Altruism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You talk about clarity and yet you completely missed a clear statement that I have made over and over.

I am not about middle of the road, mob rule or any of that other stuff you speculated on. You get the strangest ideas at times. Here are a couple of articles for you to review your sixth-sense skills. If you are so convinced that you can crawl into another's head and publicly report the contents, you should not be so mistaken so often.

Mindreading

Telepathy

I personally try to stay away from that stuff, both in theory and social intercourse.

For the upteenth time, I am trying to understand what a human being is.

After I understand that, then I will look to see how I know it.

After I understand that, then I will look to see what what values are suitable for such a being.

After I understand that, then I will look to see what is proper for a such a being to value in a group of like beings.

I call it checking the premises from the ground up. Here it is in other terms:

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Ethics

Politics

I just don't see how that can be any clearer.

(btw - I learned that methodology from a genius.)

You, on the other hand, appear to be satisfied with a stated value as a primary, irrespective of the being's identity. You have even claimed that right to life should be an axiom. I am not sure where you learned that, but it was not from the same genius that instilled whatever that genius instilled in you.

Michael

[sjw]

If you are trying to validate "man is an end in himself" and you're going to be principled about that, then I must have misread, if so, sorry.

You, on the other hand, appear to be satisfied with a stated value as a primary, irrespective of the being's identity. You have even claimed that right to life should be an axiom. I am not sure where you learned that, but it was not from the same genius that instilled whatever that genius instilled in you.

You're either very confused or are purposefully misrepresenting me. I don't regard "a stated value as a primary". Nothing I said could imply that. What we are talking about here is a very fundamental "value". It's fundamental to the whole field of social interaction, and it bears the marks of an axiom, so it is wise to entertain the idea that it in fact is an axiom. If it is, then your endeavor is a folly. You act as if I'm the one who's being foolish when clearly you're being foolish in committing yourself to a single kind of answer before it is justified. I on the other hand am open to the idea that it's an axiom, or to the idea that it can be proven with deeper axioms, although I strongly suspect that this is in fact an axiom (I have not devoted much thought to that question).

"Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so there would be no proof..." --Aristotle

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I am going even deeper than trying to prove man is an end in himself (although that is where this seems to be headed).

I decided to do the little kid approach: disconsider everything I have learned, take a look-see with my own eyes and report my observations as honestly as I can. And use rational concept formation and logic as my method of thinking.

That's the only way I know of to check premises.

If you are trying to validate "man is an end in himself" and you're going to be principled about that, then I must have misread, if so, sorry.

...

I don't regard "a stated value as a primary".

I find a basic conflict here, but it might be simply because of how it is stated. My whole purpose is to check the primary, not accept it and try to validate it from there.

Only by doing it in this manner do I feel secure in my knowledge.

Michael

[sjw]

Either a man is an end in himself or he is a means to the ends of others. There is no other alternative or middle road. It is absurd to think that he could be an end to others, because there is no difference between him and the others.

The Founders held this truth as self-evident. I think they got it right.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Actually the Founding Fathers held that all self-evident truths for and about men were "endowed by their Creator" upon them. That's the way they put it in the Declaration of Independence.

I saw nothing about a man being an end in himself. I'm not saying this is not true. I am saying this was not the view of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the literature they authored.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael, as I said above, I regard "man is an end in himself" and "man has a right to life" to be equivalent.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

That's you. That's not the Founding Fathers and you are not a Founding Father. If you deign to speak in their name, you should be accurate.

Apropos, how do you regard "endowed by their Creator"?

I regard it as meaning Creator is an end in Himself, not man. Man is His pasttime. Man exists to serve His ends.

That is how I understand the metaphysics of the Founding Fathers. Unless you can supply me a quote to the contrary, I have no choice but to take the Founding Fathers at their word in terms of what they meant.

Michael

[sjw]

That's you. That's not the Founding Fathers and you are not a Founding Father. If you deign to speak in their name, you should be accurate.

It's odd that you can't tell that that's you. You are speaking in their name when you claim they wouldn't agree with me. You are talking just like an Ayn Rand zealot who deigns to speak in her name and quotes her like scripture. I on the other hand conceptualize what the Founders said in my own head using my own independent thought, and *I* decide that what they were talking about was or should have been equivalent to "man is an end in himself". If you don't like me thinking for myself and would rather quote the Founders as if it were scripture, too bad.

Apropos, how do you regard "endowed by their Creator"?

As unimportant. I mean, if someone says I was endowed by my Creator with brown hair, it doesn't trouble me--I still have brown hair, that's what counts. Why does it trouble you? Oh:

I regard it as meaning Creator is an end in Himself, not man. Man is His pasttime. Man exists to serve His ends.

That is how I understand the metaphysics of the Founding Fathers. Unless you can supply me a quote to the contrary, I have no choice but to take the Founding Fathers at their word in terms of what they meant.

Well I choose to give them more benefit of the doubt than that. Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy and not much of a theist.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's you. That's not the Founding Fathers and you are not a Founding Father. If you deign to speak in their name, you should be accurate.

It's odd that you can't tell that that's you. You are speaking in their name when you claim they wouldn't agree with me.

Shayne,

You are still having accuracy problems. I did not say they would not agree with you. I have no way of knowing whether they would or not. They are dead the last I looked. They certainly can't talk to you to engage in an examination of the subject. Where on earth do you come up with these things?

I said you were not accurately conveying the words they wrote (see the qualification in my previous post: "... as expressed in the literature they authored"). If you speak in their name, it is wrong to attribute them with ideas they did not express.

Speculation is one thing, but you are ignoring their actual words in the manner they used them and replacing them with ideas from your own head. That is wrong.

Michael

[sjw]

you are ignoring their actual words

I'm not ignoring their words I'm claiming the words meant something that is equivalent to some other words. For the life of me I don't know what you are complaining about except that your interpretation of their words is different from mine, and you would like to claim priority on interpretation without having to make any sort of argument that yours is right.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

The only valid manner we can use to understand historical meanings of words is to look at what the words meant in the culture at the time they were written.

I see nothing in all the things I have read about Colonial times to suppose that most people believed in God in a certain manner (and called Him "Creator") and the Founding Fathers had another metaphysical view.

The thinking at the time of those who read Locke & Co. (as experssed in their writing) was that God created Nature and included the rulebook for man within Nature. Nature was His form of expressing both His wishes and His creation. He did all that for His amusement and He can change His mind on a dime for a specific reason (presumably for His amusement again), but rarely does.

Translating this to your premise: man is an end for God's amusement, but not an end for another man.

That is consonant with just about everything I have read from Deists around that time.

So I will stay with what I know to be true. I prefer to extract parts of meaning from that and build on those parts. That is my method. I cannot find any justification for claiming that the Founding Fathers used words with meanings different than the ones of their times.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God." John Jay (1784)

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." Gouverneur Morris (1791)

"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?" George Washington (1796)

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (1798)

"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue..." Benjamin Rush (1806)

Patrick Henry is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words are deleted. Here is what he actually said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone, is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." The following year, 1776, Henry wrote this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Consider these words Thomas Jefferson wrote in the front of his well worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator." Jefferson was also chairman of the American Bible Society.

In 1782 Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

On July 4, 1821, President John Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of government with the principles of Christianity."

;)

Edited April 17, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[tjohnson]

"Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so there would be no proof..." --Aristotle

Sorry, Aristotle got it wrong - you can't prove anything except in mathematics. You can accept a statement as not requiring any further discussion but you can't prove it.

[sjw]

Sorry, Aristotle got it wrong - you can't prove anything except in mathematics. You can accept a statement as not requiring any further discussion but you can't prove it.

Prove it!

Yeah I know you can't, you just pulled the rug out from under yourself and removed yourself from the realm of rational discussion.

Shayne

[sjw]

Evidently Wolf never read any Thomas Paine. And I think that Jefferson quote is very misleading given some other things Jefferson said.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Evidently Wolf never read any Thomas Paine. And I think that Jefferson quote is very misleading given some other things Jefferson said.

Shayne

Well, jeez. All his pre-war articles published in Philadelphia, Common Sense in first edition, his circular letters from the battlefield, The Rights of Man, his replies to Burke. Nope, never read any Paine.

[tjohnson]

Prove it!

Yeah I know you can't, you just pulled the rug out from under yourself and removed yourself from the realm of rational discussion.

That's one realm you've never been to.

[sjw]

Evidently Wolf never read any Thomas Paine. And I think that Jefferson quote is very misleading given some other things Jefferson said.

Shayne

Well, jeez. All his pre-war articles published in Philadelphia, Common Sense in first edition, his circular letters from the battlefield, The Rights of Man, his replies to Burke. Nope, never read any Paine.

So you leave Paine out of your religious quotes why? Because it doesn't further your case that America has always been a theocracy?

Shayne

[sjw]

Prove it!

Yeah I know you can't, you just pulled the rug out from under yourself and removed yourself from the realm of rational discussion.

That's one realm you've never been to.

Your powers of evasion are incredible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, Paine was a deist, not an atheist. His view was that only God was morally perfect and that government was necessary on earth because man was inherently morally imperfect. The following from the beginning of Common Sense is illustrative:

Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least.

A little further on, projecting a hypothetical of how government arises among settlers of a wilderness, Paine makes the point that only Heaven is morally perfect and man is morally flawed and that government exists to correct man's inherent moral defect:

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

There are plenty of other quotes that could be cited, but the best thing is to read the original works. I admit that I am only at the beginning of this adventure (reading the works of the Founding Fathers) and it is a fascinating one.

It should be noted also that Paine came way after Locke. Common Sense was published in 1776, certainly not enough time to inspire the American Revolution. It reflected and congealed ideas and sentiments that were already in the air (and had been for quite a while) and was thus used as a banner for a process that was already in the explosion phase.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

It should be noted also that Paine came way after Locke. Common Sense was published in 1776, certainly not enough time to inspire the American Revolution. It reflected and congealed ideas and sentiments that were already in the air (and had been for quite a while) and was thus used as a banner for a process that was already in the explosion phase.

Michael

Paine's unique achievement in Common Sense was a persuasive argument that Americans could win the battle for independence. It convinced Washington to accept the role of commander-in-chief and Robert Morris to initially bankroll the revolution. In previous articles, Paine repeatedy scolded and humiliated the Quakers, neutralizing their influence. His lasting contribution came in a single passage of The Rights of Man, where Paine established the principle that government could not legally author or amend its own constitution.

The other guy who was pivotal in launching the American Revolution was James Otis, who fought the Writs of Assistance.

Hamilton and Madison, by contrast, were lawyers who dealt with post-Revolutionary economic rubble and internal squabbling. Maybe Locke's influence was a factor, but the issues faced by the Americans were not philosophical. In the 1760's they saw themselves as Englishmen, with rights equal to their kinfolk in England. "No taxation without representation" meant the Americans wanted their own constituency Member of Parliament, nothing more. When Parliament imposed additional levies on the colonies and the Crown suppressed tax evasion with random searches and seizures, it became clear that Americans weren't English subjects any longer. They were rightless English sub-subjects.

I don't think it mattered to Hancock. He was a smuggler and tax evader by trade.

Shayne, I think it's nice that you admire the Founding Hotheads, or Founding Scoundrels, as the case may be. However, it remains that they all believed in the providence of a Christian God, their Creator and Final Adjudicator. And so what? Maryland had a death penalty statute for atheism. It was not acceptable to doubt the historical accuracy and revealed truth of the Bible in the 18th century. And more importantly, please distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which have nothing in common. The Declaration was never organic law. It was treason.

W.

[Ellen Stuttle]

btw - I thought you said I had the Objectivist "rights derived from human nature" part wrong. I missed your comment on my Rand quote when she said precisely that, meaning you got it wrong.

If you want a different conclusion, you'll need a different meaning -- resting on a different philosophic basis of support -- than Objectivism affords.

In light of your fundamental misunderstanding of Objectivism on the point of rights deriving from human nature, I find the above quote cute...

It shows spunk.

Michael

Your capacity for garbling never ceases to amaze me. Here is the sequence of what I actually said (and what you replied, in which you missed the point of what I'd said):

Before we can have a consistent rights theory, we have to have a consistent human nature theory.

No. That's an error in your thinking. You can have a consistent rights theory without having a consistent theory of human nature. Rights pertain only to sets of paired obligations/freedoms. To be consistent, a rights theory can't claim an obligation which contradicts a claimed freedom. Multiple varieties of sets could be consistent while containing obligations/freedoms which would be anathema to O'ists.

Ellen

___

To which I added before you replied:

Michael,

What I signed on to say was something further about your statement that:

Before we can have a consistent rights theory, we have to have a consistent human nature theory.

There's never yet been a consistent theory of "human nature," which is a notoriously nebulous term in any case. Such a theory is no more required to have a consistent theory of rights than an answer to the supposed missing matter in the universe is required to do chemistry. What's required for a consistent theory of rights is that one proposed right not be contradicted by another.

It's on the issue of contradiction amongst proposed rights that I think your biggest hurdle lies. If you want X to be one person's -- say a child's -- right, then in order to have a consistent theory, you have to deal with the issue of "what that means to others," as Ethan well expressed it. Thus far, as best I can tell, you haven't recognized let alone addressed this problem. Unless it's adequately addressed, you won't end up with a consistent theory of rights irrespective of your reflections (however interesting in and of themselves) about "human nature."

Ellen

___

You then replied to the first of those two posts:

Before we can have a consistent rights theory, we have to have a consistent human nature theory.

No. That's an error in your thinking. You can have a consistent rights theory without having a consistent theory of human nature.

Ellen,

Not if you use an Objectivist epistemological framework, which is what I have been using. That's what Rand meant by an integrated philosophy.

This is really basic.

Here is a quote to help (and it illustrates that business about retarded people I mentioned). From the Q&A Book, p. 4 (my emphasis in the answer):

Do severely retarded individuals have rights?

Not actual rights—not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones. But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a retarded person, because he's unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights.

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

(And I have a real issue with that "courtesy extended" thing.)

Michael

I'll leave you to the exercise of seeing if you can figure out why your response doesn't even address the point I was making.

And -- btw -- I'm aware of Rand's method of deriving rights, though the quote you picked from her is a weak one to use as documentation. She made stronger statements than that one. (Furthermore, the quote you selected doesn't make the claim that one would have to have a consistent theory of human nature in order to have a consistent set of rights, the point with which I was disagreeing. It only says that rights "rest on human nature," a statement with which I don't disagree. Rand might have thought that a consistent theory of human nature is required in order to have a consistent set of rights. I'd say she was wrong, if she did think that. In any case, you haven't yet come up with anything which would provide a foundation for a consistent set of rights.)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Talking about a consistent theory of rights and saying that Objectivism is XXX or YYY are two separate issues.

You keep saying that my mistake is to try to derive rights from human nature and that the concept of rights in Objectivism does not derive from human nature.

Sorry, you are wrong. It is derived from human nature in Objectivism. There are more quotes from Rand than what I gave to back that up. If you would bother to read the threads from before, many such quotes from Rand have been presented. Most have been presented multiple times. I simply don't have time to keep repeating the same thing to someone who pretends it is not there.

Now, if you want to talk about rights based on other philosophical systems, I am game. I am even interested.

But I have stated time and time again that my reference for this inquiry is the Objectivist system of concept formation. Trying to pretend it is not is wrong. I have been too clear about it over months for misunderstanding.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

You keep saying that my mistake is to try to derive rights from human nature and that the concept of rights in Objectivism does not derive from human nature.

I don't even know what I said which you're interpreting thus. Would you please quote where you think I made either of the two statements you there attribute to me?

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Hopefully this is a misunderstanding. Lets giver 'er a shot.

Before we can have a consistent rights theory, we have to have a consistent human nature theory.

No. That's an error in your thinking. You can have a consistent rights theory without having a consistent theory of human nature. Rights pertain only to sets of paired obligations/freedoms. To be consistent, a rights theory can't claim an obligation which contradicts a claimed freedom. Multiple varieties of sets could be consistent while containing obligations/freedoms which would be anathema to O'ists.

My context was, is and always has been examining rights according to the Objectivist theory of concept formation. I must have said metaphysics, then epistemology, then ethics, then politics at least 20 times or more in the last few months of this debate.

So when you said, "that's an error in your thinking. You can have a consistent rights theory without having a consistent theory of human nature," I did not think to step outside of the discussion we were all having and start a new one. I was, am and will continue for a while to be discussing the examination of the Objectivist theory of rights from a conceptual standpoint. Thus I interpreted your comment to mean that within Objectivism, "that's an error in my thinking."

This mindset was prepared by some rather aggressive stuff from you like the following:

Possibly you aren't aware of how long and on how many threads Michael has been saying that he's going to re-examine the issue of rights from the ground-up, and claiming to see some sort of basic contradiction in the Objectivist theory of rights as it pertains to children, while never presenting anything which those who are well familiar with Objectivism find even intelligible as a supposed critique of that philosophy's approach.

I don't see any other way to interpret this than to say it means you understand the Objectivist theory of rights and I don't. In fact, I don't in your view so much that I am unintelligible and have been for months.

Since you claimed to understand it so well, I presumed you were discussing it within the discussion where everybody was discussing it. From your words, I had no clue that you had changed gears. You simply started talking about something else. A phrase like "setting aside the Objectivist theory of rights," or "that's an error in the Objectivist theory of rights," or something like that would have been more than sufficient for those of us who are not mindreaders. Not that this is my error in thinking. From the acrimony you have presented and the insinuation that you understand the Objectivist theory of rights while I do not, "mine alone" is a pretty reasonable interpretation of your statement.

If that is just a misunderstanding, let's forget it. This took too long to write and I did not gain anything by it. Neither, I suspect, did you.

However, I feel a satire coming on, nudging at the edges of my awareness begging to be written. Who knows? Maybe I am the one who is going to change gears.

Michael