IAmMetaphysical

Softwarenerd: I have read the entire thread. I can understand your point about not coming to an agreement in 300 posts, but I thought that if we are all thinking objectively then we should all be able to come to an agreement. It seems to me that if there is no chance of agreement then there is no chance of man understaing the world, isn't that in direct conflict with Objectivist epistemology? it really despresses me if that really is the case. If we can't agree on existence then we can't know existence. I can't accept that.

The comparison between shooting someone and creating someone does not hold. Creating someone is not an act toward someone, in order to act against someone they must exist prior to your action. Creating someone necessitates that they don;t exist before the action of creation. You are stealing the concept of "cause a condition". In order to be responsible for someone's condition, they must have existed in a prior condition. this is why a person is responsible for reparations when they injure someone and incapacitate them; they are responsible for returning the victim to as close a state as before the injury as possible. You keep simply stating that the parents are responsible for feeding the child just because they created it with the inability to feed itself, but never give support for this, only invalid analogies to other situations that don't fit in this context. Your defense is that they "know" of its condition beforehand, and therefore are responsible for feeding it. You must show how they are responsible for feeding the child. You say since they made the child, and since the child is in a helpless state, then they are responsible for feeding it. This is not a valid argument. Once again, I understand the natural consequences of actions and that shooting someone carries with it certain repercussions. What I am saying is that "being responsible for a child's care" is not a natural or causal consequence of birthing a helpless child. This is your assertion. It is your job to show us all that it is. I believe that thus far you have failed. Maybe I am misunderstanding your position. If I am then please clarify as I am not engaged in this discussion to "win" an argument but to gain understanding. Objectivism is about using your mind to understand the world around you and your place in it. I do not mean to imply that my mind is not up to the task, but I find it much more productive to discuss issues with others in order to come to an understanding. To me, in certain situations, two minds are better than one, as another's perspective can be useful is testing your own ideas out. WHen I think in my mind, I always have little debates with myself, looking at the issue from all different perspectives. This is what i am trying to do with you, so please help me out. I will state what I believe is your argument, if it is inaccurate then please clarify. Premise1- Parents choose to birth a child. Premise2- the child is in a helpless state and won't survive unless provided for. Premise3- the parents, being responsible for the child's existence, are also responsible for its condition. Conclusion- the parents, being responsible for the condition of the child, are responsible for providing for it. Is that it? Or am I missing something?

You keep making this assertion that child is entitled to gaurdianship, but give no support except that the parent's are the ones who caused the child's condition of being helpless. You are missing my point about causing. I do not mean to say that "direct" consequences of action are not the actor's responsibility. I am saying that the correlation between punitive damages, which is what your whole argument rests on, and the nature of an infant is invalid. The way I am seeing your argument is this: A-The parents choose to create a child, even if their intentions were not to do that. (Choosing not to abort is not choosing to create, the act of creation has happened. Choosing not to abort is choosing not to take action, it is not an action. Bringing a child to term is a natural process of the body. It is non-volitional, just as fertilization is.) B-The child has to be created with a certain nature. C-the parents are responsible for this nature. D-this nature includes the inability to sustain itself. E-the parents are responsible for sustaining it in it's stead. I have contended to part A as you can see in the parentheses. I contend part C as well as I don't see how any human can be responsible for the nature of humans, it seems to me that evolution would be responsible for a human infant's helplessness. that is my point. You are saying (or am I misunderstanding you as saying) that the parents are at fault for the infant being unable to support itself, therefore it has a right, a claim on the life of the parents. You have not shown how the parent's are at fault for its helplessness, only that they caused it's existence with the knowledge of its helplessness beforehand. but this could also be stated as follows: The parents cause the exisence of a child they know full to be in need of food for the rest of its life, therefore they are responsible for providing for this need for however long this being lives. If I have mistated your position then clarify. Don't simply accuse me of attacking a straw man. You are the one making a positive assertion, the onus is on you to prove to me. You keep asserting that the parent's are responsible for the infant's helplessness, but I only see the parent's responsible for the infants existence. Nature is responsible for the infant's helplessness.

Are you saying that their "need" then is what entitles them to your care? Another person's need can never be the consequence of someone else's actions. The need of a newborn, or anyone for that matter is a consequence of their nature, not the choice to create. A person has a need for food, for air, for water and for shelter, not a need for those things to be provided for them. A need is something which is needed to sustain life, not the automatic attainment of those things. A child therefore can not have even a need for care just because they are unable to do it themselves. They need food. Getting it from someone else is a priviledge, not a right. Creating a needy child is the natural consequences of choosing to carry a baby to term, but the simple fact of their neediness is not a direct consequence of that choice. No one can choose another's nature, it is ummm.. natural.. it is not a matter of having your cake and eating it to, it is about being held responsible for things that are out of your control, being held responsible for another's need, to things that their nature requires of them. Would you then say that retarded grown ups have a right to monetary damages or a lifetime of care because their parent's created them retarded?? Being given life, and all the conditions thereof, is not a claim check on the work or life of another, ever. If that were the case then all children would have the right to have their entire life provided for, because they need food, and their parents caused this need in them, so then the parents are responsible for provided it for them. I am not saying that it is good for people to have babies and then abandon them. I am only saying that the government should not be in the business of forcing people to take care of another person, if the condition of that person is not a direct consequence of their actions. It is not the duty of anyone to ensure the survival of any other person just because of their nature or inability to provide for themselves. it is every one's duty, a duty dictated by their nature, to ensure their own survival.

Sorry, it was a hypothetical question used to show that causing a condition in this sense is a dropping of context, the context being: being held responible in situations where choice is not an option. What I mean by this is being held responisible for the condition of a new born when said condition (helplessness) is the only way in which to create a new born. Since it is impossible to cause any other different condition, being held responsible for that condition is a mockery of justice. Where no choice exists, no morality exists. It is impossible to create a newborn with any other condition but helplessness and the positing of the "abortion" alternative is not an adequate one. Non-creation of a newborn is not an action toward a newborn, it is essentially "non-action." Holding someone responsible for the nature of a newborn then is to hold them responsible for not taking a non-action. The analogy of a car accident victim does not hold. You are responsible, in the event of a car accident, for the positive actions you commited against the victim, the initiation of force against them. Simple creation is not an initiation because before creation the "acted upon" party is non existent. Making a being exist, i.e. making them able to be acted upon, is not an act upon them. This is not to say that the unavoidable consequences of an action are not to be dealt with, only that additional invented consequences are not valid. What this all seems to be, is that people don't like the idea of people simply abandoning their babies to die. They don't want this to happen so they want to use the force of the government to force people to take care of other people. This is exactly the same mentality behind welfare, and other social safety net programs. its ana appeal to emotionalism, and ignores the proper function of government.

Inspector: Why then can't the same be said of a fetus? If the parents, through the act of fornication, cause the fetus' situation, why aren't they held responsible for making sure it grows into a rational being capable of sustaining itself?

I think an important part, possibly the most important part, of this discussion is the nature of "rights". And I think I may have noticed the basic misunderstanding that either you all have, or that I have. But I think the resolution of this "problem" lies in figuring out and coming to an agreement about what rights are, then we can decide who has them, and what the right entitles them to. Rights are not derived strictly from metaphysics. They are derived from ethics, the ethics of a volitonal being, because a volitional being is the only thing in need of a code of ethics, automatons don't need guidance. The reason that volition is so important is because in order for man to live qua man, i.e. morally, he must be able to excercise his volition, i.e. he must make choices. "Morality ends when a gun begins" means that man would be unable to be moral, to live his life, if he was not free to make the choices involved in his self sustaining action. It is not the fact of his possessing rationality, but of the fact of his possessing volition. Being "free" in this sense means being without restraints, without coercion. "Living" while being unable to excercise free choice would not be living as a man. This is why it is "right" for man to be free from the initiation of force, it is right for him to live as his nature dictates; to live as a volitional being. This is not to say then that "rights" can be derived strictly from a being's nature (by the way, the concept "being" is not that it is a seperate entity. A being is anything that "Be"s and acts, in other words "anything that is" and "does" or "is and lives" for only living things can be said to "do" things, non-living matter just "is". Being separately viable is a characteristic of some beings, but it is not necessary, nor fundamental. In fact most living beings are dependant on the lives of other living beings, except I guess for those algea(sp?) or plants that only get sustenance from photosynthesis. Being physically attached to something, does not take away the status of a being, just as conjoined twins are two beings. A human being, is a living thing that is human. A rational being is a living thing that possesses rationality, or that is rational, not merely has the potential of becoming rational. Even if "being" strictly meant being separate, this would still not have an effect on "rights") If "rights" were derived from the fact(metaphysics) of being rational, than only rational men would have rights, which would mean only those that choose certain things would have the free choice of those things, and as we all know having one choice is not a choice. If it were derived from the potential of becoming rational in the future, then fetuses and zygotes would then have the right to freedom from coercion (I would say then that force feeding it, through an umbilical cord, would be a violation then of its rights) The right to life (of man, the rational, volitional animal) is the right to be free to live his life the way he so chooses, it is a right to choose actions (as long as those actions don't interfere with other's rights), not to things. It is the right to be free from other people, not free to other people or their products. The right to a product of another man is slavery, no matter who is the master and serf. The new born's "Identity" as a helpless being does not give it a claim to the product of the parents or anyone else. It simply means that it IS helpless, not that I, or anyone else, SHOULD feed it. Is it desirable for it to recieve sustenance? Yes. Is it a right? Should people be forced by the government to provide said sustenance? No. Free formula for some means slavery for the rest( :P) There are no conflicts of valid rights. If you think there is, check your premises. Now this does not mean that there isn't an issue of when a person agrees to be a gaurdian and then renegs. I think that is where the issue then is, if we all agree on the derivation of rights. Some have said that the simple act of giving birth is an agreement of gaurdianship, some have said it isn't. I am undecided. {{Edited for an add on of the concept of "being".}}

Yes, I believe that there is a right to privacy unless there is sufficient evidence that one might be in the process of violating others' rights. No one has the right to violate others' rights, so if they are objectively suspected of doing so, then it is proper to snoop on them to find out. This says nothing about what has been revealed in regards to the Bush administration because although they may truly have had evidence to back up the snooping (which I believe they probably did) they still needed to go through the correct channels and get the thumbs up from the judicial branch. This could have been done retrospectively, so that they wouldn't lose any time having to go to a judge and get a warrant. The reason they need this judicial oversight is to make sure that thier actions can be objectively justified, and that they don't indeed violate innocent people's right to privacy. Let me sum up as to avoid confusion on my stance: Criminals (those who violate rights) have no right to have that violation be private. In order to make sure that the government only performs wire-taps on criminals, it is necessary to have the proper judicial oversight so as to adequately check the executive. I do not think that in this instance the Bush administration violated any innocent citizens rights, but that claim is not founded upon evidence, only my confidence in basic human decency, but that is not enough. That is why they should always get a warrant, so that we can be sure that they don't abuse their power.

My above statement was not a question of whether or not wire taps are a violation of rights, it was in response your original statement which presumes that rights are in fact being violated in said scenarios. You did not say: "I can easily think up scenarios where we would have to snoop on people in order to protect against terror attacks." You conceded tha fact that rights would need to be violated, in fact, the topic of this thread is begging the same question. They are both implying that it is necessary to sacrifice the rights of some in order to protect others.

You just described what I have just gone through. To the "T"!

I don't think I've ever found anything I've read by either Rand or Peikoff to be hard to grasp. But then again I do have an I.Q. approaching 150 and most of the tenets of Objectivism correspond with my implicit sense of life, so maybe it was just more natural for me to grasp the process and derivations. I also had my first exposure to Rand (although I didn't know it, because I had no idea about her until about a year ago (I had heard of Atlas Shrugged, but only passingly)) through Atheism: The case against God by George Smith when I was 15 or so. That book was written for the layman, and I think it probably is a nice introduction to rational thought. Personally, I believe that being atheist is a definite must in order to smoothly accept Objectivism. Imagine how hard it must be for someone who has to wrestle with giving up the notion of god when they actually believe in it. I'm glad the belief in god was never that important to me and that I was able to shake it off almost as easily as belief in Santa Claus.

What is photography? Photo(light)Graphy(write), writing with light. Photography is a process, just like painting and transcribing music is. Art is not simply writing notes down on a staff, or slopping paint onto a canvas, so then art is not just clicking the button of the camera in order to let light imprint an image into the emulsion. I am an artist. I paint, draw, write music, and I am a photographer. Each one of the things I just mentioned is a medium, a way of performing or recording art. When I create a work of art using photography, the art making is not in the clicking of the shutter or the developing of the film, that is only the way I write it down on the final print so to speak. It is the application of paint to a canvas, but not the act of making art. Photography can be a medium for art, but its is not an art in itself, just like painting your staircase isn't art.

Good question. I am not an architect so I have no idea, but I would love to see what kind of building Roark would build.

What you are forgetting is that even though everyone has their own experience of existence they are all experiencing the same existence and if they all correctly identify experiences then they should all come to the same conclusions. Funny thing is, that on the top of this page, the random quote that comes with every new window was this: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.--Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What about distorting the way we view reality makes it a valid means of expression? Expression presupposes someone doing the expression, but also who the expression is to. Art therefore is a form of conversation, either to yourself or to others, it is a way to percieve concepts that aren't normally available to sense perception. Therefore there are certain rules one must follow in order for the "perception" of the concepts to be successful,i.e. it must conform to reality, because perception--being automatic--automatically conforms with reality. Just like if I want to make myself clear here in this forum I must speak English (using english words, with the proper use of English grammar) If I simply started to disregard these rules would that make it a valid form of expression? The above posting of "The Jabberwocky" is not a refutation of this because it is only understandable through the words that do conform to the rules of conversational English, the made up words only serve to throw confusion into the mix, any meaning which is gleaned out of that poem is IN SPITE OF those meaningless words. Take this for example: Can you get any sense of meaning out of the following? Held a experienced by had he motionless, stood: "before" He; feeling never? Or does this group of words mean something much more when put in the "proper" sequence and with the "proper" punctuation: He stood motionless, held by a feeling he had never experienced before.(Taken from Atlas by the way, ) The reason that "abstract" art is not as good "epistimologically"(sp?) as representational art is because of what it says about man's faculty of grasping reality. Abstract art says that man can not know reality directly, that he is ignorant because he uses reason, blind because he has eyes, and that the true character of a portrait is innaccessable to him through his normal mode of perception, that reality must be distorted for him in order for him to be able to view it, that his eyes must be cut out in order for him to see. But there are many parts to a painting and not just "how it is painted." Subject matter has to be considered as well. This is why a representational painting isn't automatically good just because epistimologically(sp?) it is consistent with man's perceptual faculty. A work of art must be judged as a whole. Thomas Kinkade therefore is not automatically a great artist. He's a great painter maybe, but being an artists is not only the application of paint to a canvas, just as art isn't only paint on a canvas.

Another element that seems to creep into people's thinking is this idea that if you can't serve the needs of the American people then you can't come in. This notion is inherent in the arguments that "illegal immigrant provide us with cheap labor". Yes this is true, but it should not be the justification for their "RIGHT" to be here. Human rights are human rights, americans don't have a monopoly on rights. Now I can understand that in the system where all property is privately owned, then one would have the right to not allow anyone on their property for any reason, but this does not mean the right to deny anyone from entering someone else's property. I guess this is where the real problem lies, the notion of public property, that somehow the land which comprises the contiguous states is communally owned by all of us, hence giving us the right to deny non-americans access to this land. How is this land somehow ours? Because we were born here or we were naturalized,i.e. we are Americans. Again we return to this notion that "Americans" have more rights than non-Americans. Where does this notion come from? What about my being born in New York gives me more right to be in New York right now than someone born in Mexico or Guatemala?

The above in bold can be restated as: "It isn't too hard to think up scenarios where it is proper to sacrifice some for the sake of others." Edited for spelling.

I understand that the sound "tu" has many different meanings, and I can see how you would think that "my" author has confused them, but like I said, I gave you guys a basic overview. The author does not simply give the example "gonna" from nowhere. He gives example of how the phrase first came up in writings and actually meant "I am going to new york, in order to fight so and so." The "going to" in this sentence is not then reducible to "gonna" or its meanign right away. "Going to" a place came to mean, conceptually, the future indicitve of an action, namely in this example the action of fighting so and so. So at first, one would only use the phrase "going to" strictly when speaking of going to a place in order to do soemthing. Eventually the place was to be assumed and one could say " I am going(to new york is assumed) in order to fight so and so" which reduces to "I am going(to new york) to fight so and so." which is then: "I am going to fight so and so" Which reduces to "I am gonna fight so and so." (the new york has been removed in both of these last cases even conceptually) For clarity, in the first cases the actual action of moving (of going) is still involved, as in "I am actually moving myself to a place in order to fight so and so." But when one says "I am gonna fight so and so", one says "In the future I will fight so and so." Believe me, the book is less convoluted than I am. The real issue of the word gonna, is not how the sound came into being, although that is of interest, but of how the concept "going" came to be the future indicitive of a word. The same thing occurs in spanish, where the verb "Ir" (to go) is used to indicate a future action, as in "Voy a comer" Voy (I am going, I go) a (to) comer (to eat, eat, eating). I believe if one wants to say "I will eat" One needs a single word which is: "Comeré"

A very good book on theory of how language has evolved is "The unfolding of language" by Guy Duescher. Sorry if I mispelled that name as I have let a friend borrow it and can not check the spelling for myself. The book goes into etymology and the structures of many differing languages and how they are interelated, but it also has a lot of theories about how certain words and languages do arise. For example, by simply witnessing the fact that the word "gonna" has arisen to mean the future indicative "will" as in: "I am gonna party"/"I will party". It arises out of the contraction "going to", but in the process of being used in the sense of "I am going to party" it loses its ability to simply replace the phrase "going to" as seen in the inability to us it in the sentence: "I am gonna New York." He then theorizes that all word construction is a process of such contraction and reduction. Just like concept formation, two or more concretes are integrated. (This is a very basic overview of the book's points. I recomend you read the book because it goes into much greater detail and also has examples from a much wider number of languages and instances. By the way, since I love this emoticon, I wanted to use it in my first post, so here goes: