Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

TruthSeeker946

Regulars
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    TruthSeeker946 got a reaction from Sebastien in Can anyone point me to some Objectivist writings on heuristics?   
    I’m interested in learning how Objectivists approach the topic of heuristics, since it is used by critics of reason to downplay or invalidate reason. 
  2. Like
    TruthSeeker946 got a reaction from whYNOT in Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point?   
    Exactly right. 
    What’s the logic here? Even for a deadly virus that would kill man at his best i.e fit and healthy?
    It seems to me your claim rests on divorcing the virus from the individual even though the latter carries the former.
    For covid, there is perhaps a case to be made. I’m not sure it can be considered a violation if the damage is primarily due to the ‘victim’s’ own poor health. 
    Right, this seems like the obvious solution to me, and I’ve been left baffled by the libertarian and Objectivist controversy over how to respond to Covid. At the very least, it does the bulk of the heavy lifting.
    Do you know of any prominent Objectivists who have argued along these lines?
    Then what’s your definition of “initiation of force”? 
    Punching someone in the face complies with the literal definition of those words.
    If the initiation of force (literal interpretation) is illegal only when it is involuntary receipt of the initiation of force, as Doug suggests Ayn Rand meant, then the individual can dispense of his right to life (and its derivatives) in any way he pleases meaning he can consent to the receipt of physical force (guaranteed or potential). 
    As necrovore argues, man can “surrender” some of his rights in exchange for other values.
    In other words this is ultimately down to the discretion of the individual. If not, why? Since he owns his life, he has the right to incrementally trade it off (or incrementally risk trading it off) for other values. 
    In the case of covid, when one enters a premise “at their own risk”, they weigh that risk against the values to be gained from entering. By entering they trade away some of their right to life (they’d be losing their right to be free of the initiation of physical force from covid, assuming one considers the transmission of covid an initiation of force). 
    A more extreme example: a group of men dying from cancer agree to a televised fight to the death for big sums of cash which they can pass onto their family. 
    One might object on the basis that the the “surrender” of rights for values, or the “weighing” of force and values must be rational (like receiving a vaccine) and so voluntarily fighting to the death for money is fundamentally anti-life and irrational. 
    But we know from Objectivist literature that one has the right to live the life of a heroin addict which is also fundamentally anti-life and irrational. One has the right to sabotage oneself. 
  3. Haha
    TruthSeeker946 got a reaction from dream_weaver in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    Never you mind about that. But I agree with the point.
×
×
  • Create New...