Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Dormin111

What are YOUR criticisms of Objectivism?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

when and if might is used by the government it is solely to preserve the right, the rational, by neutralizing somebody else's attempt to make the system into a might-based one of the "Do it just because I said so and I can hurt you if you don't" variety.

I still don't see it any differently than I have been. Even LFC is might based, you are subordinating men to the rule of law, first by pen then by sword if needed and at hand. All I see is that you are using your might, to subordinate their might, to what you call right. So it's still a "do it just because I said so and I can hurt you if you don't" variety. I just cannot see how anyone can subordinate might to right without the use of might in some form, even by using a pen (constitution/bill of rights/laws/etc) to excercise it. you may not hav eto go any further might wise than simply that, but when anyone violates what you have just MADE your rights (by might) then you will use more might, might by sword or whatever punishment entails.

I would propose that there are also metaphysically given consequences for rape and theft -- results for both the victim and the initiator that cannot be divorced from the actions themselves, and which would exist in any context of government, or even in "anarchy."

I would also agree that there are, if by that you mean, that when raping, if the rapist is handling the woman in a rough way, that pain, suffering on her part can result, yes. The would have to deal with the metaphysically given (nature of) the human body that that results when say, the rapist punches her in the face. Is this along the lines of what you mean, then I would have to agree, accept that.

Might does not make right. The ability to do things -- which is what "might" is -- gives us no information on what we ought to do (that is, what is "right" to do).

Might, as such, you are absolutely correct. But that still does not change what I have been saying.

In order to know what is right to do, we must have some goal.

Right. Plus of course the knowledge and ability to figure out various options when that goal is chosen, in order to go about working towards it. So right and wrong action to take is decided relative to that goal, etc.

The ultimate standard of value is life. (The alternative, death, may be chosen, but such a choice is outside the bounds of philosophy generally and Objectivism explicitly.) It is with reference to this ultimate standard of value -- with reference to life -- that things are ultimately good or bad.

What if one's goal in life, is to get high, or die trying? Like this stamp of herion that has that even stamped on it (not my photo or stamp, btw, I'm just remembering it because I work in a hospital and we had people coming in OD'ing on this particular herion that was going around 2-3 years ago):

gethigh.jpg

What if one does not explicitly chose life or death, but proceeds by default?

What if they do not care if they live or die, and are willing to die trying to get high?

In that context of their goal, which would be to 'get high or die trying' whatever it is that gets them high, gets them to that high by certain means, is the right action to take in regards to getting high, if getting high is what results from it.

So, if ones ddoes not explicitly choose to live or die but proceeds by default, certain metaphysically given and at times certain man-made consequences will and may respectively result. Whether any action I take, is right or wrong, is relative - to my goal, to my thinking,beliefs, desires, wants, needs, to the context I am in, like the wilderness, or a totalitarian dictatorship, etc.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on the fence about responding to some of your objections here, because they are quite similar to difficulty I had a long while back in justifying to myself how rights can be objective facts. But before I get into that, are you making a wider claim that morality cannot be objective, period? Or that rights can't be objective so are therefore real only insofar as they make sense as "might makes right"?

Well, I actually have been trying to challenge the following ever since I have read and thought about it, and have not been able to find anything to make this not fact of reality, that which I had read in Ragnar Redbeard's work Might is Right and I quote:

Human rights and wrongs are [...] determined [...] by Might. Disguise it as you may, the naked sword is still king-maker and king-breaker, as of yore. All other theories are lies and — lures.

Notice he said 'human rights and wrongs' - he must be referring to, I gather, what we have during this conversation in this thread deemed as the man-made consequences and the man-made that is penned as being wrong or right, like stealing, rape, etc. Not talking about metaphysiclaly given, as that is not open to our choice, only in choocing life or death or proceeding by default. And also can be referring to, us making drinking water right or wrong by MAKING, choosing, deciding, picking life as one's goal. Drinking water, as such, is neiter right nor wrong without being relative to something. By default if you don't choose life or death, it will result in life, as that is the metaphysical consequence that ineveatbly follows.

And with him saying that the sword is a king-maker and king-breaker, means to me that the sword can be used aggressively or defensively. So as long as you have enough might either way, you make it your right to take from or to rape, or one has to make it wrong to take from them or to rape them, all done by might, in one form or another. Whichever is mightier makes the human action of taking or raping, wrong or right.

Any help at all in challenging that statement of Redbeards is not a fact of reality, please do, I have been trying to challenge it myself. Either I am too dense to be able to, or it is unchallengable as a fact, as a truth.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also agree that there are, if by that you mean, that when raping, if the rapist is handling the woman in a rough way, that pain, suffering on her part can result, yes. The would have to deal with the metaphysically given (nature of) the human body that that results when say, the rapist punches her in the face. Is this along the lines of what you mean, then I would have to agree, accept that.

I mean all of this, but far more, too.

Handling a woman in a rough way, causing her pain and suffering, etc., those activities have consequences for the man who engages in them. I'm ignoring the case where the man goes to rape, and in response to the threat of pain/suffering, the woman takes out a gun and shoots the would-be rapist (though we might well expect this, or something like it, given the nature of rape and what it means to the woman). But let's imagine the "successful rape."

People are not merely collections of cells, but we also have an internal world that is every bit as worth preservation as our physical bodies (and which also has a certain nature). The act of raping has necessary consequences for that internal world, for both the perpetrator and victim of a rape. Being the man who causes this pain and suffering to a woman entails living as the man who would do such a thing. Being such a man has wide-ranging consequences for that man's experience of his life, in total.

What if one's goal in life, is to get high, or die trying?

Then one is likely to lead a miserable life. That's a bad goal to have, as following it would put one in fairly consistent opposition to the ultimate standard of value, which is life.

There's nothing about Objectivism which says that a man cannot opt to make using heroin his personal standard of value. But we recognize that this is a choice that is apt to result in suffering, unhappiness, and early death, which are precisely those things that Objectivism seeks to avoid.

I feel as though in making the case for ethics, your response is (essentially), "well yeah, but can't a person ignore all that?" And of course a person can. The case for ethics is not that we are bound to be ethical whether we want or not (which, if it were true, would render this discussion and all like it moot); the case is that it is better that we act ethically -- better for us to do so -- which first requires a fundamental understanding of what ethics are, and why we seek them, and etc.

Again: the goal is life. But if that's not your goal -- if you don't care whether you live or die, suffer or flourish, etc., then you certainly don't need Objectivism, or ethics or philosophy more generally. If you don't care, then devoting your life to heroin is a fine thing to do, and you're bound to endure the consequences.

What if one does not explicitly chose life or death, but proceeds by default?

Rand said something like, "we can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." Of course you don't have to identify life or death as being consequences of your actions, or explicitly choose one or the other, or even care. But if you make certain choices, aware of the nature of these choices and their consequences or not, death will find you. And again, more than just physical death, I speak to the opposite of "the good life," which I've described earlier. Part and parcel to "death" are the suffering and misery that we should otherwise hope to avoid. ("But what if a person wants to suffer and be miserable?" No sweat. But that's not what Objectivism is about.)

What if they do not care if they live or die, and are willing to die trying to get high?

I'm not sure what you want me to say. :) In this case, they're likely to get what they want -- they're likely to get high for a while and ultimately die trying. Do you think it a counter to ethics -- the pursuit of the good life -- to say that people can make choices that result in short, nasty lives of pain, addiction, and general misery? It is out of recognition that these things happen and a desire to avoid them that we study ethics in the first place. Philosophy is ultimately for those who wish to be happy.

I've said a couple of times, and I don't think you've responded to this point, that Objectivism is designed to be "a philosophy for living on earth." Surely there exist all manner of other approaches. That's how we know that Objectivism is "a philosophy" as opposed to all those philosophies which it is not. Yet some people perform self-mutilation. Some scourge their bodies, abandon material values, and live as hermits. Some become mass-murderers. People do indeed follow different philosophies, and Objectivism is a specific one -- the one that leads to life, happiness, etc., which is why I endorse it.

If you see no difference between these choices, or their results, then you might need to re-examine your interest in philosophy in the first place. I cannot talk you into why pleasure is preferable to pain, or happiness to misery, or life to death. At some point these require you to access your own experiences, and honestly. If you truly believe that the lives of heroin addicts stands as a reasonable counter argument to having ethics, as such (you could have just as easily used the Manson family, or the Nazis; they valued different things, too) -- if all of these possible lives are just as well, with nothing to really tell them apart -- then... I think I've about run out of my ability to argue the point with you in the manner I expect of myself. At such a point, I can only counsel continued reflection (though perhaps we'll pick it up again, some time in the future).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then my last response stands as fact, in regards to what Redbeard said, my commentation, interpretation, application, implementation, implications of it still goes unchallenged as fact and can only be accepted or not then.

Accepting this fact, and in light of it, I would like LFC in place, as I think it's my best defense of myself and others and my values that I know of to work towards today, as long as I/we have enough might, to do so.

"You cannot, may not, are not permitted to initiate the use of force against another in this country." It is telling you that, regardless of whether or not you think it should or should not be in place, whether or not it's right according to whatever you think makes it right to you that it should or should not be in put into place, put into practice. It's there by some form of might and by might alone. Not by right. Without the use of any might, there is no right there to subordinate anyone to, because you are not taking any action towards making it right or wrong action to take in that country. In that country, if that is not said, proclaimed, declared, written, in some way shape or form communicated that you cannot initiate the use of force against another in that country, then those there can certainly make it their right to initiate it if they have enough might to. Without them comminicating that in some way making it so, no one is then subordinating anyone to anything. Any initiation of force taken against someone there is neither right nor wrong in that counrty , region, in the world. Nothing is making that wrong to do. Until you, someone else does, or people do.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol was getting to an important question here before things can go any further. You need to first establish if morals in general can be concluded from the metaphysically given facts. I've been speaking assuming that you already would answer that such a thing can be done. If you cannot answer that such a thing can be done, then that needs to be addressed first. Putting something about "is" and "ought" into the search bar of the forum should, hopefully, pull up some of the threads on that topic. If you do not have a problem with the notion of morals being derived from metaphysically given facts, what do you find different about rights being derived from the metaphysical facts than other morals? The issue here largely hinges upon rights being an issue of metaphysical facts that exist before and apart from anybody proclaiming and enforcing. If you don't think that is the case about rights it would be no wonder that you wouldn't see anything different fundamentally about government enforcing protection of individual's freedom to live their own lives as they see fit and any other random set of claims about entitlements people have which a government threatens retaliation against people who go against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to first establish if morals in general can be concluded from the metaphysically given facts.

I think the unstated point that intellectualammo is making is that it is up to each INDIVIDUAL to conclude what it right or wrong based upon the context of knowledge that he possesses and any given time. To often, Objectivist treat rights as "universals" -- and yet the fundamental epidemiological premise of Objectivism is that knowledge is contextual to each individual, and that one must always think and act for oneself. To rape or not to rape - objectively-- must be the decision of each individual -- and while there is individually a right or wrong answer, there is no universally right or wrong answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... ... and while there is individually a right or wrong answer, ... ...
How can there be a right and wrong answer for an individual? There can be an answer: as in whatever the individual chooses, but by what standard would that individual ever decide if it is right or wrong? And, if you think there is some standard, then what makes that right? After all, each individual can have some different standard. I don't understand what the term "right" even signifies to you. Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can there be a right and wrong answer for an individual?

That is not what I wrote. I stated that it is up to each individual to conclude what is right OR wrong -- not what is right AND wrong.

Do you disagree with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the unstated point that intellectualammo is making is that it is up to each INDIVIDUAL to conclude what it right or wrong based upon the context of knowledge that he possesses and any given time.

I think it might be just that apparently, intellectualammo is suggesting that there would be no negative consequences to the initiation of force if it weren't for man-made declarations of rights. So, rape is made wrong only because the consequences would be ending up in jail or killed by whoever has the most physical power. But before responding to that argument, I'm not quite sure there is complete agreement that morality can be objective despite bad standards other people may use.

Part of the way to justify rights objectively is to go about considering, egoistically, what kind of society brings about the best sort of life for you. The requirements for a flourishing society are banning the initiation of force. Initiation force makes it impossible for another to act productively, and therefore wrong because *you* wouldn't be able to in any way benefit from their productivity. There are objective facts, made possible by living according to your needs of existence. The only way other people even have the power to stop that is through initiating force. Adding in a rights enforcer - a government - is just about stopping short further damage other people may cause. The consequences of initiating force are bad whether or not there is a government or power. The "might" only comes into play when another person has already tried to cause harm. Now, errors can be made, so a court/law system is needed to evaluate when in fact damage to a flourishing society is being done, in the same way you need to judge whether certain foods are destructive to your own existence. The right or wrong comes from this type of judgment, not from the government. The term "rights" really just refers to the requirements of living in a productive society, a derivative concept of morality.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, rape is made wrong only because the consequences would be ending up in jail or killed by whoever has the most physical power.

I don't see that he is saying this at all, and I can't imagine anyone on this board taking such a shallow position.

I believe he (and I) would argue that a moral decision is always made by an individual. You may have an opinion on a moral issue but it its YOUR opinion and yours alone. We may share the same opinion, or we may not. If we agree then all is well. But if we disagree, there is no "metaphysical" body sitting in judgement to render a tie breaker.

Imagine that you and I are alone on an island and have a disagreement. How would that disagreement be resolved? By a court of law? No, because we are alone. If we could not reason through an equitable solution, then resorting to force might be the only solution. At that point, it matters little if you are "right", because you would be unable to enforce your position.

This basic equation does not change if there are three people or three hundred million people on that island. A position that cannot be enforced is meaningless. It and $1.85 will get you a tall coffee at Starbucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that he is saying this at all, and I can't imagine anyone on this board taking such a shallow position.

I believe he (and I) would argue that a moral decision is always made by an individual. You may have an opinion on a moral issue but it its YOUR opinion and yours alone. We may share the same opinion, or we may not. If we agree then all is well. But if we disagree, there is no "metaphysical" body sitting in judgement to render a tie breaker.

Imagine that you and I are alone on an island and have a disagreement. How would that disagreement be resolved? By a court of law? No, because we are alone. If we could not reason through an equitable solution, then resorting to force might be the only solution. At that point, it matters little if you are "right", because you would be unable to enforce your position.

This basic equation does not change if there are three people or three hundred million people on that island. A position that cannot be enforced is meaningless. It and $1.85 will get you a tall coffee at Starbucks.

That depends on what you mean by "meaingless." It is true that there is no mystical entity which punishes or rewards people based on their level of virtue, but there is an objective reality and a logical derivitive of what actions should be taken. Two people can certainly have different opinions, but either one is correct and the other is wrong, or both are wrong (assuming it is not a preference, but an issue pertaining to the objective form of reality). A position that cannot be enforced can still have meaning if the position is correct. If that position is opposed, then the holders of the incorrect position will face negative consequences when they fail to comprehend reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be just that apparently, intellectualammo is suggesting that there would be no negative consequences to the initiation of force if it weren't for man-made declarations of rights. So, rape is made wrong only because the consequences would be ending up in jail or killed by whoever has the most physical power.

Not only because of listing consequences, but because someone simply declares it as wrong.

"It is wrong of you to make any sexual advances towards me."

That makes any such action taken towards her wrong now. She's using might by pen, or rather by word, to make that action the wrong one to take towards her. Before that, it wasn't. It was simply him walking up to her, making sexual advances towards her that quickly lead to sexual intercourse, and her not saying anything or doing anything that communicates that that those are the wrong actions to take towards her. Him doing that does not make it right either, as it's just an action. No one there is MAKING it right or wrong. Was it right or wrong of him to do that, her to just do nothing while he gave her some good fuckings? Who is to say?

No one has said anything.

What can you say then?

Let me get them talking though:

A man walks up to a woman and begins to make sexual advances towards her.

HER: *communicates in some way to him that it is wrong of him to make sexual advances towards her*

HIM: "Oh yeah? You and who's army?"

So, she makes it her right to stop him from making sexual advances towards her by communicating it to him.

He makes it his right to do it by using his might to do it.

Was it wrong of him to make the advances anyways? Was it wrong of her to say that he can't make the sexual advances? Only they are making rights and wrong in this situation and nad is might decides who has the right to do either - to advance, or to stop - by which ever is mightier. Before that is was simply an action. Her word might be stronger than the sword. He might be one powerful male that could easily overpower her, but he stops. He thinks it's wrong to do towards her. Her word might not be stronger than the word. He makes it his right to fuck her using that power he has to overpower her with. This is the nature of man. Might used aggressively, defensively. Where do you think man's rights come from, man's wrongs come from? All derived and determined by might. Might is used to put pen to paper and writes down on it: "you cannot initiate the use of force against another", and more might is at hand to be used on those that do not adhere to that which you have just written down. If someone mighty comes along, reads what you have written and understand what you have communicated on it, but has a big enough sword (as in has more might), that "cannot" you wrote, he uses his pen to cross out the "not" in your "cannot" and makes that his right now "I can initiate the use of force". And now if you don't do as he says or pleases, his might might just cross you out altogether...

And this is why I would like a very very mighty system of self-defense in place where it's super hard or super stupid for him to even think he has enough might to make it his right to initiate force against another, in light of all the might we have to say that he cannot and what can happen if he does.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two people can certainly have different opinions, but either one is correct and the other is wrong, or both are wrong (assuming it is not a preference, but an issue pertaining to the objective form of reality).

This is not a true statement. Take for example the Newton/Einstein argument. Einstein did not "disprove" Newton, and Newton was not "wrong". Newton quite properly gave a very accurate description of orbital mechanics that can still get a rocket ship to the moon. While it is true that Einstein has offered a more complete explanation, it in no way invalidates or renders meaningless Newton's observations or equations. Within the context of knowledge available to Newton, he was right. Furthermore, Einstein is in no way the "last word" on gravity. It is very likely that in the future someone's ideas will replace Einstein's in the exact manner that Einstein's replaced Newton's.

Or take for example if a child has a tummy ache. He might think that his stomach hurts -- while a doctor may understand that, in fact, the actual pain resides within the brain. What the doctor knows does not invalidate the child's perception or understanding of what the child is observing. It's not a case of the doctor is right and the child is wrong -- they are both right within the context of knowledge available to each of them.

The Objectivist basis for respecting the rights of individuals rests upon the understanding that each individual must think and decide for himself -- based upon the knowledge available to him. No one person is omniscient, and there is no third party "god" pronouncing who is right or wrong -- each individual must chose for himself what is right or wrong. And no one person can force understanding upon another -- the doctor cannot force a young child to understand that the child is "wrong" (and nor should he).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make sure I get what you're putting forward here before trying to go any further. Are you, intellectualammo, trying to say that morals are just things that come from people's thoughts and actions upon those thoughts, actions alike saying something is wrong or trying to force somebody to do something or not? And if so, do you think this means there can be no objective morals of any sort for a government to enforce because since everybody can (and should!) think for themselves and draw their own conclusions about morals and so we all have different things we think are moral?

As for the context of knowledge issue, somebody may not have sufficient knowledge to figure out why they should not hit people for example and that would mean they aren't some terrible person if they hit somebody. (Hence why you don't throw toddlers in the slammer for assault and battery, they are too young to be expected to know better.) However, that doesn't mean hitting people is actually all fine and dandy and nobody should be able to make them stop. Especially if somebody is an adult who is not mentally handicapped in some way, they should have enough context to be able to figure out or understand why hitting and other forms of initiating force on others is not okay. Lots of issues of morality are less obvious and require more information, but the issue of not initiating force is the only one a proper government would be concerned with. Typical adults should not have a problem of context of knowledge with the only things the government may enforce. The other stuff that they may more understandably not know enough about yet isn't the government's concern and nobody else needs to worry about it anyway since any potential negative consequences will just fall upon that one person and anybody else who willingly participated with them, hopefully teaching that person their mistake in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Objectivist basis for respecting the rights of individuals rests upon the understanding that each individual must think and decide for himself -- based upon the knowledge available to him. No one person is omniscient, and there is no third party "god" pronouncing who is right or wrong -- each individual must chose for himself what is right or wrong. And no one person can force understanding upon another -- the doctor cannot force a young child to understand that the child is "wrong" (and nor should he).

Not precisely. The Objectivist case does indeed rest upon the fact that each individual must think, decide, and act for himself in order to achieve the best life possible. This comes from the self-oriented nature of life; no one else can do your living for you. However, this does not mean that objectively true moral principles are impossible to form, or that these principles do not apply to people who do not recognize them. Deciding on the right or wrong action in a particular case is indeed an individual decision, but there is an objectively right and an objectively wrong way to do so. The Objectivist case for limited government does not rest on the notion that no one ever knows what is best for anyone else; in fact, Objectivist moral principles tell us precisely what the best way to live is, for everyone. We need limited government because the only way for a person to truly follow moral principle and flourish is to understand it himself and apply it individually to his own life, a task no one else can do for him.

intellectualammo seems to be saying here that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have no meaning outside of a human-made social system which assigns these concepts to particular actions. The Objectivist view is precisely the opposite; that even alone on a desert island, given that one wants to survive, there is a right and a wrong way to act. Right and wrong are not fully human creations; they arise out of the choice to live, and therefore arise through human involvement, but after that point we can't simply decide that something right or wrong by societal decree. The facts of survival and flourishing make it so. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't make the initiation of force wrong; it is wrong because it is contrary to the nature and requirements of human life. LFC simply codifies moral principle in an objective legal system.

intellectualammo, your doctrine of "might makes right" confuses the descriptive and the normative. More precisely, it does away with the normative by saying that whatever happens is right because, by definition, the person trying to make it happen had the might to make it so. That would be fine as a descriptive statement, replacing "that was right" with simply "that happened," but putting it forth as normative in addition to descriptive simply codifies a vacuous moral system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a true statement. Take for example the Newton/Einstein argument. Einstein did not "disprove" Newton, and Newton was not "wrong". Newton quite properly gave a very accurate description of orbital mechanics that can still get a rocket ship to the moon. While it is true that Einstein has offered a more complete explanation, it in no way invalidates or renders meaningless Newton's observations or equations. Within the context of knowledge available to Newton, he was right. Furthermore, Einstein is in no way the "last word" on gravity. It is very likely that in the future someone's ideas will replace Einstein's in the exact manner that Einstein's replaced Newton's.

Both Einstein and Newton were wrong to some degree, but Einstein was less wrong than Newton. There is an objective way in which gravity operates, both men speculated as to how it soperates given the knowlege they possessed. It is not really their fault, but given their lack of total knowlege, neither was able to come up with the optimal (true) answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make sure I get what you're putting forward here before trying to go any further. Are you, intellectualammo, trying to say that morals are just things that come from people's thoughts and actions upon those thoughts, actions alike saying something is wrong or trying to force somebody to do something or not?

Human, as in, man-made rights and wrongs in regards to actions, most definately. There is a difference between my "drinking water" example and "rape" example, let's keep that in mind. Let's look at rape again. One, that action, "making sexual advances towards a woman" is neither right nor wrong. If the woman communicates in some way (by mouth, by fist) that you cannot do that to her, she's making that action wrong in that context and that context alone. Place her in our society. That action "making sexual advances towards a woman" that are unwanted, such is the case here with the woman and the man, and, we, using our conceptual level of awareness define and title it 'rape', 'attempted rape', 'sexual assualt', whatever, etc. So we define and title the action and we also have consequences to those actions - ALL of which are man-made. This is what I mean by might makes rights and wrongs - we used might (by pen in one hand) to make that action wrong, and when someone does it anyways, we use might (by sword in the other hand) to punish them for having done so, either she does immediately, or he is later in the courtroom if he's caught. Man-made rights and wrongs, any man-made consequences associated with them, all made by using might to make it their right to do so. Might determines whther or not you have the right to take the action she did by making it wrong for him do so towards her, or the action he did, by making it his right to do so towards her.

Especially if somebody is an adult who is not mentally handicapped in some way, they should have enough context to be able to figure out or understand why hitting and other forms of initiating force on others is not okay.

Absolutely. They may think/feel/believe it's wrong to rape a woman, because they know the psychological/pshsiological/emotional impact it may have on the victim, so they make it the wrong action to take towards women, without one even having to tell him, without a governemtn or religion or philosophy, to communicate that that it's wrong to do that towards a woman.

Again, this reaffirms that someone has to make/think/decide its wrong or make it their right to take that action towards the woman.

The things I have said before that I have been asking for anyone to challenege, still have gone unchallenged, but have been continually reaffirmed, as fact. In regards to human, man-made rights and wrongs, which are determined by might.

And this knowledge, fact of reality, one must accept or not accept, and this knowledge once accepted by an Objectivist, must them be integrated into the context of his knowledge and philosophy. That said, what does placing that fact into it, do to it?

Well, it most certainly doesn't change A is A, still. What about epistemology? Doesn't change how man acquires knowledge, what's next. Man's nature, Man's rights, Ethics, Politics of Objectivism Place that in there now. Evaluate it: Well, since I can't challenge it, it's fact, I must either find something to challenge it showing it's not true, or must continually accept it as fact then. And what's that do to those, now?

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But first said Objectivist would have to accept it as fact, and until then you can't even begin to integrate it.

Let me try.

Take my example I just gave of rape. Well, since it's a man-made defined and titled action that is made to be wrong using might, why should I choose to make it wrong or right? For me off the top of my head: I can just place myself in that womans heels and start to imagine how it would feel, what it would be like to be in her heels - How can I defend myself against him when he is going to make it his right to make those unwanted sexual advances towards me even though I just made it wrong of him to do so towards me? I do not have enough might to make it right of me to make it wrong of him to do it, so he's easily able to make it his right then to do so.

Well, I would want more might then to make that action wrong, I cleaily don't have that on my own. In our society, we have much more might and more consequences to his actions than simply you saying he cant, and using only what physical might you have to fight off his sexual advances. So, I would want to make that happen. How? By making it law, therefore have the might to make it wrong, and have a system in place that can enforce it more than I could on my own, and more consequences than I could on my own. Him knowing all that, may just curb him from even considering it, in light of the consequences, as clearily he does not think that you simply saying it's wrong and whatever mgith you have to use to further make that wrong, is enough. Well this very well might be.

We must integrate such man-made rights and wrongs, man-made consequences in Objectivism then. One might say this all they want to "The woman has a right to life, a right to her own life [and on and on and on, blah fucking blah]" trying to subordinate others might to that which you are MAKING a right all you want to, but might not only is making that, but will determine who has the right to make that so, or make it their right to do it anyways, regardless. The whole of law is fashioned by MAKING this or that right or wrong action to take by making it legal or illegal, thus its all man made, and man-made consequences associated with them. What makes what we call and define such and such that is man-made right or wrong, legal or illegal? We do, not by right, but by might. Might makes it wrong for a woman to get rid of the fetus inside her, and if she does, since we made it wrong/illegal, there are consequences we made that can and will be enforced. On it's own, what we call define and call abortion:

1. Isn't abortion unless we call it, define it as

2. Neither right nor wrong of her to do, unless or until she has a goal, or thinks/believes/feel it's right or wrong, her, someone, people do, then it's just an action

So "subordinating 'might' to 'right'" has to be changed or expanded upon, because the truth and fact of the matter is that you are subordinating using might, period. Subordinating using might, to either make right or make wrong, make legal or make illegal what we have defined as, titled as, and issued consequences for - abortion. You might say it's right to make that legal or illegal, because you think that a woman has a right to her own life, right to her own body. You may think it's wrong of her to take that decision because of religious views, or whatever. Nothing is going to make it their right to make either so, unless they use might in one way or another to make it so. To make it legal or illegal to do so, to make it the wrong action to take there.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Rand, and specifically with Peikoff's paper on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, that there isn't a range of facts which can be described as contingent beyond man-made ones. I think possibility is much more interesting than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, this does not mean that objectively true moral principles are impossible to form, or that these principles do not apply to people who do not recognize them.

I never stated that objective moral principles are impossible to form. They very much are possible. My point is that I don't care if others live by objective moral principles -- so long as they don't try and force me to live by their principles.

Objectivist moral principles tell us precisely what the best way to live is, for everyone.

But Objectivism does not tell us to FORCE others to conform to those principles. And, indeed, Objectivism tells us very clearly that it is impossible to force others to think.

There are 6.8 billion people on this planet, and life is way to short to try and police them all, or convince them to see things they way that I do. I'm only concerned about myself, my family and friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never stated that objective moral principles are impossible to form. They very much are possible. My point is that I don't care if others live by objective moral principles -- so long as they don't try and force me to live by their principles.

That's fine; that's not what intellectualammo is saying. He's clearly advocating for the idea that might makes right, that "right" and "wrong" are simply labels for whatever philosophy the most powerful person or group happens to be forcing on everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

intellectualammo, you're sure you aren't looking for morality and rights especially to be intrinsic? I'm double checking since it seems like you are skeptical of the validity of right and wrong which arises from the context of a goal instead of being there no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

intellectualammo, you're sure you aren't looking for morality

I'm very sure I'm not looking for morailty, nor am I paying lip service to it - I'm, above all, looking to identifying man's nature and the facts of reality. That's where I'm at. And I did. Then after I did, I wondered how an Objectivist would integrate that knowlege/fact/truth into Objectivism. It's a closed system, but open to new facts, facts/truths overlooked, etc.

I'm double checking since it seems like you are skeptical of the validity of right and wrong which arises from the context of a goal instead of being there no matter what.

Check and title. Ethical relativism, amorailty, whatever you can define and title it as. I'm not checking to see what it fits into right now, except how that knowledge/fact/truth fits into Objectivism and what it does when placed within it.

I was having a discussion last night with one of the twins I work in the same building on the UPMC campus we work on. I was telling her that if I had a political party I would not pay lip service to any morailty, religious views, etc.. I would simply state what I am for and ask for those that are for it as well, to vote for it. If my campaign is to, when I try rising to power through the democratic process, is to use that position to make as much as I can "one cannot initiate the use of force against another" to go by when making things legal illegal, phasing the crap that does out as much as I can, make everything I can consistent with that, then anyone that agrees with that, please show support, financially, by voting, or whatever. I'm not concerned with why. You want to vote that way because some imaginary being you worship commands you not to steal, and in order to steal one has to initiate the use of force against another, so you want the same thing I want becuase of that alone, then please do vote, I fucking need the numbers. You are a means, to what I want in place. I am also a means of you getting what you want into place, too. And the national defense, court system, police force is the means to enforce it, punish any that go against what we make so, etc.

I could upon campainging either tell or answer when asked as to why I am not for the initiate of the use of force against others in our society, and use stealing as the example. "Well, when I have something that I call and define as being mine or 'my property', I would like to keep it, do what I want to with it since it is mine as I have made it so, and would not want someone to take that off of me." "I may have earned it, bought it, was given it, whatever, it's mine and mine alone" "So I would like a system in place that MAKES taking it off of me, initiating the use of force against me in order to take it off of me, illegal. Those that would also want that to be put into practice, for whatever reason, please show support in some way so that we can MAKE this happen. Thank you." Support pours in. Many people would want to keep what they have. So that's a cinch. "Now that I have support on that, let me take it further. Right now the powers that be in the system right now (by paper on up), acting by the peoples permission, takes a certain amount of money off of our earned income when we earn it through our employers, etc. Since many of you have supported me in making it wrong to steal once I am in power and to the capacity in which I am able to, to be logically consistent then, this must also be made wrong, illegal to do." And so on.

"If you do not show support in some way to make this happen, make stealing illegal, make it wrong to do, then someone can make it their right to take it by using their might. The choice is yours when choosing to vote in the upcoming election."

No 'lies or lures' invovled in that campaign.

This is a simple example, to illustrate, how one would go about getting "one cannot iniate the use of force against another" put into practice, through a democratic process with no blood being spilled, no lip service to morality. This is the likes of which it would be done, now, in light of that new knowledge/fact/truth that I have been bringing up about might. Unless someone can challenge it somehow. Please do if you can, I have no fucking shame if something I am saying is wrong, because it would lead directly to that which is true.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm very sure I'm not looking for morality, . . ."

Hang on. I think you broke up my sentence in a way I didn't intend and thus misunderstood what I was asking. I wasn't asking if you were looking for morality in general, I was trying to ask if you were looking for morality (including and especially its subset of rights) to be intrinsic, like as if morals were some inherent, omnipresent, eternal part of the fabric of reality kind of like gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm very sure I'm not looking for morality, . . ."

Hang on. I think you broke up my sentence in a way I didn't intend and thus misunderstood what I was asking. I wasn't asking if you were looking for morality in general, I was trying to ask if you were looking for morality (including and especially its subset of rights) to be intrinsic, like as if morals were some inherent, omnipresent, eternal part of the fabric of reality kind of like gravity.

Again, what I am looking at right now is how said knowledge/fact/truth fits into Objectivism and what happens when one does.

While I am not making the claim myself, if you would like to claim or not to claim that "morals are inherent, omnipresent, eternal part of the fabric of reality kind of like gravity", then go ahead, while I look into what I said I am looking at. If said knowledge/fact/truth of mine I brought up, you think says that, then if you would like, go ahead and make the claim that it does or not.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×