Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vazenios

Newbies
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vazenios

  1. I think this is going a bit off topic. What I'm trying to do is define rights as an affirmative abstraction. However I'm starting to think that the notion of individual rights do only apply to a social context. Especially in those contextual situations where individual rights are being trampled in the name of social justice or majority rule. Let me explain; "Individual rights are those freedoms of action upon which mans life depends" and I think the conjugate of this as a social principle is "moral principles guiding and sanctioning man's actions in a social context"(to paraphrase Ayn Rand's Lexicon definition) In this way Individual rights are defined as a logical affirmative, however the concept has to be applied as a moral restriction upon man's actions toward and concerning other individuals. I think this bit of consideration, the fact that rights are freedoms not values, is really alI that I was missing when considering the nature of individual rights. Thanks for the useful commentary! Leo
  2. Its not so much that Rand's definition is unsatisfying, I just wanted to understand the concept of rights in a context different from a social one. To be more specific i wanted a definition of individual rights which was a positive, rather than a negative. But which did so without specifically enumerating them. However, if rights only apply to the interactions between free individuals then this discussion is superfluous.
  3. Vazenios

    Animal rights

    I think the morality of eating meat comes from the fact that eating meat is directly beneficial to mans life and health. Queue science: http://robbwolf.com/ (I'm not here to plug the paleo solution, please don't hate me) Furthermore in as much as it is impossible to deal with animals by reason it is moral to deal with them by force, as we would have to in nature. And because evolutionary biology is on my our side here it should be restated that : Because eating meat furthers mans life, via his health, it is morally proper to eat meat. If one chooses to not eat meat out of principle then that principle should be stated. That principle is: Mans inferiority to nature, and his subsequent lack of a right to use it for the furtherance of his values.
  4. This may have been raised already, but bear with me. The major objection to Envo-hippies is that they are Anti-Man, which i agree with. However For myself i am concerned by environment destruction/degradation/etc. because it represents a threat to my values, or at least an impediment to my achievement of them. I'd like to clarify that I'm not condoning government action in protection of this-that-or-the-other forest, swamp, or desert, where it will help or protect me. I'm only saying that we should value "the environment" where it concerns Man's life. Right?
  5. Recently I've been attempting to define the concept of rights in a way more satisfying than: "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context."(Ayn Rand Lexiconhttp://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html) This is what i came up with: "Those values which, if destroyed would render mans life non-existent, unlivable, or in a style contrary to mans life qua man" Critiques and thoughts? P.S. Here are some places to start: >I think I'm missing some areas of thought about the proper way(s)/time(s) to defend such values. >I'm lacking the exact aforementioned values, i know they need to be few and specific, but beyond freedom, life, and self i draw a blank >I'm not sure exactly sure how to exclude "printing press rights"(Ayn Rand) from this definition, or if is even possible to do so
×
×
  • Create New...