fatdogs12
-
Posts
176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fatdogs12
-
-
The basic flaw of the argument is that it assumes that if we knew for a fact that global warming is caused by humans we would have to implement political measures to prevent it.
I think if we knew that humans were causing it the Government would be serving in their proper role to stop it.
Simply because they are causing hard to others by doing it. Same thing as why you cant just dump toxic
wastes into rivers, because you would be harming other people's property.
-
We'll just have to remain in disagreement then and I'll let my previous posts stand for my position.
I will re-read all your previous posts and go through OPAR again to see if I can get what you are
getting at. Not trying to be argumentative about the issue, I just truly do not see the reasoning
though I think I understand what you are saying (could be wrong though).
We'll see. Either way I appreciate your input
-
If you use that logic then the quote is not useful in answering your situation at all as she does not address your "special case". And it doesn't change my position about why rights exist for humans, at least the right to one's own life however much that one cannot actually use it. They aren't simply someone else's property under that condition.
It shows the principle by which they are granted rights. That is all I have been addressing. Ayn says:
Men are granted rights because of X.
Retarded people are still granted rights because of Y.
She specifically says Y is the reason they have rights. Since their rights are predicated on that and since he never had that which it was predicated upon I cannot see how we can derive that this person has any rights.
Even if they are not property, I cannot see how they have any rights. They are not at all rational beings, they will never be rational beings.
What rights can non rational beings have?
I completely understand why any rational being should have rights. But someone who cannot conceptualize anything at all I cannot see how that follows.
I did not wade through the whole thread, so my apologies if I repeat someone else's arguments.Let's get a few things straight:
1) One does not build a general case base on exceptions. ergo whatever the status of an anencephalic individual may be has no bearing on people at large.
I don't see how that's relevant. The general case is simply that man deserves rights because he is rational. They are only given rights because they are rational.
2) Aside from anencephalics or people with severe brain dammage (such as the late Terry Schiavo), any human, even severely retarded ones, have more in the way of rational faculties than any animal.There are definitely retarded people who are pretty much at Schiavo's level, not brain dead but incapable of much of anything.
3) Parents usually get attached to their children long before they are born, mothers in particular. Therefore when a child is stillborn, or is born with a birth defect that will surely kill him soon, or is born so prematurely he will likely die soon, or is born anencephalic and will die soon, the parents will still regard him as their child.They'll want to name him (it is done), they'll grieve over him and they will want to give him a funeral and bury him. Since no one can deny the parents are fully possesed of rights, then nothing can be done with or to their child, for whom they are responsible, without their permission.
In the example we are using the person has no parents. He could have been abandoned or his parents desire to sell his body for research.
-
Yes, and that same quote says they should be cared for as perpetual children, not that they become someone's property. You can't use just part of the quote and ignore the rest. By that I would infer that not maintaining the same rights does not mean they give up the right not to be treated as property. I think she means they don't have the rights they can't assert, like owning property or keeping what they earn and such since they can't earn.
But see I'm not ignoring the quote at all, I want to use the whole thing. You said
"Yes, and that same quote says they should be cared for as perpetual children"
This does not apply to our special case because her reasoning was:
"Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own."
In our situation the person cannot ever "improve and become partly able to stand on their own". They will never stand on their own. So her reason for granting them rights in this case is simply moot.
-
Well, I'm not being facetious when I say the reasoning is being shown to you, you just don't agree with it.
I see the reasoning from people. but I don' think it addresses the issue. I've shown a direct quote from Rand
that says that not all humans are afforded the same rights and that their rational capacity is the reason for
that. While a number of things have been said I don't think anyone so far has addressed that issue...
I've never seen a code in law or any moral indication that parents own their children. How did you derive that?Parents call all the shots for their children, make decisions for them. They decide where they will go, what they
will do. I guess that means they just have the legal responsibility for them? Idk on that. We are talking about
someone in essence who is more animal than human in man's most fundamental category though and can't
support their self at all. I'm interested to see your view on this issue.
-
Wow! How awesome! Peikoff just posted a podcast recently on his site, it's podcast 2, addressing a question regarding some of our issues in this thread. I only just started listening to it, so I'm not sure how much is addressed in it. A questioner asks (to paraphrase) that if a human being is born without a rational mind or is retarded is it still a man? ... which Peikoff responds emphatically with a yes.
So what? Of course he's still a man, that's not being debated. Ayn Rand already said a retarded person should not be afforded the same rights as a regular person. But he is afforded some rights according to her because he may improve.... Our guy can't improve. I don't see rights coming of this
-
There is a fundamental scientific question that has to be addressed in proopsing that some hominid-looking object has no rights, namely, the proof that the being has no rational faculty. There are such beings, who usually die within hours of birth because they have no brain). Other babies, the ones that we're talking aout, do have a rational faculty. You may want to argue otherwise -- if so, tell me what the objective test for "has no rational faculty" is. BTW, remember not to answer a question or a question expressed in the imperative with another question.
Okay see that's why I was so specific that the person did not have a rational capacity. That they had less brain ability then many animals. If they had any rational capacity at all then these are people that are not part of the discussion. I'm not sure how you came to believe that 'the ones that we're talking about, do have a rational faculty.' If that was the case this would not even be an issue.
Most retarded people in my experience have a basic rational capacity, which is beyond any animal. They know basic concepts, they know what pants are etc. Definitely not talking about those people.
I don't see that the scientific aspect matters though. All that matters is if doctors can be certain they have no rational capacity and will never have one would it be moral.
From everything I've read it doesn't make sense to grant someone with no rational capacity and no hope or one any rights. They certainly can't exercise any rights. They have no values. They don't try to live, they just exist.
-
(My bold)
You are right, we are talking about a person, not a monkey or a dog.
However, to play Devil's Advocate from the perspective you are posing (and to be clear I still maintain that my distinction and reasoning is valid), let's look at the following;
How would you determine who would "own" this person such that you could do whatever you wanted to him/her? Who had ownership of him/her to begin with?
Well the parents definitely did in the beginning I would think. So now they could either be owned by the parents or could have been abandoned.
A dog can do much more yet is own-able so I don't see how that makes a person who has no rational capacity any different. Would love to see the reasoning behind it though if someone wants to share.
-
This chain, then, finally brings nearer the underlying question raised in this thread: what if it is impossible to know or guess at the person's intentions? For example: a baby born with some terminal illness. What about people not born with a terminal illness, but just without the capacity to live above very much above the level of animals?
I don't think that is the issue of the thread though. We are talking someone who simply has no rational capacity nor has ever had one, nor will ever have one.... And we are also talking about someone below the level of most animals.
EDIT: Of a number of animals.
I think the situations you mentioned relative to this are fairly cut and dry. If someone at some point had a rational ability, then yes that would make sense. Here though, simply they never did and won't in the future.
Essentially we are talking about a person lower than a dog as far as abilities mental and otherwise go,
definitely far below a monkey.
-
No, because it IS something that it gets rights; a human being. Whether or not a person can excercise them is a different issue, whether or not they contain any broken units is a different issue. The fact is they are born a human being and by our defintion of human being, they are whether as a baby or as an adult, a deaf baby or a severely retarded adult, but have different rights due to age/maturity/developmental differences, but all are protected by virtue of being a human being.
This really doesn't follow. We are protected by virtue of being a human being... That seems to be the answer, but there doesn't seem to be a reason why they should be protected. Meaning simply: Why are human beings granted the rights they are to begin with? If they are granted these rights because of because they look the same, breath the same and move around then they are being granted rights which have nothing to do with their ability. As Tenure says I thought rights are meant to protect man's mode of survival...
I guess in this case they are just handed out to those who don't have that basic thing that sets man apart from things like dogs, cats and everything else.
-
This article makes my entire point for me. I'll quote him right back at you with this:
"This objection can be refuted very simply: by pointing out that in raising the objection, one concedes that we are able to identify the brainless baby as a baby."
A brainless baby, can't think, which it's supposed to be able to. A baby born deaf, is still a baby, one that can't hear like it should be able to. These are instances of "broken units" which does not change the definition of what a baby is, or a human being as such. As Watkins says: "A broken unit, in other words, is one that lacks a characteristic it should have but doesn’t." A baby should be able to hear or think, by virtue of being a baby qua human being, but it lacks a particular characteristic, but that characteristic isn't the only one that make it a human being.
So because something 'should' be something but isn't it gets rights? I don't see that point making any sense.
Why should something be given just because it "should" have that?
That's a pretty strange dichotomy to me.
-
Don Watkins essay on "broken units" is excellent and I'd highly recommend reading it to anyone here on the board, but I cannot find a link to it, and I do not think it'd be appropriote to quote from it, so I won't until I do. I have it in one of my Axiomatic magazines, it deals specifically with this matter, if I remember correctly. (at least epistemologically speaking)
That article actually makes my entire point for me. Here is a quote (thanks for Old Toad for finding the quote)
"A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty."
This is my entire point
-
The way I look at this is (to paraphrase Rand a bit too), is that they are treated like children, in that they have rights, but since they cannot exercise them (due to age/retardation) they cannot have all the rights that older or mentally healthy people can, like driving... All humans are to be protected from those that initiate the use of force, whether you are a child, adult, severely mentally retarded, and so forth, because you are a human being.
What makes human beings so special? As she said they get those rights only because of the possibility of improving. But in a case where we know there is no chance why do they get that right?
THanks
-
Would our theoretical monkeys survival depend on their rational capacity, or would they still depend on their "teeth and claws" to survive?
If the former, my answer would be (in theory) yes. This assumes that their rational capacity does not include taking over the planet though.
Haha that's funny. Monkeys in the work place...
See though it seems that Ayn Rand supports the position that not all humans are given rights, that you do have to have some rational capacity or a possibility of having one to gain rights:
Q: Do severely retarded individuals have rights?
A: 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 extend 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.
-From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A
It's a "courtesy extended"?... that doesn't really make sense to me
-
I think it's possible you are unintentionally equivocating "man" (as in our species) with "man" (as in a single man). "Man" as in "Man's rights" to our species and the rights garnered because of our nature as rational beings. A particular man's capacity for rational thought may be diminished, but his nature is unchanged; he's still a human being. In the same sense that a child or a baby is incapable of rational thought (to support themselves), you don't just throw away their rights. While no person is obligated to care for them (necessarily speaking), no person gains the right to treat them as if they are not human or "man" in context of their nature.
Where he says "his", he's referring to man collectively as in our species, not a particular man.
So then regardless if a person has a rational capacity or not they should still get the rights afforded to man, because man has the potential of being rational. Though I can't see how that really makes sense that makes the distinction clearer.
So essentially if at some point some monkeys evolved to have a decent rational capacity I would assume we would have to treat all them with rights? Or is it based on how a species is as a whole (i.e. since most humans have a rational capacity, all get the rights)?
Thanks, I appreciate your feedback on this.
-
No, you thoroughly misunderstand Objectivist ethics. You might approach the matter by looking to see what aspect Ayn Rand's writing would support this conclusion, whereupon you would probably discover how seriously mistaken your conclusion is. We needn't go further that this and cross the bright line involving humans, who in addition have rights.
I guess I'm asking why people who have no rational capacity have rights.
In that from everything I read I thought rights were predicated on a rational capacity. I can quote that part if that is what you mean.
Maybe the issue isn't rights, but morality. I'm trying to find out why/if this is moral.
Here is why I say it:
"How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single--invalid--syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. "
"This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think. "
Wouldn't this mean that if a man can't think at all he has no rights?
Would morality then be different? If we can certainly say a dog would have
no rights and skinning them alive should be legal, then could we say that
morally it's wrong?
-
I came across something not too long ago about how in China they skin dogs alive without killing them for faux fur, then discard their alive bodies to live (I assume a short period of time, idk though) without their skin.
That seemed a little disturbing at least because I usually think of dogs with their skin on but it made me wonder.... I believe I understand that the Oist position would be this is a good thing because it's pro-human life (lower costs involved than in killing them themselves, so more productive).
So I was wondering if the same would be true with humans who are so retarded they do not have any rational capacity. Maybe they can walk around, but cannot talk, don't understand concepts (I assume they were born this way) and lets say have less of a brain than a dog. And because of the nature of their problems they will not at any point in the future have a rational capacity
Now assuming no one wants to support this person by charity could this person be bought by companies and have similar things done to it? Like have parts of their skin removed to give it to burn victims, or amputate appendages to give to soldiers, etc?
This would seem moral to me according to Oism since the feeling of pain is not relevant and since they are not rational beings and will never be rational beings.
-
Hmm.... Makes me want to change my last name.
Maybe Rockefeller would be good.
"Hello Mr. Rockefeller, what can I get you?"
-
I think that is really a pretty great post. A lot of important points there. I think one thing aside from what you mentioned is the honesty. I think it's super important to just be honest with clients. I know a lot of programmers/web developers undershoot to get business with companies and end up having to try to talk their way out of it, or even worse develop an entire application at a loss to themselves.
Though I've slipped the schedule at my company many times I've found that it's just best to be honest about the situation with them. If you screwed up let them know "Hey I made a miscalculation, it's my fault. It's probably going to take another two weeks to finish".
But in addition to that this is a great concrete example of adhering to reality and the consequences of not doing so
-
I kept thinking your name was Cognito. Now that would have been a lame first name (kinda funny though)
-
Well unfortunately I think a lot of people in Atlanta will not mind having him play here again.
I've been here for 5 years now and he IS atlanta really. He's the whole face of Atlanta here.
Everyone talks about Micheal Vick in a good way all the time, even though he's really only
a mediocre quarterback.
Even once the indictment started I heard so many people here say "Oh they are just picking
on him because he's black".
Many sadly don't even care what he's done, WE NEED TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!!!! lol
-
I just hope the NFL gives him a perm ban (I doubt it). Either way the guy is pretty disgusting, for once I think justice is served from an economic level. In that he's lost most of his sponsorship, salary from the NFL, etc. It's beautiful to me.
-
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/813/813214p1.html <-- Watch the video, they mention Ayn Rand in the beginning and how Atlas Shrugged inspired the game... Neat
-
Microsoft still have about 90% of the operating system and browser market, not to mention a massive percentage of the office market. It will take a hell of a long time for that to change. Look at Firefox. It still hasn't taken much browser share of Internet Explorer despite being better than IE7 even.
Firefox has gone from 3.5% in late 04 to almost 15% now. That is a pretty big increase and there are more and more Firefox users all the time.
The thing I'm not sure you recognize or not is that if Microsoft loses a 10% share in the worldwide desktop market (which is just a simple matter of time, they have already lost 25% here in the US in just a few short years) that is a massive loss in revenue for them.
The fact is that Microsoft is in trouble where it matters. They don't have the advantage they used to have and that advantage is going to be getting smaller soon. They have been trying to compete with Google and Yahoo for years now and getting dumped on consistently. They have a hard time making good products these days. They have in essence become a lot like the IBM they surpassed.
If you want to see if they are concerned just look at all the memo's that have leaked in the last 2-4 years from Microsoft. They are obviously quite concerned dispite their brave front.
I don't love open source, as I said I think XP is the best end user OS to date. I have used it for years now with not many problems at all. But with all the stuff on the web becoming available Microsoft is becoming a lot less relevant.
How It All Ends
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
I didn't mean a blanket government regulation. Just that there should be a legal remedy (that doesn't take forever) to stop this.
However it's executed that works well is fine