Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Simple questions of right and wrong

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Devil’s Advocate,

I do not understand how your statement, “And yet you dispose of a resource that may help you to pursue that value?” answers the question why would the killing of another person means that I value my life any less than I did before I killed the other person. My life on the island goes on as it did before. The person who washed up on the beach may have provided infinite value to me or may have provided no value or may have been a detriment to my values or somewhere in between. So what? Why would this cause me to value my life any less? You would say that I value my life any less if hammer washed up on the beach and I saw the hammer, ignored it, went about my day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking it off the island? Since I disposed of a resource that may have helped me pursue my values does this mean that I value my life any less? And if so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

Does your statement in post #25, “IF you ACTUALLY determine the person has NO VALUE… your appropriate action/reaction in regard to this person is to simply ignore the person. …[A]ny attempts to interact with the person would be ineffective, and a waste of time/energy.”, imply, with regard to the question in the original post, that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because if I had determined that he has no value it would be a waste of time/energy to kill the person and the appropriate thing to do would be to simply to ignore the person, but if I determined that the person who washed up on the beach had at least some value, then it would be wrong to kill that person because that person could provide some value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

Does your statement in post #25, “IF you ACTUALLY determine the person has NO VALUE… your appropriate action/reaction in regard to this person is to simply ignore the person. …[A]ny attempts to interact with the person would be ineffective, and a waste of time/energy.”, imply, with regard to the question in the original post, that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because if I had determined that he has no value it would be a waste of time/energy to kill the person and the appropriate thing to do would be to simply to ignore the person, but if I determined that the person who washed up on the beach had at least some value, then it would be wrong to kill that person because that person could provide some value?

 

 

That about sums up my position. 

 

I'm not certain it is technically the same as the position of Objectivist Philosophy... but I think it is generally consistent with it.  If not, the mistake is entirely mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

Thank you for your answer. Although the questions regarding the arbitrary nature of determining whether something or someone has value or not and whether value simply replaces god (or some other subjective notion) in the moral framework still linger, your responses has given me food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

In post #17, you mentioned the concept of “people's fundamental right to life.” This is an interesting concept that would answer the question posed in the original post. If your concept is valid, then the answer would be, it is wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because this person has a fundamental right to life. If you could please explain this concept of a fundamental right to life and why people have it, I would greatly appreciate it. Of course, a simple, easy to understand explanation would be the most helpful.

I don't think it would answer your question. I think answering your question is the way to reach a principle such as the right to life, not the other way around. You have to start with morality, and considerations of what is in an individual's best interest, before you can talk about rights.

You can't just go: well, I shouldn't kill someone because he has the right to live.

No, rights are a consequence of why you shouldn't kill someone: because peaceful coexistence is better than conflict, for each and every rational individual.

That said, rights are the freedom of an individual to sustain his life through productive action. The principle of individual rights states that we all should allow our fellow men to freely engage in action that furthers their lives. Why? Because it's in our best interest to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tjfields

 

Please remember, if you choose to live your life rationality and oriented towards reality (all there is), then questions which are complex and are contextual are unavoidable due to the nature of reality. 

 

The spectres of the "arbitrary" and "subjectivity" arise only in individuals.  If YOU are to live morally i.e. rationally in your own self-interest, all you can do is your BEST to avoid arbitrary whim, emotionalism, irrationality, by focusing on reality, and sincerely working to identify the nature of existents (including people) and the potential consequences of any action you have the choice to make.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand how your statement, “And yet you dispose of a resource that may help you to pursue that value?” answers the question why would the killing of another person means that I value my life any less than I did before I killed the other person. My life on the island goes on as it did before. The person who washed up on the beach may have provided infinite value to me or may have provided no value or may have been a detriment to my values or somewhere in between. So what? Why would this cause me to value my life any less? You would say that I value my life any less if hammer washed up on the beach and I saw the hammer, ignored it, went about my day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking it off the island? Since I disposed of a resource that may have helped me pursue my values does this mean that I value my life any less? And if so, why?

Is your life as a murderer (after the arrival of another) more secure than it was before you murdered?  You keep saying that your life goes on as it did before, and it's no more true now than it was in your original scenario;  you've added murder to your history.  Perhaps you believe the arrival of your victim marks the only interaction with others you will ever have??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach? If it was wrong for me to kill the man on the beach, why was it wrong?

Yes, it would've been wrong to kill the man on the beach.

As Strictly Logical and Nicky have pointed out, Objectivist ethics is based on rational selfishness.  Basically you logically figure out whatever would benefit you the most (in every conceivable sense of 'beneficial) and then you do it.

Anything selfless (altruism; intentionally hurting yourself) or irrational (unrealistic and/or illogical) is immoral and the converse of that, whatever is rationally proven to be selfish, is moral.

 

So, it would be harmful (thusly wrong) to hurt other people- because that hurts you too, in various ways which have already been mentioned.

 

Your scenario does appear to illustrate an exception, at first glance.  But how does it apply to concrete reality?

 

This man was unconscious and unable to defend himself.  Assuming he fully and completely died then he can't retaliate; nobody will punish you for it.  Assuming he could not have helped you at all- EVEN through mere companionship- then you've lost no value and you're no worse off than if you'd spared him.

However, I think this would be less like murder (provided all of these caveats) and more like pulling the plug on a vegetable.

 

And since you're no better off either, having killed him, it was destruction for the sake of destruction and still slightly immoral.  A little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point One: You've created a scenario that is not found in the real world, and never has been. No one, ever, has found themselves in the situation you've described. So, It's almost useless to discuss it. However, what you seem to be investigating with the scenario you've presented is the philosophical underpinnings of morality. You're asking, "What, really, determines morality?" I'll get back to that shortly.

 

Point Two: Embedded in your scenario seems to be an assumption that there is a scarcity of goods on the island -- that if you left the man to live, he would inevitably take away resources that you could have used for yourself. That doesn't happen in the real world. Are you assuming that it would in your scenario? If you allowed him to live, he could easily use resources that would allow him to live without impacting the resources that you use to live.

 

Point Three: As Nicky and others have pointed out, you make judgments based on how people act, not on how you think they might act in the future. If the man lives and then tries to kill you or rob you, then you deal with him accordingly. There is no rational reason to use force on him beforehand on the assumption that he would harm you in the future. 

 

Point Four: You shouldn't kill him, because other people make your life better. That's rationally true. Not only for the sake of socializing, but also for the sake of trade. Instead of you going out to gather fish and fruits and animals, and having to gather animal skins, and having to gather firewood, and all the other work, now you have another person in your "society" that can go and gather animal skin, and you can trade him for some fish that you have gathered. That cuts down on the work you would have to do, and improves your life. In other words, other people are a resource. They benefit you. To kill another person is to inflict harm on yourself by destroying a valuable resource, and thus is irrational and immoral. (And since you will never find yourself living on an island with only one other person, and instead will be living in a society with others, killing a person will result in the risk of harm from others in the society, because they rightfully won't feel comfortable with you around, and will either cut off their resources from you, or they will kill you because you are a threat.)

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

In post #32, you stated, “Is your life as a murderer (after the arrival of another) more secure than it was before you murdered?  You keep saying that your life goes on as it did before, and it's no more true now than it was in your original scenario;  you've added murder to your history.  Perhaps you believe the arrival of your victim marks the only interaction with others you will ever have??”

 

Should I infer from this post that you are saying it would be wrong to kill the person that washed up on the beach because it does not make my life more secure or that it is wrong because I may, at some point in the future, have interaction with others who think that killing the person is wrong? Are you saying that it is wrong to kill the man on the beach because of the consequences that it may have? If so, is this the only reason not to kill someone else?
 

I am confused by your statement, “You keep saying that your life goes on as it did before, and it's no more true now than it was in your original scenario;  you've added murder to your history.” What does this mean? This statement could be applied to anything that I do. I ate eggs for breakfast this morning so my life does not go on as it did before because I have added eating eggs to my history. I read the entire Harry Potter book series so my life does not go on as it did before because I have added reading about Harry Potter to my history. How does your statement apply to the question of whether or not it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Others have stated, that it would be wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because that person has value and it would be irrational, and therefore immoral, to kill the and destroy that value. You appear to be in agreement with that position (“So, it would be harmful (thusly wrong) to hurt other people- because that hurts you too, in various ways which have already been mentioned.”). I am correct?

 

If so, can you help explain this concept of value?

 

In post #33, you wrote, “…Objectivist ethics is based on rational selfishness.  Basically you logically figure out whatever would benefit you the most (in every conceivable sense of 'beneficial) and then you do it.” How does this work? Is it possible for me, or you, or anyone, to figure out what is the most beneficial in “every conceivable sense?”

 

This statement, like those in some previous posts concerning value, sounds so vague that it can mean anything.

 

For example, it could be argued that the person who washed up on the beach is still alive, and because the nature of human beings require that a living human being inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants and trees, via their nature, use carbon dioxide to produce oxygen, and I, as a human, need oxygen and if I choose to stay alive value oxygen because oxygen is needed in order for me to stay alive, the person who washed up on the beach is of value to me because I value oxygen and this person is contributing to the production of oxygen in the world, therefore the person on the beach has value and it would be irrational, hence immoral, to kill that person and destroy something that is of value to me. So even if the person on the beach never wakes up, never does anything other than the automatic natural process of inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, it could be argued that this person has value.

 

Do you agree that the example that I provided is one of “every conceivable sense” that the person who washed up on the beach provides benefit to me? If so, do you think that that this example demonstrates that the concept of benefit or value can be stretch to such an extent that it covers everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should I infer from this post that you are saying it would be wrong to kill the person that washed up on the beach because it does not make my life more secure or that it is wrong because I may, at some point in the future, have interaction with others who think that killing the person is wrong? Are you saying that it is wrong to kill the man on the beach because of the consequences that it may have? If so, is this the only reason not to kill someone else?

If life is good, then the unnecessary destruction of life is bad;  there is your moral compass in simple terms.  I get that you're trying to distinguish the moral good of preserving your life from a similar action by others, however that's like asserting your slice of cake is good and all that remains is amoral.  A moral justification for self preservation depends on a similar moral context for the preservation of other lives.

 

I am confused by your statement, “You keep saying that your life goes on as it did before, and it's no more true now than it was in your original scenario;  you've added murder to your history.” What does this mean? This statement could be applied to anything that I do. I ate eggs for breakfast this morning so my life does not go on as it did before because I have added eating eggs to my history. I read the entire Harry Potter book series so my life does not go on as it did before because I have added reading about Harry Potter to my history. How does your statement apply to the question of whether or not it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach?

The difference is you stated, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself".  Your history now includes an act of murder which isn't consistant with all your prior actions, e.g., eating, reading and other goods that enhanced your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

You wrote, “If life is good, then the unnecessary destruction of life is bad;  there is your moral compass in simple terms.” What does “good” mean? What does “unnecessary” mean? What does “bad” mean? Are these objective definitions that every rational person will agree to? Or are these subjective definitions that will change not only when defined by different people but when defined by the same people under differing circumstances? Does this moral compass imply that if life is bad, then the unnecessary destruction of life is good? Does the condition of life, either good or bad, determine whether or not the necessary destruction of life is bad?

 

As to your second point, when you wrote, “The difference is you stated, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself".  Your history now includes an act of murder which isn't consistant with all your prior actions, e.g., eating, reading and other goods that enhanced your life.” I still do not understand how this relates to the questions in the original post since it can be true of many other things. If I eat a food that I have not eaten before, my history now includes an act which is not consistent with all of my prior actions. If I learn and practice a new skill, my history now includes an act which is not consistent with all of my prior actions. Furthermore, anything thing that I do, including an act of murder, is a part of the circumstances in which I find myself at the present moment. If I state that that I am living my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself, that can be a true statement regardless of what is in the past. You may argue that my life could be fuller if my past did not include an action such as murder, but it would not change the fact that I could be living my life to the fullest given the circumstances.  I do not understand how an act that is not consistent with my prior actions translates into that act being wrong.

 

Additionally, does your statement imply that if my history already included an act of murder, then any future murders would be consistent with my prior actions and therefore right (or at least not wrong)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What does 'good' mean?" ~ tjfields

 

"Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach?" ~ tjfields

 

Since you asked if killing is wrong, I presumed you had some understanding of good vs bad and right vs wrong in terms of ethical responses to scenarios like the one you presented.

 

"Additionally, does your statement imply that if my history already included an act of murder, then any future murders would be consistent with my prior actions and therefore right (or at least not wrong)?" ~ tjfields

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

I do not understand your statement, “Since you asked if killing is wrong, I presumed you had some understanding of good vs bad and right vs wrong in terms of ethical responses to scenarios like the one you presented.”

 

While I have an understanding of how I define “good” and “bad” and “right” and “wrong”, it is possible that my understanding of the terms and your understanding of the terms and anyone else’s understanding of the terms could be different. For example, when you wrote, “If life is good, then the unnecessary destruction of life is bad;  there is your moral compass in simple terms,” did “good” in this context mean that I was alive? Did “good” mean that I met the basic requirements of life (oxygen, water, food, and shelter) for the day? Did “good” mean that I was free from pain and discomfort for the moment? Did “good” mean something completely different?

 

But regardless of how anyone but you defines the terms in your quote, the other two questions that I asked in post #39, (Does this moral compass imply that if life is bad, then the unnecessary destruction of life is good? Does the condition of life, either good or bad, determine whether or not the necessary destruction of life is bad?) still apply and remain unanswered.

 

As for your response of, “Two wrongs don't make a right,” my first question, similar to the question that I asked before concerning definitions and asked for the same reason, is what are the definitions of “right” and “wrong” in the context of your quote? My second question is why is this true and how does this answer the questions asked in the original post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another man's life is not yours to destroy in that context.

No, but isn't that politics?  I thought we were trying to focus on morality.

 

 

You appear to be in agreement with that position (“So, it would be harmful (thusly wrong) to hurt other people- because that hurts you too, in various ways which have already been mentioned.”). I am correct?

Entirely.

 

If so, can you help explain this concept of value?

 Yes.

 

A value is something good; something desirable, beneficial, enjoyable, et cetera.  Notice that each and every value one could ever conceive of is valuable to someone, in some specific way; there are no values floating around in abstract realms of existence.

This is the distinction between Objectivist "value" and Christian "value"; Christianity explicitly declares that morality transcends everyone and everything (i.e. has nothing to do with human beings on Earth).  The Objectivist meaning of "value" and the Christian "God" aren't even concepts of the same category.

So when someone says that "value is what one acts to gain and/or keep" they are referring to specific objects or circumstances, in concrete reality, which directly relate to oneself in a good way.

 

As for the concept of "value" being infinitely malleable.

There is something to this, in that each individual chooses their own values.  You can find examples of this in every action performed by any human being, ever.  So, for instance, the founding fathers of America valued freedom; their British contemporaries (in general) valued "patriotism".  Objectivists value happiness (more on this, later), mystics value all sorts of bizarre things, drug addicts value mindlessness and Jeffery Dahmer valued human limbs.

 

So yes, everyone chooses their own values and you COULD choose anything at all as one.  But are all values chosen equally?

Is the desire to live equally valid to the desire to die?  How about the value of killing?  That's the question you have to ask yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have an understanding of how I define “good” and “bad” and “right” and “wrong”, it is possible that my understanding of the terms and your understanding of the terms and anyone else’s understanding of the terms could be different.

For the sake of clarity, let's work with common definitions; when in doubt, Google it ;)

 

But regardless of how anyone but you defines the terms in your quote, the other two questions that I asked in post #39, (Does this moral compass imply that if life is bad, then the unnecessary destruction of life is good? Does the condition of life, either good or bad, determine whether or not the necessary destruction of life is bad?) still apply and remain unanswered.

Following a moral compass means that actions towards a goal are morally consistant with achieving that goal.  In your scenario you took actions to meet your need to live, and later took actions to make your life better, i.e., you not only chose to live, but to live well.  The moral implication is that life is a value; that living is good, and flourishing is better.  All of your actions prior to the arrival of another were consistant with that moral goal.  If death were a value, then yes, taking action to end your life would be good for you; however choosing for another would be a transgression in any case, because you would be effecting a life that doesn't belong to you.

 

As for your response of, “Two wrongs don't make a right,” my first question, similar to the question that I asked before concerning definitions and asked for the same reason, is what are the definitions of “right” and “wrong” in the context of your quote? My second question is why is this true and how does this answer the questions asked in the original post?

Ethically wrong behavior doesn't become ethically correct by repetition.  This is true because achieving/maintaining ethical goods can only occur by actions that are ethically good.  This responds to your OP by indicating the change in value you adopted by killing for no apparent reason.

 

BTW, in going back to your OP I see I missed identifying that my argument isn't forwarded as an Objectivist; although I believe it doesn't contradict Objectivism's right to life premise.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all values are equally valid (a serial killer's values are equal to their victims') then "values" are infinitely malleable and subjectivism logically follows.  But good luck with that.

If some values are better than others then there are some limits on what SHOULD be valued; some basis for comparison.  If so then you've arrived at the basis of Objectivist ethics and any further confusion is just a matter of the finer details.  :thumbsup:

 

In post #33, you wrote, “…Objectivist ethics is based on rational selfishness.  Basically you logically figure out whatever would benefit you the most (in every conceivable sense of 'beneficial) and then you do it.” How does this work? Is it possible for me, or you, or anyone, to figure out what is the most beneficial in “every conceivable sense?”

Alright; "every conceivable sense" was a gross overstatement.  There are only a few key perspectives on "value" which should be used, and each of these boils down to a single root value: your own life (and happiness).

And by "life" I don't mean the state of metabolic action and respiration; I mean LIFE!  [sort of a carpe diem sort of meaning to it]  A vegetable without any sort of consciousness, surviving only by life-support machinery, has a heartbeat.  The Ultimate Value is something more than that.

Happiness is much closer to what I mean, but even that's too broad; drug addicts can be the happiest people alive, for a few hours at a time.

I mean full, guiltless and long-term happiness; like fulfilling your lifelong dreams and aspirations (so long as they're rational).

 

So no, nobody could ever find every conceivable sort of value because the only limit on such is your imagination- but nobody has to do so either, because only a narrow subset of possible-values are Objectively valid.

 

But the method for choosing proper values IS morality.  Someone else could probably elaborate better than I from there (haven't ever looked into it too deeply; always seemed self-evident to me) but Objectivism absolutely provides exactly that.

 

Do you agree that the example that I provided is one of “every conceivable sense” that the person who washed up on the beach provides benefit to me? If so, do you think that that this example demonstrates that the concept of benefit or value can be stretch to such an extent that it covers everything?

 

First of all, you never explained how another human being could be shown to have no value whatsoever and that really should be addressed because the very proposition poses severe epistemological challenges.

Referring back to your LIFE [carpe diem] as the ultimate value and your own happiness as the goal, it should be fairly obvious how valuable other people are towards that end.  And your scenario depicted this person as a complete stranger, whose value is totally unknown.  What if, after waking them up and talking to them for a while, you fell madly in love with them?  Wouldn't they be at least as valuable to you as half of your supplies?

Wouldn't that knowledge make it monstrously immoral to kill them?

 

So yes, I think it's almost certain that they'd be a value to you.  But not because "value" can be stretched to mean anything; rather that "value" legitimately applies to the vast majority of human beings on Earth.

Now, there are some who couldn't provide any benefit at all to others, such as the braindead, the fetal and the dead-dead.  And in such cases it isn't murder to end them.

 

But as for actual, thinking people?  You'd have better luck discussing those who hurt others and remove value, instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If death were a value, then yes, taking action to end your life would be good for you; however choosing for another would be a transgression in any case, because you would be effecting a life that doesn't belong to you.

This is entirely true.

 

But "rights" are derived from the knowledge that multiple people may choose multiple, even mutually-exclusive values and the fact that some values are better than others.

It's completely true that killing another human being is indescribably evil, but this thread can only be derailed if we bring "rights" into a discussion of "value".

 

You're right, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

 ---

 

Incidentally:  When a mugger declares "selfishly" that he doesn't recognize his victims' rights, his failure is a moral one; he values survival but not true happiness.

This seems to be the disconnect also exhibited in the OP; how to apply rational selfishness to the Ultimate Value of biological self-preservation.

 

The abstinent hedonist premise, if you will.  Or perhaps vampiric.  Either way it's selfishness without a self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any of the proponents of this "he might be a value" reasoning supply any instance of this as supported by Oist philosophy? In other words what in Oist literature made any of you think this was an Oist principle?

Referring to my responses?

 

 If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is. . .

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. . .

 If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

 

-Ayn Rand [via John Galt], Atlas Shrugged

 

It's a bit of a leap from that to my position.  But is it really so much that I need to explain it?

 

Politics is derived from morality; you cannot invoke rights into a question of ethics (that's question-begging).  Objectivist ethics is rational selfishness and the ultimate value, against which all choices have to be weighed, is YOU.

So IF Objectivist morality condemns the OP at all (which seems likely) THEN it must be on the basis of his value to his killer. 

 

Let's not invoke any categorical imperatives, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison said:

"It's completely true that killing another human being is indescribably evil, but this thread can only be derailed if we bring "rights" into a discussion of "value". "

How do you justify seperating the right to life from value?

Value- to whom?

 

You separate rights from value when discussing value (primarily when there's any confusion about it) so that you don't use derivative concepts to explain earlier ones, beg questions, and otherwise turn a straightforward conversation into the usual philosophical spectacle.

I don't mean to remove rights from the issue permanently and compartmentalize them; I just mean to leave rights at the door until everyone's clear on why we should even HAVE rights, in the first place.

---

Postscript:

 

I justify this by the fact that the requirements and specifications of individual rights aren't self-evident.  The requirements of life and happiness are (basically).

 

At some point someone said that 'it's wrong to take a life that isn't yours, to begin with.'  While this is true, it's a hanging assertion without explicit basis- if you told that to Peikoff while discussing "value" he'd probably act as though nothing had been said.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison asked:

"Referring to my responses?"

Referring to anyone who agreed with SL in the above regard.

HD said:

"So IF Objectivist morality condemns the OP at all (which seems likely) THEN it must be on the basis of his value to his killer. "

To all those who think that the unconscious man in the OP has a right to live based on his value to another person and consider this nonsensical rationalism based on Oist principles:

"It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

HD said: "Let's not invoke any categorical imperatives, here."

Lets not presume abitrarily and make strawmen!

Edit: HD said:

"I justify this by the fact that the requirements and specifications of individual rights aren't self-evident. The requirements of life and happiness are (basically)."

Ayn Rand said:

"Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception."

PWNI

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...