About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 13Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 260

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon, I was thinking the same thing... but then even more I wanted to continue to learn through the posts by people such as Jason, Ethan, Luke, Joeseph, Teresa, others, ordered by who I learned the most from.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 261

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke:
Years ago, Peikoff was on "The McQuistion Program" and debating a liberal and a conservative. The liberal asked, "A pregnant woman comes to your door and is bleeding. What do you do?" Peikoff politely explained that if she asked nicely and conceded that he had no "duty" to help her, he would gladly see what he could do to help. Conversely, if she demanded that he "owed" her assistance, he "would stand there and watch her bleed -- and that, in essence, is capitalism."

I completely agree with Peikoff's forthright statement.
Jason:
The important point of this whole discussion is that Objectivist conceptions of justice and benevolence are not the same as conceptions of what should and shouldn't be legal.

There are plenty of immoral things I can do without initiating force. Luke pointed out very clearly that not helping a starving kid that he didn't starve is not something that he should be held accountable for via the law. We might call him a scum bag, but we should not be able to put him in jail.
And here, ultimately, I agree. Public opprobrium will do the trick. The scumbag will regret his indifference. Like, mom leaves her newborn in a dumpster. Sure, the Mounties look into it, but she don't go to jail up here -- why should a passerby, right? Leave de dang baby in the dumpster, I'm late for work.

* * *

I don't like the scenario put forward (how the heck did the baby get dumped in the woods?), but I'll work with it. Who said objectivism wasn't fun? You get to argue about starving babies and the 'ick' factor.

-- if it is in the real world, then the brute (we'll call him Luke) who came across Baby 'A' in the woods -- and walked on by -- is not really in danger with the law, in my country. And to be fair to Luke's argument, if charged, he could fairly argue against any such charges using his reasoning in this thread. I would take from my pocket to help defend him. It would be a great trial.

But, hey, that scenario . . . how about keep the Baby 'A' in the woods, and stipulate a couple facts; how about the baby is found dead a week later, and it can be shown that Luke passed by and passed on.

Investigation not only shows that Luke walked by, but on questioning, he says he did not consider hydrating or carrying the baby to the road or to a nearby person, or to a phone, nor did he consider giving it a bit of his microwave spaghettios. He thought it was lost and would soon be found by its owners if it was valuable to them.

[optional kicker to the story -- the baby *was* lost (left in the woods by a deranged crackhead who stole it from the 7-11 parking lot), and its parents devastated at the subsequent death]

Long story short, some arcane British Columbia law is brought out, 'depraved indifference to human life' is charged. Luke says, 'Hey, read Post 100! How come baby dumpster mama don't get charged? Leave me alone, fool.' The Crown goes 'Oh christ.'

I figure in my jurisdiction that authorities would try like hell to make something stick, starting with the RCMP, and on through the child protection and human rights acronyms -- but they'd fail. There simply doesn't seem to be a strong law on BC books for the Crown to use . . . maybe another BCer on the thread might know.


Mind you, I think Luke or facsimile would be not quite finished with the issue after charges were stayed, if ever laid, or after a not guilty verdict ends the trial. The newspapers/media would eat this up, and people would treat him in general with restricted benevolence. We maybe don't need a law, because people's potential disgust prevent any but a sociopath from such indifference -- the lash of shame and guilt and remorse is most effective for most of us. We can envision the consequences of our actions and we choose our behaviours accordingly.

(but -- in contra, consider that one might argue that the common-law rooted crimes of depravity at root here may have been an early filter for the evil that lurks among us. The only possible justification would be utility: the only people that would transgress the law are evil consciousless beings without species solidarity. Thus the law does not apply to me or you or Michael or Dean or Luke. Thus, we may filter out of circulation the not-quite-fully-human . . . )

Me, I would obey the unwritten law of my values, and heed my emotions. I have serious questions for the person who may have allowed an unecessary death to occur -- if a person could foresee the danger, and yet behaved with indifference, that person is likely to be a sociopath. That person would frighten me. No doubt such a person already could boast a list of assault and fraud beefs, so what need a law to compel decency? Such evil is indifferent to law.

Luke is right. There need only be social obligation, not law. In the coming world, as we dismantle the non-objectivist state, recent and longstanding laws that mandate assistance to those in need will be abolished. All good samaritan laws will be abolished. There will be a bonfire of petty laws!


WSS

Postscript: I just realized that I am the thread hijacker, first commenting on Neil Parille's observation in post 8, offering a lighthearted riposte to Dean, introducing the ARI tsunami flap, and in later conversation with the lovely Ed Thompson -- I further wrote of newborns deserving food.

I should note again then, my only point in this long thread. Cast in the form of a question, it is "What about the ick factor?" In other words, how does objectivism avoid boners like Holcberg's -- how does objectivism avoid being associated with 'malignant hearts,' even sociopathic tendency? do objectivists give a shit about the ick factor?


Must you stand together with me at Luke's defence table, or must you stand with Michael of the Crown as he prosecutes 'reckless endangerment' (or some other statute that now performs common-law duty against such behaviour, as in the luscious legal language that Teresa summoned up in the note from Texas: depraved mind, depraved indifference, abandoned & malignant heart).


______________________________

Unasked for advice, as I await the fate of all hijackers . . .

Michael Stewart Kelly, be not so proud, let some of your wind out, and relax back to the good old days when you were a dependable, if dreamy, interlocutor. Pull back always from reaction to "pathetic whiny commie greaseball fuck" and so on . . . if you must insult do it like Noel Coward, not Don Imus. These guys is your allies, ultimately, and you have it in your power to stand down a little bit from your heights and admit some honest error, tighten up your diffuse style and build some bridges. Nobody here is your enemy, and you ain't a big enough lump to let any of it interfere with your amour-propre. What irks your erstwhile debate opponents is your 'authority' presumed or assumed. Dean alluded to this in his plangent admission that your frigging Atlas Points irked him! It's a good time to de-pontificate a bit, and excise from yourself the stern moralism that you disdain in others.

Luke, my heart goes out to you, having read the occasional glimpses into the life of a very nice man, who has gone out of his way for others and been exploited. It can't be good feeling such anger. I wish you could reserve such epithets as fascist for more deeply evil persons . . . I bet you that retracting those words will benefit you with Michael's loyalty hereinafter. Forgive him his transgressions. You both played marvelous parts in this morality play.

. . . we'll see you again on the next 387 post megathread!

< end unasked-for advice >

Thank you all for a rousing read and a rousing think, and Teresa especially for pulling up relevant statutes. It puts the weight on reality. If we can forgive Michael and Luke the roles they had to play as Ur-defence and Ur-Crown, then we can reap the lessons of all your observations and experience . . . until the dismantling begins.
(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 2/21, 10:10pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 262

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,

Glad I read the whole post.

Dean,

Tottally agree.  There will be better places to learn from such minds than this though.

(I don't think I've ever been this exhausted by nothing more than a thread on a message board, which I was only sporadically posting to, before in my life)

---Landon


Post 263

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
WSS wrote ...

=================
maybe another BCer on the thread might know
=================

Well, all I know of BC (from hearing an interview with your "Prime Minister"? - please forgive my ignorance) is that 44 cents of every tax dollar is spent on healthcare there. That's a lot of moolah -- but it's "off-topic." Speaking of "off-topic" items, the highly, highly-perceptive Mr. Scherk remarked ...

=================
and in later conversation with the lovely Ed Thompson [emphasis mine]
=================

Ahh, shucks Scherk, I'm flattered! I'm hetero- ... but flattered, nonetheless.

I thank you, sir, for noticing my (lovely) self,

:-)

Ed
[thinking to self now: "I'm smart, I'm funny, and ... dog-gone-it ... people like me! They really ... REALLY like me!"]


Post 264

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 4:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa wrote:

B. Omissions of an Act
...
e) Assumption of Care - If you start helping someone, you create a duty to finish


Good grief!  This offers me a tremendous incentive not to start helping anyone.


Post 265

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, I agree.

Would it only be criminal if you started helping a troubled person, and then willfully mislead a third person that is willing to help that you would finish the job: and you did this so that the troubled person would die? How would you prove such a thing in court? Hmm... maybe it is the third persons duty to realize that you are unreliable, and it is their duty to stay there to help the person just incase you fail? I don't see how either of these cases could be considered criminal. Despicable, yes.

And what about doctors, who consistently do not perform as well as other doctors (resulting in a higher failure to save rate), yet offer their patients their services? Are they creating duty for themselves, but then not finishing the job?

Conclusion: that is a horrible law.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 2/22, 5:18am)


Post 266

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For once I didn't get involved in one of these angry threads :-). Knock on wood :-).

Jim


Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Post 267

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim Heaps-Nelson writes:

For once I didn't get involved in one of these angry threads :-). Knock on wood :-).
 
But Jim.  If you walked by a thread that was starving for your input and didn't write anything wouldn't you be evil and guilty of a crime?

Bill




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 268

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

(bonk)

Michael


Post 269

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Bill, I got a big belly-laugh out of that :-)!!

Jim


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 270

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William - Are you saying that in Canada a woman who dumps her baby to die in a dumpster is not prosecuted?  I am pretty damn sure in the US they would prosecute her for murder.  Isn't it?  Or did you mean something else?

As to the overall idea, I don't see what is wrong with saying this:

Objectivist morality says I (as an Objectivist) would help the child, but that I (as an Objectivist) does not believe being immoral in a passive manner (such as not helping) should be punishable by law.  In fact, I am not that sure it is even punishable by US law.  Probably has not come up - because its a damn lifeboat scenario that wont ever happen.


Post 271

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah.

On the positive end in many states we have a "no fault drop off" law to keep dumpster babies from happening.  You drop your kid off at a church or hospital or I think Firehouse (there might be others but I don't know off hand) you've efectivly given up your kid and it's going to get fed, taken care of,... maybe even adopted. Prior to that abortion is still legal if you know you won't be able to handle the responsibility, as well as contraception.

On the negative side there is the welfare state.  A baby you can't handle is money in the bank, so why get rid of it (or hurt it to the point that it's taken away and no longer nets you money).

It is a lifeboat situation. It has no bearing on reality.  And the principle isn't if it's a good idea to take care of the kid, if it will make you feel good, or how far you'd go out of your way to take care of something that wasn't your problem to begin with. The question is if you... yes you... for ANY reason choose not to go out of your way to help the child (reasons could include you may be homeless/starving yourself, you might be getting set up to be exploited/attacked, or countless other reasons) Do you still have a right to live. Is your right to life dependant on how you sacrifice it to any (every) situation you encounter at any time.

If this were true no one would have any right to life at all. Think of every "emergency" situation you have encountered in your life. Each homeless person you've passed on a city street (who might or might not be there through no fault of his own), every orphanage you've walked by or been aware of (those kids might never know what it's like to have real parents). Every natural disaster (people dying, loosing absolutely everything they own). Once you've discovered it you can't "un-discover it" under this ethic it is now YOUR problem even though you had nothing to do with causing it and your only connection to it was simply being made aware of it. As I write this children are starving to death in Africa and other places, diseased patients are dying from lack of a cure (I know about cancer aids etc yet I've defaulted on my responsibility to find a cure), drug users are overdosing and about to die. I know all these things and by this ethic I am personally responsible for each death I just described.

But I'm not am I. I take care of my own life and I expect the same out of everyone else. It might not have been their fault that they got into their particular bad situation but it is their responsibility to try and find a way out. If someone wants to help at any time and for any reason it is their choice. Whatever reward they recieve for it whether internal or external is theirs for going out of their way to help... if they choose not to that's on them... AND ONLY THEM!

I'm probably getting a little emotional about this and I'm fairly certain I've let grammar go to hell. I appologize for this.

---Landon


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 272

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This topic is petering out, but I had two additional thoughts. I apologize in advance. :-)

------------------------------------------------
1: So you say you want to be an Objectivist ...
------------------------------------------------

To summarize, a baby has the abstract "right-to-life" just like any other human individual, but just like all other individuals, it does NOT have a concrete "right-to-survival" at the expense of any other arbitrary person or of society.

As has been pointed out by others, parents assume an obligation to protect and raise a child as the result of their decision to conceive and carry it to birth. It is the nature of a child to be helpless for its own survival, and it is the recognition of this fact in combination with their actions to create that life that obligates parents to care for the child until an age when the child is able to do so for him or herself. Because they do not participate in the act of creating the life, there is nothing in the mere existence of a child (or another adult for that matter) that confers an obligation upon a stranger to aid that child, regardless of the circumstances. Note the distinction between a "right" and an "obligation". The obligation is not imposed from the outside, but grows out of one's decisions and actions.

This is basic Objectivism and there is nothing here with which Ayn Rand would disagree.

Now, given the scenario that MKS outlined, under almost all conceivable conditions SHOULD an individual help a baby abandoned in the woods? I would be hard-pressed to find any Objectivist who would not say yes. Furthermore, I am sure that any Objectivist I have ever encountered (yes, even including Luke) WOULD help such a baby. Why do so if they are not obligated? Because it is the strong desire of most Objectivists, even if it is not yet a fully developed capacity in all of them, to believe in and be part of a benevolent universe. So, unless someone is trying to rub your face in their dirty altruistic muck (as with the Peikoff example of the woman at the door), most Objectivists will extend themselves in a generally considerate manor towards strangers.* Not out of obligation, but because this is what is required of us if we choose to contribute to that benevolent world in which we wish to live. When confronted by an innocent baby, I am fairly certain that it is not going to start making moral demands upon me, so I'm pretty sure I will be able to come to its aid in a non-conflicted spirit of compassion and kindness.

This too is basic Objectivism and I am sure that there is nothing here with which Rand would find fault.

Michael Stewart Kelly has been declaring himself the representative of Objectivism while focusing exclusively upon the second part of this analysis while many others have been attacking his position (with what seem to me to be much justification) by focusing on the first part of this analysis. It is a mystery to me why Michael has had such difficulty in apparently understanding and acknowledging the point that others have so forcefully made. I also cannot fathom how we got from a serious disagreement on this topic into the realm of fascism.** That doesn't leave much room left for the Islamic terrorists or Hillary Clinton! The truth is that you're not a spokesman for Objectivism unless you see both parts of this issue.

Michael, here is why you need to acknowledge the point that many of us are making. It is only within a free society, where independent thought and action are allowed, that men of reason can truly develop into their benevolent best***. It is in everyone's interest to promote an Objectivists society so that in the face of an emergency there will be a maximized chance that benevolent aid will be extended. People resent being chained (even if it is only implied in a theoretical discussion), and if you continue to promote the idea of enforced "Good Samaritan" laws, or something equivalent, you will suck the good will out of otherwise good people. You only have to look at this discussion to see my point in action. The more that your ideas become the rules of law, the more real damage will be done. So, if your desire is to live in a world where the abandoned baby in the forest has the greatest chance of receiving help, you should be promoting, in the strongest terms possible, the right for each individual to make their own free choice as to how to act in this - and all other - circumstances.

------------------------------------------------
2: The Ethics of Emergencies ...
------------------------------------------------

All this talk about a baby's right-to-life reminded me of the final episode of the MASH TV show. I'm sure almost everyone here saw it, but to recap: Hawkeye and a bus load of Korean civilians were traveling through enemy territory when the bus broke down. As they sat there helpless, the fear that they would be captured by the North Koreans kept rising. Suddenly, a baby on the bus began to cry and everyone started to panic. Hawkeye kept admonishing the mother to quiet the child and she drew it close to her chest. Later, reinforcements show up and everyone is saved. Only then does Hawkeye discover that the mother has smothered her baby to death as her only means of keeping it from crying out. He is wracked by such guilt at his demands that the mother quiet the baby that it causes him to psychologically disassociate from the events.

Now there's an emergency situation and a tough moral choice. In light of everything else that has been said on this thread, it would be interesting to analyze this situation and determine how blame is to be apportioned based upon your own moral positions.

However, this leads me to my second issue: the ethics of emergencies. On a few older Objectivist forums and mailing lists, I have watched a number of discussion on this topic and there has always been one presumption that I would like to challenge. Even in this RoR discussion concerning rights, there is the implication that in the face of an emergency, normal moral considerations may not apply. Many Objectivists accept this position based upon some comments Rand made in an article of the same name. I have always been completely dissatisfied with that article and think it was one of Rand's weakest pieces of writing. I think this was one of the few times when she punted rather than go for the goal.

While I agree with Rand's observation that the purpose of a code of ethics (i.e., a moral system) is principally to provide guidance under normal living conditions, it is my contention that emergency situations, rather than falling outside the bounds of ethical consideration, are fully appropriate for consideration and necessary to test the boundaries, compleatness and appropriateness of one's moral positions. If an ethical system cannot address a reasonable hypothetical emergency, then it is a sign that the system has not been fully fleshed out. Too often, Objectivists are prepared to dismiss these examples with the wave of the hand, and I think this has been a serious impediment to the further development of Objectivist ethics.

In this discussion, Michael proposed an ethical question in the face of an emergency and came to certain conclusions that squarely contradicted other moral tenants of Objectivism. My position is that these emergency situation examples do offer a magnifying glass to our moral beliefs and it is a good thing to explore them with the intent of discovering gaps or weaknesses that highlight areas that need to be reexamined.

While I am not prepared to outline a full theory of morality, I will offer my observation that most problems I see with moral systems arise because they are either offered up as a set of rules rather than as basic principles or they are formulated as absolute principles which make no allowance for context. This second problem is where Objectivist ethics often has its problems. An examination of the ethics of emergencies can help add a proper contextual component to the principles, and in the process often provides greater clarity to the system as a whole, even as it is applied back to normal daily activities.



------------------------------------------------
* Of course, on forums populated by other satanic Objectivists, there is no need to be benevolent. Take no prisoners!


** Hats off to Michael Newberry for his post #244


*** See The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged for countless dramatized examples.


[Edit: Trying to fix a spelling error]
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 2/23, 3:54am)


Post 273

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
CJS wrote:

I also cannot fathom how we got from a serious disagreement on this topic into the realm of fascism.** That doesn't leave much room left for the Islamic terrorists or Hillary Clinton!

Fascism, i.e. "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control," comes in degrees from the "little bit" of it that MSK advocates to the "heaping helping" of it that Islamic terrorists and Hillary Clinton advance.  I simply suggest that we may still properly use the label to describe accurately those who only advocate a "little bit" of it.  I also suggest that such "little bits" act like stress fractures in the edifice of liberty that can eventually bring down the whole structure.

I will confess that I may have more inclination to use that label than some others here.  I openly called a local Progressive a "fascist" on a local freethought list recently, in fact, because of his support of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws.  As I said, I reserve the right to call a spade a spade, regardless of its size or degree.


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 274

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke pointed out this part of the law that Teresa posted:

Assumption of Care - If you start helping someone, you create a duty to finish

and said: "Good grief! This offers me a tremendous incentive not to start helping anyone."

I have been thinking this most of the way through this thread, as I can recall in most of the CPR courses I have taken they mentioned that you were under *no* legal obligation to use it if you saw someone in need, but that if you did begin to administer aid you *were* legally obligated to continue to be involved. So I have always though I wouldn't just jump into a rescue situation.

After this thread, and about twenty different versions of a threat by MSK that he would unleash hell on baby murderers, I have decided two things:

1. If I come upon a babe in the American woods, I won't give it any of my food. I will leave it there as a diversion so that when MSK comes looking to kick my ass he will have to stop and feed it, giving me the time I need to get back to my truck.

2. I will make sure and carry my gun on any walks in the woods in case I am assaulted by an altruist.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 275

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

Thank you for that very thoughtful post. I would like to make two comments to clarify something, but I don't want to get into the thick of it again since I am continuing other aspects of this discussion elsewhere.

1. You wrote: "Michael Stewart Kelly has been declaring himself the representative of Objectivism..."

(It's "Stuart" btw, but no problem.  //;-)

I have never declared that, Jeff. I have declared that I am an Objectivist. By that I mean that I am one who accepts the basic principles of Objectivism (and has done a hell of a lot of reading on it). I do not mean that I hold some kind of official status of any movement or organization. Thus actually I am a representative of... hmmm... Michael Stuart Kelly, who is an Objectivist. That's accurate - to the extent you can be a representative of yourself.

2. You wrote: "If an ethical system cannot address a reasonable hypothetical emergency, then it is a sign that the system has not been fully fleshed out."

I agree. This whole discussion has been ass-backward. People are arguing politics, not ethics. I cannot ignore my moral outrage when I contemplate the abomination I mentioned. I do have a strong - almost overpowering - emotional urge to waste any monster like what I postulated. I am not a stupid or infantile man. My moral subconscious is telling me something and I have started listening to it real hard.

But based on Objectivist ethics, it is difficult to put dealing with the child's rights into practice in society, other than trying to foster the goodwill of people, like you mentioned. I am starting to think that there is a missing component somewhere.  When a philosophy would let a monster like that get off by saying that it was none of his affair, there is something very seriously wrong. So rather than argue or think about the political considerations right now (everybody has beaten that one to death - especially niof), I am going off into the deep end. Politics is based (basically) on ethics which is based on epistemology and metaphysics. Somewhere in the middle (metaphysics usually in Objectivism) is man's nature.

A person just asked me what the Objectivist definition of man's nature is. "Ratioinal animal" came to mind, but I certainly cannot use that definition for my example - neither for the abomination nor for letting the monster go Scot free (except for being shunned voluntarily by society). There is nothing rational about any of this. So I think some serious thinking on the nature of human beings is in order here. Something's missing. If ethics is a code of values for human beings, a study of the nature of human beings is a good place to go. The rest will follow logically.

(For the record and just in case some stooges are reading this as proof of something sinister, I want to state the following: Rand did this "going down to the premises" process for productive achievers and I hold her creation of a morality that defends them to be one of mankind's brilliant, magnificent achievements - one that it is on the level of inventing the wheel.)

Michael



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 276

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I've just seen thte thread on your site about this topic. I found your restatement of the issue to be so deceptive and essentially insulting that I've no wish to comment on it other than to say, shame shame shame. If you haven't already done so, please remove my account.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/23, 5:52pm)


Post 277

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
C. Jeffery Small - Good post, I do like the concept that emergencies can show the boundaries of morality, but I also think that there can be convoluted non-real situations created that don't help. 

Good Samaritan Laws - The interesting note here is that these laws are NOT designed to enforce people to help, but to ALLOW people to help and not get sued for it!!!  In other words, society was actively making people avoid helping by creating disincentives because by helping you could get sued.

Dumpster Baby - Dropping off at a hospital, or whatever, where baby can be cared for is an Ok law - it is designed to prevent the death of the baby in a dumpster instead - which makes sense, and is not the same.  So now the guy in the forest could take the baby to the hospital and he would not be forced to feed it himself.


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 278

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan wrote:

If you haven't already done so, please remove my account.

I just checked and he deleted mine per my request.  So I can at least thank MSK for that.

As for MSK's remark:

My moral subconscious is telling me something and I have started listening to it real hard.  ...  When a philosophy would let a monster like that get off by saying that it was none of his affair, there is something very seriously wrong.

MSK needs to reprogram his own emotions to fit Objectivism, not rewrite Objectivism to fit his emotions.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/23, 7:30am)


Post 279

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Another problem that we are facing with MSK's arguments:
He proposes a situation where a man could help the baby in need. He deceives the reader, he implicitly added the premise: "And it is in the self interest of the man to help the baby." Then he declares that since the baby has needs, (and implicitly that its in the man's self interest), to not help the baby would be so horrible that its in our self interest to punish him. Then he will surely apply this situation to all situations where someone has needs, and its not necessarily in the self interest of an individual with resources to help them.

He was using a bait and switch of implicit premises in a context to convince others that we should use force to make sure people with resources help people in need.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 13Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.