Are man's rights absolute?

Alias wrote,

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'd be careful not to attribute to Rand statements that you can't verify. I doubt very seriously that she said this. It just doesn't strike me as the kind of thing she would say.

- Bill

Post 41

Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 2:59pm

Bill --

Hello there. I have read many of your contributions, and I think they are fantastic. Thank you for the advice, and the extremely warm welcome. I am sure I will come across that quote again, as I often read good books numerous times. In fairness, I must say that I did mention the fact that I could have made a mistake; any man who would read that and come to the conclusion that it was, without a doubt, Ayn Rand who said that is silly. I know, for certain, it came from Objectivist literature. I must admit that you are right; I should not even attempt to attribute a statement to an individual unless I am 100% sure. Thanks again.

A

Post 42

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 7:48am

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.

We already know that person A has initiated force, he did that when he murdered person B, so the first part of your statement is agreed upon. Now the question remains, is that ample evidence of being a threat to person C?

I would return to where I brought up the potential vs the probability of violence and try to expand on what I was getting at. I believe we could all agree that there is potential for many acts of violence such as a taking a walk in our neighborhood and a neighbors dog getting out and attacking us, yet unless we have saw some sign that this will happen we allow it to exist as a potential and really pay little heed to it.

Now allow that another neighbor (person B) goes for a walk in our neighborhood and a large dog gets out, attacks, and kills this person for no apparent reason. We have now moved from the potential of unwarranted violence to the probability that this could happen again based on our empirical knowledge of past actions by the dog.( I am aware my analogy is not perfect due to the fact animals will attack over perceived territorial invasions and there is also the question of volition. so I am using it only to make a distinction.)

We could also use this same empirical knowledge of person A to make a strong case for the probability of future acts of violence( as some have already pointed out) against others due to his disdain he showed for the right to life of person B when he killed her for making a choice which was within her right to do and did not threaten him in any physical way.

We probably all possess the potential for murder, but through a system of values and self control this never manifests itself as probable reason for others to consider us a danger to themselves and precludes any preemptive action on their part.

Still, in the end I am left with the feeling that something is missing in the equation as far as proof is concerned, but it may be that this is where we must make judgements in our lives concerning others and their actions and how to deal and interact with them.

There is also one other thing I would like to add and that is when dealing with the concept of murder we have had to formulate this particular concept by distinguishing between more than one type of the same act, an act which we call 'killing and is available to us through perception in the form of being observable in either the act or the aftermath of evidence. On the one hand this act is considered immoral and is not tolerated and this is called murder, and on the other it is called justifiable and permissible as in the case of self defense. Yet mankind is guilty throughout it's history of allowing the criteria for what is justifiable within the society to shift as fits the requirements of those in power and that is what we must guard against.

L W

Post 43

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 11:13am

Alias, you wrote,

Bill --

Hello there. I have read many of your contributions, and I think they are fantastic. Thank you for the advice, and the extremely warm welcome. I am sure I will come across that quote again, as I often read good books numerous times. In fairness, I must say that I did mention the fact that I could have made a mistake; any man who would read that and come to the conclusion that it was, without a doubt, Ayn Rand who said that is silly. I know, for certain, it came from Objectivist literature. I must admit that you are right; I should not even attempt to attribute a statement to an individual unless I am 100% sure. Thanks again.

Thanks for the kind words, Alias. I'm not sure that my welcome was that warm, but I appreciate the acknowledgement. :) I didn't mean to imply that you were certain that this statement came from Rand, but if, as you say, it came from Objectivist literature, I'd be interested to know the source, if you ever find it. I can't imagine Peikoff or Kelley's saying this either.

In any case, a warm welcome to RoR!

- Bill

Post 44

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 4:57am

I would return to where I brought up the potential vs the probability of violence and try to expand on what I was getting at. I believe we could all agree that there is potential for many acts of violence such as a taking a walk in our neighborhood and a neighbors dog getting out and attacking us, yet unless we have saw some sign that this will happen we allow it to exist as a potential and really pay little heed to it.

In this example, the dog that has never attacked anyone is allowed to exist unmolested. However, if this same dog attacked someone, then we would act, most likely to destroy it. Isn't this the same principle I have been advocating? If someone has committed an act of violence, then we are right to act in order to prevent future acts of violence. That person has lost the benefit of the doubt normally extended to peaceful men.

Still, in the end I am left with the feeling that something is missing in the equation as far as proof is concerned, but it may be that this is where we must make judgements in our lives concerning others and their actions and how to deal and interact with them.

If you have proof that person A committed murder, what more proof do you need? As I said before, even if you could determine that A would never commit murder again, you would still be justified in incarcerating him for punitive reasons alone. That being said, I don't think you can prove that he would never commit that same act, and therefore it is completely unfair to expose innocent people to the possibility of attack.

Yet mankind is guilty throughout it's history of allowing the criteria for what is justifiable within the society to shift as fits the requirements of those in power and that is what we must guard against.

Agreed!

Post 45

Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 1:15pm

Alias Said:

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 wonder if you might have been referring to Rearden's speech to the tribunal on page 481 of " Atlas Shrugged" where he says: " ...-that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices-that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all,...".

L W

Post 46

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:44pm

Mr L W Hall:

Thank you :^) I don't think I would have found that because I limited my searches to nonfiction. Even though I terribly misquoted a character in a novel, you found what I was referring to. Well done.

Thanks Hall
Thanks Bill

A

Post 47

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 5:08am

I talked to my friend DA again. Here's what he had to say

"I have printed the principles of objectivism to take home and ponder. Reality exists independent of man, etc. Fine I�m cool with that. It�s the entire judgment issue I�m not quite with. I just can�t see �right� or �just� as anything other than beliefs and not reality. Things are � period. I�m continuing to think about the matter, however, I�m just not getting there. To me once you start talking about just and right you have gone beyond what �is�.

It seems to me that what he is grasping at is the old is/ought dichotomy. I directed him to an article by David King on the subject, however, if anyone knows of any other links, or would like to attempt their own explanation, we would both welcome it. I think it's promising that he claims to have accepted the basic principles of objectivism, because all that is left is to logically apply these principles, which might take sometime to work out, but I have confidence still.

Post 48

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 7:58am

It reads to me as if he thinks everything that comes from human thought is subjective, that there is no hard knowledge of anything. It's nice that you've sent him stuff, and it's even better that he's considering the alternatives to his way of thinking.

Post 49

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 10:05am

Jonathan, one clear example of us knowing what's right FROM WHAT EXISTS, is nutrition.

I know that strychnine is not nutritious (I don't merely have an opinion about it). The reason that strychnine is not nutritious (ie. not "right" to nourish yourself with) -- is because it is poisonous to the human body (ie. poisonous to THAT WHICH EXISTS). If I take the goal of nourishment then, I can know (not merely believe) what is right and good for humans. In this way, the ends dictate the right means. If you want nourishment, DON'T consume strychnine.

Eric Mack makes a good teleological case for is/ought evaluative judgment in: The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. He uses the example of the heart. What makes a "good" heart? Is a "good" heart one that beats perfectly synchronously? Is a "good" heart a large heart? Is it good for a heart to be lop-sided (one side bigger than the other)? We will know a good heart from a bad one when we discover the purpose of a heart. The purpose of a heart (the reason we have one) is the metabolic need of tissue cells. Good hearts get oxygenated blood out to the needy tissues, bad hearts don't.

Once we know what something is for, then we can perform evaluative judgment (we can know what is right, by merely examining what exists, teleologically).

Ed

Post 50

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 10:27pm

... so just re-apply these physical limitations of nourishment of the human body, to the mental purpose of the human mind -- ie. to create wealth & beauty -- and you have the wholesale justification for the rights of man (one that stems from how he must interact with nature, if he is to survive as the kind of creature he is).

Ed

Post 51

Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 7:23pm

Or, maybe a paraphrasing is in order: Anyone familiar with Rand's Galt's speech should remember "Good? By what standard?"

One can just as well ask " 'Right'? By what standard? "

LLAP
J:D

Post 52

Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 11:25pm

Every prescription is a description, since all statements about reality, including normative or ethical statements, are simply statements of fact - statements about what exists. As Nathaniel Branden put it, "Existence exists and only existence exists. There is nowhere else to go." Therefore, to say that one OUGHT to do X (if one values Y) is simply another way of saying both that X IS A MEANS to Y, and that the benefits of gaining Y do not outweigh the costs of choosing X.

How does your friend respond to such an argument, Jonathan? Does he still say that ethics is simply about beliefs and not about reality?

- Bill

Post 53

Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:25pm

... and the goal of human happiness is beyond criticism.

Ed

Post 54

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:46am

Bill ~ He hasn't had a chance to formulate a response, but he says he's working on it. I'll let you know what he has to say as soon as I find out. Thanks for all your help!

Post 55

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 9:30pm

As Ed was kind enough to point out, I need to qualify that statement to say that "Every [objectively viable] prescription is a description, since all statements about reality, including normative or ethical statements, are simply statements of fact - statements about what exists."

Thanks again, Ed! Is everything else okay? I think so, because every objectively viable prescription is a valid conditional imperative, and as such is simply a description about how to achieve one's values. E.g., if one wishes to live well and prosper, then one ought to adopt laissez-faire capitalism (a prescriptive statement), which is simply another way of saying that laissez-faire capitalism is the best socioeconomic system for achieving wealth and prosperity (a descriptive statement).

- Bill

Post 56

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:29pm

Right, Bill!

And when one can show a humanly-universal need (a need all humans share), one can arrive at an objective morality. Knowing what all folks need, because of the fact that they're human -- you can discover what all folks ought to do (in a general sense). Actions can be evaluated against inaction, as well as their opposites. Here is an example ...

All humans, to live truly humanly (as opposed to tangential contexts, such as being in a coma, hooked up to a respirator), need knowledge. We have, as we have always had, 3 ways to approach this universal need ...

1) gain knowledge about how to live well
2) deliberately unfocus our minds, whenever we fear that knowledge (and therefore, power and responsibility) may enter
3) act destructively toward knowledge, either philosophically by studying Hume and Kant, or biochemically -- by taking regular hits of the brain-cell destroying drug, Ecstacy ...

=====================
[Clinical and toxicologic aspects of the use of Ecstasy] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1998 Aug 29;142

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, the active compound of ecstacy (XTC) tablets) is a psychoactive amphetamine congener which in humans has a stimulatory effect and enhances feelings of openness and solidarity. MDMA is neurotoxic in animals.

It depletes axonal serotonin stores, it inhibits serotonin synthesis by inhibiting tryptophan hydroxylase, and it inhibits the reuptake of serotonin into the neuron. These events lead to destruction of serotonergic axon terminals in animal brain. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors protect against the neurotoxic effects of MDMA.

Binding of (+)[11C]McN-5652, a selective neuroligand for the serotonin transporter, is decreased in the brains of XTC-users. This indicates that XTC damages serotonergic axon terminals in human brain, also.
=====================

It's either (1), (2), or (3) -- and there is a way (objective morality) to figure it out.

Ed
[caveat: Drug-use is not ALWAYS immoral. There are things called "smart drugs" that may actually extend your life span (as well as your brain-span, or mind-span -- if you will). Caffeine is drug that may be good for you. And late-life nicotine is probably moral, too -- to name a few examples]

Post 57

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:24am

Dr. Dean Edell - the nationally syndicated medical talk show host - has commented on how addictive meth is and how it turns its users into dysfunctional losers, who end up with no teeth, bad skin and poor health, who live only for their next hit. Nevertheless, he notes the dramatic effects it has on people's desire for social camaraderie and solidarity, suggesting that there would be no wars or violent conflicts among even the most diehard enemies, if they were using it.

- Bill

Post 58

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:32am

I hesitate to call recreational drug use immoral. I partake in an occasional alcoholic beverage. I am a restauranteur, it's part of my business to know my product. I enjoy doing so and I do so responsibly. No one else around me is hurt by my actions. I refuse to accept my actions thus are immoral. I'm sure you don't mean to imply that Ed but I just wanted to make my position clear on recreational drug use.

Post 59

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:21am