Who should be responsible for people unable to provide for themselves?

[the tortured one]

I feel that, as a person who loves philosophy, I have to be my own worst critic. So I was doing some thinking about this and decided to get some second hand opinions.

ok, so our natural rights to life, liberty, and estate are derived from our ability to reason. The reason animals do not have rights is because they lack the ability to reason. The reason children do not have full access to the natural rights of man is because their ability to reason is still developing. It is also the reason that guardians have the rights to people in a coma, or mentally handicapped.

So my hypothetical situation is this: is it possibe for a man to be completely devoid of reason? The only instance I can think of would be a person in a coma, or perhaps cases of extreme mental retardation.

Assuming that the man does not have reason but is still living, does that mean he has the same rights, more or less, than an animal?

This brings me to my next point, one most difficult to grasp: nominally, under a purely capitalist system, one would able to beat their animals. It isn't an objectivist thing to do, but neither is doing hard drugs (yet those would also be free in a Capitalistic society.) The reason that man may subject his animals to pain is because the animal does not possess rights, due to their lack of reason. So the next point is, since that mentally handicapped man who lacks reason would have the intellect more or less like an animal, does that mean he is someone else's property, and thus subject to the owner's whims, even if they involved beatings?

[EC]

I think the case of a severly retarded man's mental state is analagous to the case of a baby or small child, so it would be wrong to beat him for the same reason it is wrong to beat a baby or small child.

[realitycheck44]

I not sure on this one, but I do have something to add/ask that might perhaps help you. It was my understanding that the reason man has rights is he is a volitional being. Man is the only being that can conceptualize and his conciousness is not automatic; it is volitional. That means that all men have rights, whether or not they are capable of reasoning. The only way to have rights taken away is by violating other's rights.

If you want to bring up children; I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps children have control of their rights, but they need a caretaker. So, it is more acting on permission of the guardian, than not having full control of their rights . (?)

Zak

[Hangnail]

At a Ford Hall Forum in 1973 Miss. Rand made some comments about our relationship to severely retarded people that might be helpful…

Not actual rights, not the same rights that would apply to or belong to a normal individual.  They would have the right to be protected as perennial children.  And just as children are entitled to protection, so do retarded people simply on the very distant possibility that they are human, they may be cured and they may become at least partly able to stand on their own - or partly conscious – so that the protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for the fact that they are human beings (some indiscernible words).  But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a man who is retarded.  Meaning that he is not able to function cognitively or rationally.  Because all your rights actually rest on your nature as a human being.  A being that cannot exercise his rights, cannot have the full rights of a human being.

I had to transcribe this quote from a recording, so the punctuation is my own.

[Praxus]

If I am not mistaken, the simple fact that a severly mentally disabled person does have at least to a very small degree reason, it still has all the rights as every other person.

[slave]

So my hypothetical situation is this: is it possibe for a man to be completely devoid of reason?

If a man consistently rejects the law of identity, I do not think he is capable of reasoning. In order to reason, he must reason about something. If the referents of his mind do not exist, it is called dreaming not reasoning.

Isn't that the current state of phiosophy today - people are nearly devoid of reason?

[EC]

At a Ford Hall Forum in 1973 Miss. Rand made some comments about our relationship to severely retarded people that might be helpful…

I had to transcribe this quote from a recording, so the punctuation is my own.

See you know you are a "good" Objectivist when you can predict(postdict?) essentially what Ayn Rand would say without ever reading anything about a certain subject like I did in an earlier post. I'll pat myself on the back here.

[Nxixcxk]

At a Ford Hall Forum in 1973 Miss. Rand made some comments about our relationship to severely retarded people that might be helpful…

I had to transcribe this quote from a recording, so the punctuation is my own.

Where's the evidence that severly retarded (assuming these are the beings she's referring to) people may be cured or at least partly be able to stand on their own?

[Iakeo]

I feel that, as a person who loves philosophy, I have to be my own worst critic. So I was doing some thinking about this and decided to get some second hand opinions.

ok, so our natural rights to life, liberty, and estate are derived from our ability to reason. The reason animals do not have rights is because they lack the ability to reason. The reason children do not have full access to the natural rights of man is because their ability to reason is still developing. It is also the reason that guardians have the rights to people in a coma, or mentally handicapped.

So my hypothetical situation is this: is it possibe for a man to be completely devoid of reason? The only instance I can think of would be a person in a coma, or perhaps cases of extreme mental retardation.

Assuming that the man does not have reason but is still living, does that mean he has the same rights, more or less, than an animal?

What is the value of such a person (utterly devoid of humanity, a mere piece of

meat)? Such a person is the creation of a parent, or stand-in creator such as a

guardian. As such, the person is the "property" (creation) of this other person. The

creator has the right to the "disposition" of their property as they see fit.

This is only meaningful if the "piece of meat" is in reality a "piece of meat".

If there is ANY consciousness, which implies some conceptualization and therefore

some reason, then they must be afforded full sovereignty as individuals, and be

protected by the police agency (government) from any violation of the "trader

principle" of others.

This brings me to my next point, one most difficult to grasp: nominally, under a purely capitalist system, one would able to beat their animals. It isn't an objectivist thing to do, but neither is doing hard drugs (yet those would also be free in a Capitalistic society.) The reason that man may subject his animals to pain is because the animal does not possess rights, due to their lack of reason. So the next point is, since that mentally handicapped man who lacks reason would have the intellect more or less like an animal, does that mean he is someone else's property, and thus subject to the owner's whims, even if they involved beatings?

My opinion. Animals do reason (as anyone who owns a dog or cat knows) but they

are not human.

Human reason is the granting faculty for "rights". Not simple reason.

If someone were to "for verifiably no reason", beat their dog to death on the

street, I would judge that person as being pathologically irrational and have no

further dealings (trade) with that person, and I would promulgate what I witnessed

to any who would listen. This is not slander/libel, but the truth.

Beating one's animals would ellicit MUCH negative attention, even in a purely

capitalist society, and would be the equivalent of violating the "trader principle" on

oneself.

Basing ANYTHING on whim, is irrational.

You are stinging together a series of irrationalities that those who would

characterize an "objectivist society" as a bunch of euthenizing, poor oppressing,

animal abusing hedonists.

But thanks for not believing that yourself,.. as it's irrational.

-Iakeo

[cottonbrown]

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. There are other threads too, like this one dealing with rights of minors. - sN]

I'm specifically concerned with people with mental disabilities severe enough that they cannot reasonably sustain their own lives. If the mind is a persons main tool for survival, what of people who are born without full mental faculties. It is obviously no fault of their own that they cannot be productive.

Does the inability to reason negate rights and should a person without it be treated as such (ie left to fend for themselves and ultimately die), or do they have rights and is it implicit that they cannot defend them and need someone else to do it for them (ie the state or someone charitable enough to provide for them at their own expense)?

Edited August 15, 2006 by softwareNerd

[orangesiscool]

Many people in the world aren't completly followers of reason, why should that be the reason to have rights?\

Wouldn't it make more sense to give rights for being sentient?

[KendallJ]

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. There are other threads too, like this one dealing with rights of minors. - sN]

I'm specifically concerned with people with mental disabilities severe enough that they cannot reasonably sustain their own lives. If the mind is a persons main tool for survival, what of people who are born without full mental faculties. It is obviously no fault of their own that they cannot be productive.

Does the inability to reason negate rights and should a person without it be treated as such (ie left to fend for themselves and ultimately die), or do they have rights and is it implicit that they cannot defend them and need someone else to do it for them (ie the state or someone charitable enough to provide for them at their own expense)?

A right means the freedom to act to gain values. A right is not a right to a thing (such as sustenance, shelter, etc). So a right would be different from someone's particular ability to gain values. Having a right to act does not automatically grant you the ability to act, nor does it grant you claim to substitute your incapacitated ability to act with someone else.

My thoughts would be that these people are at the mercy of those who would be charitable to them (their families, aid agencies, etc). That means to the extent that men produce surplus value, and to the extent that their benevolence would motivate them to share this value, then they can be provided for. This is not a claim or a moral impetus on someone with surplus value to provide it.

That said, I think the types of societies with a high level of benevolence, as well as surplus value are capitalistic societies so I would expect these to be better places for these types of people to find charity.

[fflynn17]

I had to transcribe this quote from a recording, so the punctuation is my own.

Where's the evidence that severly retarded (assuming these are the beings she's referring to) people may be cured or at least partly be able to stand on their own?

When you believe that man's mind is capable of curing disease, one should reason that ANY disease or defect is potentially curable.