Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Easy Truth

  1. Yes, it is existential. So why don't they make a lasting peace with their enemies which are gaining in population and technology? Israel is evading that reality. But my interest lies in not being dragged into a nonsensically initiated war. I would agree with Grames that Zionism cannot be a justification for anything.
  2. How does one determine the truth about this? Because if in fact, ALL people in Gaza are in fact murderous criminals, then yes, they should be in a prison, maybe some should be killed. But no society is completely full of psychopaths. One can reasonably make the case that Gaza has a society in which its leadership is promoting its citizens to kill Israeli people. Based on that threat Israel has a right to use force against them. Does this in fact justify collective punishment? What you say (that Gaza is under the control of Hamas) seems to be correct but there is a nuance: "Israeli-Egyptian blockade that has been in place since 2007. This blockade has resulted in severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, making it difficult for residents to access basic necessities and opportunities. " "it is surrounded by state of the art electronic surveillance system set up and controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel. The border crossings are all controlled by Israel who dictates what goes in and out (people and goods). There is one border crossing into Egypt that has been shut down since 2013 and opened very few times since then. Israel controls everything land, air and sea, borders are patrolled by heavy armored vehicles and tanks. At some point baby milk and other goods were forbidden to enter Gaza by Israel" If true, this is in fact provocation of a population. But is this state of affairs what created murderers? Did Hamas create the frustration inside Gaza? Hamas was preferred by the Israeli government in order to weaken the PLO. So, it seems like some convoluted errors in policy have created such an explosive situation. "That is a hard if not impossible balance to strike year after year, especially as Gaza's internal pressures mount. Its 2 million inhabitants are packed into an area roughly the size of Philadelphia, 80 percent of them impoverished and 46 percent unemployed. Some 108,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage flow daily from the Gaza Strip into the Mediterranean Sea, and potable water can be hard to come by. Against this backdrop and absent any path to something better for Gazans, no military strategy to contain the violence can succeed in the long run. Without a safety valve, Gaza was bound to explode." "once all the killing is done, Israel will have to do something even harder if it's to have any hope of preventing the next war and the one after that: It will need to rebuild Gaza into something better than it was. That means ensuring Gaza's inhabitants have a chance at economic prosperity, potentially even at the risk of loosening the blockade. That means ensuring Gaza's inhabitants have political options apart from Hamas and the corrupt and pliant Palestinian Authority. And it means rebuilding the social fabric of Gaza, which will likely be even more tattered after what could be a devastating war that could leave the enclave that much more hostile to Israel." This ends up putting the ultimate solution or responsibility in the hands of Israel. It is not altruistic but rather ... practical. https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/the-inevitable-ongoing-failure-of-israels-gaza-strategy.html https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Gaza-called-the-largest-open-air-prison-and-when-did-you-first-hear-this-phrase
  3. Well, the contradictions make the situation very complicated. Hamas is a "movement" and is supposedly elected. There is a hierarchy, a leadership, and a charter that negotiators use. It seems that the current Israeli administration has made the case that "Palestinian" is not a real thing. Yet Hamas is believed to exist within the geographical area of Gaza, likely a minority of the people that live there. Ideally. It seems like the objective is that Hamas will be uprooted and not voted for again. Yes, looks like Israel is even more entrenched now. I am wondering what the position of the US should be in all this.
  4. If 1500 people are willing to give up their lives for it, by default, Palestine must be a "thing". Also, killing 1900 Israelis does justify the word genocide on the part of Hamas. That attack on Israel was a heinous act that I had thought either mentally ill people or extremely desperate people could do. I am assuming what I have heard and seen is true. But it seems like some mastermind planned it. What I am afraid of is there are such horrible people out there in charge and the West is vulnerable. As far as I know, Hamas has not threatened the US as of yet, but I hope we are not creating that situation. The other realization is that those "horrible people" who are in charge of this "are" Hamas, and perhaps the leadership in Iran. That would mean the population that they control must be too terrified to overthrow them. After all, we see what they are capable of. Yes, which implies that the mastermind wanted this state of affairs. I suspect that the hope is that Hamas will be destroyed as ISIS was. I don't know how similar that is because Hamas was a resistance movement that was voted for ... (Democratically?). Bottom line shouldn't we consider the aspirations of Palestinians as a "real" thing for our own survival? Because we can't wipe them all out and rid the world of them.
  5. Of course. It can take time. Or maybe you are at the final stages of your struggle. It's like one is digging a tunnel out of a mountain, you don't know when you will hit the air. The next strike of the ax or thousands more. But you have to dig as you are doing. The wonderful thing about Objectivism is that it reflects a world that makes sense. It's not fraudulent. It's about honest discourse about reality. Ultimately that is what is needed for healing psychologically. Keep in mind, that is the philosophy itself. Not the practitioners. In my experience, there are rational and irrational Objectivists. The philosophy is like the American Constitution. It gives direction but some will practice it allowing contradictions in their "practice". Then the question is "How are you dealing with it?". Some of it is about being inspired by art. And then there is expression. How are you expressing your emotions? What you say here seems coherent on this forum. You are visible to me and the struggle is a familiar one. But what about artistic expression? Debilitating emotions have to be expressed to move out, they clutter up one's psyche. And there is a tremendous risk as many will not appreciate or understand one's artistic expression. But it's honest, some will respect it, and it's a breakthrough.
  6. The emotions are multilayered and complex. Mainstream, Objectivism has not attacked the problem from a psychological angle but rather from a logical one, and that has limited effectiveness. The problem is that one can't rely on "relaxation" or "mind not wandering" to relieve the emotional puzzle. You have to be tense about some things and confused about some to allow new ideas in. Something, some feelings, some thoughts have to be jarred loose. I used to be in the space you described. The ultimate understanding was that I could be happy, whatever "happy" meant to me. But there is a payoff, a motive for being stuck or ruminating. There is value to that. The issue is do you know what's so good about it? Because if there was nothing good about it, you would not be doing it.
  7. I read what you wrote and enjoyed it. The umph, is you. What you are going through does not get addressed through ruminating (purely mentally) about your situation. It's like an ice wall in your path that you need to melt. The other side of the wall is what is beautiful, wonderful, pleasurable, and fantastic. But the wall will not let you reach out and touch the magnificent, or be moved by it. The umph is being moved by the beauty. But it requires that you allow it to move you. That is a great risk. But the wonderful "what" can be taken away, and destroyed and you are left with the deep pain of loss, disappointment, humiliation, etc. Here one has to express emotions to melt the wall. The repressed painful emotions are the wall. Consistent writing helps, but art is the great melting tool for that ice wall in your way. Striving for what is beautiful is what creates the umph. But as you say, knowing it is not enough. What you are doing, writing about the problem is effective if you keep at it. Discussing it is usually helpful as long as you are not told to shut up. But knowing, feeling the dream beyond the wall is what melts the wall. The ice is protecting you against the evils of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is sometimes, good and sometimes not good. There are instances of enthusiasm that you regret. So you can't simply count on enthusiasm. It's the passion for " the what" that counts. But the inspiration, the initiation is you. You are the spark, the start, the initiator. The cause. You are cause. Being reminded that I am "cause" immediately is the necessary jolt.
  8. If it were simply a thought crime, it should and probably would be thrown out. But Trump acted a certain way and the prosecution is trying to provide proof that there was an intention to do it.
  9. The preservation of the human species has an inherent value? Or is it that species solidarity is emotionally based?
  10. I disagree with your (apparent) stance on infant consciousness. Newborns have already gained perceptual experience in utero, and will have some experiential knowledge of the ambient language, which is essential to developing full adult rationality. It’s not just that an infant will eventually develop concepts, it’s than they have already started to develop their conceptual consciousness prenatally, which a rabbit never does. That's up for debate and a scientific question, but it is clear that humans do have the potential for rationality that other animals have not shown to have in the sense of creating scientific progress and large-scale civilizations. So humans, given the chance can improve in this sense while rabbits etcetera repeat the same strategy of survival generation after generation. But why doesn't a rabbit have no rights, as in it does not have a right to NOT be murdered? As in you raise it, play with it, love it, and then ... eat it. But not a child. In both cases, there are emotions like empathy or disgust if the entity (child or rabbit) is killed, but in the case of a child, there is a moral principle at play. The only difference is the potential for rationality that the child has and the rabbit does not have.
  11. No, I'm not claiming otherwise, only that a baby at a certain point has the consciousness of a rabbit. But the rabbit does not have that potential.
  12. There are two aspects of rights and both do not apply to children. I think that has been the issue. One aspect of "rights" is a moral principle that protects individuals from the initiation of force or coercion by others. A second aspect is that it is a foundation for voluntary interactions, individualism, and respect for individual freedom. A child, just like an adult, has a need for this protection. So in this case, the security that prevents aggression is needed which is an aspect of rights. But the other aspect of rights, the freedom of action to survive is not a necessary requirement for a child in the sense that he cannot use that aspect. But the question still stands: What is the key element of a human that epistemologically provides for this protection? Is it the potential for rationality (I emphasize potential because humans are potentially rational, not always rational (this is the case for both children and adults))... Because why doesn't a rabbit have rights? It should also be specified that the fact that the child has rights does not mean "his dependency" is a requirement for others to take care of it. The "taking care of" aspect should be voluntary.
  13. No, you are making the argument that applies to adults. Children even now, don't have a right to sign contracts. They don't have all rights and there are reasons for that. Not ALL humans have rights. Those who do have them are based on some reasoning. A similar reasoning has to apply to children. What is it?
  14. Yes, the thread has brought up potentiality and species arguments. But the species argument is that the species will die if we don't take care of the children and it has its limitations when more children can in fact be taken care of. The claim is that human life has an inherent value, which I see a lot. The potentiality argument has problems when including the abortion issue. The only logical one that I see is in terms of the rights of competing caretakers in the case of children. Even though it may be hard, there is pleasure and satisfaction in raising a child or enhancing a life. And it is frightening to think that people can simply kill a child as if throwing a toy away. And from a practical and descriptive stance, it is only the adults (or caretakers (i.e. older children maybe)) that can do anything about it anyway. Here abandonment, or boycotting is in fact a violent act. But that only applies in the case of a child. Not in the case of the elderly because they have had a chance to create some safety for a long time.
  15. I have heard the argument "You abandoning the child you created will create a burden for the rest of us". I have also heard the idea that if you create a child, there is a contractual relationship between you and the child. That you are "agressing" on their right to be fed based on that contractual relationship. But a right of a child to survive is meaningless in the sense that a right is like being "allowed to". I have the right to x means I should not be opposed to x. A child cannot survive, therefore a right to survive sort of becomes meaningless. Which is the problem I'm trying to address.
  16. Okay, a four-month-old has a right to his own life. The question is does that obligate you as a person who is NOT the father, the obligation to take care of the child? Why is that an issue? Because for the baby: freedom of action in a social context is limited to freedom to breathe and defecate at that point. There is no other action it can do to survive except be cute with its voice and smiles etc. So "to survive" for the child means, to make someone else "help" it survive. You may in fact take care of that child, but it is because you want to. I argue that it is not primarily because of some principle that is motivating you. It would be painful for you to see the child destroyed. Can you at least admit that your emotions will have a large influence on your decision in such a case? You use the phrase self-evident and I'm not sure why you say it as rights are not self-evident. So I must be misunderstanding something.
  17. And that is the hold-up. A four-month-old can't use his freedom to survive. The only argument I can see is the survival of species argument. Other than that you are invited to make the case. Also, you realize that a potential argument goes into abortion issues.
  18. Then how would you define the requirement to survive to mean? As far as the right to "not" be murdered, that is a requirement of a life worth living. I would rather emphasize that you and I have to figure that out, not objectivism. We have the tools based on objectivist thought, nevertheless, what is true, is what is true. The fundamental issue that I have a problem with is the fact that a right is a freedom of action to survive. Required freedom. But a 4-month-old given that freedom cannot survive. So the freedom to act rationally does not apply to a baby. Therefore a right to life for a baby ends up meaning surviving as long as its lungs and heart etc. work (meaning not interfering with its natural and bodily survival activity). But we want the child to be taken care of. In this case, rights apply to the caretakers or potential caretakers. Most humans will "make it work", pool their resources, or volunteer to help the child survive. Most humans want to protect that child. But that is deeply emotionally motivated. Now, is this an argument for an inherent value in helping the species survive? It sure looks like it. Is it also an argument that in some cases, emotions are in fact a tool of ethical determination i.e. cognition?
  19. It may or may not be. The only position that I have seen is that "In a general sense, Objectivists hold that children should be legally protected from abuse and from extremes of parental neglect. There is agreement also that by and large children should have more freedom to make choices as they grow up. " https://www.atlassociety.org/post/childrens-rights-ii#:~:text=Answer%3A In a general sense,choices as they grow up. But that does not go into the philosophical basis. That's your empathy basis. Suppose a parent were not empathetic with the child. Presumably the child still has a right not to be killed by the parent. So we ask: What are the bases of that right? Presumably, they should have that right. But then, any living thing may have that right. A rabbit for instance. But a child is a potential rational being. But more importantly, it will break one's heart for it to be some other way. .The murderer would have bad outcomes and being murdered is not what I want. My moral right stems from the fact that the "right" is beneficial to me and ALL like me. All who want to flourish. (not the suicidal ones). Having a right not to be murdered or stolen from or physically harmed stems from the fact that I need that "safety". And so do you, and so does everyone else.
  20. Proper governance, or morality, is actually of benefit. If we say murder is wrong, and then turn around and say "But in this case" it would benefit, something is not making sense. Why would murder be of benefit? Short term, it may remove an annoyance. But here we have to include a hierarchy of values that you brought up in another thread. Murder may not be a good example to support your argument. To kill without any defensive purpose is to lose opportunities with that person and to lose connection with trustable loving people. Who would want to be around a person that could kill without provocation? Any example brought of a "murder" that benefits is going to be contradictory. I would argue that morality is consequentialist in every case. In fact, it has to be. A morality that is not consequentialist is by definition ... purposeless.
  21. Descriptively speaking, a parent that loves their child will not kill their child. A parent that hates or fears their child might. If the child is evil to be of harm to everyone, like having a disease that will only go away if you kill the child, the parent or potentially vulnerable people should have the right to do so.
  22. I agree David but the issue of contract has to come up in order to illuminate the moral responsibilities that are NON-CONTRACTUAL. Like not murdering, or not committing fraud. These limitations to freedom of action are requirements to surviving without unnecessary conflict between individuals. They are not based on an agreement. But their acceptance is very likely if a formal agreement was necessary. As far as responsibility goes, morality is consequentialist. If you harm a child, the consequences are "bad for you in the long run", for it to be wrong. That has to be at the core of it. You bring up personal moral responsibility. Can you elaborate on that in this context?
×
×
  • Create New...