User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 207

  1. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    A fetus is a distinct entity genetically from its mother.
    Genetic distinctions have nothing at all to do with moral or political rights.

    If as an objectivist my impediment to using force is the idea the that the violation of another persons autonomous exercise of their will is immoral, what happens when I encounter someone who cannot exercise rationality. Use of force on them is not a moral contradiction, they are not useful to me in any way given that they cannot contribute to society so I have no self-interest in the matter.
    It depends on the degree of the disability. It they are brain dead, you may exterminate them. If they are only mentally impaired you may not. You might not have any interest in them, but their parents, spouse, relatives, friends could and the State does as it must still protect the rights that that person does still have.

    But it would be negligent for you to not take an interest in how such people are dealt with for your own sake. At any given time you could suffer an accident that would turn you into a near vegetable. You have an obligation to yourself to support rational definitions of the rights of such people, like yourself if such should befall you.

  2. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I think Objectivists though work under the idea that Rand has redefined the concept of morality. She assumes there is nothing higher than the human being, so in a sense there is no true universal concept of right and wrong.
    Rand and Objectivists do not assume there is no "higher" being. They just do not include factors for which there is no evidence of existence in their deliberations of what kinds of actions are life enhancing or not for human beings.

    When and if such evidence does appear, Objectivists would be first in line to account for it in their lives, because they more than any other group on earth are compulsively loyal to evidence. But so far we have yet to find anyone who can give a cogent, non-contradictory definition of the nature of the any one of such beings routinely asserted to exist, let alone evidence to support it.

  3. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    But doesn't allowing society to define when someone becomes a person clash with the idea of objectivism as based on reason. If we assume there is a point where someone becomes a person, shouldn't we deduce it rational? And if we're using the objectivist framework I don't see the logical distinction between a newborn infant and fetus.
    Society does not define (establish) that, reality does. It is our job only to identify (grasp) it and act accordingly. And yes that must be logical. But logic is non-contradictory identification, and so far your identifications of the onset of personhood have included contradictions.

  4. #144
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.simaruba View Post
    Pseudo & Mal+

    The culprit is the colloquial interpretation of this:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..

    What men are endowed with is the facts of their nature that necessitate autonomy (one's moral right to life). While that in turn necessitates the political right to life in a society of governed men, that condition is not an inevitable one. If a number of men live in a remote location (island or planet) only randomly interacting, and their number is not sufficient to establish an independent third party institution to regulate the use of force throughout that region, then there will be no government and in that case no reason to define political rights. As Leonard Peikoff described it, "the issue of rights would be premature."[OPAR,351]

    When a government is formed, the universal, unchanging, and endowed rightness of autonomy for the anonymous, all-other-things-being-equal man qua man informs the necessary political rights of specific all-other-things-NOT-being equal persons—i.e. of varying capacities to exercise autonomy. Moral right is the primary principle, political rights are its application. The former is universal, the latter are conditional.

    You can call it a "fact of nature" instead of an right but it doesn't change the meaning. What we're talking about is the vallidity of the idea that life in itself is significant whether it's the life of a gifted or non-gifted person, Whther they are or are not capable of exercising what we would consider rational thought. I'm not really concerned with the idea of political rights because as you said they are conditional. I'm interested in the universal moral rights of individuals.

  5. #145
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    @B.simaruba

    Genetic distinction has everything to do with identity which You laid out at the basis for both moral and political rights. You are evading a significant idea.

    people who are brain dead have families and friends why are their interests not considered?

  6. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I should have been clearer, the authority I'm assuming is not political but moral. I'm not talking about being legally allowed to terminate life but whether it is morally acceptable within an objectivist philosophy.
    You had said,
    But the problem is that objectivist qualifications for something to have rights seems very flawed..
    If we are allowed to terminate things based on their inability to make rational choices to sustain themselves, (because abortion is not simply declining to help something exist) doesn't that lead to some horrible conclusions?[/QUOTE]

    Having assumed you meant a rational government instead of a moral imperative, my answer is the same, including expansions on this theme in various subsequent comments.

  7. #147
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.simaruba View Post
    Society does not define (establish) that, reality does. It is our job only to identify (grasp) it and act accordingly. And yes that must be logical. But logic is non-contradictory identification, and so far your identifications of the onset of personhood have included contradictions.

    You've yet to explain how considering two genetically distinct organisms to be separate entities is a contradiction. Biologically,the idea that mother and embryo are one and the same is not reality.

  8. #148
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I think it is entirely debatable. Our knowledge of history is incomplete, any analysis of it is filled with personal bias, historical facts are reported by certain types of people, etc. Basically we can't really know how history was because we weren't there.
    Which renders "exist harmoniously in tribes AGAIN" entirely superfluous. All it does is reveal your goal: that humans should live a peaceful Amer-Indian-like tribal existence.

    Oh well, at least you believe enough history to be aware that such tribes existed. So you're just taking the part of "history" that you believe in as evidence for a future goal.

    But it's really not necessary to dig very deep into history, the manifestations of collectivized tribalistic warfare are with us today.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    And even if we can get a good idea of how things were for most people in a given time frame in a given place, that is only a tiny portion of that location's history, and the well being of the people there is highly variable. Take the US today. The average person watches hours of TV a day, consumes an obscenely large amount of high fructose corn syrup in year, eats at McDonald's, and is a Christian. None of these apply to me and a fairly large subculture.
    Ah, so the modern enemies are McDonalds, high fructose corn syrup (it used to be "processed sugar" a couple decades ago), and Christianity.

    But at the very basis of this, your true enemies are: Reason, Freedom of Thought and Religion, Individualism, Science, Technology - basically, everything that goes into creating a modern form of civilization.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I believe certain environments are more conducive to human well being than others, and changing certain aspects of our environment can affect us positively. I don't mean to say every tribe in history was peaceful and loving and everything was awesome all the time. Eating natural food is good for us. Having clean air is good for us. Not destroying the forest is good for us collectively. Living in harmony with the cycles of nature tends to make us feel more balanced. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. All of this is good for individual people, and it is rational to be healthy and happy.
    And no more modern dental care. And there will be outhouses, or probably collective ditches to poop in. Now I'll admit, E. coli is certainly natural. And no anaesthesia, no modern medicine. People will still get sick in your natural environment. That sucks!
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #149
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.simaruba View Post
    You had said,


    If we are allowed to terminate things based on their inability to make rational choices to sustain themselves, (because abortion is not simply declining to help something exist) doesn't that lead to some horrible conclusions?
    Having assumed you meant a rational government instead of a moral imperative, my answer is the same, including expansions on this theme in various subsequent comments.[/QUOTE]

    I think the problem is that I think of rights as something innate and recognized but not conferred by the government. You use rights as a specifically political term and "fact of nature" to describe innate truths. Simple semantics.

  10. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Genetic distinction has everything to do with identity which You laid out at the basis for both moral and political rights.
    I did not. Just the opposite, the common denominator is to be an individual human being, irrespective of genetic makeup. if one day we discover life on another planet and beings who share not a single element of our genetic makeup, but they survive and thrive by the same method (rational, volitional) they too will qualify as humans in the context of political rights.

    You are evading a significant idea. People who are brain dead have families and friends why are their interests not considered?
    If the braindead person did not name them as guardians in such an event, they might have personal interests, but they have no legal interest. if he did designate them, they do have rights.

Similar Threads

  1. Ayn Rand is undoubtedly an ENTJ not an INTJ
    By Harlow_Jem in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 12:55 AM
  2. Ayn Rand: The Ultimate INTJ
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 09:44 PM
  3. AYN RAND'S VAGINA SMOKING A BONG
    By Ginkgo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:01 AM
  4. Ayn Rand fandom and type
    By Economica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 01:45 AM
  5. [INTJ] The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand's Objectivism and INTJ's
    By Harlow_Jem in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 01:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO