Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Easy Truth

  1. What I'm focusing on is the aspect of property where x belongs to y. Y is the owner. Y says this is mine, not yours. Maybe I should say "that which is owned" instead of property. after all, if you own it, it is yours. The phrase "you own it" also means, you are responsible for some aspect of "it". You are the manager, so you own the department. You own the problem means - deal with it. Your daughter is your daughter, not mine. When she behaves in a way that you think is improper, she is not free to do that ... even if I disagree. As it should be. She does not have all the rights that you do ... because she is not ready. But potentially, she is just like you, when it comes to your freedom of actions. At the core of your behaviors toward her is not that "she is an end in itself". It is "You love her". The fact that you want the best for her, or worry about her, etc. is not because you want to save the species or the country or do what your parents expect, it is because you love her. You want to do it. You are drawn to it. You are responsible for her and you benefit from her happiness. The consequence of you not doing things to her benefit is that you will be hurt. If someone hurts her, it will hurt you. It's simple as that. "You're rights" in regards to her being infringed on. She is being hurt as a potential entity that deserves the same rights as you. But right now, she does not deserve all the rights. So she should not have her hand slapped by a stranger for no reason. Why? Because I would not want to be in her place. It's decency in that sense that requires it. One can make lofty abstract reasons like society would not flourish if we allow harm to come to children, but in terms of immediate reaction, it's empathy, it's indignation, it is anger, and pity and love toward helpless children that is the motive. Rights are a requirement for an "individual", at this point, I think it means a potentially rational entity. (which includes us and children).
  2. Agreed, but is this the gist of the argument regarding abandoning your responsibility in a disorderly way ... that it will cause harm to your neighbor? Then I would say the question is around the nature of "individual" in this context. Is a child a potential individual or an individual? Is the child an entity that should have the rights of an adult because it is potentially an adult? If so, one should say, the purpose of government is the protect the rights of individuals and potential individuals. In libertarian though a child is chattel as far as I understand. In objectivism, I have missed it addressed in sufficient detail. But I will stick to my original argument ... that if children are not protected, it will make you sick, emotionally that is.
  3. Why is that the "proper" concern of the government? In other words, the population would agree to such an arrangement, but what is the principle behind it, David?
  4. I agree, but is it simply because children are an end in themselves that justifies the enforcement? What happens when this line of argument is used to justify forced taxation to enforce these protections? There is a value to such protections for children. The child would appreciate it, in hindsight when he or she understands. But the caretaker, the lover understands ... NOW! And that is my point. Their ability to ultimately enforce such a right exists right now. The child does not have that ability.
  5. The complication is around children, not adults. No. No. No. No.
  6. I hold that it should not be possible to torture an innocent child at any age. If you are on an island with multiple children and you see one wants to and will eventually kill another child, or maybe kill you when you are asleep, barring no other alternatives, you may have to kill the child. But if you ask me why should an innocent child "not be harmed", I would not say it is because of the trader principle, or even that if we did that the human species would not survive. I would say it because it is disgusting to me. But I would like to have a clear argument that encapsulates "why", that is devoid of emotional attachment. I would not want to be in the child's shoes, completely abandoned and defenseless. It is empathy, or perhaps the golden rule. It is to my benefit that I live in a world where people take into consideration how it affects others. They would take me into consideration too. That is the only argument I can think of right now. As far as a repudiation of responsibility, kind of like "falling out of love". If there is no agreement, the agreement rule (contracts) can't be used. So you fell in love, and now you feel differently. When you fell in love, you promised yourself you would treat the person a certain way. Now you feel differently. Well, it will hurt the other person. Again the responsibility should be based on the consequences. If you walk away, what is the return on investment, what will you lose or gain, and what is to your benefit? If so, then the child's rights become secondary. Descriptively, they have no say, no control, no leverage except for the pain you would feel if you did abandon them. I would say, they should not be abandoned because it would bother me. It feels bad. I don't like it.
  7. A form of property can be many things. You can own a house outright, or you can rent it. It is your property in both cases. One is temporary with more restrictions than the other. I am not speaking legally, simply the issue of ownership as in possession, belonging. Your life belongs to you. A consciousness that can create (a suitable life) and requires certain freedoms to do that. That goes for anyone that wants to live, amongst other humans. "Can you dispose of it (kill it) as you wish? ", descriptively (as in not morally), yes you can. You are bigger, stronger and you can abandon. But should you? If you love the child it is not to your benefit. The answer is easily "no". I can argue that the child's right to live is the right of any human to live. In this case, an eventual adult's right. But it is not an adult. So when does a potential adult gain rights? Indeed, a child should not have the right to drive a car at 4 years old. Why? Because it will likely hurt someone (or itself). But the desire to protect a child from hurting itself comes from the love and interest of adults around it. A child has some basic understanding of what rights are in the sense that it knows what belongs to it or not. It might be able to respect boundaries. The right to self-governance is given to it by adults ... slowly. But the fact is that children are cute. One feels empathy, compassion, etc. Some objectivists will bring up the "trader principle" as the reason for their value. I can see that as an attempt to ignore the emotional reasons. But the caretakers are the possessors, the lovers, the protectors... as if protecting their own property—that which is theirs.
  8. And 1. My child implies ownership. Not yours, not ours, but "mine", belonging to me. That is the property right I am talking about. It exists in every culture. When the communists went against that, that your children do not belong to you, they lost a lot of support. 2. As to deliberateness, I wanted the child, I created it, I love it, so I will do everything in my power to help it grow, etc. No duty, just love, and desire. I assume the case you are talking about is they wanted ... and then they changed their mind. This is certainly "bad" for the child. The implication is "You wanted it, you are responsible for it". But descriptively, we walk away from things. It is only in the case of breach of contract or fraud that it is when this action( walking away) is "not allowed". So I tend to think that proponents of this responsibility see a sort of contract in place. Now, I would be empathetically hurt since I would not want to be in the place of that child. That kind of pain should not exist in this world. I would be disgusted at parents who do that. But let us say, I see a couple that does not want the child, starve it, beat it, while I love the child, do I have the right to grab the child and run? I think in a certain way ... I do. I can't define it yet, but where there are no police, I would take the kid and run and explain myself when I absolutely have to. This is where I say it's emotional. And I am okay with the fact that my reasoning is emotional.
  9. Ultimately "man has rights" implies that every "man (however defined)" should be unopposed in certain actions i.e. free to do certain things. The need to survive in society (two or more people) gives rise to the rights requirement. That which cannot survive on its own is dependent on the caretaker. So the argument seems to be that if you have created a dependent entity with a need to survive, then you are responsible for it. And I would ask why? You remove a piece of cancer out of your body, it is dependent on you to survive. You plant a tree, it is dependent on you to survive. You bring home a stray kitten, separating it from its mother, etc. My fundamental point is that we can't say that dependency alone creates an obligation. I have heard arguments like "You create a burden on others by bringing in a child that you can't take care of". That can be considered a form of aggression. From a consequentialist point of view, you are responsible if you love that entity. Why are you responsible? Because if you don't take care of it and it is harmed or dies, YOU HURT. It ties into your rational self-interest to take care of this dependent entity, being a child, your elderly parent, your friend who is unconscious, etc. It is your emotional response: "love" that causes that obligation. As far as a child being property, descriptively speaking, you are pregnant on an island all alone. The child is born. You can do whatever with it. But prescriptively speaking, what should you be doing if you don't love the child at all? Without any empathetic feelings of pity or compassion, it's just a rock to be left there. I would cringe at the idea of leaving a child behind but I admit that it is emotional on my part. I can't successfully argue for it.
  10. In this case, I would say that one has to make a "human species" argument. As in, if we did not enforce these responsibilities, the species would perish. Otherwise, one has a responsibility to nurture their child because they want to, they would love it, that it has meaning and fulfillment to them. Otherwise, I would love to know what the "complete" argument is. I think the only argument I can understand is the "caretaker's rights". Once a parent gives away a powerless child that is incapable of survival, it is unowned property. The moment someone claims the child, that person's rights ought to be respected. Now, SL would disagree that they can be property. Also in the case of a child of perhaps 6 or 7 that survives like in Brazil's inner city gangs or North Korea where they huddle with other children and somehow survive, other children, take them under their wings. They ultimately belong to someone until they CAN belong to themself. All the protections of a child are the caretaker's right's. A potential rational being is not a rational being. I suspect that SL is not being strictly logical in this case, he has children and it is an emotional reaction on his part. I don't necessarily disagree with him or you, but I posit that to some extent your positions are emotional. If so and if I were you, I would push the idea that emotions in some cases are in fact a valid cognitive tool. Also, we have to be clear about a non-rational child vs a rational child. A non-rational one would be a weak, incapable child. This area also relates to people incapable of surviving, the old, the feeble, etc. If dependency somehow creates a legally enforceable responsibility, then altruism has some legs. David, you are well versed in the legal aspects, but I speak as someone who does not know the law, I only work with the moral aspects. More in terms of "what should the law be?"
  11. But what is a right to life in this context? A right implies, no opposition to your living. But a child can't live?
  12. Yes but why? Based on what principle? Is there some contract here? Between who?
  13. I can see the logic if I hear this as another way of saying "Love creates obligations/required actions". But I still don't understand "what is the right of the child". And why? The child (descriptively) won't protect itself enough to survive. It is dependent on another. This obligation becomes voluntary when there is love. It becomes involuntary when there is NO love or compassion. Is the implication that you must love all children? My quandary centers around the issue of "why should a child ... inherently have rights"? Other than our emotional reaction to the fact that they are cute or our empathetic response to them getting hurt. Meaning it is emotional. Why not just say, they should have rights because it disgusts me if they don't?
  14. A hierarchy does not seem to be enough. As in, where does "likelihood" fit into the hierarchy? I would agree that by knowing all the facts, one should be able to construct a hierarchy. But similar to a chess game, the permutations can become too great if you want to know every eventual outcome. And once you come up with what is better and what is better than that, on and on, in theory, you should be able to find "the best" or "the best ones" (as in most important). We have to choose when to stop asking. I am sad to say that for myself, my decision ends up being somewhat emotional. As in "what feels right". And yes, I ought to get in trouble for saying that, but it is the truth.
  15. What is your answer to your own question? Are nation states a priori immoral ?
  16. Yes, and that does not negate the fact that you do not accept it. As in you can also read a book, quote it, and disagree with it.
  17. Yes, and the question is how does that fit in with an objective hierarchy of values? Why does that become the most important?
  18. Good point! The one I see most often is the issue of open immigration, disagreed to by Peikoff vs. Yaron. There seem to be two contexts that have to be put forth in discussion. 1. Provided that corruption (evil) exists (or will exist), what is an improvement? vs. 2. A world without corruption would be like X #2 is the clear and easier case, but it has to be identified as "I am speaking in terms of a world without evil". The one "hierarchical" issue I was very puzzled by was Ayn Rand saying "Don't vote for Reagan".
  19. There are several angles of this that I focus on. 1. Issues based on property ownership i.e. That which belongs to him. -His life -His inheritance One question would be has he initiated force against you/your property? It seems that you assume that what belongs to him, belongs to you based on some moral principle. If so, what is it? I don't have a right to change someone's life for the better. 2. Threat to your welfare. Why can't you avoid him? Is that your doing or his doing? Does he hold a gun to your head to stay? If he does, yes it would be moral as a self-defense measure to retaliate. But again, has he initiated the situation and prevented you from having a different life? 3. His life qua human is over ... obviously not. That is another's opinion. Kind of a dangerous authoritarian perspective. The issue of tempting an addict in Objectivist circles is a little cloudy. I have seen Objectivists that will claim addiction does not exist and that one has free will no matter what. I would argue that addiction does exist and that some are vulnerable. A threat/tempting them is not the same as a threat to a non-addict. But he also does have free will. He could change at some point even if not highly probable, there is a chance. The other issue is the positions against "the golden rule" that I have seen in the forum. I could use the golden rule as a perspective as in "Would I like to be killed if I were in his situation"? If I were, I would prefer it if someone could break through my thought process and I would also argue that it is possible. Otherwise, I would kill myself. There are many that are socialists or authoritarian in some way that I would like to get rid of them. But I don't want to live in a world where the freedom to kill because of "inconvenience" is the norm. I prefer it is illegal, and to be considered "wrong"/immoral. Therefore I would not want to do it and I would encourage another NOT to do it.
  20. Libel protection will not necessarily protect a CEO. When a corporation loses a legal case, the shareholders suffer and they, in turn, react to the CEO. Any legal protection that is given to a CEO is known. It is not sprung on us, it is not a fraud. A bank will not lend money to a corporation or LLC without collateral. You can choose to do or avoid doing business with any corporation. If you are forced to do business with a corporation, the "forcing" must be stopped. But more importantly, you have to make the case that you are being "forced" to do business with it. Are we being forced by corporations to do business with them? When we do business with a corporation, a "country", or a partnership, the entire entity should be held responsible. The problem is "they" usually are a large group of people that can vote and that will finance voting which causes governmental collusion. Not the business entity concept itself. The crony capitalism we have right now allows for harmful decisions because of illegitimate protection obtained by collusion with the government. It's not the idea of "government" or "corporation" that is at fault. Collusion or legal corruption or corporate welfare via the government is due to the morality of collectivism and utilitarianism that permeates the culture.
  21. There has historically always been some partisan bias in the law but not to the point of creating a collapse in the long run. After all, the Constitution has not been followed for a very long time. Individual rights are trashed routinely. It's been dangerous for a long time. The case Dershowitz would have to make is that it is extraordinarily different now. He can't say "Here is a completely innocent man being treated like a criminal". If he does, he's wrong. Trump has done some things that a Republican or Democratic court could find him guilty of. It does not seem more dangerous than other times, for instance, will this cause a civil war? It doesn't look like it. Some will complain ... and then the Republicans will do the same thing to some Democrat ... and some will complain about that.
  22. If it were a situation where one political party does that all the time, that these parties don't shift in power, never changing leadership, then there is some form of authoritarianism/control/dictatorship that may in fact require violence to overthrow. But when one of the parties selected judges that are now jailing some of their own members, it indicates that one party is not in fact in control at all times. In other words, an indication of a one-party state would be that Republican judges would NOT be jailing Republicans. But they are. That was especially evident with the election legal challenges. This country in fact is not a dictatorship, nor a one-party state.
  23. Yes, but would you describe the current state of the country as "no way to get rid of a dictatorship"? If you can make that case successfully, then that would justify the burning of the cities and the Jan 6 event. I would argue that neither was justified.
  24. If you are stuck on the idea that it was not an insurrection, I can grant you that. But if you are arguing that in a country where there is still free speech (even if eroded), that violence is okay, then you're glamorizing chaos. There are protests and then there are violent protests. Once chaos starts, an orderly shift toward respect for rights does NOT happen. I have lived through a violent revolution, the very best people do not, in fact, rise to the top.
  25. Does this mean that in the operating room, they are using masks for no good reason?
×
×
  • Create New...