smathy

Can you make that argument from an Objectivist perspective? Because these quotes from Rand give me confidence in my pre-Objectivist belief that many acts of war, including Hiroshima and (especially) Nagasaki were/are immoral. A: "In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."[1] B: "Let no man of good will take it upon his conscience to advocate the rule of force - outside or inside his own country."[2] C: "Remember that private citizens - whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers - have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government."[2] C says that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no power to start (initiate) a war. A says that force may only be used against those that initiate its use. B makes it clear that Rand does not accept that internal and external to one's country is a contextual difference regarding the morality of the rule of force. [1] The Nature of Government, The Virtual of Selfishness. [2] The Roots of War, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

I'm sure this will want a new thread, but I don't know how to do that properly, but maybe this will be really quick. Can you give me your rationale for that, I'm intruiged.

This is great, I've finally worked out why the right to life is inalienable. This provides the moral backing for the constitutional issues I raised in a previous post. The reason that it is inalienable is because the reason that the right exists in the first place is inescapable. The reason you have a right to your own life is because you are you. Unless you can change that, then you can never discard the right to your own life. You can assign that right to someone else by contract, but you will still have that right yourself, which will allow you to cancel the contract at any point. Inalienable right trumps contractual obligation every time So, yeah, that's where you would need to have a government willing to override your right to your life, to say that you are not you, that actually you are the sum of you and that contract over there, and enforce the contract by denying your right to your own life. To cover some of the other examples given in this thread: You can sign a termination wishes contract, because that is a definition of what you consider to be life. You are stating that at this point, I am not me anymore, hence I want to be euthanised. [Edit]But if that point was still while you were lucid, then nothing could prevent you from changing your mind, just in case you death-matchers were thinking of using a termination wishes contract to define the end of life as "Anytime after I step into that ring."[/Edit] You can sign an assisted suicide contract, because you're still going to be conscious and able to direct others at the point of death, so right up to the point of termination you still have control over your own life. So you've never assigned the right to someone else. You can sign, but it can't be enforced, a death-match contract because at any time in that death-match you can assert your own right to life, which is still yours to assert, because you're still you, and you can walk away. Ok, the car or any property right is simple. When he is not the owner of the property, then the right is no longer his. It is self-evident that there is no essential bond between a man and his property. Waiving the right to be bruised and bloodied is more interesting. It's the permanency of death that makes this a little different. The equivalent in a bruised and bloodied scenario would be if he waived his right to decide how bruised and bloodied he could be made. Handed himself over and said, "You decide, beat me however you want." Which would actually be waiving his right to life again. He certainly has the right to permit any specific level of damage to his body. But he also has the right to stop that at any point. You could not have a situation where, for instance, a boxer (or footballer) signed a contract permitting his trainer (or coach) to decide when he had had enough. The individual would always retain the right to call it off at any point when he decided he had had enough. Does that sit as well with you as it does with me?

This is completely different because the intention is not to kill the parachuters. It is a mitigation of risk of an accident. I certainly think that you could not (and nor should it be legitimate) to sign a document that says "Even if we intentionally sabotage your parachute, and hence know that you will die, you will not prosecute us." - which would be the death-match equivalent in this scenario. Or worse, if you signed a contract saying that you will jump even if your parachute is flawed, then just before you jump they tell you that your parachute will not open, then expect you to jump anyway even though you know it means you will almost certainly die. That's actually the best example of a parallel. I hope the above has shown that's not at all the case. Please let me know if it still seems like that to you, and I will elucidate further.

Ok, this is a great question, and something that I discussed in #Objectivist with Nxixcxk. I clarified some things in that coversation about my position. It actually boils down, I discovered, to a constitutional issue which I think is necessary for any civilised society. You cannot permit the government to kill citizens for breach of contract. And that is what's required in order to uphold a death clause in any contract (and a breach/consequences clause is just another clause in the eyes of contract law). So, if I have a contract that says "I will eat this apple, or you can kill me.", I can then decide not to eat the apple (breaking the contract), I can also decide not to let you kill me (breaking just another clause in the same contract), we would then end up in court. So, when both parties disagree then a court decides what should happen. If the contract can be fulfilled then it will force the fulfilment of that contract. So, what you're proposing is that a government is able to force its citizens to die due to a contractual obligation. I don't think such an obligation is enough for the government to override your right to life. And for the following reason I don't think that any civilized society can allow such a thing. If you allow the government that ability, then the population would quickly disintegrate into anarchy. What would prevent a would-be murderer from forcing you to sign a document, then contesting it in the courts and having the government kill you for them. Or even more simply, from saying "Sign this death contract, or I'll make your death really painful." and then kill you legally without you having any ability to defend your position. It's the finality of death that means that subsequent defense of your signing of the contract is impossible, it's this finality that makes it incompatible with civilised society. Constitutionally I think you have to restrict the government's power to kill its citizens, specifically stating the situations in which it can do it (if any, ie. death penalty). Beyond that, the government cannot kill its citizens, or order their death. That means that any death contract is unenforcable by the government. The government cannot force someone's death in that situation. That means that someone else would need to force it, if the person changed their mind, and that's murder. I think that puts all the pieces that were in my mind into place. If someone can show how a civilisation can exist where a government can arbitrarily decide to kill its citizens based on a signature, then fair enough - but I don't think you can ever discount the coerced signature. This is probably (I haven't re-read them) a change in my previously stated position, in that this is no longer some sort of inherent reasoning, rather it is an intellectual decision to limit the powers of a government, and that leads necessarily to the inability to sign a death contract. Such a contract would simply be unenforcable.

That's simply not correct. It is never illegal to breach a contract, that is a common myth held by people ignorant of contract law. You can always change your mind, the contract simply stipulates the consequences of doing so. Companies routinely break contracts because they determine that the consequences of performing their duties under the contract will be more expensive than the penalties provided for in the contract. Seriously, am I reading you correctly? You think all contracts are (or should be) backed by the lives of each party? The employer can say precisely what you just said, then the contract is breached, and the clauses in the contract that deal with such a breach are executed. Or both parties find themselves in court, represented by contract lawyers. If one party is insolvent, then they still both end up in a court, and a court decides what needs to be done. It will never be "You'll have to die." - which would be in neither party's best interest. You never said anything about the scenario that I think most closely represents the death-match contract. By your arguments in support of the death-match contract this also could happen because the contract had been signed:

The difference is, that right up until the point where an assisted suicide happens, the suicider can decide not to proceed, they can cancel their contract, call off the suicide. Can the same be said of a death-match? As the final killer is standing over the loser about to kill him, can the loser say "Actually, I change my mind, I'm cancelling the contract, let me out." Further, can the killer do the same, after knocking the opponent unconscious can he say "Actually, I don't feel right killing this unconscious man." and leave the arena? If yes, then it's not a "fight-to-the-death" by definition. If there another way out of the death-match then it's hardly a death-match. If no, then someone must be forcing each situation to its deadly end. Someone must be forcing the victim to die, despite his desire to cancel the contract that he signed. Or, someone must be forcing the victor to carry through and kill the loser. Someone must be overriding each participant's right to control their own life. That situation would be like an assisted suicide contract being signed on Monday, then when the doctor turns up on Tuesday to perform the suicide the patient says that they've changed their mind. The doctor proceeds with the suicide saying that it's too late to change your mind, because the contract has been signed.

Don't be afraid, thanks for prompting me to clarify. More accurately let me phrase it thusly: by not making a choice between the two options that indicate some level of thought on the guards part, ie. by choosing not to think, the guard chose death. You are right about the scene needing to be internally consistent, I was not requiring enough of my own conclusions. I need to think more about it, thanks.

Is it agreed that if the killing involved in the death-sport was immoral then it would also be illegal? Ie. is the test of whether a killing is murder or not the question of whether the killing is immoral or not? That seems to hold true for all the examples given so far of suicide, assisted suicide, assassination, plus any that I can think of, self-defence, police, military/war, etc.. If you don't accept this, then the rest of this is not going to be very valuable to you. Assumption: Immoral killing is definitely illegal. So, the question boils down to whether a death-sport killing is immoral or not. The answer seems self-evident to me, but let's investigate it a bit more.. Unless you allow some method of tapping out of the death-match, something which I realise would essentially invalidate the sport, then you can never guarantee a moral killing. In fact, you virtually guarantee an immoral one. The concept of "fight-to-the-death" implies that there is no other way out of the fight, other than death to one (or both) participants. In other words, after the contracts were signed, some person, through some sort of force, has removed the freedom of choice from both participants when they stepped into the ring, or at some arbitrary point of no return. So what happened to the freedom of choice? What if one man goes past the point of no return, then changes his mind, wants to assert his right to life? You point to the contract and tell him to get back to fighting? What if one man knocks the other unconscious but then refuses to kill him, you put a gun to his head and tell him to finish him off? The problem is that a contract can always be torn up, it is never binding to the death. If one party wants out or breaches the contract, then both parties exercise the contractual remedies for a breach of contract, and part ways. With both men engaged in a death-match, there is no room for this eventuality. So, why is this so important, well without the victim's permission being intact at the time of the killing, the killing is immoral. If at some point, the eventual victim decides that actually they want to live, they change their mind. Then you have a situation where one man is killing another who does not want to be killed. And the only reason you have to justify that killing was that a contract had been signed, and yet you denied the man all avenues for cancelling that contract. This would be akin to someone engaging the services of an assisted suicide doctor on Monday, signing all the paperwork, then on Friday the doctor turns up and the patient has had a change of heart and is telling the doctor not to do it. The doctor proceeds anyway saying that the contract was signed on Monday, and refusing the patient access or means of cancelling that contract. As if that wasn't bad enough, this has all ignored the intent of the eventual killer, which has an impact on the morality of the killing. As he's pounding the unconscious head into anything hard he can find in an attempt to finally wrestle the stubborn strangehold of life from the body of his victim, he needs to be either fearing for his life, or confident that the man he's pulverising would still choose to honour the contract if he was conscious or could speak. If he doubts the victim's mindset then the killing is also an immoral one. So, at best (for the supporters) an immoral killing is possible but I think it's more likely that the immoral killing is probable. Certainly you can never guarantee it's a moral killing, so the sport is illegal if immoral killing is illegal. [Edit: removed some earlier and redundant comments about signing away protections under the law which were silly]

There is a quote of Rand's that I've seen in here, that I'm confident is accurate, which I can only paraphrase, it's something like "A choice can be either right or wrong, but refusing to choose is always evil." I think it speaks of the same point that she was making with the guard. I felt challenged by the scene too, but I did not dismiss it as a justified act in a context of martial law, or anything else of that nature. I believe that the act required inductive analysis, because as you say, it was clearly meant to be significant. Here's what I came up, I hope it helps. By not making a choice, the guard, not Dagny, chose his death. It was not a literal scene, but to me a very powerful metaphor. Choosing to think and to assume the responsibility of consciousness, is choosing to be human, choosing to live. Refusing to choose, as the guard did, refusing to act, is refusing to be conscious, it is refusing to live. The guard was not alive, he simply existed because life, as a human, requires thought and consciousness. He was choosing to die by choosing not to think. So Dagny gave him what he was asking for. Rand was demonstrating that not making a choice, not being conscious, is death.

As a demonstration of the the squatter's attitude to freedom of thought. I joined the channel a couple of days after the takeover and said "At the risk of being kick/banned, I'd like to ask a question about the recent events here." I can't remember definitely who it was, the name "Popeazr|el" sounds familiar. But on of the ops said something to the effect of "I'll save you the trouble." and kicked me out before I asked. I can't say whether I was banned or not, because that action answered the only question I had of the squatters

This is absolutely the most perplexing argument to me. To those who want Objectivism to be malleable - please think it through to its pragmatic end. If you find a flaw in Objectivism and believe that you've corrected it, do you dream some utopian dream where all the existing Objectivists say "Oh, yeah, you're right. Ok we'll switch." Of course not, people (most probably) will continue to believe in Rand's original philosophy, called Objectivism. So, what happens then? You name what you've changed Rand's Objectivism to "Objectivism", and they continue to use the word "Objectivism" to describe what Rand originally created? You've just created a subjective definition of Objectivism - for the love of reason let me implode before that happens! If you ever get to the point where you believe that you have found a flaw in Rand's philosophy, don't try to convince others that yours is now the real Objectivism while what they still believe to be accurate is not. Just get a new name, IMHO there are plenty funkier ones than "Objectivism." As a parting demonstration of the insanity of this malleability: Rand found flaws in Kantianism, and she fixed those flaws, how meaninglessly confusing would it be if she called her resulting philosophy "Kantianism"? If it's a new philosophy, then give it a new name, how is this not obvious? Why would you want to name your new philosophy the same as an existing, but contradictory one? You'd constantly be saying to people "No, I'm one of the new Objectivists, the post-Rand ones."

I'm just gathering speed, so consider this post "a shot" at an Objectivist perspective. Criticisms sought... Wearing certain clothing in certain situations is immoral, but the solution is not government restrictions. There are two avenues of immorality that I see. Anything sexually explicit or overtly violent is immoral in any arena where children too young to make critical evaluations may be present. The legal avenue for the guardian would be a civil suit based on the wearer acting inappropriately in the presence of children. Secondly, anything not in your own self-interest is immoral. Wearing a "&*#@ The Police" t-shirt to a court proceeding is not going to be in your best interest. I can see many situations where the wearing of certain clothes is in your own self-interest, and so it would be wrong not to wear them, both on whatever constitutes "government controlled property" and on private property. Turning up at a job interview in clothes that are not the norm for that situation is not in your best interest. Turning up at a gala dinner with your boss in a t-shirt and ripped jeans is not in your best interests. None of that gives any government a moral sanction to legislate clothing, but let's just say that your court appearance might not go as smoothly as you'd hoped. [Edit: added part about legal remedy for the child-affecting behaviour]

How about this: the trial happens first, including sentencing. Neither the criminal nor his defence attorney are allowed to hear the verdict (or the sentence). The government can then decide, not gamble, on which outcome it would prefer, and if it chooses, it can make an offer of a lesser sentence if the criminal has something to offer. Who ever said that the criminal had to be on an even playing field with respect to the bargaining process? Then the decision is not about a presumed or hoped for level of justice, you can actually weigh it up. He will either get definitely a sentence of ten years - or - we can get information about OBL. [Edit - added below] That's more in respect to information bargaining, that straight plea bargaining. Because I don't think it's moral to allow someone to change their plea after they have made it. Also, any deal that is subsequent to the trial and sentencing may need to be ratified by the jury or something. It's a new thought, so many details are unconsidered.