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 unread


Post 0

Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism claims that rights are derived from man's nature as a rational being.  For this reason, animals don't posess rights.  I'm fine with that.  Where I haven't made up my mind is applying the theory of rights to the mentally impared.  Some humans essentially lack the capacity for rational thought through various mental disorders.  According to Objectivism, do these people have rights?  Why or why not?


Post 1

Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 11:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Mentally impaired" is a broad term. There are various degrees of mental impairment. Therefore, a rational (and best) configuration of a mentally impaired individual's rights would be based on the individual at hand, and should also change in accordance to the individual at hand, as people do evolve in varying respects.

An example: Person A is mentally impaired in such a way that s/he cannot operate heavy machinery without posing serious danger. Therefore, that person should not have the right to purchase a car, let alone obtain a drivers license.

In the more extreme cases, if the person is so mentally deranged (or criminally insane) that s/he cannot be trusted to be left alone, whether in solitude or public, then obviously that person's rights should be constricted to the Insane Asylum.

In summary, there is only one "one size fits all" rule regarding rights of mentally impaired individuals: Assessment. Dictation. Evaluation.


Post 2

Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 11:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

In "Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A" ...

Question:
Do severely retarded children have rights?

Answer:
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 exted 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. [Ford Hall Forum 1973]

Does that answer your question?

Ed


Post 3

Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 According to Objectivism, do these people have rights?  Why or why not?
This ground's been trampled.

The horse is a bloody pulp, yet it's still getting beat. 

Think of it this way: Rights pertain to actions. If one cannot perform an action, it's difficult to lay claim to it as a right. 


Post 4

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     If one defines their useage or meaning of 'rights' within the O'ist framework (see Galt's speech), Rand's Q & A response...courtesy (!) of Ed...explains it all.

     Of course, 'impairment' itself may have to be clearly clarified as well. Many with IQ's less than 100 are clearly self-sufficient in their lives. It's the 'extremes' (which I'm personally familiar with) that make the question worth considering. Ntl, it's been pointed out that this horse has been beaten...often..elsewhere.

LLAP
J:D


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.