Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

FredAnyman

Regulars
  • Posts

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FredAnyman

  1. tadmjones, You wrote in post #44, “In #42 if contract law requires a minimum age of 18 yrs to enter a legally binding argreement [sic], how is that an example of a double standard? Wouldn't a double standard mean that some 18 yr olds could not enter into contracts or that some 16 yr olds could?” It would depend on your definition of a double standard. In post #35, I defined a double standard as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another. In post #36, Jon Southall stated, “That definition is correct.” In the example that I gave in post #42, there is a set of rules (contract law in your post) that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18.
  2. Craig24, In post #40 you wrote, “The exact phrasing is: No man may initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.” I do not understand this statement. It is possible for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others. It happens all around the world every day. Did you mean something like, “It is immoral for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others”? If that is the case, then I would ask you to explain why it is immoral for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.
  3. Jon Southall, In post #41 you wrote, “What are these "many factors" you refer to? Clearly you had something in mind.” You are asking me questions about a society that you are imagining. The many factors that I refer to could be anything you imagine for your society from an extreme of: your society is ruled by an all-powerful deity that both allows double standards and allows your society to exist; to the simple statement of: in your society there are no double standards. How am I to know? But let us put all this aside since it could be considered just to be semantics and I am interested in learning more of your thoughts on this subject. I will I answer your question from post #36 with: Yes, I think a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I will provide an example. A society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, could impose an age requirement for entering into contracts. This society could state that for a contract to be legally binding, all parties to the contract have to be 18 years old or older. This age requirement would be a double standard because there would be a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people than to another. Yet even with the presence of this double standard, the society could be sustained.
  4. Jon Southall, In post #38 you wrote, “Could you clarify what you mean when you say it may both be possible and not be possible for double standards to be consistent with reason. What you said taken literally is a contradiction.” It is not a contradiction because I never wrote that it may both be possible and not be possible of double standards to be consistent with reason. I wrote that “I do not know if a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.” Since I do not have, nor could I have, any idea or knowledge about how this society based on reason operates, what its history is, about the background and make-up of the individuals who comprise the citizenry, or anything else other than a vague notion that individuals deal with one another productively, I do not think that it is possible for me to answer any question about this society that you imagine.
  5. Jon Southhall, I apologize for the incorrect spelling of your name and I will attempt to avoid misspelling it in the future. As for using your full screen name rather than just Jon, I do that for the benefit of any other reader of this thread so that it is clear that I am addressing your posts and not anyone else that may have a similar a screen name. While this may not be necessary, I do it to be polite. As to your question in post #36, my answer is that I do not know. I do not know if a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.
  6. Jon Southhall, In answer to your question in post #34, I have a concept of double standards. I would define double standard, similar to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another.
  7. Jon Southhall, You wrote in post #31, “I mistook your "I do not have to value your life" to mean, "it does not matter to me if you are sacrificed".” That is a very big difference between what I wrote and what you thought I wrote. While I believe that “this little aside” could be tied back to the question in the original post, it does not seem worth continuing if there is going to continued wide differences between what one, or both, of us write and what one, or both, of us read.
  8. Spiral Architect, In post #30 you wrote, “It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Do I really need to explain what self defense is and why it is acceptable? I can but honestly I thought that was at least an acceptable baseline.” This is representative of one of the issues that I am having in my search for knowledge. I asked why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone and I get answers like self defense (or some similar type of answer) and no other explanation. By providing a one or two word answer without further explanation, you make an assumption that my concept of self defense is exactly the same as your concept of self defense. This may or may not be true but given that we are each individuals with our own individual ways of interpreting and understanding the world in which we live, it is unlikely that my concept and your concept will be exactly the same. Even if our respective concepts are similar, it does not guarantee we will be able to fully understand what the other is trying to communicate without a more complete or robust explanation. And, based on your posts, you seem perplexed and perhaps dismayed that I ask questions. It appears that you think that I should have the same concept of self defense as you do or would have if I had more knowledge of Objectivism. This seems odd to me, in part, because as it is demonstrated by a reading of the various posts in this forum that even those with a base knowledge of Objectivism, or who claim to have a base knowledge of Objectivism, still come to different conclusions and have differing concepts on a wide variety of issues. Your last statement in post #30 is an example of differing concepts. You wrote, “No. Do you honestly think that is self defense?” in response to my proposed scenario. It appears, based on my interpretation of what you wrote (but I cannot be completely sure), that your concept of self defense, tells you that hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not self defense. And since it is not self defense, and self defense is the reason the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral, hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not moral. Now perhaps I should conclude from this that the question is answered and no further discussion is needed, but I do have a question. Let us assume that my interpretation of what you wrote is what you meant and that hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not self defense and since it is not self defense, hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not moral. But, hunting someone down and killing them because they stole from you is the use of force in a retaliatory manner. So, this leads to the conclusion that the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral if it is self defense and the use of force in a retaliatory manner is not moral if it is not self defense. How can the use of force in a retaliatory manner be both moral and not moral?
  9. Jon Southhall, Even in the context of sacrifice, my questions from post #26 still stand. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is OK to sacrifice others from “I do not have to value your life”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me.
  10. Jon Southhall, You wrote in post #25, “You would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others.” How did you arrive at this conclusion? I stated that I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you get from “I do not have to value your life” to “it is OK to sacrifice others”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me. Further, even if I hold as my standard that it is OK to sacrifice others, how come “…every other member of society would have to hold that it is OK for them to be sacrificed …” by me? Just because someone or some group of people holds a standard does not mean anyone, much less every other member of society, has to hold the same standard or be OK with the standard.
  11. Spiral Architect, In post #23 you wrote, “That is a ton of literature on this and generally when people ask a question here they have a base knowledge of that. You don't, which is fine, and there is plenty of good people here to help with that.” Why do you assume that I do not have a base knowledge of Objectivism? Is it because I asked questions based on your statements instead of simply accepting those statements as truth? But let us put that aside for the moment and consider another statement you make in post #23. You wrote, “Self Defense stands on it's own.” This is another statement given without further explanation, without definitions, and without any qualifying terms. Once again, Objectivist or not, I cannot read your mind and cannot be sure what you meant by this statement so I will ask a question. Consider this scenario: someone breaks into my home while I am away and steals some of my processions. I hunt that person down and kill them. This is moral because: self defense. Is this correct?
  12. Jon Southhall, I have many questions concerning what you wrote in post #18. But for the sake of focus, I will ask only one here. You asked, “If life is your standard of value, you are against that which threatens it. Do you agree?” I agree that if life is your standard of value then you are against that which threatens it. What I do not understand is your statement about double standards. I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you make the jump from I value my life so I must value your life?
  13. softwareNerd, From post #17, “In your OP, you said you wanted to distinguish between force and retaliatory force. You implied that force was wrong, but that you were not sure why retaliation is right.” And, “This shifts the entire context of the question. Th [sic] way the OP is framed seems to ask how a proper political system ought to work.” The original post says, “I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to use force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?” Where does it state that I want to distinguish between force and retaliatory force? How does this question have anything to do with a political system when neither a political system nor government is mentioned anywhere in the post? The question asks why it is moral to use force in a retaliatory manner. Additionally, how does the question in the original post imply that that “force was wrong”? Objectivism appears to consider the use of force to be immoral, I have not implied anything. You then stated, “However, are you now implying that you are not sure that even the initiation of force is wrong? Or are you implying that the initiation of force is wrong even if we do not assume anyone has rights?” I am not implying anything. I am asking questions based on the responses to the original post. If I do not find a response clear and/or I do not understand a response, I am going to ask more questions based on the response. In post #11 you stated that you are taking rights for granted in this post. This makes discussion difficult because we either shift the discussion to focus on rights or just about every response you could make would be something like, “It is all about rights.” It is similar to someone saying, “For this discussion, it is assumed that God exits, has clearly and successfully communicated his thoughts and wishes to man, and has stated that the use of force in a retaliatory manner against someone is moral.” After limiting the parameters of the discussion by assuming that a concept is true and correct and that all answers stem from that concept, it is nearly impossible to question further because every response would be something like, “God says so” or “It has to do with the concept of rights.” This is case here. In post #14 I asked a question that concerned rights. I realize now that the question would probably be better suited for a different thread.
  14. Spiral Architect, I am confused by your statement from post #16, “I think the issue is that I'm assuming you have a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics. What I really need to do is reevaluate that and start from the beginning. Otherwise I'm going to being going in circles with you and that will just frustrate you.” What does this mean? Are you saying that if I had what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics that I would instantly understand and have no further questions when you make a statement like, “Life is impossible when people use force” or provide a two word answer of “Self Defense”? You go on to state, from post #16, “A chicken is property. A human is a moral agent and has rights. If you are going to equate the life of a rational human being and that of a chicken as the same moral standard then we really need to start over.” I asked you for more clarification on your statement from post #10 that “Life is impossible when people use force”. That was your entire statement. You did not say life of a human being, life of a rational human being, life of a chicken, or anything else that may have added clarity and/or conveyed the message that you intended. I asked a legitimate question based on your response because, taken as you wrote it, your statement is not true since life, whether the life of a man, the life of a chicken, or the life of a single cell organism, is possible when people use force. Of course you could have meant the life of a rational man, and you could have meant that life is a process and not just the physical act of staying alive, and you could have meant that when a person uses force against another that force prevents the person from carrying out the process of his or her life and that is immoral, and you could have meant that life is a gift from God and therefore it is immoral to use force against it, and you could have meant it exactly as you wrote it. How am I to know? Are you suggesting that if I had what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics I would have known exactly what you meant and what you were trying to convey? I may or may not have what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics, but regardless of my level of knowledge, I cannot read your mind and I can only take from what you write that which you write. Since you seem to prefer to respond to questions with answers like, “Self Dense” and you appear to be dismayed that I ask you further questions based on your answers, please feel free to disregard the questions that I asked in this post and I will, if you wish, not ask you any more questions.
  15. softwareNerd, Since you are ”…taking rights for granted in this post [#11]” there is not much I can ask about the things you wrote as they would most likely fall under the purview of rights. But I will ask something based on: “In such a situation, if we were to say: "well, then that's too bad you can do nothing about it", then your "right" is a theoretical fiction.” In the country which I live, the government takes a portion of my money away from me and calls it taxes. There is not anything that I can do to stop this so I think it falls under the “that’s too bad you can do nothing about it” category. Does this mean my right to do what I will with my money is a theoretical fiction? Is it moral for me to use force to restore my ability to use my money as I will?
  16. Spiral Architect, From post #10, “That is why you form a Government, to give a third party the right to use force so we don't have to. If we had to defend ourselves every day it would hard to lead a productive life. It can be done but we thrive much better without having to live in anarchy. There is no utopia where everyone lives peacefully. Someone will try to swindle, rob, or hurt you. You can either defend yourself constantly or you can appoint someone to defend you. Government and political theory flows from there.” Based on this, is your answer to the question of “Why is the authority morally obligated?” from post #5 something like, “It is moral to have a third party use force in a retaliatory manner because it would be really inconvenient for an individual to do so”? If not, I do not understand how the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral. Also from post# 10, “Life is impossible when people use force” and “FORCE DESTROYS VALUE.” Much like my response to CriticalThinker2000, you make two statements which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute. I do not accept your statements without question. If force destroys value, then how can the use of force in a retaliatory manner, which is force, be moral? If life is impossible when people use force, then when the government, a group of people, use force in a retaliatory manner, which is force, then life is impossible so how can it be moral? Further, you stated, “If you want to live, then you need to act to do so.” Isn’t acting to live a form of force? If I kill an animal to eat I am using force. But if “life is impossible when people use force” and “force destroys value” then although I kill an animal and get food, something I value, because I used force then the value is destroyed and my life is impossible?
  17. CriticalThinker2000, You are correct when you say that any statement that you make is going to be just a statement. I should have been clearer in my response. Let me do that now. In post #6, you stated, “Life requires freedom from the initiation of force. The purpose of retaliatory force is to put an end to the initiation of force.” You answer contains two statements which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute. If the reader does not simply accept your statements as true and absolute, then your two statements do not provide an answer to the question in the original post. Rather, your statements just raise many more questions. I asked two of those questions in post #7. In post #8, in an attempt to answer the question of “Why does life require freedom from the initiation of force”, you provide another statement which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute. You state, “Man's means of survival is his mind. Force is anti-mind and therefore anti-life.” Since I do not accept this statement without question, can you explain how force is anti-mind? Isn’t force the product of the mind? Doesn’t someone use his or her mind to conceive of and then execute the actions necessary to use force? Can a product of the mind be anti-mind? If I use a burning torch to force a lion to abandon the zebra that it just killed so that I may eat said zebra, is that force not a product of my mind? Is it anti-life? Further, if force is anti-mind and therefore anti-life, then wouldn’t the retaliatory use of force, which is just force, also be anti-mind and anti-life? In post #8, in an attempt to answer the question of “Even if life does require freedom from the initiation of force, why does this make the use of force moral”, you again provide another statement which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute. You state, “Because life is the standard of morality.” I do not accept this statement without question. I could ask questions such as, if someone initiates force against me and it doesn’t end my life then is the use of retaliatory force moral, but I will stop with what I have written above in an attempt to keep from veering too far off the topic in the original post.
  18. CriticalThinker2000, In post #6, you stated, “Life requires freedom from the initiation of force.” This is just a statement and does not answer the question of why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone. Why does life require freedom from the initiation of force? Even if life does require freedom from the initiation of force, why does this make the use of force moral?
  19. Spiral Architect, In post #4 you stated, “At that point the authority in charge of dispensing justice is well within it's rights, and morally obligated, to retaliate.” This is just a statement and does not answer the question of why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone. You wrote that the authority is “morally obligated”. Why is the authority morally obligated? You stated, “Such a person cannot claim rights after violating another's rights. He jettisoned that when he initiated force.” Why is it that a person cannot claim rights after violating another’s rights? Why does someone jettison his rights when he initiated force?
  20. Repairman, You wrote in post #2 that, “Essentially, an individual has a right to his/her own life, including their rightfully property.” Can you explain how this statement makes the use of retaliatory force moral?
  21. I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to use force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?
  22. CriticalThinker2000, I asked you to define your terms because the terms you use can mean different things to different people. Without a definition, different people can come to different conclusions and it can create confusion. For example, to some people “multiple” or “many” can mean five or more. To other people “multiple” or “many” can mean twenty or more. In a previous post I asked you “How many values does one have to create to be “well functioning”?” in response to your statement, “Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting).” You did not answer so how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? For “fulfilling” or “satisfying”, terms which it is difficult to assign a numerical value, the problem is even worse. It appears that you are trying to argue your point by relying on the reader to provide the definitions and attach meaning to the phrases you use. And then you appear to get upset when someone questions what you mean instead of just attaching the meaning that you think they should attach. For example, you wrote “I think that 'life' has a specific nature which Objectivism identifies and everyone is capable of understanding. And by the nature of life, stealing is immoral and consequently leads to negative outcomes (negative by the standard of life).” But you also claim “The standard is not, 'I won't die'. It's, 'I will thrive.'” So either I attach the same meaning to “I will thrive” that you do, or I attach a different meaning. If I attach the same meaning as you, everything is good. If I attach a different meaning, then we can never agree. And unless you can somehow objectively demonstrate that your meaning of “I will thrive” is the correct meaning, then to me, and anyone else who attaches a different meaning, your meaning is a matter of your opinion and no different than anyone else’s opinion.
  23. CriticalThinker2000, I understand that you are claiming that life is the standard of morality and that by “life” you mean a process and not just living. I think that your method for determining morality is perfectly sound. You have a concept of life and any action that destroys or takes away from that life (e.g. stealing) is immoral. All you have to do is compare the consequences of the action to your standard of life and you can determine whether the consequences of the action further or hinder your life and are therefore moral or immoral. I have no problem with this. But this does not completely answer the question from the original post. You claim that there are many negative consequences that come from stealing therefore stealing is immoral (by which I think you mean that there are many consequences that negatively affect your concept of life). But this only works if you have a standard to which to compare the consequences. So you attempt establish that standard and seem to be claiming that “life” or a “thriving life” or the “process of life” or a “flourishing life” is some kind of universal principal that can be discovered and known by everyone and therefore everyone will have the same concept of “life” or a “thriving life” or the “process of life” or a “flourishing life” and therefore everyone will know that stealing has many negative consequences that negatively affect the concept of life and is therefore immoral. But every time I ask about your concept of “life” and what it means I get undefined answers that lead to more questions. To wit: 1) “In the context of life, is the person creating and maintaining a multitude of fulfilling values.” What is the objective definition of “a multitude”? What is the objective definition of “fulfilling”? 2) “Look man, I don't care how you define 'running really well' because whether a process is being completed to the fullest extent possible is not dependent on your opinion or whatever you call it.” What is the objective definition of “completed to the fullest extent possible”? 3) “The standard for the motor that determines whether it is running well is whether it fulfills its task. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself. Life is itself the standard by which you evaluate whether a life is good. Life is the standard of morality. The question is, is this process occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context.” What is the objective definition of “fulfills its task”? What is the objective definition of “life is good”? What is the definition of “occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context”? Can you provide an objective definition of “Life” or does it just come down to a matter of opinion?
  24. CriticalThinker2000, You are attempting to demonstrate that “It is NOT a matter of opinion!!” by providing more opinions. To wit: 1) “Because they're not exercising their life to the fullest extent.” What does “exercising their life to the fullest extent” mean? Is there a standard, other than life or death, by which we can compare someone’s life to determine whether or not they are exercising their life to the fullest extent? 2) “Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting).” How many values does one have to create to be “well functioning”? Is there some standard that states one must create X number of values in order to be well functioning? If I create more values than you does that mean you are not well functioning? What if I create different values than you, does that mean one of us is not well functioning? As for your auto shop example, it perfectly demonstrates the fact that two people can assign different meanings to the same concept. In your example, when I said that the engine was running really well, what I told you was true based on my concept of “running really well”. When you heard me say that the engine was “running really well” you assigned your own meaning to the concept of “running really well”. Just because you and I have different concepts of “running really well” and you feel that my concept is not as good as your concept (or something like that) it does not mean one concept is more correct that the other. It just means that they are different. Now, if you and I agreed that the concept of “running really well” meant something specific and measurable, such as “running really well means that the engine will run exactly the way a new El Camino engine runs” then we would have a standard to measure against and we could determine who’s concept of “running really well” is closer to the standard. Without a standard, however, it is just opinion. To your last point, there is a big difference between eating nothing but sand and stealing. If I (or any human) eats nothing but sand, I (or any human) will die. If I steal from you, I will not die. I may suffer some consequences if you, or others, choose to and are able to act, or I may not suffer any consequences at all. As for your ascertain that even though you eat sand and steal you can “subsist for a while”, how long is “a while”? For eating nothing but sand, due to the nature of human beings, “a while” can be measured in days maybe weeks depending on the individual but probably not months, and certainly not years. For stealing, how long is “a while”?
  25. CriticalThinker2000, You wrote, “The concept of 'flourishing life' is created to distinguish between people who are really succeeding at life (creating, pursuing, maintaining values) and people who are merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life.” I am confused. If “really succeeding at life” means creating, pursuing, and maintaining values, why would some who is “merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life” not be “really succeeding at life”? Doesn’t a person have to create, pursue, and maintain the values to fulfill the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life? Here again you seem to be implying that in order to live a “flourishing life” or to be someone “really succeeding at life” then you have to do something beyond merely staying physically alive. My argument, as I stated earlier, is that once you move past the physical requirements of staying alive due to your nature of being human, then the definition of a “flourishing life” is a matter of opinion. To tie this back to the original post, you seem to indicate that stealing is immoral because it prevents you from leading a “flourishing life”. Yet, the act of stealing does not kill you (unlike eating nothing but sand, to cite your example). I would agree with you that if your definition of a “flourishing life” includes a prohibition against stealing, then stealing would be wrong because you could not lead a “flourishing life” if you steal. However, if your definition of a “flourishing life” did not include a prohibition against stealing, then stealing would not be wrong because you could lead a “flourishing life” if you steal.
×
×
  • Create New...