as a community or a group as opposed to an individual. A very generic use of the word. Actually I am not associating freedom with anarchy. I suppose there is a scale with absolute freedom at one end, but, from what I observe, freedom needs to be taken in a social context when considering living in high population density areas. In other words when a group of individuals become close enought to interect and affect each other then freedoms begin to be restricted since one person's actions may affect another's rights? You agree?

In the questions:

Some public programs? Which ones? And why?

Programs are far more complex than individual laws and I was avoiding them in my earlier questions, but as an example, one insitution or program would be a government department such as Children's Services. They, in Canada - on a provincial basis, act to facilitate adoption, remove children from abusive situations, etc. They don't specifically protect individual rights. There was obviously a need to protect children and it evolved over the past few decades. Removal of such an institution, in the general sense of the word, would create serious hardship for many individuals.

Given that over the previous centuries (17th, 18th) groups of interested individuals and religious orders may have contributed to such causes, but it really took a concerted effort of professionals organized into institutions, which happen to be funded by the government, to effectively(arguably) manage it. In order for the individuals working in the institutions to have any effective power there had to be legislation, etc.

Dare I mention Health Care in Canada?, or perhaps the CSIS, or DND for armed forces? These are very complex and highly charged issues and the debate could fill volumes I'm sure.

I'll reiterate that I am not defending these institutions but am trying to get my head around how humans could live in highly congested urban areas without laws and at least some semblance of some of these institutions.

The definition or line drawing I earlier referred to is some sort of philospohical framework to apply the Objectivist principles to working in the larger social/political/governmental construct.

Question:

It strikes me that the Objectivist opinion is that there be no government, essentially. Is this true? Should it be true? For example if some were to leave the Objectivist enclave founded by John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" would they go out into the world with the object of reforming laws or removing them?

Your thoughts?

[Kat]

Ayn Rand promoted minarchy, not anarchy. Some government is necessary, but generally there is way too much government and it only gets bigger and bigger. Many government functions, but not all, would be better if they were privatized. Although I would not dismantle all social welfare program in one day, private charities and volunteer organizations existed way before government programs created the dependency we have today.

I'd rather give my money to charity than big government any day and my paycheck deductions go out every other week to the Red Cross, United Way, and the Autism Society. There is no rule in Objectivism that says we can't give money or volunteer our to causes of our own choosing, just that our highest cause is ourselves and people need to take responsibility for their own lives.

Kat

A kinder, gentler Objectivist

[clarkems]

Kat,

Thanks for your comment. I agree with the concept of minimal government and also am very impressed by the work of many not for profit organizations. I can see that some forms of minimal government are required such as democratic electoral process, judicial system, military, and others.

I am wondering, and attempting to push the boundaries of my understanding, as to how organized government might work under Objectivist principles and which institutions should be left alone and which need to be modified or eliminated to achive it.

Would you agree with this sort of law or policy in a town for instance?

Instead of just raising taxes to increase the water service level in a town, which implies coercion, the town might ask residents of the town to volunarily participate in the project with time and money. However that assumes those that opt out do not participate in the service? That still raises a question for me. What happens if someone opts out and does not receive services (water, sewer) from the town. Do they then set up an outhouse and well on their property? If that does meet the sanitary codes of the town are they forced to sell and move out of town? Is that also a form of coercion? This is a simple example but one that, I'm sure has been wrestled with before.

Here's another thought.

In Canada there is a child support guideline formula that calculates child support based on the income of the supporting non-residential parent (ability to pay). This is set up and required though a history of a lack of realistic expectations of folks getting married (imho). What about putting that sort of issue right up front in a marriage contract and then disputes would be quickly settled as contract law rather than family courts. This sort of thing would force people to take resposibility for their actions since they would know what they were getting into up front.

Are there any examples out there that folks have heard of that work?

[sujane]

In case anyone is wondering - clarkems (mike) is my husband. I told him about this site since we share an interest in objectivism and Ayn Rand. I was following his thread and we have discussed it offline. I've been trying to explain/argue? how the philosophy might translate into "real" life (and IMO what we presently have isn't "real" in the sense that it is rational anyway). I just directed him to read the FAQ about Objectivism and Government - it seems like a great outline.

My tendency is to be much tougher on the concept of individual responsibility than he is - (although he'd probably deny that ). But he is really very interested in hearing your feedback to his questions and is trying to get a clear picture of how it might all work.....

I understand that there is a new book out about what an objectivist society might look like - I saw the author interviewed on TV. I'm going to get it to read.

[clarkems]

Thanks for all the great feedback. As I continue my journey into Objectivism I can see that much more work needs to be done by me to have a full understanding of how it can be specifically applied in society.

What I feel I need to do is to drill into existing government programs and dismantle them and reassemble, if required, replace, etc. according to Objectivist principles. One disturbing thing that I see when I do drill down to the application, legislation, staffing, budgeting, etc. issues of real life is that some of the strict objectivist principles seem to break down at this level. Perhaps some minds greater than mine can create or point out demonstrable working models to replace or update current policies, legislation and institutions that exist in society today.

I have a feeling though that I may have to read up on some of the latest thinking from more scholarly experts and look for real life success stories.

This could take a while but "I'll be back" ;)