Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[IAmMetaphysical]

My argument is that sex is a very important part of the life of a rational man, and that therefore he has a right to choose his sexual activities for himself; this means that others may not rightfully cause him to undergo sexual activities without his consent. No talk of harm there--just like there is no mention of harm in the validation of the right to property or any other right. If you think individual rights are based on the prevention of harm, you'll need to think again.

This is where I (and I assume others) think you go wrong. People do not have a right to things that are "important" to them, at least not in the way you speak of. Because in the next sentence your use of the word "cause" instead of "force" suggests that you think people have a right not to have to deal with other people. People cause other people to do a lot of things. This causation is not a violation of rights, FORCE is a violation of rights. I can cause someone to laugh with a joke, that is not a violation; if I tickle them against their will, that is.

Here is your argument restated:

Premise 1- sex is a very important part of the life of a rational man

Premise 2-(even though you use a "therefore" as if the second stems from the first) a man has the right to choose his sexual activities.

Conclusion- others may not rightfully cause him to undergo sexual "activities".

Where I think is your main problem is the use of that word "cause". I will try to illuminate this with my humor analogy.

Premise 1- Humor is a very important part of the life of a rational being.

Premise 2- A man has the right to choose his humorous activities for himself.

Conclusion- Others may not rightfully cause a person to laugh without his consent.

The above would be okay (although the second premise is a little misleading and vague) if it were "...may not FORCE him to laugh..." Just as it would make your argument sound as well.

[Capitalism Forever]

Premise 1- Humor is a very important part of the life of a rational being.

Premise 2- A man has the right to choose his humorous activities for himself.

Conclusion- Others may not rightfully cause a person to laugh without his consent.

LOL, I appreciate your bringing some humor into this thread!

Humor is not really on par with sex, though. If I had to name the top priorities in my life, a good romantic relationship would be among them, but humor wouldn't. Even though I have always very much loved humor! It's not that it isn't important, it's just not among the primary requirements of a rational life. If my fundamental rights are respected, then I will have no difficulty in pursuing my "humorous activities."

Also, although you can cause a person to laugh about something he doesn't want to laugh about, this will always be a result of a problem with his value hierarchy. For example, if somebody told you a joke that is disrespectful of Objectivism, would it cause you to laugh? If Objectivism occupies the high position in your value hierarchy that it deserves, you will perceive the joke as an insult on your values, and you will not feel like laughing at all. So if you find yourself laughing at something you wouldn't want to laugh about, then what you have experienced is an emotional reaction that is not in accordance with your consciously held values--and the person to hold responsible for that sort of thing is always yourself.

I can cause someone to laugh with a joke, that is not a violation; if I tickle them against their will, that is.

And it is so because the person responsible for laughing at a joke is the one who laughs, while the person responsible for the tickling is the one who tickles.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Try to think in principles. The principle here is that FORCE and ONLY force can be a violation of rights. Causation is not.

[Capitalism Forever]

The principle here is that FORCE and ONLY force can be a violation of rights.

Yes, but what is force? Incursion into the sphere of action delimited by a person's rights. So if a man has a right to his sexual integrity, then an action by another person that breaches that integrity IS force.

Try to think in principles.

Try to check your premises. Your premise seems to be a particular interpretation of the word "force," and I think it's incorrect. Suppose for example that I take an empty Coke bottle, pour some dark-colored liquid into it, re-cap it, and offer it for sale in my store. You'll agree, won't you, that this is a violation of The Coca-Cola Company's right to its trademark. Now, since I have just violated Coca-Cola's right and rights can only be violated by force, it follows that I have just used force against Coca-Cola. Can you explain in what way my action was force?

[Maarten]

Yes, but what is force? Incursion into the sphere of action delimited by a person's rights. So if a man has a right to his sexual integrity, then an action by another person that breaches that integrity IS force.

The right to sexual integrity sounds very much like the right to a thing. I thought that rights only applied to actions, or more specifically the freedom to act? Integrity in the way you talk about it isn't so much an action as it is a result of certain actions, but you cannot have that anymore than one can say that a human being has a right to pride.

I think it's precisely the question of whether this right exists or not that is being questioned here. Sure, if as you say this is a right then a violation of it would be an instance of force, I do not think anyone here is disagreeing with that.

Humor is not really on par with sex, though. If I had to name the top priorities in my life, a good romantic relationship would be among them, but humor wouldn't. Even though I have always very much loved humor! It's not that it isn't important, it's just not among the primary requirements of a rational life. If my fundamental rights are respected, then I will have no difficulty in pursuing my "humorous activities."

Would it be fair to say that the only reason why you have a right to sexual integrity and not humorous integrity (or however you want to call that) is because sex is more important than humor?

I can't imagine that you mean that a person has a right to have sexual integrity, only that this sexual integrity is not breached by the actions of others. Is that correct?

[Maarten]

I am not convinced that anyone else can cause me to breach my own sexual integrity except by my consent, unless they actually force me to do something in a certain way.

Something can only affect your integrity if you willed it to happen. Your own actions are probably the major component of whether one has integrity or not. I do not think that someone else causing you to do something could affect one's integrity any more than a certain image can make one irrational. If you automatically think of sex after seeing some image then you are free to shut down this train of thought. Only when one fails to do so for some reason or another would this have potential consequences for one's integrity.

If one has truly no choice about thinking of sex when seeing sex, then it cannot have any impact on your self-esteem or your sexual integrity. If one does have a choice in the matter then one can simply choose not to think of sex and it will also not violate your sexual integrity. So I do not see how something can ever violate your sexual integrity unless you either wanted it to happen or unless someone forced you to act in opposition to your values.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Suppose for example that I take an empty Coke bottle, pour some dark-colored liquid into it, re-cap it, and offer it for sale in my store. You'll agree, won't you, that this is a violation of The Coca-Cola Company's right to its trademark. Now, since I have just violated Coca-Cola's right and rights can only be violated by force, it follows that I have just used force against Coca-Cola. Can you explain in what way my action was force?

You have initiated the indirect force of fraud. The violation occurs in the fact that you are using the reputation of Coca-Cola in order to sell your product, and you did so without their permission, you have essential stolen product from them: their effort that went into creating the reputation.

This has little to do with sexual integrity. And as Maarten pointed out, what you are advocating is that people should have a right to things.

Think a second of the practical outcome of your position. One could walk into someone's house and then expect their host to provide them with a certain atmosphere instead of accepting the atmosphere that their host will have in his property. One could enter a house and demand that a person take down his crucifixes because Christianity is anti-life and it makes him think of sacrificing himself which is a violation of his "right to integrity".

[DavidOdden]

You have initiated the indirect force of fraud. The violation occurs in the fact that you are using the reputation of Coca-Cola in order to sell your product, and you did so without their permission, you have essential stolen product from them: their effort that went into creating the reputation.

I disagree, in that the fraud was perpetrated against the buyer by selling the liquid as Coke (and the buyer relies on that representation). The Coke company has not been defrauded at all: at worst, they have been insulted. You are talking about a species of defamation, and in a society governed by rational law, one person's evaluation of another is not a legally protectable property right.

[Capitalism Forever]

The right to sexual integrity sounds very much like the right to a thing.

It is no more a right to a thing than the right to property is. While property is a thing, the right to property does not mean you are entitled to be given property, only that others must not take it without your consent. The same applies to sexual integrity.

Sure, if as you say this is a right then a violation of it would be an instance of force, I do not think anyone here is disagreeing with that.

Let's wait and see.

Would it be fair to say that the only reason why you have a right to sexual integrity and not humorous integrity (or however you want to call that) is because sex is more important than humor?

"More important" does not really capture it. Sex is a make-or-break aspect of a person's life; it is right on par with property and liberty. It is primary. Humor (and ice cream, and skiing, and many other nice things) are not primary requirements but rather particular benefits that will accrue to you from applying your rights to the primary requirements of life, such as liberty and property.

Consider three situations:

1. A young woman is beaten.

2. A young woman is beaten and her ice cream taken away.

3. A young woman is beaten and raped.

You'll probably agree that #2 is a somewhat more serious crime than #1, as it involves not just a beating but also theft. Now compare #1 with #3. ggdwill thinks they are equal . Do you? I think that #3 is even more serious than #2, because the ice cream is replaceable but the breach of sexual integrity resulting from being raped cannot be undone.

[Capitalism Forever]

Something can only affect your integrity if you willed it to happen.

That is true. I am not using "sexual integrity" as a qualified instance of the concept we usually mean by "integrity," but rather as a conceptual phrase with a different meaning.

Perhaps an analogy will be useful. When the young woman is beaten, what right of hers is being violated? You could say that it's her right to her physical integrity--that is, the integrity of her body; her right to choose which hard things she lets beat against her body. My use of "sexual integrity" is similar to this: it refers to the right to choose which sexual activities you experience.

[Capitalism Forever]

You have initiated the indirect force of fraud. The violation occurs in the fact that you are using the reputation of Coca-Cola in order to sell your product, and you did so without their permission, you have essential stolen product from them: their effort that went into creating the reputation.

And in what way is that force?

This has little to do with sexual integrity. And as Maarten pointed out, what you are advocating is that people should have a right to things.

See my answer to him above.

Think a second of the practical outcome of your position. One could walk into someone's house and then expect their host to provide them with a certain atmosphere instead of accepting the atmosphere that their host will have in his property.

Yes, for example I could expect the host to provide me with an atmosphere that contains no fumes of arsenic. That is to say, if he knowingly poisoned the atmosphere and yet invited me in, he would be guilty of murder (or attempted murder) on me.

He has to respect my rights even while I'm on his property; my acceptance of his invitation does not turn me into a slave of his.

One could enter a house and demand that a person take down his crucifixes because Christianity is anti-life and it makes him think of sacrificing himself which is a violation of his "right to integrity".

No, what a crucifix inevitably makes you think is something like this: "OK, so this guy is obviously a Christian." All the rest of your thought process from then on is entirely up to you.

[Capitalism Forever]

I disagree, in that the fraud was perpetrated against the buyer by selling the liquid as Coke

That too, but Coca-Cola's right to its trademark was also violated.

You are talking about a species of defamation, and in a society governed by rational law, one person's evaluation of another is not a legally protectable property right.

Do you think what I think you think--that there should be no law against defamation? If yes, I definitely disagree. While one is entitled to have a bad opinion about you and share it with others, no one has the right to make false factual statements about you. If a person says, "I think John Doe is stupid," that's legally fine, but he says "I saw John Doe enter a whorehouse" when in fact he didn't see him to that, then he is in violation of the rights of both his audience (whom he is misinforming) and John Doe (whose actions he is misrepresenting).

[IAmMetaphysical]

No, what a crucifix inevitably makes you think is something like this: "OK, so this guy is obviously a Christian." All the rest of your thought process from then on is entirely up to you.

That is exactly what has been said about your "sexual integrity" thing. The sexual "experience" that you say one would have when confronted with a display of pornography is a thought process that the viwer is responsible for.

I disagree, in that the fraud was perpetrated against the buyer by selling the liquid as Coke (and the buyer relies on that representation). The Coke company has not been defrauded at all: at worst, they have been insulted. You are talking about a species of defamation, and in a society governed by rational law, one person's evaluation of another is not a legally protectable property right.

The violation of Coca-Cola is the use of their reputation, which is theirs, without their permission.

He has to respect my rights even while I'm on his property; my acceptance of his invitation does not turn me into a slave of his.

I did not say that. But he does not turn into YOUR slave either. You have the option to leave if you do not want to stay, you do not have th option to change HIS property if you don't like it.

[Maarten]

That is true. I am not using "sexual integrity" as a qualified instance of the concept we usually mean by "integrity," but rather as a conceptual phrase with a different meaning.

Perhaps an analogy will be useful. When the young woman is beaten, what right of hers is being violated? You could say that it's her right to her physical integrity--that is, the integrity of her body; her right to choose which hard things she lets beat against her body. My use of "sexual integrity" is similar to this: it refers to the right to choose which sexual activities you experience.

Is this not simply an application of the right to property? I would say that one of the most basic things a human being earns by their actions is their life, and their living body is the physical form of this. I do not think you need a seperate right to physical integrity here to cover this.

I think it is important to show that this novel right actually covers something that should be legitimately protected by the government. If it does not add any protection one should have then it only needlessly complicates matters. It is much easier to keep track of 4 main rights, than it would be to keep track of 25 rights

That is, if this is even a right, something of which I am not as of yet convinced.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I was giving this some thought and came across this idea.

A right is a right to action, not a thing, correct? A violation of a right entails the limiting of another man to the free action of excercising his own judgement in regards to his life(the right to his life). This is the main right from which all other rights are derived. Restated: the right to one's own mind.

A right to one's own mind though does not mean the right to not percieve certain things ( perception is non-volitional and has no place in morality or politics). A right to one's mind means the right to the free excercise of one's judgement. A violation of this occurs when one man attempts to replace the judgment of another with his own, or with a gun. THAT is what force is. Force is the attempt to constrict another individual's use[/] of their mind (and their body, which is an extension of their mind, i.e. their mind put to physical material action). Use is fundamentally different from content. Content is given, what you do with content is will. Your will must be free, not what you see, hear, smell, etc. Unless what you smell or hear or see, PREVENTS you from using your judgement as in the case with blinding lights or blaring sounds.

Exposing your genitals to someone is not a restriction on the free use of their judgement. They can judge it as disgusting, as sexual, as arousing, as ridiculous, and then they can decide what to do from there. They can leave, they can fellatye you, they can laugh. When you attempt to force them to stay if they want to leave, or fellate you when they don't want to, then you have initiated force against their judgement but restricting the application of that judgement.

[DavidOdden]

Do you think what I think you think--that there should be no law against defamation?

Yes, that's correct. The details of that issue are a bit off-topic for this thread, but such a law has not been fully and objectively justified, so there should be no such law. Note that I still oppose defamation, so my claim is that there is no legal foundation for such a law.

[Capitalism Forever]

Unanswered question:

You have initiated the indirect force of fraud. The violation occurs in the fact that you are using the reputation of Coca-Cola in order to sell your product, and you did so without their permission, you have essential stolen product from them: their effort that went into creating the reputation.

And in what way is that force?

[Capitalism Forever]

No, what a crucifix inevitably makes you think is something like this: "OK, so this guy is obviously a Christian." All the rest of your thought process from then on is entirely up to you.

That is exactly what has been said about your "sexual integrity" thing. The sexual "experience" that you say one would have when confronted with a display of pornography is a thought process that the viwer is responsible for.

(emphasis mine) I agree that it has been said, but I don't agree that it's true.

But it seems you agree that the crucifix can inevitably make you think something. Once you have noticed the crucifix, you have no choice about supposing that the guy must be a Christian. What you do then--whether you begin to fantasize about being crucified, or to think about how you'll present Objectivism to him, or whatever else--is your choice. Your emotional reaction to seeing the crucifix is also your responsibility. But the identification of your host as a Christian is something that his action has caused and, once you see the crucifix, you have no way of preventing this identification from happening in your mind. It would take an active effort of evasion for you to "un-learn" that he is a Christian.

So you'll agree, won't you, that an action on the host's part has been able to lead to an inevitable mental reaction on your part? If you agree with this, we've made some important progress.

[JASKN]

But it seems you agree that the crucifix can inevitably make you think something. Once you have noticed the crucifix, you have no choice about supposing that the guy must be a Christian. What you do then--whether you begin to fantasize about being crucified, or to think about how you'll present Objectivism to him, or whatever else--is your choice. Your emotional reaction to seeing the crucifix is also your responsibility. But the identification of your host as a Christian is something that his action has caused and, once you see the crucifix, you have no way of preventing this identification from happening in your mind. It would take an active effort of evasion for you to "un-learn" that he is a Christian.

So you'll agree, won't you, that an action on the host's part has been able to lead to an inevitable mental reaction on your part? If you agree with this, we've made some important progress.

Actually, the display of a crucifix in an individual's home could mean any number of things, which do not necessarily have to include the man being a Christian. He could display a crucifix as a symbol of his prior life as a Christian, in order to remind him as often as possible how much better his life is now that he is not. You could not know for sure without some inquiry.

To you initially, however, the crucifix more often than not might imply that the owner of the house uses faith to some degree as a guiding force in his life. This is a result of your broader experiences with other people, but is obviously not true universally.

But that is not the point. Either way, the crucifix could offend you, and your personal integrity could be breached, by your choice, but if you still have the option to leave the man's house, no rights were violated. It is your fault if you cannot handle the sight of a crucifix, not the fault of the non-Christian (or Christian) man, while you are on his property. This same principle applies to viewing material you personally might judge as being too sexually backwards for you to preserve your "sexual integrity."

Since no one but you can make you think about anything, unless someone is using actual physical force to cause you to remain somewhere or do something against your will, no rights can be violated.

[Capitalism Forever]

Either way, the crucifix could offend you

...which no one cares about in a legal context.

and your personal integrity could be breached, by your choice

What do you mean by "personal integrity" ?

but if you still have the option to leave the man's house, no rights were violated.

This is the premise that you become the host's slave as soon as you enter his house (and become free again as soon as you manage to escape ... but then you become a slave of whoever owns the street, and so on). I disagree; the fact that somebody happens to be on your property does not give you the right to do whatever you please to him as long as you leave him the option to leave. You still have to respect his rights. The only right your ownership of the house gives you is to choose whom you allow to enter it (or come into contact with it in some other way).

It is your fault if you cannot handle the sight of a crucifix, not the fault of the non-Christian (or Christian) man, while you are on his property.

Not just while you are on his property. It doesn't matter if he owns or rents the house, or if you see his crucifix in the street or in a third person's home. Regardless of where you are, the mere act of his showing you a crucifix does not infringe on any of your rights, so you cannot make a legal case against it--nor compare it to showing a sexual image.

This same principle applies to viewing material you personally might judge as being too sexually backwards for you to preserve your "sexual integrity."

If I argued in court that I personally judged the image to be too sexual, then they would have to throw out the case. But if I made the case that the nature of the image was such that it inevitably made a reasonable man perceive its display as a sexual situation, then they would have to consider the case.

You seem to be stuck with the idea that I am making a subjective case; that I am appealing to my being "offended" or to some whim of mine that says I mustn't see such an image. I am not; my (i.e. the victim's) personal feelings play no role here. I could love the image and still sue.

[mrocktor]

But if I made the case that the nature of the image was such that it inevitably made a reasonable man perceive its display as a sexual situation, then they would have to consider the case.

And yet if he made the case that the image was such that it inevitably made a reasonable man percieve it as a display of Christian faith, he would still have no case. And so the evasion of his essential error - that there is no "right" not to percieve that which one does not like - continues.

mrock

[JASKN]

And yet if he made the case that the image was such that it inevitably made a reasonable man percieve it as a display of Christian faith, he would still have no case. And so the evasion of his essential error - that there is no "right" not to percieve that which one does not like - continues.

Actually, yes, I did not think of this, although Maarten has already mentioned it.

Now your claim of a right to not view sexual material has been officially refuted on all grounds, Capitalism Forever.

By personal integrity above I was referring to any of a man's choices on how to conduct his life.

And for the record, I was not advocating that a man has a right to my life simply because I am on his property. Although, and I am not learned enough on property rights to provide a good qualifier here, I would think that if I refused to remove myself from someone else's property, he does have a right to initiate force against me, at least enough to get me off of his property.

[IAmMetaphysical]

His removing you from his property would not be an INITIATION JASKN, he would be retaliating against YOUR initiation.

[IAmMetaphysical]

And CF: No one here is advocating that a man has no rights whilst on a another man's property, only that he does not, at all, posses the right to not have to percieve that which is in front of his consciousness. Restated: a man does not have the right to evade the material of his senses and force others to help him with this evasion.

The debate here is whether or not man possesses this right or not. It is up to you to prove that he does. I have shown where rights are derived from (well Ayn Rand[and a few others] has shown it, I'm just rehashing it) and it is not possible to derive the right to certain content of perception, only the right to deal with that content by the free use of his judgement and the application of that judgement into action.

[Maarten]

I think if a certain perception would make it impossible for you to consider anything else, then you might have a valid basis to say your rights are being violated. I think that the essential characteristic of force initiated against you is that it breaches your ability to choose what will happen. Seeing a sexual image does not do that. Beyond the initial impression that may (and probably will) remind you of sex you can just shut off that train of thought without suffering any consequences...

This is a very different situation from smelling something very bad and having to vomit; in this case the violation of your rights would be because you're being forced to vomit. A sexual image cannot force anything. To continue to think of sex after seeing something like that is purely volitional; I have shut down enough of these thought processes to know that.