Easy Truth

I have heard the open assault argument too. But all of the theories I have heard of seem to have some arbitrary elements to them so I have not become enamored with any of the theories. When I see a philosopher gaining traction that promotes the idea that right and wrong are simply a human invention, as if that has no significance, I get worried. I don't know what to make of "there is no free will therefore we should ...". Should what? What is the point of assuring any freedom if you don't have freewill to exercise it? Maybe a dialogue is all that is needed, but I would assume this type of educated person is now set in their ideology and has already invested in their position and will not change. The next step is to counter each of their arguments which is painstakingly slow.

I would love to have some help refuting everything in this article. It is pretty hard hitting and many of my friends are asking me about it. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/1/2113850/-How-a-Child-Killer-Set-the-Stage-for-Today-s-Republicans-to-Revel-in-Cruelty I do have a refutation of the murder (Hickman) issue here https://aynrand.no/did-ayn-rand-admire-killer-william-hickman/

Not sure why you say "always rational". There would be no point in saying rational egoism if it was always rational. "Rational egoism—or rational self-interest—is the name that Ayn Rand gave to the moral code of her philosophy, Objectivism. This book is a guide to understanding rational egoism by means of your own observations and integrations." https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Understanding-Rational-Egoism.pdf

Yes, but first I was trying to find out if this guy is in fact on Objectivist's radar at all. I had not heard of him and then I have multiple people including a very few Objectivists bring him up to me. I was hoping that people here may know more about him than I. But I'm not sure if I understand the second part of your question, about to hone and develop the capacity to become the influencers. Are you talking about me and members of this forum enhancing that capability? If so, I'm all for it, and if you have some pointers on how to do that, I'm listening. At this point, with what I know about him, I can't categorize him as a Jordan Peterson, or Prager type person although he may be. What I see is a philosopher that has captured the imagination of very powerful and influential people like in the Davos crowd, Bill Gates, and Obama too. That is the reason for this inquiry into who this guy is and what does he stand for. It would be reasonable to expect him to be a strong influencer and I would like to know if he is friend for foe. I would be interested to know if you are threated by him at all?

Perhaps, but here he seems to attack the idea of rights.

This is more clear in his own words. What can a "new form of democracy" mean?

Not sure what a holographic diorama is. Is it a hologram of something within the universe?

This is a philosopher that is getting traction and seems concerning. On one hand he as some valid points to make but his attack on the existence of freewill may be problematic. Here I think the word liberal is used to mean classical liberal. In particular the belief that "you can't decide what desires you have", in one context (in the moment) may be true, but not over all. Harari wrote that although the idea of free will and the liberal values based upon it "emboldened people who had to fight against the Inquisition, the divine right of kings, the KGB and the KKK", it has become dangerous in a world of a data economy, where, he argues, in reality, there is no such thing, and governments and corporations are coming to know the individual better than they know themselves and "if governments and corporations succeed in hacking the human animal, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will."[34] Harari elaborates that "Humans certainly have a will – but it isn't free. You cannot decide what desires you have... Every choice depends on a lot of biological, social and personal conditions that you cannot determine for yourself. I can choose what to eat, whom to marry and whom to vote for, but these choices are determined in part by my genes, my biochemistry, my gender, my family background, my national culture, etc – and I didn’t choose which genes or family to have."[34] From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari

That's the easiest one people will understand. But you may have to also make the case that they are not derived from live babies pulled from mother's wombs or you'll lose traction.

They all indicate possession of something i.e. a "pairing of". But: My country My planet are two that can indicate ownership similar to wife or child. As in "belonging to". This type of ownership has an element of responsibility while the others don't. It's almost ownership of consequences. What you own, you are responsible for i.e. consequences of "it's" actions should have ramification to the owner. If it is profit, the owner profits, if it is loss, they lose. If your child breaks the neighbor's window, you own the problem. It's yours. Not like your eye color, but like standing in front of the judge and pleading your case.

My words are free. The whole question of ethics being based on "our nature", seems to ignore the evolutionary aspect. On one hand we are evolved to want this or that, we have free will to go against it. The fact that a woman can in fact get rid of a potential child within her body does not mean "she should". But should in what sense? A personal obligation, or is that to the point of having laws that will allow for incarceration of the mother and putting her in a straightjacket. Or is it simply that "no one may help her do it". Some will argue that "it is the law" to prevent her, but not specifically saying "tradition has some value, or some validity". "We've always done it that way and it works" or "we're used to it". It may in fact have some value, as in "when you don't have the facts, go by tradition". But then we used to use "bleeding" to cure the plague … we've always done it that way and because everyone does it. The question of abortion seems to have two easily identifiable points as to emergence of a (morally) protected life. One is conception, the other is birth. In both cases we have to also include a (morally) protected life, meaning ought to be protected. The question of "ought to" does not come up when you love something. We just protect it … period. It's when we don't love it that "ought to" becomes important.

I'll take your word for it.

It implies that "you collectively identify as …" so why don't you call her your exclusive comrade then? Or maybe you are carbon based economic units attempting to infest the universe. No it means you have an agreement. You have a right to something regarding her and she has a right to something regarding you. And there could be a breach of contract. So there are legal rights and ramifications involved. Ultimately that is what a marriage means, a legal contract delineating rights of action toward each other and toward OTHERS. Others don't have the same rights that you two have toward each other. You could also simply be lovers. Which also can have exclusivity rights involved. Even in poly polyamorous relationships there are agreements, i.e. possession of this or that right of action. So "mine" means "mine". Your wife means she belongs to you, "as wife". It's not a linguistic anomaly.

I'm not talking chattel or slavery or any absolute right to "them" but a particular right to interact in a certain way. Ownership rights ultimately is a definition of the boundaries between people. How would you differentiate you're wife from the neighbor's? Basically isn't there a message "don't cross this line regarding my wife"? It's unwritten but isn't it there? Ownership of anything indicates an exclusive way of relating to it, that others don't have and shouldn't have. I would argue this type of exclusive relationship between you and to your body exists that should not be violated by others. That is true of a mother of an unborn too.

There is in fact a form of ownership that a parent or guardian has. We say "my child", I have right to discipline "my child" but not "your child". As an aside, the same issue of ownership is true of "my wife" or "my husband". It is not that one can buy or sell or dispose, but it is a set of rights that one has over someone. Greek communists went against that saying that children do not belong to parents but to the state. And when mothers started hiding their children or helping them escape the country, mothers were executed. There is a form of ownership, but it has to be defined more clearly. I bring this up because I support the idea that abortion rights are ultimately about some form of ownership rights.

Keep in mind, how a society should deal with anything can end up meaning how "some in" society should be made to do it. This has to be defined more specifically. There is a difference between murder, hitting, physically abusing of a child vs. neglect. And there is a difference between neglect that is due to overwhelm vs. neglect due to whim. In all cases the child will suffer. In all cases, one would have to determine the punishment and how to carry that out. This would clarify the rights of the parties involved. Otherwise it is an admonition as you say.

Are we talking: Fetus inside the womb? Fetus outside the womb somehow being grown artificially? How for does one deal with this potential unjustified behavior (abortion etc.)? What kind of force is justified? Is it simply a personal failing kind of immorality or is it up to a criminal level to abort?

One of the problems that makes the issue extra difficult is that both in Objectivism and in Libertarianism, the role and place of children is not well defined. The other issue that you are making a case for "compassion" which on one hand is a behavioral but also an emotional response. If we go the evolutionary route, we have some monkey traits in us. The natural love of children is one of them. I have seen Christian apologists argue against atheists by saying "If there was no Christian morality, you would eat your children". And yet we don't … and we won't. Because, I would agree, it is not our nature. But why is it not our nature? The answer must be related to evolution. That answer is a "species" survival argument. Most here don't seem to want to follow that line of thinking and emphasize it, but it all seems to fall into that area. We are not ALL cannibals all of the time, because won't survive. We are not all sociopaths because societies can't form in the first place because of the anti social behaviors. So we have a nature that promotes our species to survive. That desire may be inherent like the desire to eat, and the desire to have sex most likely is part of that. But that is simply motivation, i.e. we are motivated to do that by nature. If survival of the species is objectively a human value, then we should take care of children and other humans, every chance we get. Boydstun brought up that Branden had said something positive about preserving one's species. I don't see it as being used as a core argument, while justifying sacrifice for a child may hinge on it. Furthermore, I would put forth the idea that emotions do count in ways that we may not allow (as Objectivists). As in, there is more to do around the question of "where do emotions in fact fit in" within the thought process. Not that we can feel our way to the truth, but our feelings must have a say in the final conclusion of the next steps we will take in our lives. So the current argument is something like: it would be disgusting, heinous, to willingly/on purpose, abandon/walk away from a helpless child. That is not natural. Fine. But if you see many children being abandoned do you have the right to force someone to take care of them is still the question. Even acknowledging our natural tendencies we don't have that right. Children don't have that positive right, just as adults don't have it. But they do have the negative right, as in, that of not being harmed by force. Love should not be legislated, as to make it duty. Love is a natural response and what is loved is in the eyes of the beholder. At the core of liberty is to not love, or to not respond as if you love someone. Meaning there is a right to indifference. It's just not mentioned very often.

Yes, that would be a clearer environment to determine the morality. I think the religious types will make that case, that the fetus should have a right to be taken care of. Meaning if no one wants its, it would be right/okay to force someone to take care of it. Is a straw man hypothetical... like asking what a moral society for psychopaths or cannibals should look like. There are examples, I believe when the Communist government of Romania fell, there were orphanages of retarded and deformed children that were abandoned. Some will argue that a crime was committed. Some simply let it go. There are child gangs in Brazil and films of children taking care of each other in North Korea. SL this is an are that you should make the case that emotions do count sometimes. That what is cringeworthy in fact is worth paying attention too. That it does have a bearing on determining morality and the law. Now as Objectivists we argue against "you are your brother's keeper". But when it comes to children, something is different. Meaning "we are their keeper". Or are we? If so, let's make the case and say it plainly.

So to be clear, you would argue that a society that has no one willing to take care of a child should have laws that would force someone to care for, or to pay for the care of the child. I'm just trying to get the position spelled out so that I can get the principles behind it.

No (although that is a descriptive right i.e. capability), I'm trying to clarify the moral aspect (what should be). I would argue 'rights' only confer to individuals, emphasizing that they are individuated, not inside another human's body. That is the nuance I am stuck on. We could examine what rights exist if the fetus is growing outside of the mother's body.

It's very politically incorrect and career ending. There are other things that can be asked like, why are you okay with eating "veal" when you know how the animal has been treated all it's life. Vegans have the most integrity in that regard. I am not completely vegan, although I know it is very healthy. Or shooting frogs for sport, or any other animal. There are things that will cause some people to cringe that will not cause others to cringe. And there are things that one does, that are cringeworthy, but they are done anyway. So a principle has to be used rather than the emotional response. There are also nuances to the question as in infanticide via commission (killing it) vs. omission (not taking care of it). Are they the same crime in your mind? I am interested in finding out if you are taking the position that the infant has a right to NOT be omitted/ignored/not cared for? Which I am sympathetic to, but I still don't have a principle that I can rely on. Like the child has a right to be taken care of. Does that moral right exist?

I see, so it is the law of the land. Meaning, currently, the mother does not have complete control after the viability stage.

Descriptively, that may be the case. If this was a moral statement of how it should be, there would be no political conflict, the issue would be settled, the mother has the right. End of story. Is this to say that we shouldn't bother debating the issue because the practical issues make it a moot point? In some way, the fact that there is freedom of movement between states also makes this conflict a moot point in that the hypothetical mother can move to a state more sympathetic to her views and that too implies that the mother has the final say. But in terms of law of the land, if the law was all encompassing for all citizens in this country, viability shouldn't be enforced, not simply because it is impractical, but it is immoral to force a human to use their body in a certain way against their will. The only way that is undisputed is if it is done to defend another person that is a separate entity individuated from a mother, outside of her body. While inside someone's body and dependent on her, she should be the final say (at least) based on her ownership rights of her body and what is inside it.

The key word here is "requiring". As in, they have a right to require. I was sympathetic to this view at the beginning of the thread, but right now I will argue against it on the grounds that it is an invasion of the body of the mother. It is at odds with her right of ownership of her body. In practice, it will amount to forcibly, using physical force, to cause the mother to give birth … a certain way prescribed by others. It becomes even worse if it was due to rape or incest. The position is about the rights of others to take care of the viable human life that is at stake. In a sense, it is a right to "love", i.e. to nurture and take care of, that seems to be the center of the conflict. When a person says you don't have a right to abort, they are saying you are interfering with my right to love the child. Does a right to love exist? Meaning should it exist? Or is it irrelevant?