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 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 5:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That idea of 'cheating', Bill, stems from the view of person as property....
as Mr. Hall caught on..

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/20, 5:57pm)


and no, wasn't making an accusation, just an observation oft missed.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/20, 6:00pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"That idea of 'cheating', Bill, stems from the view of person as property...."

No view of 'person as property' needed; it's a contractual matter. Many (though not all) marriages involve vows of monogamy, establishing it as part of the marriage contract. In such circumstances, 'cheating' is a valid concept concerning violating a contract.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In response to Mr. Hall

But if you don't punish Person A for the crime, would you not see a problem with people taking advantage at essentially a free pass to committing murder? I don't understand your question of probability. It's not just probable it would happen. If you give people a free pass to committing murder they will act on it. We know human behavior and when crimes go unpunished, there are real quantitative figures that tell us lax laws will result in more crime. And a lack of law and order does give us anarchy. We have real instances of this, the days after the Iraqi government fell, and no government structure was available, there was a state of anarchy. Your focused on just Person A but what you do with Person A after he murders has implications on his future behavior and the behavior of others.

First and foremost law and order must be the role of government to keep the peace. If crimes go unpunished we start to undermine this peace.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/20, 10:32pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
L W ~ Person A, the husband, killed person B, the wife, in your example because he caught her in bed with another man. Other posters have related similar situations, i.e. A catches B cheating at poker, etc. I don't know anything about you, but if you are not familiar with the Peikoff lecture, "Why One Should Act on Principle", I highly recommend it. It can be found for free at www.aynrand.org . I think by questioning the justice in imprisoning/punishing A, you are forgetting man's conceptual faculty. We do not need to have a law against killing your cheating spouse, a law against killing your annoying neighbor, your mean boss, etc. We do not need seperate laws for these seperate incidents because we have formulated a single concept which encompasses them all. If you view person A as no threat to anyone who is not person B, then you are looking right past the concept of the act, and attempting to define it as an isolated concrete. This "over-simplification" actually makes life more complex, because it abandons the tool which enables us to learn and apply vast amounts of knowledge, our conceptual faculty. In our original example, Person A killed someone who did not threaten his life. You could make the argument that since I am not married or in any way romantically involved with A, then he poses no threat to me. But what would stop him from killing me if I insulted him, or wore a shirt he didn't like, or rear ended him at a stoplight. Nothing, he has already demonstrated a willingness to violate B's rights, and since we know that our concept of rights is applied universally, then we know that there is nothing to stop him from violating C, D, or anybody else's rights. Let me know if this is not clear enough.  

Post 24

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 3:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Again, thanks John A and Jonathan for the responses and to Jonathan thanks for the link.

I am going to try and present once more the nature of my argument and what I am attempting to focus the discussion on: Note that the idea for punishment for person A continues to go back the idea of retribution(if you will) for the murder of person B and this is as it should be.

It seems as if the reason stated for person A then being a danger to person C( x factor) is being solely based on the premise that once the boundary of murder is crossed it is a foregone conclusion that it will be a probability that it will then be repeated, and yet I have not seen any clearcut objective proof that this is the case. And in truth I have only read statements to the effect that it follows one after the other that this is a truth and can be counted on as such.

Jonathan I understand what you are saying about having a 'murder concept' so to speak in able to not need a isolated concrete for each instance, but yet do we not learn from the same Peikoff in OPAR that all concepts must be able to looked at in the light of reduction whereby the can be broke down to an axiom or have I misunderstood what he was saying. If this is indeed the way it is then how do we break down the concept that person A as a murderer of person B automatically becomes a danger to person C other than by some arbitrary 'because it is so'. To put it another way where is the proof we have in objective thinking that upholds this concept.

John also states "If you give people a free pass to committing murder they will act on it. We know human behavior....". To me this is painting every person with the same brush and would fall into an ad hominem type of attack which says one size fits all and doesn't have the sound of solid logic to it.  Person a may be a law abiding citizen in every other phase of his life and yet in a moment of insane jealousy commits an act which must be punished not due to his being a possible threat to person C which I have saw no proof of yet, but simply because of depriving person B to her right to life through force.

Again I am making no argument for the need of punishment due to the committing of the crime against person B, but trying to get at what would be used as a logical argument that in every case including the type I referenced it can be concluded that that makes them a danger to person C.

L W


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LW~ I think it is perfectly justifiable to imprison person A based on the fact that he has committed an injustice, an irreversible one, without regards to whether or not he will commit the same or similar acts again, would you agree? I must confess, I have not read OPAR, I am still working my way through Rand's non-fiction, however, if you haven't heard the lecture, I still recommend it.
Whereby person A is seen as a threat to person C by the nature of having committed murder once; but the problem I have with this is that using my example-and just for the moment laying aside the argument set forth by William which is totally valid-we have to assume that because someone killed in a fit of jealous rage he/she would continue to be a threat to a person C.

I think you said it best yourself. Person A let his emotions blind him. While the act he committed is reason enough to incarcerate him, the fact that he cannot control his actions all the time should weigh heavily when considering his exact sentence. You are right that he might not commit the same act again, but this is a chance that reasonable people should not be faced with.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John also states "If you give people a free pass to committing murder they will act on it. We know human behavior....". To me this is painting every person with the same brush and would fall into an ad hominem type of attack which says one size fits all and doesn't have the sound of solid logic to it.


In defense of my logic, it's not just reasoning alone that proves to us this is the case. There is empirical evidence of what essentially anarchy is like. Iraq, Somalia, the historic Wild West of the US. Areas where there is a lack of law and order historically and empirically have proven to have very high rates of crime. It is a fact that people have acted on this lax environment and violence is the norm.

It's not an ad hominem attack on Person A, Person A forfeits his right to life and if he claims he won't murder again, then it's up to him to meet that burden of proof which may be an impossibility. I don't have to reason Person A won't commit a murder again, because he's proven he's capable of committing the evil act and there's no reason to believe he won't do it again, do you see then why the burden of proof then shifts to him? He committed murder, he's not in any moral position to get the benefit of the doubt. In fact he has forfeited his right to receive the benefit of a doubt. Yet even if he were able to prove he won't murder again (which is an impossibility as you can't prove a negative), letting him free says you excuse the behavior and Person C should feel fearful that others, perhaps if not Person A then Person D, will act out on this lax environment and will more likely kill. So again, Person C still must fear for his life.

You're saying Person A may not act out again in a crime of passion. Why do you think that? There are many instances where many people are subjected to very emotionally traumatizing events, but not everyone chooses to lash out violently and commit murder. Why would you ever think Person A would not strike again if he has *proven* to do so in these situations? I don't understand why you would think otherwise?
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/22, 7:22pm)


Post 27

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Note to John, my wife and I went to the beach this past weekend for our anniversary. We rented a hotel room, and we quite enjoyed our 4th amendment rights ;-)!

Post 28

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I really enjoy these types of discussion, and by reading other threads and participating it is helping me get a better grasp on objectivism. I have read "The Fountainhead", and currently I am about a third the way through "Atlas Shrugged" and about two thirds through OPAR. 

To get back to the discussion though, I still see one thing that still has me baffled in regards to my question and it involves one not so simple part of the equation. This is what Jonathan originally posted in regards to the question from DA:

Person A kills person B. Person A is no threat to person C. Is it good of person C (does person C have the right) to kill Person A? Person C could say it is obvious Person A will kill me, but is it? If Person A makes no attempt to use force against Person C then the destruction of Person A is not necessary to Person C’s existence. I’ll consider this as I go through the other responses
 Here's my question once again a little differently: If you were charged with proving that person A is a danger to person C because he has killed person B in a fit of rage what objective proof could you bring to the argument. Can using arguments such as 'people in general who commit crimes are apt to do it again'  be sufficient enough evidence that this specific person is a direct threat to person C whoever that may be.?  Is there some other means available through the reduction of the concept or at what point do we arrive at where we can say "here, here is what we need to prove our charge?" I do realize that I could be misunderstanding something, but it is really hard to ask a book questions.

Once more I will throw in that I am in no way arguing against punishment which is derived from his initial act against person B, but am coming from the direction of the original question above.

Thanks


L W



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's my question once again a little differently: If you were charged with proving that person A is a danger to person C because he has killed person B in a fit of rage what objective proof could you bring to the argument.


I think that's begging the question. Proof is not needed. Person A after killing Person B simply isn't afforded the benefit of the doubt he won't kill Person C.

Post 30

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/23, 5:19pm)


Post 31

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

There's a difference between not needed and not available. I sense an evasion of the question.:-)


L W


Post 32

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Hall, the proof is self evident in the act of killing. Person A has proven he is capable of killing. It is therefore reasonable to believe he is capable of killing Person C. I'm not trying to evade the question but I feel the question is unwarranted. Why should I give Person A the benefit of the doubt if he has forfeited any rights to that doubt?

If you asked me do I still beat my wife, it would presume I have beaten my wife in the past, I can't answer the question as it is "begging the question". Similarly, by asking how do we prove Person A after killing Person B will kill Person C? You assume one must *prove* that he will. You must prove to me your premise first, why should one *prove* a murderer would murder again?
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/22, 9:00pm)


Post 33

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 4:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I don't know that there really would be a need, I was just intrigued by the question as put forth by Jonathan  which he attributed to DA and picked it up and ran with it.

It was not my intention to be unreasonable, but more in the line of understanding how objectivism handles different problems and questions in life as they arise. As Peikoff points out a philosophy in order to be useful must be able to do this.

I appreciate the thought you and Jonathan put into answering the question and will not belabour it any more.

L W


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Along these same lines, I have another quandary for us to pontificate over. What, if any, responsibilities does a parent have in regards to their child? What, if anything, do they they "owe" their children? What, if any, rights do children posess? It is my understanding that children do not possess all the rights that adults possess, by virtue of their rational faculty not being completely developed. Our current system magically awards a full set of rights, (minus the privelege of legally drinking alcohol), to anyone who survives eighteen years. Does anybody have a better alternative? Now consider another situation. Does an infant have a right to "demand" that their parents support them? Would a parent who abandons their newborn in the woods really be guilty of violating anyone's rights? After all, the idea that the parent is somehow obligated to sacrifice his own desires in order to provide for said infant, is altruistic and incompatible with objectivist ethics, isn't it? Does a parent really have an obligation to feed, clothe, and educate their child? I'm interested to hear everybodies comments.


Post 35

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 7:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan,

You will find a thread in which this was heavily discussed not long ago  here:

http://http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0054.shtml

L W


p.s.- For some reason the link doesn't want to work so you can find the thread in the dissent forum under 'forcing an individual to help themselves'.



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 12:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello everyone  :)
 
It was a pleasure reading these posts, as I find the topic interesting, and the intelligence and curiosity driving all who contributed admirable and honest.
 
My discovery of Ayn Rand wasn't much of a discovery; she was delivered to me by means other than my own effort, however, it was an event that time is helpless to fog. I encountered her ideas barely over a year ago, and I mention this only to stress the fact that I am not an Objectivist Scholar, but a Curious Thinker. Shortly after I was captured by logic, I was accused of being dishonest at which was, properly, a highly transitional period; 80% of what I thought I knew was being challenged, and the integration of extremely abstract ideas is not a process that can be achieved overnight. I was at a point where I wanted to understand so badly that I would ask any question I considered relevant to achieve my end. In my inquiries, I was not challenging the individual, but my subconscious demons. Too often (not specifically on this site, but not excluding it either) I have seen others accused of stupidity or willful evil when, to me, it was obvious that they just wanted to understand. There are ideas I struggled with last year that seem so incredibly obvious to me now -- and I never forget that.
 
I apologize for the lengthy introduction, but considering the fact that this is an exchange of ideas, I wanted those who are aware of me to have an outline of my position, in order to prevent any misunderstanding of my intentions. Unwarranted attacks will not be tolerated; undeserved aggression will not be forgiven. Comprehension, as far as the exchange of ideas with those I consider (for the time being) my superiors, is my only goal -- with civil discussion being my only means.
 
Mr L W Hall:
 
Hello! I am Alias, and I enjoyed reading your posts because they compelled me to think of an issue from a perspective I had not yet considered. Your last post led me to the conclusion that although your questions had not been answered, you "threw in the towel" because the discussion took an awkward turn, i.e., the tone, I thought, was on the verge of becoming combative. Since I too am struggling with this, I thought that maybe we could talk! Here are some of my thoughts...
 
First, I considered the situation: A man finds his wife in bed with another man and decides -- for whatever reason by whatever means -- that his next move should be the act of eliminating her unretrievable awareness of existence. Now, if it was completely subconscious -- meaning, he did not consciously decide that this is what a man should do in this situation -- then he automatically responded to whim, allowing his rage to not only cloud his judgment, but confuse him enough to permit him to commit a despicable evil -- an evil that suggests much more than a minor lapse in judgment. Not only did this man act destructively towards his wife's awareness, but his own.
 
Something that I have heard time and time again that O'ism gave new clarity to, is: The most dangerous man is the man with nothing to lose. If a man does not value his own life, and it is true that life is the source of all other values, then his actions become unpredictable events that anyone within his reach should be concerned about. The man who submits to emotion in defiance of reason is a man I want far away from me.
 
Then I asked myself the following questions: How many times has this event (women caught cheating red-handed) happened? (I didn't think it was a stretch to assume it has happened numerous times.) How many men have actually killed their wives because of it? (For the sake of argument and due to lack of statistics, I decided it was fair to divide it 50/50.) What separates the men who killed from the men who didn't? (This is where it got complicated for me.)
 
I thought it would be too easy to say "Their degree of rationality was the deciding factor," but could that be the case? Maybe a generally rational man had an extremely horrible day and was overwhelmed with anger...But then I quickly discovered that no matter what kind of day I had, there is nothing that would make me sacrifice my life to destroy another human being for deceiving me, hence doing repairable emotional damage to my awareness. The conclusion I came to is that a man who commits murder outside of self-defense cannot possibly be a critical thinker qua critical thinker, and is as unstable as entities who submit to the laws of gravity only "sometimes."
 
Then I asked myself: If this man was living next door to me, would I feel threatened? Yes -- only not in the most direct sense, i.e., this man might kill me -- but in the sense that he might hurt someone, vaguely including me. To me, the issue is not: Is this man a direct threat to my immediate life? but: Is this man a threat to my sense of justice, my sense of life? Of course he is. Is it my place to take his life in return? Not after the fact, since the government should properly possess a monopoly on the use of retaliation; however, if for some reason (e.g., I hear a scream) I am present when the act is being committed, I think I have the right to stop this man, even if it includes destroying his life, given it proves to be a necessary preventative action.
 
Assuming this man is not going to turn himself in, along with the assumption that he did -- in some form to some degree -- love (value) his wife, what evidence do I have to believe that this man would not hurt someone he did NOT value? Granted the situation is highly sensitive to context -- i.e., one could say that the crime was committed BECAUSE of the value involved, therefore, those he does not value need not worry -- I still think that a man guilty of an evil so fucking disgusting and self-destructive can now be presumed to be capable of anything equal or lesser in degree of evil. (I think it's like stretching a muscle...once you reach a certain point you can reach it again, along with all the points preceding it.)
 
I would like to add that person "B" could possibly be my mother or one of my sister's, and it changes the context from "threat" to "attack" -- i.e., person "A" has directly attacked my values, as opposed to attacking them through objective abstractions.
 
This may be a tangent, but I think it is relevant: I once considered how I would "feel" if an adolescent thug, say 12-16, attacked me with a gun in a robbery attempt, and "forced me" -- i.e., if I want to live, I must destroy him -- to kill him. I decided that I would not allow myself to feel anything, simply because this child "forced" me to regard him as a "destructive entity" as opposed to a "human being." What kind of horrible, deprived, or unwanted life he had is irrelevant; however misguided he was should not be considered; all that matters to me is the preservation of my awareness, justice, and reason. In the movie The Village, there is a perceived threat, and a woman asks a man: why are you not afraid? And he says: I do not think of fear; I think of what needs to be done. I would like to make this quote appropriate to the discussion by saying: I do not think of fear, compassion, or probability; I think of what needs to (should) be done.
 
When it comes to moral judgment, one must consider many things; however, I think that when it comes to responding to an immediate threat, in action, men must regard irrational, destructive men in the same light we regard a flood, with the same indifference to that which we are fighting, with the same goal in mind: To stop it.
 
I think that whether one regards person A as a threat depends on their values; just because person B is not my sister does not mean I am indifferent to her destruction, and it certainly does not mean that the future actions of person A are of no consequence to me, my values, and my sense of justice.
 
Remember when Spiderman let a criminal escape because the crime was committed, not against someone he did not know, but a man he felt deserved it -- only to discover that that same man proceeded to kill Uncle Ben?
 
I could be wrong, but I think it was Ayn who said: "A man who has unjustly taken one life has waged war against all living things, everywhere." I agree. Absolutely.
 
I did not mean to come out of the bushes with such a long-winded post.
 
-Alias


Post 37

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know if LW gave up or not, but here's another way to think of it. If someone puts a gun to your head, then they may not have physically initiated force, but we can all agree that this is still an initiation of force, right? Compare this to our problem. Person A's very existence, as someone who will violate another's rights (it doesn't matter whose, or the circumstances), is an initiation of force against every other law abiding and rights respecting individual.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to elaborate on the questions I asked regarding the obligations of parents to children. I checked out the thread that LW linked to, and I'm hesitant to continue because I haven't read all of the thread yet, but I read most of it and I did not see all of the issues addressed that I would like to see resolved. If they in fact were answered, my apologies. My question was a result of a conflict that I was unable to resolve. It seems many posters were advocating that by choosing to bring a child into the world, parents were somehow obligated to provide for said child. But couldn't that same argument be applied to prevent abortions? I.E. they chose to have sex and take that risk, and now they must be responsible for that choice. I don't know how everybody here feels about abortion, but it is my understanding that the party line at ARI is that abortion is OK (that's how I feel, I'm just having difficulty resolving it). I'm sure I'll get at least one nasty response about this question being answered at such and such a thread, but to be honest with you, I haven't had much success with the search function, and while LW was kind enough to point me in the right direction, I wanted to ask this question while the thread was still fresh.

Post 39

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Alias,

I have some more thoughts on the original question I would like to share, but with Memorial Day Weekend upon us I am not sure exactly when I can get long enough to formulate them into a coherent post.

I look forward to discussing this some more with you, Jonathan and anyone else who wishes to participate.

L W


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.