TheInvisibleArm

I think this hypothetical is pretty realistic truth be told. I just added made up numbers so I could picture various outcomes more concretely. If you want I could just say the Model A is fairly safe in collisions with Model As but very unsafe in collisions with Model Bs. The Model B is very safe in a collision with Model A, but unsafe in a collision with another Model B. Its no different on a moral level but doesn't really illustrate the consequences of a decision very well. The only thing that is unrealistic in a relevent way is making the two cars the same in every other way. The fact is however that there are cars and classes of cars that are safe to be in in a collision but very unsafe to collide with. I made this a hypothetical because I just wanted to address the safety issue and not all the other issues that go into choosing a car. I hope this helps.

Imagine there are two types of cars in the world, the Model A and the Model B. If a Model A collides with a Model A there is a ten percent chance of either of the two drivers dieing. If a Model A crashes with a Model B there is a 70% chance of the driver of the Model A dieing and no chance of the driver of the Model B dieing. If two Model Bs collide then there is a 30% of either driver dieing. The vehicles are otherwise identical except for the way they handle in collisions. When choosing a vehicle which vehicle would be the moral choice? If everyone choose the Model B everyone would be much worse off, however it is in an individuals best interest to protect his or her own life and the Model B is always safer for the operator than a Model A. Any thoughts? Additionally, the chances of a fatal accident are not meant to be realistic (since if they were that high everyone would walk everywhere) but they serve to obviate the point of the exercise.

Like what? How do you know whether something is a right or not? Where do you find evidence for the nature of a right in the absence of its application by the sufficiently powerful? Rights aren’t even necessary on an individual level, what I mean by that is that a right to life doesn’t apply to bear attacks or drowning it applies only against the actions of other men. Rights are a social phenomenon, are meaningless in the absence of a society, and have no definition outside of this context. I might argue that this is not “right” and may have good reasons for thinking such, but no right would be evident without the power to protect it. If went to Saudi Arabia I would have many rights similar to property rights over my wife (if I had one) I would not think many of these rights are appropriate but I would certainly have them and could exercise them if I so desired. My question is this; where do rights, as you define them come from? Rights as I define them are a malleable social contract in which people agree to take or abstain from certain actions under the expectation that others will also take or abstain from other actions. This occurs because people have the idea that life with a more widespread fidelity to the agreement is better than life with less universal fidelity to the agreement. Thus rights as I define them arise through something like evolution where more viable systems persist and less viable systems are altered or overthrown. I think it would be a mistake however to assume that one’s conception of rights came from some nobler place inside or outside the self and that it's possible to judge rights as a thing in themselves rather than on the characteristics they impart upon a society that adopts them.

Inalienable means incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. If rights are indeed inalienable why would they need protecting by man? I don't believe rights are inalienable, they exist only so long as a person or group of people are powerful enough to protect them. Try telling that a plantation owner in the 17th centaury. For thousands of years many people did not recognize in others a number of the rights that seem so evident today. Now I'm not saying people should have a right to own someone else, I am saying that they did have a right to own someone else and the evidence that they had this right is they owned other people and they were, in most cases, never punished for it. See I think the fundamental difference here is how we define rights. If we define what rights ought to be I would probably agree with your list fairly closely (although I would probably be much less strict with allowing a man's right to property) However I don't think rights exist as an ought; I think they only exist in so much as you can expect them to be enforced. The government is responsible for much of the enforcing of rights so to that extent I do believe rights come from the government. Sorry for going off topic, I just find the objectist view interesting (if not entirely agreeable) and am interested in finding more about it. Will do. (edited for spelling)

Creation is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of an invisble creature that there is no evidence of existing. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of an inherently inconcievable being? You degrade it and make it something silly and simple. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a being alone. Creationism gives an explanation for life that doesn't involve any empirical support - how ridiculous.

One obvious example of how taking away a freedom can create freedom is the case of slavery. By abolishing slavery the government eliminated peoples right to a own certain forms of property and conduct certain types of buisiness transactions (those governing ownership of other people.) This however increased the freedom for a great number of people. A less extreme and more controversial example is banning the sale of certain addictive substances. People choose to take these substances initially and through dependence become less free. Thus forcing people not to sell or purchase these substances creates more freedom than it eliminates. Forcing a man to return property he stole or attempt to redress past wrongdoings are other examples. Yes, I claim that it is right for certain people or institutions or even myself to situationally restrict other peoples freedom. If someone is attacking another person I would be resticting his freedom to attack by restarining him or calling the police. I would be justified in doing this. If I prevent a friend from driving under the influence I would be restricting his freedom and would be greatful if he would so restrict my freedom to drunk driving in the future. This kind of moral absolutism can run into brick walls. For example it would never be just to have civillian casualties in a war as you would be killing the innocent which is clearly wrong, but sometimes many more lives will be saved by accepting certain civillian casualties. What if it was necesary to sacrafice the life of one innocent to save the life of another, or two, or a town, or a nation, or the human species.

Obviously helping the man yourself is the best solution, but if that is not given as an option forcing the other man to help the man is superior. Forceing a man to take an action is bad because it limits his freedom but I don't think its reasonable to consider the man lying on the side of the road needing help to survive free nor would I consider a corpse free. So in this case I would say that the use of force to make one man help another is better than doing nothing since the man who is forced to help the dieing man loses choice over how he would spend the time that it takes to help the dieing man and the dieng man gains the choice over how he would spend the balance of his life. Thus in using force you are creating a net increase in peoples freedom. This is a good thing.