StrictlyLogical

Absolutely! One of those peeps could cure cancer, or write your favorite song... or just do some good accounting work for the company that supplies ECM chips to the automaker you buy a car from in 3 years that saves your life because it has a redundancy failure protection.... on the other hand you could run them over saving 20 seconds and 2 millijoules of effort. Really there is no contest. This sort of evaluation of potential benefit of men to other men requires a view to the long range and wide perspective on consequences and causation ... but a single realization is important : man IS a producer of value, its not a zero sum game, value is created on both sides of every transaction, and when you touch anything manmade of value to you it resulted from a long chain of events which all required the ABSENCE of chains on the people who played a part. The fewer the chains the more benefit you can get... you get the picture. Upholding rights, is like putting gas in your car. It would be eminently UNSELFISH for you (NOT in your selfish best interests long range) to simply run them over.... and as such, and only as such, immoral.

Perhaps we can divide this problem into two. You have identified as an aspect "desire for social interaction" which I take you to mean emotional, "spiritually" value based. His love for his own life I take you to mean more aligned with economic interests, i.e. arms length, contractual, trading, or indirect benefits. Lets call these material value based. Although these are arbitrary categories I think we can deal with them temporarily. Firstly, let's deal with the material. EVEN IF a man is emotionless as regards the welfare of others, no love, no empathy, no feeling whatever to his fellow men. The nature of rights, I submit, inherent in the nature of man, would not change whatever. A man still would require certain things to live according to his own morality, require certain things to flourish (mainly freedom from interference). So a man would still demand non-interference, non-harm from others. the unfeeling man would still also realize there is a great benefit to be derived from other men, who possess creativity, capacity for productiveness etc. As such in reality it is Objectively true that the man has the best chances of supporting his life when he respects and acts in accordance with what other men need to flourish (which happens to be the same as what he needs). So these already have the nature and scope of man's rights without any reference to emotional value. It's not that Jim gives up certain things to have a relationship with other men, it's that Jim wants a relationship with other men to GET certain things which enable him to flourish. the basis of "respecting" others rights is not love or generosity or altruism it is selfish recognition that A. They will not want to deal with you directly if you do not respect their rights and B. Whether or not they deal with you directly or only indirectly through society at large, whether or not they even understand what rights are or whether you are respecting or disrespecting them, in fact your respecting their rights maximizes your possible selfish benefit you might get from them. What society is the one which has individuals with the most potential to discover a cure for cancer, discover genetic aging processes, and hence may possibly save your life and/or extend it by decades? I don't want to be friends with the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer, I just want him to be possible.

This is a good quote but taken out of context or heard by the wrong person with an incorrect interpretation it could lead to a misidentification of "rights" as intrinsic rather than objective. Objectivism rejects intrinsic and mystical concepts of ethics and politics (actually of anything). Inherent in the nature of man includes what he requires to flourish (non-interference primarily). As such a man, recognizing his nature, decides what he requires and will not accept as behavior from others. Also when an individual decides how best to benefit selfishly from the existence of other men, he must recognize that for those other men to be of greatest benefit to him, he must recognize and act in accordance with what those other men require to flourish (which is inherent in the nature of man). Man is endowed with his nature and in that sense is endowed with rights. i.e. if you want to live rationally and selfishly with other men, these are the natural inherent limits regarding your relationship/actions with them in order for you to be successful living selfishly with other men. The identification of proper relations between men given their inherent nature is no different from the discussion surrounding "right" and "wrong" in John Galt's Speech: "Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow-right or wrong? Is a man’s wound to be disinfected in order to save his life-right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power-right or wrong?" Nothing intrinsic or mystical here.

good points HD... the problem is that almost everyone sees morality from an intrinsic moral perspective. an objectivist cant even speak (meaningfully) with people about the issues without running into this problem.

Nice thoughts... and WHAT do you mean when you say "rights"?

I am not going to define rights. You quoted from OPAR (in another thread) what they are and I think it is a good definition. I would like to try to illustrate the "root" in reality of rights by a concretization: Imagine there is an Objectivist, Jim, who has finally decided not to live in isolation, he resolves to form social relationships and as a first step drafts a kind of "agreement in principle" type document which stipulates his requirements and limits for others if they are to have social arrangements with him, one on one. Of course this document is informed by Jim's ethics and morality, his choice to live etc. Clearly Jim will insist, if he is to have a relationship with any other individual, that the other individual is not to interfere with Jim in such a way that directly acts against his life, or interferes with Jim's ability to lead a life in accordance with his morality. Of course Jim wants to trade but he does need nor want to make anyone promise to trade with him... he will let opportunities come and go as they do and he anticipates much good will come of everyday commerce. This is a good start. Jim then realizes that if he approaches you (say another Objectivist), and he selfishly does want to have a relationship with you, that you too have certain requirements and limits for forming the relationship. Not unlike what Jim just spent hours to draft in his own agreement in principle. Jim not only has to realize you come with these and that you can and will refuse to enter into an agreement with him if these are not up to your standards, he also realizes that the entire purpose of the arrangement to him, i.e. your being able to benefit Jim, depends upon your ability to be of most benefit to yourself, specifically, to flourish as a rational, productive, thinking entity. As such your nature informs what limits there should be in the relationship to ensure you can be of greatest benefit to Jim, even if you do not know them and even if you do not demand them. In either case and for both reasons, Jim includes in the "agreement in principle" those requirements and limits. Insofar as and to the extend that Jim is rational, understands his nature and reality, and chooses life, and insofar as you also understands your nature and reality and choose life, the requirements and limits are agreeable to both yourself and Jim and maximize your benefits to yourselves, and thereby each other, without imposing undue restrictions on your living as independent individuals who voluntarily trade with each other. This process, which is Objective, taking into account facts of reality but nothing mystical or "intrinsically prescriptive", is a concretization of what rights are at their root. Someone comes to you with requirements of their nature and of their choices which to benefit from them in your society are to be recognized (to the extent the choices are rational, etc.). The next step is to socialize the agreements in principle to a society of like minded people by for example a sort of constitution. Other than taking an abstract route which risks rationalism... (although if one is careful and smart one can do this), I think the above illustrates (or at least indicates) in concrete fashion what rights are and why they are.

You seem to be confusing "right" with "rights". Morality and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are part of ethics, and are pre-political. The concept of "rights" arises in a social context and are part of politics. These are founded on ethics but do not form part of ethics. Could you try again? What do you mean by rights? Please provide a simple and direct answer in your own words.

DA: Please read my post to Regi F illustrating in concrete terms why societies need to set up/sanction freedoms, limits etc., and why an Objectivist would want a society with those in place. The reason I raise this is because you keep referring to "rights" without defining what you mean by the term "rights". Yes, you have gone on at length about what they should be based on, about how you are not conceiving of intrinsic or mystical versions, how animals should or do have them... but it is impossible to talk about them meaningfully (especially in this context) without your defining what you mean when you say "rights" It's like talking about a book supposedly based on a true story, and you keep talking about what is true and not true, what happened, what events should be in the book etc... perhaps you even try to prove it was based on a true story or that it was based on multiple true stories... but in the end you never tell me what you mean by "BOOK". I ask you politely and with reason (the question is relevant) what you mean by "book", all you needed to do was say something about written words on pages or in digital format for a person to read in sequential order..etc. you get the point. But you refuse to do so... and keep talking about what informs the book, how it made you feel. etc. Why wont you define what you mean by "rights"? Note: Listing off a bunch of rights is not a definition of rights. PLEASE will you define what YOU mean when you say "rights"... Does it have a rational meaning to you? Do you KNOW what you mean? If you cannot define what you think you know and mean what does it mean to know something you cannot define? Is the idea vague in your mind? Is it a feeling? an intuition? a revelation? This is no insult I'm being dead serious here. Please be honest. PS: How can you say you want to play in the Objectivist sandbox when you repeatedly/continually ignore Objectivist ethics? Ethics IS the foundation of Politics and any consideration of society, rights etc. Objectivist ethics is founded on "self-interest", the proper beneficiary of morality is the self, and Objectivism rejects altruism. You really should start from there to make any and all of your arguments re. rights.

DA Absent a blantant contradiction or misunderstandong of Objectivist ethics... no one else will be easier targets for your pursuasion. Plus I thought we had made some progress...

tjfields Any response to my last post?

If the "choice to focus" is the only choice which is free, i.e. the only instance of "free will", then instead of having to define/validate "free will" in terms of any choice we have but one kind of choice to investigate. The issue of the "freeness" of the "willing" of that choice does not suddenly disappear. Some will say even that choice is determined, while others that it is truly arbitrary/random. No matter how "small" or "subtle" we try to define the choices which exhibit freewill, the fact is that we are still claiming freewill exists. It still needs explanation and/or validation.

I agree aleph... but it's hard to "show" them an alternative when putting it in front their noses results in nothing...

DA: Curious to know what you think at this juncture. Regi F.: You had asked me a question... any comments on my answer?

tjfields Let's take a little aside which may help with your "chewing" of the problem. What do you take to be the difference between 1. A claim that there exists an intrinsic or mystical morality which is a property of reality or super-reality (the supernatural) and imposes real or supernatural duties upon man. 2. A claim that man may discover and follow a set of principles and rules in accordance with his nature and the nature of reality, if he chooses to live.

DA: What do mean by "man made" in this context? Please explain what a "right" could possible BE, if not man-made! I don't want to know what they "should be based" on, you apparently claim to know what they are to be based on. But you never clarify WHAT are they, those things which you say are "based" on or "founded" on life as a value. If WE are not the ones "making" them and basing them upon something WHAT or WHO is? Also please do not be misled, no Objectivist EVER said that to an entity A who is alive, the life of entity B always has value independent of the nature of or relationship to or a million other things regarding entity B. When referred to in Objectivism, "life" means an entity's life, and the entity's property of being alive. The word "Life" when referring to every other living being, is not according to Objectivism an automatic value to A, and in fact is not something of any particular importance in the ethics of Objectivism. Your assessment of a dichotomy is misplaced. Objectivist ethics has at its roots the LIFE OF THE ENTITY not "Life" in general. Recall Objectivism repudiates any claim of altruism, and embraces the idea that an individual lives for himself and that the sole beneficiary of his morality, i.e. the ultimate and legitimate beneficiary IS the self. This is pretty basic stuff if you want to play in the Objectivist sandbox. No Objectivist has EVER stated there is any duty on any animal. We don't contract with Cows, or try to GUILT them into staying around for slaughter using Genesis 1:26 and nice big cathedrals and pipe organs. (We happen to use fences and they seem to do the job) Duties are simply inapplicable to animals, they cannot conceive of them nor follow them. Duties also do not apply to carrots or rocks. Your accusation that Objectivists "rationalize" duties is completely unfounded. Also, unchosen duties, i.e. ones not voluntarily chosen and accepted are not valid according to Objectivism. we hold such a concept as rationalism or mysticism ala Kant or Religion. "Morality" "Immoral behavior": your reference to morality is a perversion of the concept adopted by Objectivism. Either you accept what morality means in the context of Objectivism, or decide to play outside the sandbox. Don't refer to morality when you know your use of it imposes upon the concept a meaning exactly the opposite to what Objectivism holds is morality. "Unilateral right without proof" clearly belies your belief in an intrinsic or mystical property of the universe. Quite clearly you are repudiating the entire basis of Objectivist ethics. Morality which is selfish and based on the life of the entity who has chosen to live and recognizes that he must act in accordance with metaphysical reality as he finds it, simply is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU. That is OK. But you really should admit you REJECT Objectivism at its root.

Regi F. I am not going to define rights. That would open a very large discussion of abstractions upon abstractions requiring drilling down to concretes and facts of reality with many pitfalls and risks that could set loose rationalism in a mad rampage... so I will try to illustrate the basis in reality of rights by a scenario: Imagine there is an Objectivist, Jim, who has finally decided not to live in isolation, he resolves to form social relationships and as a first step drafts a kind of "agreement in principle" type document which stipulates his requirements and limits for others if they are to have social arrangements with him, one on one. Of course this document is informed by Jim's ethics and morality, his choice to live etc. Clearly Jim will insist, if he is to have a relationship with any other individual, that the other individual is not to interfere with Jim in such a way that directly acts against his life, or interferes with Jim's ability to lead a life in accordance with his morality. Of course Jim wants to trade but he does need nor want to make anyone promise to trade with him... he will let opportunities come and go as they do and he anticipates much good will come of everyday commerce. This is a good start. Jim then realizes that if he approaches you (say another Objectivist), and he selfishly does want to have a relationship with you, that you too have certain requirements and limits for forming the relationship. Not unlike what Jim just spent hours to draft in his own agreement in principle. Jim not only has to realize you come with these and that you can and will refuse to enter into an agreement with him if these are not up to your standards, he also realizes that the entire purpose of the arrangement to him, i.e. your being able to benefit Jim, depends upon your ability to be of most benefit to yourself, specifically, to flourish as a rational, productive, thinking entity. As such your nature informs what limits there should be in the relationship to ensure you can be of greatest benefit to Jim, even if you do not know them and even if you do not demand them. In either case and for both reasons, Jim includes in the "agreement in principle" those requirements and limits. Insofar as and to the extend that Jim is rational, understands his nature and reality, and chooses life, and insofar as you also understands your nature and reality and choose life, the requirements and limits are agreeable to both yourself and Jim and maximize your benefits to yourselves, and thereby each other, without imposing undue restrictions on your living as independent individuals who voluntarily trade with each other. This process, which is Objective, taking into account facts of reality but nothing mystical or "intrinsically prescriptive", is a concretization of what rights are at their root. Someone comes to you with requirements of their nature and of their choices which to benefit from them in your society are to be recognized (to the extent the choices are rational, etc.). The next step is to socialize the agreements in principle to a society of like minded people by for example a sort of constitution.

You say no one has a "claim" to food protection or freedom. What do you mean by "claim"? Who holds the IOU against which you could cash in the claim? Do you not actually mean that there are no "claims" one can entreat reality to grant... if so, Objectivism does not disagree with you. There is no where to cash in any such wishes. If you equate Objectivism's concept of "right" with a "claim" which Objectivism dismisses, you clearly are not arguing against "rights according to Objectivism". If any Objectivist would bother to argue with you it would not be to convince you of something you disagree with but to correct you on your misapprehension of what Objectivism actually holds.

Rather than "difference" I would say it was a "discovery" that Objectivism would bring to the anti-verse. Rational recognition of consequences, ALL of them insofar as a non-omniscient fallible entity can consider. Please think about these Objectivists of the anti-verse.... imagine they are perfectly logical to a fault, but understand they themselves are fallible and not omniscient. I put to you your answer about the Cow is correct for all Objectivists in the anti-verse, and as morality is concerned and rights which are derived from morality are concerned, correct for all Objectivists in this universe. If we can agree that in the anti-verse "rights" have limits and are not applicable to Cows, we could start to talk about the difference between moral requirements, limits, "rights" and areas of action where there are only amoral considerations (not moral requirements, not near any limits) which are essentially at the option of the actor. Here is where you get chosen behaviors of an individual in regards to a particular animal which can reflect real value in that particular animal like a loved pet but is not a moral requirement nor applicable to all animals in general.

Good points. If the book said : "Drinking water is Good" It would not be subjective it would be incorrect. Why? Because the statement is too broad. If you are parched and dying of thirst drinking water actually IS good. If you are drowning, the last thing you should do is whip out your canteen and start drinking.... (technically drinking is not the same as breathing water which is drowning but you get the point...) So, a book with "Drinking water is Good" would not be Objective or correct because it is too general. That said a book which ignored that generally "drinking water is good" would be missing an important fact of reality. Something similar applies to action towards other men. We are fallible, and we are not omniscient. We require therefore general principles, AND contextual variations, AND exceptions. These are not subjective, they reflect reality, and in fact improve the accuracy of the book.

Does anyone have any thoughts about how to break the indoctrination whereby people believe in an instinsic and/or mystical kind of "right" and "wrong", the mystical instrinsic sort of "ought" which actually has an infinite gap with the "IS" of reality? Whenever the answer to a question asking "WHY is doing X in context Y right or moral?" ultimately ends up being "just because", or "because it IS right or moral" we know there is a problem. But showing a mystic or instrinsicist this problem usually results in their denying ANY problem while accepting our premises except for one... the nonexistence of an intrinsic or mystical morality. IF the universe in their minds does in fact have an INTRINSIC or MYSTICAL property of "right" and "wrong", somehow embedded in it like a standard of unquestionable absolutes, unreachable by reason and in fact simply being there independent of any reason, they can in their minds invoke such a thing AS IF IT WERE A FACT OF REALITY. This of course is an arbitrary wish of untold magnitude... but they BELIEVE IT. What to do?

DA You still will not see what we are talking about. Imagine a universe just like ours but people were emotionless, devoid of empathy, ruthless, selfish. Think of it an evil anti-verse. Imagine now their ONLY primary interest is in themselves. FULL STOP. No generosity, no respect, no love, no inclination to save life out of compassion or altruism, and no scruples about killing. Imagine now some of these selfish anti-verse persons were rational. One among them formulates and discovers a kind of parallel to our Objectivism. It is founded on a choice to live and full rational recognition of reality. They are logical to a fault. The ONLY guide to their action is the choice to live and the outcomes of their actions. Being insanely logical they realize all the various consequences. They still discard emotionalism as invalid to knowledge and to action. They still reject altruism, mysticism, intrinsicism. They are perfectly moral to a fault. As regards to a proper formulation of an Objectivist morality and "rights" according to Objectivism, do you have any valid reason to believe the Objectivists of that universe would be any different from ours? Do you have any valid reason to suppose Objectivism of this universe is any different from Objectivism of the anti-verse? If one of them asked you "Why shouldn't I eat this tasty Cow?" how in the anti-verse would you convince him the animal had some claim on what he could or could not do... or equivalently that it ACTUALLY was in the long run in his benefit not to eat the cow?

Imagine you find in a book store a "Guide to Making your Vehicle Last" or a "Guide to Keeping your Computer at Maximum Performance" Suppose you determine you want your vehicle to last, or you want your computer to work at maximum performance, a "pre-adoption" choice so to speak. How do you know the book is useful? It also must not be a reflection of mere subjective wishes. You would not want the book to be arbitrary or subjective, if subjective means the advice is not true or is incomplete. The author may have an unfair bias or a feeling which would make the work inaccurate. Your hope is that a rational mind not guided by emotionalism or intuition wrote it. That which is described in the book must correspond with reality and must work... i.e. the consequences claimed in the books should obtain when enacted upon the vehicle or the computer. The books should also be capable of independent validation, anyone can read the book and if knowledgeable enough about the nature of vehicles or computers (or if they were so inclined would be able to perform endless experiments to test the advice of the books) would be able to tell you if the books were valid, true to the claims with respect to consequences if certain actions are taken (in connection with the vehicle or computer). Certainly it cannot be a fantasy, or a floating castle in the sky with no basis in reality. Anyone who claimed the books reflected an intrinsic prescriptive edict of reality, were written on gold tablets by a ghost or are written in the very fabric of space-time itself should be eyed suspiciously. You know that the rules in these books are not duplications by revelation of rules and edicts written in the universe somewhere else, they are not an intrinsic additional feature of the universe, no karma or lightening will haunt you, no grade, gauge or status in the universe will change when you follow the actions in the book. The only connection of the book with reality (if it is true, accurate) is that the book records truths about what would happen if one did certain things. If one does x with a vehicle or y with a computer it will or will not last longer or respectively perform maximally. In Summary: IF the books are accurate, originating from rational thought and knowledge of the nature of vehicles or cars and the nature of reality of consequences specifically what obtains when you take actions in regard to the vehicle or the computer, is it not safe to say that the books are Objective? The reason why is simply that they are accurate i.e. true. Consider a Guidebook for a human "How to Sustain and improve your Life". Is it not the same?

DA You completely miss the basis upon which Objectivist ethics is built, the choice to live and the nature of reality (which includes man), and you miss the fact that "society" and "rights" according to Objectivism are built on that ethics and the nature of reality and not built on anything intrinsic to the universe like some set of commandments written in space time. You deny that you are conceiving of an intrinsic or mystical "right" and "wrong" and yet you refer to them in almost every post you make. You appeal to feelings, sympathy, empathy, intuition, a sense of right and wrong etc. as though those were determinative in ANY WAY of what "right" and "wrong" and "rights" are according to Objectivism. According to Objectivism rational analysis of reality and ourselves in combination with the choice to live are what determines those things, and once integrated we may have emotions and a sense of justice, but that "sense of moral life" arise from the discovery of morality and its acceptance ,, but do not form morality's origin. Ethics and ethical rights are not about altruism, not about "respect" for other things in the Christian sense. I don't disrespect your deep beliefs and convictions, I was once a Christian myself. however, an Objectivist is an Atheist who rejects emotion, intuition , feeling, revelation, etc as sources of knowledge, and rejects them also as a guides to action or insight into anything. You clearly have strong convictions and I do not want to change your feelings and beliefs. but it would have been nice if you understood our thinking. I don't believe what you believe, but I accept and understand that you believe it. All this talk and you still do not or will not SEE what it is we think... It is sad.

Entity: I will grant a lizard behaves in ways which preserve its life, and if it were rational enough to form a morality with principles and a code of action you could define "right" as an evaluation of the action the lizard takes which furthers its life. As a form of correctness ethically "right" behaviour of the lizard is tied to the consequences of the lizard's action to its life. I also can take actions which can be evaluated against my ethical code of action based on the consequences of that action to my life. In summary the Lizard acts and its acts can ethically be evaluated based on long term consequences to its life. I act and my actions are evaluated based on long term consequences on my life. What do you think follows from this? Although my proponent SL had mentioned the general form of "rights" as he saw it related to correctness, there was no explicit definition on your part (or his, nor any agreed to) as to what exactly you take rights to be in reality. SL has a concept of what rights are in his mind, Objectivism has a concept of what they are, what do you identify them in reality to be ?" end entity comments

Entity: "1. I am alive. 2. Life of a thing goes out of existence when that thing dies. The matter which was animate becomes inanimate. I did not cause my existence. I maintain my life and determne its continual existence and direction. You have not explained this concept you have of "right". What in reality are you talking about? Absent showing me what it is in reality it seems like a fiction to me. As though it originates in a feeling or an intuition or a revelation." end of entity comments... entity very confused