Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Simple questions of right and wrong

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Plasmatic:  No, nothing is self-evident except sensations; hence the qualifier.

But even a dog or a rat has some concept of value; it's fairly close to self-evident.

 

As for strawmen: I said that bringing politics into a moral debate begs the question.  You responded with a political quote.

 

I see you've found the yellow-brick circle.

 

As for categorical imperatives:  What do you call an arbitrary moral commandment?  Yes, arbitrary; you can't reduce 'rights' to the perceptual level without passing through 'value' which means you can't currently reduce it, which makes it (within THIS context!) both circular and arbitrary.

 

The fact that I agree with your conclusion doesn't mean that it applies to this question.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison said:

"As for strawmen: I said that bringing politics into a moral debate begs the question. You responded with a political quote."

No, you asserted, nonsensically, a question directly related to another's right to life has nothing to do with rights. In case you didn't know this, the OP is ethical because it deals with how to treat OTHERS! Edit: had political but meant ethical. That it is ethical doesn't mean the right to life is political...

HD said:

"As for categorical imperatives: What do you call an arbitrary moral commandment? Yes, arbitrary; you can't reduce 'rights' to the perceptual level without passing through 'value' which means you can't currently reduce it, which makes it (within THIS context!) both circular and arbitrary."

The above nonsense is predicated on the false idea that this is not an issue concerning others' right to their own life! I supported my contention that Oism rejects the false claims in this thread and that Oism considers the issue a matter of the RIGHT to life. Which means the logically prior concept of value is ESSENTIAL to the discussion.

Ayn Rand said:

"right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" VOS

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

Based on what you wrote in post #42 and post #44, are you suggesting that the ultimate value is life and happiness, which means full, guiltless and long-term happiness, and that your other values, while they could be anything, should be chosen to support the ultimate value and that a judgment of whether or not a chosen value is good or bad or right or wrong would be based on how that value supports or does not support the ultimate value?

 

If this is the case, the definition of life and happiness needs to be clearer. To use your writings, what is the definition of “LIFE!” and “full” and “guiltless” and “long-term”? Are these definitions universal or are the definitions, like values, something that the individual can choose? Is it possible that my definition of full, guiltless and long-term happiness could be different from your definition and, therefore, the values that I choose to achieve my definition of happiness could be the complete opposite of values that you choose to achieve your definition of happiness?

 

Based on your posts, would your answers to the questions asked in the original post be different if the original post included lines that read, “I value solitude. Solitude allows me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness.”? If those sentences were included in the original post, would your answer be that it would not be wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I value solitude and killing this man is a means for me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

Thank you for clarifying that your argument is not forwarded as an Objectivist.

 

In post #43 you wrote, “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 I took actions to meet my need to live, and I took action to make my life better, how does this translate to a moral implication that I value anyone else’s life, or life in general? Why does the fact that I took actions to further my own life mean anything other than that I value my own life? Please explain the logic that leads from, since I do things for myself to further my life I (do? Must? am required to?) value everyone else’s life and life in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tj asked:

"Based on your posts, would your answers to the questions asked in the original post be different if the original post included lines that read, “I value solitude. Solitude allows me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness.”? If those sentences were included in the original post, would your answer be that it would not be wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I value solitude and killing this man is a means for me to achieve full, guiltless and long-term happiness?"

This is exactly the problem with the idea that another's right to live is based on my values. If it were true and the answer to "do I value the unconscious man or my solitude", was , "my solitude", then I would be moral to kill him. Even further, if the man was someone I hated and knew I didn't value, the premise would justify killing him. The whole idea is heinous and ignorant of the retaliatory use of force only principle.

The right to life for others is based in the knowledge of ones own right to life.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach.

Why would you want to kill the man? Might the man somehow provide a means to escape the island? Perhaps he can contact a rescue crew.

 

If you want a moral evaluation of your scenario, we need to know motivations.

 

This is exactly the problem with the idea that another's right to live is based on my values. If it were true and the answer to "do I value the unconscious man or my solitude", was , "my solitude", then I would be moral to kill him

Nope. You would have to figure out which is more important. There are few to no circumstances where solitude at all moments is truly better than letting another person live. You missed where it's crucial to make a rational evaluation, not just any evaluation you come up with. So, to be more clear, if there was no value to you at all from a person, it doesn't matter  what you do to them. But no one is value neutral.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I took actions to meet my need to live, and I took action to make my life better, how does this translate to a moral implication that I value anyone else’s life, or life in general? Why does the fact that I took actions to further my own life mean anything other than that I value my own life? Please explain the logic that leads from, since I do things for myself to further my life I (do? Must? am required to?) value everyone else’s life and life in general?

The logic is one of consistancy in intent and action; as you do things to further the value of your life, you effect the value of life in general.  Again, you cannot value your life as a moral element of an amoral whole (life in general).

--

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.” ~ John Donne, No Man Is An Island

--

(do? Must? am required to?)

Free-will trumps moral absolutes...  I believe the word you're looking for is ought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euiol said:

"Nope. You would have to figure out which is more important. There are few to no circumstances where solitude at all moments is truly better than letting another person live. You missed where it's crucial to make a rational evaluation, not just any evaluation you come up with. So, to be more clear, if there was no value to you at all from a person, it doesn't matter what you do to them. But no one is value neutral."

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. The value of life in general does not require me to value this person in particular to choose to not violate his right to life.

Edit: your post seems to think that I was advocating killing in favor of solitude myself. Is that what you took from my comment?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not convinced a discussion of value can be isolated from rights, at least in terms of correct and proper behavior, but I will attempt to follow the horse ;)

 

A vampiric premise is closer to the kind of ethical disconnect from life in general the OP presents.  There is also an element of Hickman's, "I am like the state: what is good for me is right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know "rights" are not applicable outside the context of a society, i.e. is a part of the study of politics.

 

If a group of people voluntarily choose to live together on an island, there are 1. reasons why they CHOOSE to live in a society and 2. objective and rational principles upon which that society is to be based if it is to be of benefit to each of the individuals, i.e. rights. 

 

 

The hypothetical given by the tjfields is PREpolitical.

 

1.  The indigenous dweller of the island has NOT previously decided or even considered whether or not he/she wishes or would wish to live in a society of any number let alone a society of two.

 

2.  The unconscious man has no agreement, explicit or implicit with the dweller which would be any indication of objective fact that indeed ANY society or politic exists as between these two stranded individuals.

 

Plasmatic:

Speaking of STRAW MAN arguments,

 

NO ONE EVER STATED the man washed up on the beach has a "RIGHT to live based on his value".  You accuse others of proffering STRAWMEN, which they have NOT intended, while PURPOSEFULLY doing it yourself.

 

Please read the posts carefully before making a misleading statement.

 

 

Let us assume you are to be the AUTHORITY for Objectivist philosophy.

 

Answer me this: What existentially IS a "right"?  Does it exist in external reality?  If so where?  If not, is it something adopted by individuals?  When is it adopted and why?  How/Why do rights according to Objectivism arise IN the context posed by the OP?  

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: your post seems to think that I was advocating killing in favor of solitude myself. Is that what you took from my comment?

No, I'm saying your argument that value of the particular person isn't why murder is wrong just isn't true.

 

I am saying the value of life "in general" implies that individuals in general are valuable and therefore shouldn't be killed. I still can't evaluate the scenario, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand said:

"right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" VOS

 

 

NOTE:  Look closely at what Ayn Rand said: "in a social context".

 

The OP is a questions of ethics as applicable to one individual, that individual's morality that individual's self-sovereign choices, NOT a question re. politics.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DO RIGHTS Arise, According to OBJECTIVISM, in the Context of the OP?

 

Answer: NO.

 

 

Source: 

Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff

Chapter 10: Government

Individual Rights as Absolutes

 

Fourth Paragraph"

 

"If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others.  Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature.  There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it.  When men do decide to form (or reform) an organized society, however, when they decide to pursue systematically the advantages of living together, then they need the guidance of principle.  That is the context in which the principle of rights arises."[Emphasis Added]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

You wrote in post #57, “The logic is one of consistancy in intent and action; as you do things to further the value of your life, you effect the value of life in general.  Again, you cannot value your life as a moral element of an amoral whole (life in general).”

 

I need some clarification. How do I affect the value of life in general as I do things to further the value of my life? What affect do I have: good or bad? Is it always the case that I affect the value of life in general? Does the reverse hold true: if I do things that do not further the value of my life do I still affect the value of life in general?

 

Even if I do affect the value of life in general as you claim, why does this mean that I ought to value life in general? Why can I not value my life as a moral element of an amoral whole? Can you please explain what seems to be an absolute prohibition in context with your last part of your post “Free-will trumps moral absolutes”?

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?

For clarity, I believe the value of other lives is given rather than implied, as one cannot value ones life as a moral element of an amoral whole.  However as to reflecting "Oist principle", I cited the following earlier as suggestive of Objectivism's tacit endorsement of ethical reciprocity:

 

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights

 

As rights are derived from ethics, the legal protection of a moral good, e.g., ones life, is apparently dependent on recognition of similar moral goods to be protected legitimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL said:
 

" Look closely at what Ayn Rand said: "in a social context"."

 


There are two people and therefore it IS a social question. However the right to life is not derived from this fact, as such!

Now as to the OPAR quote:

 

 

"If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others.  Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature.  There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it.  When men do decide to form (or reform) an organized society, however, when they decide to pursue systematically the advantages of living together, then they need the guidance of principle.  That is the context in which the principle of rights arises."

Here you have a PRIME example of why I do NOT consider OPAR to be the "definitive work of objectivism"!

AYN RAND (the founder of Oism) said :

""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."

 

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

 

In post #56 you wrote, “If you want a moral evaluation of your scenario, we need to know motivations.”

 

Can you please explain why the knowledge of motivations can help to answer the question in the original post? Does the answer to was the killing of the man who washed up on the beach wrong change if I killed the man because I thought it would be fun, or if I was bored, or if I was cranky because my breakfast did not agree with me, or for some other reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL said:

 

 

Plasmatic:

Speaking of STRAW MAN arguments,

 

NO ONE EVER STATED the man washed up on the beach has a "RIGHT to live based on his value".  You accuse others of proffering STRAWMEN, which they have NOT intended, while PURPOSEFULLY doing it yourself.

 

Please read the posts carefully before making a misleading statement

 

 

LOL....  Well lets see. You responded :

 

 

 


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.

 

To TJfields' :

 

tjfields, on 16 Aug 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:snapback.png

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?

Edit: Is your complaint that because you think this scenario is "prepolitical", the man does not have a right to life and therefore the issue of his value to his killer is not an issue of a violation of rights??? (effectively making your statements about the value of the unconscious man to his killer not a claim of a  "RIGHT to live based on his value"??? ) 

 

And HD said explicitly:

 

 

"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. "

 

 

You seem to really hate being corrected.....

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For clarity, I believe the value of other lives is given rather than implied, as one cannot value ones life as a moral element of an amoral whole.  However as to reflecting "Oist principle", I cited the following earlier as suggestive of Objectivism's tacit endorsement of ethical reciprocity:

 

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights

 

As rights are derived from ethics, the legal protection of a moral good, e.g., ones life, is apparently dependent on recognition of similar moral goods to be protected legitimately.

 

I don't have a problem with said endorsement.

 

We can add the above quote from Ayn Rand to the list of statements affirming my position as consistent with Oism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification. How do I affect the value of life in general as I do things to further the value of my life? What affect do I have: good or bad? Is it always the case that I affect the value of life in general? Does the reverse hold true: if I do things that do not further the value of my life do I still affect the value of life in general?

Cause and effect; and yes, it's always the case that ones actions effect the value of life in general, for better or worse.

 

Even if I do affect the value of life in general as you claim, why does this mean that I ought to value life in general? Why can I not value my life as a moral element of an amoral whole? Can you please explain what seems to be an absolute prohibition in context with your last part of your post “Free-will trumps moral absolutes”?

1st question response:  Ethical reciprocity

2nd question response:  Consistency

3rd question response:  This simply recognizes that one can always choose to act contrary to ethical considerations or legal prohibitions, i.e., transgress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

In post #64 I asked, “How do I affect the value of life in general as I do things to further the value of my life?” And you answer in post #70 with “Cause and effect…” I am still confused. Perhaps I should narrow the question to the original post and ask: How do I, living alone and furthering my own life on the island affect the value of life in general? How does killing the man who washed up on shore affect the value of life in general?

 

As for the rest of your response in post #70, I am going to need more.

 

I asked, “Even if I do affect the value of life in general as you claim, why does this mean that I ought to value life in general?” And you answered, “Ethical reciprocity”.

 

I asked, “Why can I not value my life as a moral element of an amoral whole?” And you answered, “Consistency”.

 

Answers like these, without explanation, evidence, or even examples, are, to me, no different than a Christian answering the questions with “Because God said so.” Please help me by explaining your position more fully and more clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To emphasize the fact that the right to life is an individual right, not determined, or arising from society.
 
 
 Ayn Rand said:
 

The force which a proper government exercises against criminals is not in defense of society, but of an individual. A murderer did not hurt "society"—he killed an individual man. He violated, not a "social" right, but an individual right. Secondarily, the punishment of a murderer benefits society [because] society cannot exist unless individual rights are protected. Here again, the social is secondary, a natural consequence of the individual—and beneficial only in that secondary manner.
This point is extremely important. It is the sloppy fallacy that a policeman protects "society"—that he is there to combat crimes against society—that creates the acceptance of the idea that we can exercise force for the "social" good. There ix no "social good" and it can never be defined. Only in serving individual good can we accomplish any social good at all. And the clear, objective standards defining the individual good are inalienable individual rights. Force can be exercised only in the protection of these rights


The Journals of Ayn Rand
Part 3 - Transition Between Novels
8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic,

 

Is your answer to the questions asked in the original post is that it is wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because the man who washed up on the beach has individual rights, including the right to life, and I violate those rights by killing him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answers like these, without explanation, evidence, or even examples, are, to me, no different than a Christian answering the questions with “Because God said so.” Please help me by explaining your position more fully and more clearly.

I believe I've adequately responded to your questions in posts #7, #15, #23, #38 and #43, but for the sake of clarity let me represent my position as follows:

 

You cannot assert the value of your life by dismissing life as a value, or to paraphrase a proverb frequently relied on by Objectivists...

You cannot have your cake as a value and dismiss the value of cake to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA, you may find this quote useful:

 

Most blatantly obvious, in theory and in observable practice, is the fact that man's moral code has to apply primarily to his own private conduct in relation to himself and his life—and that only on the basis of the right code toward himself will he or can he observe any sort of moral code toward others.

The Journals of Ayn Rand

13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952

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...