intellectualammo

Now here is Peikoff, this gives strength to his view of them being considered human, epistemologically:

Mdegges, in one of Quentin Cordairs short stories, a billionaire goes for like 20years without. You'd have to look at them contextually to see why. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23284&hl=+cordair++story#entry298676 Me personally, I'll be 34 next year, and have gone without being with a real woman for the better part of a decade. Not even a date. This is largely due to two factors: the moral character of those around me and their interests, and my own moral character and my own interests. It's mutually reinforcing.

I was rereading most of OPAR this weekend, Peikoff: "All rights rest on the fact that man survives by means of reason. Rights are rights to the actions necessary for the preservation of a rational being. Only an entity with no conceptual faculty has judgment on which to act, volition to select goals, and intelligence with which to create wealth." "The source of rights, as of virtues, is not the sensory-perceptual level of consciousness but the conceptual level. The source is not the capacity to experience pain, but the capacity to think." So they would have no rights, or limited rights, depending upon the extent of their mental incompacitites? He did say in the podcast that even if partial or total, they would still be humans. I don't necessarily agree with that.

Ok I am now on the same page with you after all that. Let me venture an answer: No conceptual faculty to me would mean no rational faculty and existing then only on a perceptual level of awareness. They could then seemingly no longer be considered human then, and then no longer have rights. But what about human babies? They aren't on the conceptual level of awareness yet, right? but have the capacity, or potential that they eventually will. Those other ones, such capacity, potentiality, either does not exist or no longer is present with them. Rand: Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.” (“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” […] So then it would follow, that losing the rational conceptual capacity or faculty, one is then an animal, or no longer human, and animals don't have rights. Only rational animals do. Now does that sound?

I edited my posts before your last post. So that may help. Yes mans nature is where rights come from. If you are human, then you have inalienable individual rights, as I have been saying. No brain - not human - no rights human but became brain dead - no longer human - no longer has rights severely retarded - rights depend upon the degree of rational faculty How's that sound so far? What makes us human, what separates us from other animals, is our rational faculty, conceptual level of awareness, I gather is the Oist position.

I think I have found a compelling Answer: "A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty" Don Watkins says that in this thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=1099 So a brainless baby, is not human, but an anomaly as Mimpy in that thread said? So then someone who is now brain dead, no longer has rights.

Those that are pronounced as being brain dead, are no longer there consciously, "they" are no longer there, keeping a body alive is all you are doing. So it really comes down to what gives US the right to "pull the plug" on them. If they do not have a living will, then what right does anyone have in deciding what to do next with the brain dead person, is the question. Keep the body alive till it dies naturally? Do they lose their right to life because they are brain dead or not going to come out of a coma, that when the brain dies or is dead or not able to be conscious any longer like with coma, they can no longer exercise that right, that it's OK to pull the plug stop supporting a body? Of course this is again largely a medical/legal issue to be dealt then by the philosophy of law. But also, if one that is brain dead, is really dead, just not their body, so we or family can then decide if no living will.

Or look at cases of the comatose, where the decision can be made for them. Mdegges upon further thinking, if they are treated like "perpetual children", yeah, you might have to be legal guardian of them even after 18 or 21 in LFC (thereby it's like what Rand said, a courtesy extended to them). You can place them in a facility, or get someone else to become power of attorney/legal guardian of them or whatnot I would imagine. I am not sure what objective laws would say on the matter, but it might be along those lines. What do we do with them now?

Let me put it this way: if you stab one repeatedly with a knife and they die, you violated their right to life. If you steal money out of a retards wallet/purse, you violated their property rights. How can they pursue happiness when dead? Or have had their money just taken? I see that those inalienable individual rights, can be violated in such individuals, so they must have those rights then, correct? Edit to add: for cases of brain dead, look at what we can do now to them now if they don't have living wills, or next of kin, etc. The decision can't be made by them, it can be made for them.

Thenellie 01: I still do not see what I said was wrong. Rand: " Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another." Peikoff said retards are human. Rights comes from the law of identity. If you are human, you have rights. But rights like voting, owning a fire arm, etc can vary between children and adults. Psychologically ill, mentally ill, rights can vary, be limited. Again, that is largely philosophy of law issue. But I gather they all have inalienable human rights because they are man, as in human.

The unborn do not have rights. A fetus does not have rights, only when it's BORN does it have rights, because it's an actual human being then and not just a potential. You have not shown how I was wrong in what I have said in that being the Objectivist position. Here is what I said, here is Ayn Rand saying it: " An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." So, when a human being is born, only then does it acquire any rights.

This shows some of the pages from it, wouldn't a kind of illustrated VOS be more like Mr. A than this one? http://blogintomystery.com/2011/10/19/steve-lighten-up-steve-ditkos-the-avenging-world/ Nicky, I find questioning better than not looking into it at all. I really liked Mr.A, of what I could find online, never read the actual comics, just pages shown online.

Upon birth, one has those rights, simply because you are a human being. Rights, inalienable rights, in Objectivism, come from Objectivist ethics. Are you familiar with Objectivist ethics and politics? http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_writings http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

While I am very familiar with Mr. A, I just found about about Avenging World in The Cult of Ayn Rand book. In it, for those familiar with Avenging World, it says "a kind of illustrated Virtue of Selfishness" "for pre-teens - deliberately crass, caricatured, and didactic", is any of that accurate?

Well I still can't see why they wouldn't have the same inalienable rights. Both children and adults have them, you acquire them upon birth. But a limiting of certain rights adults have than minors or those with psychological issues, or medical like dementia, Alzheimer's, mental retardation to varying degrees, is largely for more specialized areas of philosophy of law. To me, say, if your child was born retarded or became that way because of an accident, violence, etc. I don't see you being obligated to care for them after say 18 or whatever the set age would be. Then, one could say, "Get out you regard!" And if they couldn't physically get out, wheel them out in a wheelchair off your property, or get them removed from your property somehow if you don't want them there, because of property rights. Same with those that become regard or whatnot even after 18, too. You can pay for them to be taken care of in a home, maybe if you have them on health insurance, etc. But it would have to be done voluntary, I would think for those over a certain age.

I see no reason why they would not have the same rights as anyone else. As for brain dead, or vegetative state, depends if they have Advance Health Care Directive (a living will), family,etc. It's more of a medical/legal issue to largely be dealt with by the philosophy of law.

This topic was brought up on Objectivist Answers, which you might want to take a look at: http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/6968/do-mentally-handicapped-humans-have-rights One poster says : "A mentally impaired human who cannot take care of himself would need to rely on the voluntary charity of others." Just like anyone who isn't retarded or handicapped, and can't take care of themselves financially and so forth, would rely on charity. I would add: Now in the case of children, the young, minors, that are retarded or whatnot, I would say parents would still be responsible for them like they are for normal minors. But when that ends legally, you are not responsible for them at all. Oh and in this Peikoff podcast, they are human: http://www.peikoff.com/2010/05/31/if-man-is-a-rational-being-are-severely-retarded-humans-men/ And here is Ayn Rand for what it's worth: I found that on this site:http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2008/03/ayn-rand-quote-of-week-12308.html

Though this particular collection is not available through my library system, I will check out sometime a book on her life and works. The collection is available on Amazon, no Kindle edition though.

Leonard wrote: "It is unclear exactly why she kisses statues in parks,"-she didn't. She is a fiction." She did so. It's not metaphor, but matter of factly in the story. She is fiction, of course, the story is fiction, and in that fictional story a fictional character DOES kiss statues in parks. And she KISSES them, not kneeling before them in reverence, like in your quote. She kisses likeagod-Leo, she has sexual desire for him, reverence for him, love for him. My argument is weak for the sexual aspect granted, but still. Now people do kiss trophies and things like that, not necessarily having a sexual desire for them. What brings her repeatedly to parks to kiss them? Reverence/admiration only? She has sexual desire for Leo, she described him and it sounded like he was a statue come to life, almost, at least in my quote. So it's weak, but it does have some support at least. Kira: "His body was white as marble and as hard and straight; the body of a god"

Harriet Martineau (1802-1876) collection of stories titled Illustrations of Political Economy, I was wondering if anyone has read? In a book I am currently reading (The Cult of Ayn Rand) it says that the collection was about "justifying and celebrating the entrepreneur and the laissez-faire economy, and advocating the clearing away of government controls" "In Martineau' s book looters reduce the society to primitivism, but principled men espousing laissez faire arise to guide that society back to prosperity." Sounds much like Rand's fiction, but just how similar, anyone know?

Yes, I know all about him and Galatea. Recall I already mentioned him in this thread. I also read an expensive scholarly work on the story of Pygmalion that tracked it through the years, years in various forms, interpretation, recontextualizations, etc. I wanted to see if what I had written, any writer had written that way before. They didn't. I was a writer who had fallen in love with his own character. And entered the story just to be with her. But I'm getting off topic... Have you heard of agalmatophilia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agalmatophilia It is unclear exactly why she kisses statues in parks, but my impression is that it was out of reverence, love even, but sexual desire, too? I would argue that it's all three and use Leo as support for that.

Found it, it's this one: http://www.peikoff.com/2011/03/10/if-sex-is-so-crucial-would-life-be-worth-living-if-ones-sex-has-permanently-disappeared/

I'm pretty sure it was in a podcast of his. It was his comments on if he was no longer able to have sex, impotence, erectile dysfunction, and how he would not want to live without being able to have sex, do all kinds of things in order to continue to have a sex life, Something like that.

No wonder to me that Kira is in love with Leo, think of the statues in the parks: "The tutors, and the servants, and the guests looked at Leo as they looked at the statue of Apollo in the Admiral' s study, with the same reverent hopelessness they felt for the white marble of a distant age." P.121-22. Kira: "His body was white as marble and as hard and straight; the body of a god" So you don't hear of her kissing statues again in the novel, but we do her kissing Leo. So seemingly whatever drove her to go to parks to kiss their lips, since its no longer mentioned, I get the impression that this may be satisfied enough because of being with Leo and she very well may not even be going to the parks to kiss statues any more.

From what I have gathered, yeah, I would agree with you softwareNerd. He did step way back away from Rand, but he can't shake the association's that opponents continually make. They get him wrong, and Rand wrong for the most part, but it does get her name and some of her ideas out there. This makes a way for us to correct them as well to the extent we can, to call them out on it.