Devil's Advocate

I believe the needs of intelligent consumers are best served by recognizing that life which flourishes is of better quality, as a resource, than ill treated life. The health and welfare of lab rats impacts the quality of whatever results are obtained by testing them. Likewise, happy cows yield better milk. As consumers of life, we ought to have respect for the lives we consume, because it's in our rational self-interest to do so. It has been my observation that those who treat their animals miserably tend to lead miserable lives. "The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creatures that cannot." ~ Mark Twain, What Is Man, 1906

Hairnet, overt, et al... Moderator SapereAude's comment, "Objectivism holds that rights are a priori", makes sense to me according to the common definition of a priori. There seems to be some dispute among others in this thread as to whether or not this comment was intended to be taken seriously. Perhaps SapereAude will return to clarify this at some point. There are two "snippets" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon for A Priori that suggest knowledge cannot be obtained without applying logic to experience. In being pointed to this, I gather that a right to life cannot be maintained as a self-evident truth, because self-evidence implies the lack of logic necessary to establish the truth of this right. If this is a fair representation of the Objectivist position, then I think I've gotten all the perspective that patience allows for on this issue. My position is that the observation of actions necessary to preserve life, which are self-evident, establish the truth this right without further proof or reasoning. I certainly don't agree that such a right is necessarily delimited to a social/political context, however beneficial the recognition and protection of this right is. A hermit (or an anarchist) remains entitled to his life, as property, and it is correct and proper for him to dispose of it as he will; this meets the common and legal definitions of what a right is. At any rate, I appreciate the feedback I've recieved, and am ready to move on unless there's something new to be added on this issue...

So much of this present line of reasoning seems to rely on getting into the head of the person your dealing with, and then deciding how much honesty they can handle... *sigh*

Regarding the Fred and Jane scenario... The best thing to do is to lie?! Why not put on your best poker face and tell Fred that you aren't the kind of friend who shares private information with others? What happens to the value of your integrity if Fred (or one of his nosy friends) meets Jane's pissed off boyfriend and discovers your lie? "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!" ~ Sir Walter Scott

All types of suicide lead to the same result, and without knowing the motivation of the person involved, all that can really be said about those who choose to end their life is that they are acting with the same authority that those who choose to live do; that life, as a property, is theirs to dispose of. A right to life is not a mandate to live.

If it wasn't a suggestion to clarify the issue of rights (which is what I'm clearly questioning), then why offer it? I've stated my position and offered common definition to support it. If you're suggesting I need to abandon Merriam-Webster definitions in favor of those provided by Leonard Peikoff, then I disagree. I have read sections that are available online, and that are of interest to me. My exposure to Objectivism comes mostly though reading articles by Ayn Rand, including audio recordings by her on various subjects, by Leonard Peikoff and by other recognized Objectivists. I've found many areas of Objectivism that I agree with, and some that I don't, but I have yet to read the entire body of Objectivist literature. My interest here is for a clarification of perspective on rights by those who understand the philosophy of Objectivism better than I do. I don't believe it's necessary to read the whole Bible, Qur'an, Torah, et al, in order to ask a more knowledgeable source for their perspective on a moral/political issue that I'm aware they address. That you prefer to assign further reading than respond to two very direct questions I've asked suggests an appeal to authority, and that you ask a moderator of this forum if they are being sarcastic, suggests you question the validity of the authorities you appeal to.

What I stated earlier is, if a right is a freedom of action, and the actions of a right to life are self-evident, it follows that the right is derived by recognition of the actions. So... 1) Is a right a freedom of action? Y/N 2) Are the actions of an individual to remain alive self-evident, i.e. "evident without proof or reasoning" (definition self-evident, Merriam-Webster)? Y/N Following your lead, I looked at Peikoff's, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” references in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. The only referents necessary for the concept of a right to life are a man and his actions. Presuming the the answer to #1 is yes, and that independent acts of preservation are observationally evident without further proof or reasoning, then it appears to me, "that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation" (as suggested by Locke). I don't see where any social order is necessary, or how the lack of one creates an analytic-synthetic dichotomy. I believe the actions are self-evident, and the moral principle and right are derived by observation of the actions. I'm not clear as to how this is fundamentally at odds with the Objectivist position...

The premise, that one is providing emotional support by withholding bad news, is flawed but not dishonest. Who is the immediate beneficiary of withholding information? The fact that your fiancee was upset you hadn't told her sooner, may point to a better course of action in the future. There is no larger context than valuing honest interactions with those you care about. Do you appreciate others determining what you can and can't handle emotionally? It's better to be the bearer of bad news and offer emotional support to cope with it, than be the censor of bad news and put off emotional support for a more convenient time. In a similar situation, I was spared bad news until my grandmother was unconscious on her deathbed... I didn't consider the decision by well meaning family members to withhold information about her deterioration from me emotionally beneficial then, and I still don't. I would have preferred being given the opportunity visit her while she was conscious of it.

I equate self-sacrifice with self-destruction, and yes people are fully capable of throwing themselves under the bus, e.g. suicide.

This is an interesting point, but I doubt it's a question specific to religion...

Ayyyyyyy, that makes sense to me; thanks for the clarification.

Really? I'd have thought entering an argument with something to defend is better, but then I'm not the Objectivist you are. Nice taunt though... kinda relates to topic... LOL

The appearance of someone asking to be beaten, ought to give pause to responding with violence. I recall being confronted by such a person while walking to work; a total stranger crossed my path and directed a derogatory comment at me. I was totally caught off-guard and my first reaction was to stop and face my aggressor. The moment passed and I chose to walk away from it. Because I hadn't been physically accosted, I couldn't justify giving my verbal aggressor the blow he appeared to be asking for, and I wanted to deliver. After reflecting on it, I'm convinced I did the right thing even though I felt violated. I can empathize with those who might accept an implicit invitation to throw the first punch, but I can't rationally approve it. Physical responses to verbal aggression are an escalation of force, and reason must be given the opportunity to prevail prior to throwing blows.

I disagree with the Objectivist position that a right to life is a moral principle delimited to a social context. Hermits have no less need to act morally for want of society. The validation of a moral principle depends on how one behaves when no one else is watching them, and the example of living alone on a desert island is abused if one presumes the freedom to act without regard to life as a property one retains even in seclusion. It appears to me that Objectivists, not unlike anarchists, rely too heavily on the notion of a freedom from coercion to define their right to life.

If your meaning is that rights are "derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions" (definition a priori, Merriam-Webster), then I agree. If a right is a freedom of action, and the actions of a right to life are self-evident, it follows that the right is derived by recognition of the actions.

No one, but himself... If it is right for him to live, and right for him to use his own judgment, and right for him to use the products of his efforts, why is it necessary for his fundamental 'right' to be validated by the existence of any other person (or government)? Is it not, in fact, self-evident?? In respect to this topic, do anarchists have a right to life, or does a denial of government preclude that possibility?

... as in: existence, consciousness, identity & rights?

You have yet to state any position on the topic of this thread... Given that humans are animals, I disagree with your claim that animal behavior hasn't anything whatsoever to do with a topic about responding to verbal aggression. But rather than continuing an argument about whether comparing the behavior of men to that of animals makes for a valid argument, I'll wait to see if you can produce a dog for this fight.

I'm asking if the right to life is derived from the study of human nature, self-generated, or generated by government; does a right to life exist without government sponsorship? How does the Objectivist position you've quoted differ from the self-evident truths refered to in the Declaration of Independence? Is the distinction simply a secular one??

I have clarified the context for my initial question; dismiss it if you will. Nevertheless, Leonard Peikoff does compare the language of men to that of parrots when there is "no rationale behind it" (as initially presented by Matt). Here I'm pointing to an obvious similarity between arbitrary claims and "derogatory words", e.g. "you're an arrogant prick", or "your mother wears army boots", as equivalent to the noises produced by a snarling dog. Perhaps you can clarify your objection to my comparison of irrational language to sounds made by an animal, by distinguishing it from a similar observation made by Peikoff... or perhaps you're just being objectionable?

I agree; Individual rights begin and end with the individual. A government is necessary to protect individual rights, but is a government necessary to create them? I believe that an individual's right to life, liberty and propery is derived from the nature of man, and can be unified by the premise of a right of self-preservation (as suggested by Locke). In consulting the Lexicon, I find the following statement by Ayn Rand: "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible." What I'm unclear on, from the perspective of Objectivism, is what is the source of the right to life? Does Objectivism agree with Locke on this issue??

Then I am in good company... "The arbitrary (in this case, "derogatory words"), however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot . . . sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance." ~ Leonard Peikoff Do a man and a parrot function in the same way, Nicky?

In the context of "words (snarls) that have no rationale behind it, just insults to express your dislike for someone", I believe they do...

Does a snarling dog represent a rational threat? Yes, and it's likely that he is prepared and willing to fight. I think a more interesting question is, do rational threats initiated verbally, or by posture, justify responding with physical force? I'd say no, at least in terms of throwing the first blow, and I'd say that's true whether the confrontation is between individuals or nations. Verbal aggression is "force lite" so to speak, and defensive physical force ought to be limited to responding to initiations of physical force; not initiations of verbal threats. "Sticks and stones... "

I find myself in agreement with your comments, and point of view. Reverence for the real is a strength that Objectivism has over Religion, but like you, I don't doubt the sincerity of persons of faith wanting to feel a sense of purpose, use and belonging; to experience divinity as described in the poem "High Flight" by John Magee: "... and, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand, and touched the face of god." I recently had the oppertunity to reread Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason", in which he throughly debunks the revealations of the Bible, yet argues for a transcendent soul by the observation of catipillars to butterflys: "... for it is not more difficult to believe that we shall exist hereafter in a better state and form than at present, than that a worm should become a butterfly, and quit the dunghill for the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a fact." There is in existence, room to revere the real along with the unrealized ideal, however one is less likely to become disillusioned with the former than the latter. Thank you again, Michele, for your thoughtful contributions to this thread.