tadmjones

Obliterate the current Iranian regime, and threaten to nuke Mecca if anybody does anything in the name of Allah other than bow, pray, and not eat pork.

I fail to see a differnce between 'found' objective law and 'made' objective law , as it concerns 'objective law'. How would finding it and then proclaiming it 'made' change the principle of the law or statute?

Legal reimbursement would be provided by the neighbors insurance company. Civil courts would then be utitlised by the insurance company to gain a judgement against the party the court finds to be responsible, yes?

Might not this be a classic case in helping to understanding induction, at what point in human history did man realize sexual intercourse results in reproduction?

    I did not mean to imply anything, just a poor attempt at semantic humor about you not caring about the responses to your posts. I am less objective than Archimedes when it comes to boats and floating, he figured it out , I say whatever

At first blush it seems to me an exercise to teach students with an assumed American/Judeo/Christian backround some kind of cultural relevancy a la how do think a student with assumed islamic backround feel when seeing their symbols/ icons denigrated. But that is of course just my first thought without knowing the intentions of the instructor.

Whatever you think about it, I really don’t care, apart from amusing myself with this little post. heh, pseudo monosexuality, mental masturbation

In deciding whether or not a given piece is in fact art, does one include the intentions of the artist if those intentions are articulated? Where does the 'onus' fall in proclaiming art? On the producer of the piece or the viewer?

What would a man who is 'conscious but having no conceptual ability' be? I am prejudice toward concretes, my bad, could you give an example? Because if a man were conscious, given man's specific kind of consciousness he would have to be conscious with a conceptual ability, though due to injury or genetic defect that faculty would/could operate on a diminished capacity.

In a LFCS would murder be defined as the intentional killing of a human being? If yes, then the definition of human would be a medical/biologic one, not philosophic. If you want to maintain that an infant is the same as a man , it must be on a biologic basis. To say that is rather based on an undeveloped faculty is to claim the potential is equivalent to the actual.

So what are really asking? Aren't you asking what the source of rights are? Or are you trying catagorize abnormalities in humans and then try and find a threshold that you think demonstrates the inability to conceptualize and as soon as that limit is met rights are recognized or withdrawn? Take a real world example, someone like Hawkings without the advantages of technology , were you to come upon him and found his drooling distasteful enough you could , in a LFC society off him with little fear of consequences? Now I understand the fact is he does possess a conceptual faculty(heh understatement) but his conceptualness is not obvious sans technology.

Btw I do not agree that a human wouldn't have rights.

I suppose infants as a class could be considered that way, but the question of whether or not a specific infant would possess that faculty would , I think, be a question for a medical diagnosis. If an infant that is 'normal' has rights based a potentiality, how does it gain something(rights) that only apply to an actuality(fully conceptual)? Are you saying that in a LFC society, the penalty for killing an adult mongoloid should be different because they are less human? Should the penalty be less for killing an infant or child up to any specific age be different than killing a 'normal' adult? My point is the rights of man/human are philosophically determined, but isn't 'human' a biologically/medically defined term?

Why would infants have rights in an LFC society?

I don' think that makes it any less a borderline test case for rights. But probably along the lines of a perpetual guardianship, akin perhaps to what would be put in place to handle orphaned children.

thenelli01 I'm confused as to the OP , do you mean to ask what the status of rights holding/protection would be in a fully rational (O'ist?)society?

Without advocating for a mind/body dichotomy or duality or suggesting the nonexistence of mind, are we sure nonreversible brain damage or coma victims are not conceptually aware? The brain really really seems to be the 'seat of the mind' I mean Really seems to be , but are we sure?

The right to life is not something granted. What would it mean to not have the right? Do you ask simply if (big O) Objectivism has an official position on this specific matter?

mdeggs As to the snippet , I am not sure where that particular quote comes from, but while being interviewed on Donahue, Rand spoke about public education and how its spending relates to what should be priorities. I won't provide a link to youtube , cause I don't think I can.

Since inalienable means can't be given away, I think one does not enjoy those rights( in the full)unless one has sufficient mental capacity. This is obviously a vague criteria and probably speaks more to the philosophy of law argument, certainly a border line case type of reasoning. But in a short answer I would say no, mentally incapacitated individuals do not enjoy rights in the same manner as those without such limiting factors.

, until they learn to be clear about the separation between sex and love, and to know that they really are separate concepts. 20+ years of marriage does the trick.....I kid, i kid

Miller re #40 I meant intent is it applies to the criminality of the action(s), not the morality of such actions.

Whether or not a rational government would be required to stop child abuse requires that the action(s) in question be objectively defined as abusive or harmful. If parents try and instill in their children, their own religious beliefs are they purposely acting to do the child harm, or are they doing what they think is helpful? Intent has to enter in the determination of the abuse.