mb121

"It doesn't," they will say, "it just gives us a starting point." "You can't say that reason is the only thing we have of discovering reality since to believe in it IS FAITH!" ...And these people will not buy my assertion that "faith is the lack of reason" because they keep insisting that reason requires faith. How can I explain this to them better?

How do you defeat this: Reason requires faith. How do you know it is correct? You have faith for it. Thus, faith shouldn't be discredited as a form of knowledge. As an anologous question: How do you know a yardstick measures a yard? You might say "because it's a yardstick!" but that doesn't answer the question. So, to sum it up, I ask "doesn't reason require faith?" and you declare "no, because it's reason!" (just like "it's a yardstick!") Defining faith as the "lack of reason" doesn't answer this objection!

How could I prove this wrong? I could list rights-respecting countries and pose them against non-rights-respecting countries, but even then one could still say "well, a little wealth re-distribution doesn't kill a society!"

He could have meant either 1) Death row inmates are provided everything they need to live by others, thus they aren't rational value-seekers that need rights. 2) None of their rights are respected anyway (they dont have the right to liberty and property), yet they are still surviving (which is basically the same as #1)

The following is taken directly from a draft paper I wrote (to be revised for a final grade). In it, I dauntingly tried to prove the existance of individual rights with Ayn Rand's objectivism. This is what I wrote: I feel that my professor was rightfully shocked that I would try to prove individual rights in "half a paragraph," for this is what he wrote: He pointed out the sentence I made which said "...because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive." In response, he said Later he referred back to my argument about rights and said: Now, I am NOT asking/wanting anyone to re-write my paper for me. I'm just asking for advice on what, philosophically speaking, are the answers to his objections.

Is it possible to have constant motivation? I’m not talking about the fluttering feeling of “let’s do it!” that most weak men feel every once and a while. I’m not talking about going onto some “motivation.com” website where I can read some motivational quotes and feel good about myself. I’m talking about the constant feeling of mind-flexing that lasts for an entire lifetime. Is it possible? I’ve come so close. I’ve gotten 7+ days of non-stop, painful focus and 5 hours of sleep that left me exactly where I wanted to be every single night. However, this intense form of motivation comes and goes – usually in 3 day increments. It’s 3 days of intensity, then 3 days of mediocrity. If I ever give in subtely to laziness anytime throughout the day, it seems like it sets me off completely. For example, I’ll blank out for 30 seconds while reading a book and then boom, I start to feel guilty and get horribly messed up throughout the day. What’s the method? Is it the “duty” to work method? i.e.: “I don’t give a shit how I ‘feel’, I’m just going to do it regardless.” Is it the “just want it intensely and then you’ll do it” method? Where you focus on how much you want something done and then you just do it? Or what, what is it? All I know is reading a damn book, watching a damn movie, and then having a 4 hour burst of motivation is not what I’m talking about here. It’s not a feeling I’m after (the feeling of “let’s do it!”). It’s the willingness, the willingness to fight against all pain and laziness to do something 100% that never ends until death – is this even possible?

I didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. 1) Telling me that me that what I'm saying isn't "reality" repeatedly might be true, but I'm not understanding why. 2) By saying that people's immoral (cheating and stealing) lives will catch up with them is begging the question of "why will it catch up with them if they don't care?" Sure, someone with an objectivist "sense of life" would eventually be a depressed maniac if he cheated and stole repeatedly, but we're talking about a Tony Soprano here who has a completely different sense of life. 3) I, of course, think slavery is wrong. But my socialist professors sure don't. So using the "well, if you don't respect rights you get slavery!" argument is just going to get me a C here. 3) Yes, Rand said that happiness is the psychological state of achieving one's values. If one chooses the right values, happiness becomes the state of "non-contradictory joy" However, remember that this is a good cheater and there are plenty Howard Roarks for him to steal from until he dies. He engages in his mind to think of the most complex and interesting ways to rip people off. He lives a purposeful life with self-esteem AND can sustain himself until he dies. Furthermore, society is never going to figure out his practices and his rights are even respected (even though he's really forfeited them..)! I do not understand how I could look a professor in the face and tell him this isn't "non-contradictory" joy. He is living objectively in reality, using his mind, with purpose, self-esteem, and happiness. Now, what I REALLY couldn’t do is say that a poor person who is on the verge of dying shouldn't steal money from others for his welfare check so he can live in "non-contradictory joy". How would THAT be in his "rational' self-interest. I appreciate the posts here and didn't mean to offend anyone. People here may be saying to themselves that "why is this idiot asking the same questions over and over again?" The reason why is because I think everyone is begging the question the with the answers they are giving me (elaborated above).

Philosophically speaking yes. You can make up all of these bullshit arguments about how a thief needs men of effort to exist. Practically speaking, however, don't you think there are smart, intelligent CHEATERS out there that steal and make millions of dollars and will live until they die of natural causes happy lives? If so, it is moral for them to do that if morality is a guage of what is best to sustain a happy life of purpose (their purpose is theft, and they are dang good at it). This might not be sustainable if EVERYONE lived by this philosophy;however, if a few people live by it they will LIVE happily and thus aren't they "moral" under Rand's definition? Korthor, thanks for the post but it doesn't really answer the problems I'm having with Rand's philosphy. See the above complaint.

Why refuse to answer the question? *Why is slavery immoral*? Why is it WRONG to use another man as a means to your end if you don't care and you are in the least-advantaged category? Just spouting some rights rhetoric isn't going to cut it because you are not saying WHY my anyone (esp. my socialist professor) should believe it. EDIT: I just saw aequalsa's post and it's starting to approach the answer to the question. However, he doesn't prove rights. He just says if we dont acknowledge them 100% we will have a slippery slope to the perversion of rights. Yet, this is a fallacy. If I can still survive (which is what morality is for) by exploiting my neighbor and getting away with it psychologically and physically, who not still do it?

Yes, I have, and it didn't answer this question. Please explain what you mean by "reality". I understand how this argument works viewing man in a vacuum alone, but this doesn't get to the heart of what most people think when they hear her argument: "well, so what! If I'm poor and I don't care, I'm just going to suck your money from you and nothing will come of harm to me!" Just saying "well, that's not reality!" doesn't help me or my professor understand the Randian argument.

So you face the choice between death and life without "dignity" (which is a psychological response depending on the values poor people have. They could have glamourized in their head dependence as a virtue). If, in reality, they are ABLE to be dependent and feel HAPPY doing it and will live their ENTIRE LIFE doing it...how could you possibly claim that it isn't in their "moral self interest"? In other words we are back at the same question: why...WHY not sacrifice others to yourself if you feel no repurcussions and can get away with it?

The concept of individual rights Rand posits prevents others from using force to force people to become means for their own ends. This is because Rand thought that every man's life was an end in itself. My question is .... why? Why NOT have a system where some men are exploited (let's say by a 10% tax rate) for the benifit of those "least well off" in society? I'm reading the despicable John Rawls for a class here and have to refute the above argument that he presents. I understand that individually speaking rights make moral sense for man, but doesn't exploitation make moral sense for those least well off in society? Who are we to prioritize our own moral necessities over the physical necessities of those who least advantaged?

Before his creation, nothing existed but a natural layer of mud. After his creation, the environment was altered to the creator's desire. Since without him no mud hut would exist, it is clearly up to him the creator to decide what to do with it.

The right to property is the physical realization of our right to life - the right to keep what we as individuals create. From that basis, if you created a house to live on I do not see why you get a "right" to the tiny yard in front of it. Thinking about it more, I suppose I could understand a person claiming a right to have some yard in front of their house because that's part of why this person created his house to begin with (to enjoy his surrounding nature in protection). However, no one has yet answered my criterion of how much yard this person is entitled to (1 acre, 2 acres, 3 acres...what if the man claimed 100 acres)? Perhaps this is why Locke put his proviso on property which said you could own as much property as you wanted so long as there was enough left for your neighbors to enjoy (but Locke had to be wrong on this for that eventually leads to denying someone what they have created). Finally, I apologize for the inconvenience, but I re-read the posts and I honestly do not see what I'm missing.

Please, someone specifically answer my general question (how rights physically applied to reality are not arbitrary) using these examples: 1) we agree that consent is required for contracts, and that as long as no third parties rights are being violated by the contract people can do anything they want with their contracts. We also agree that children are not able to do this because they are not (developmentally speaking) rational. Now tell me how picking the age of 18 in society by legislative fiat is NOT arbitrary? What if it was a test. Well, what if the test was bogus. My government denies me my right to contract because it didn't think I passed some bogus test it gave me. Are my rights being violated? 2) I'm even more interested in the arbitrary property line example. This is what drives me crazy. What possible test could you use that isn't arbitrary (a test that IS grounded in nature) to decide where the property line goes?

Then it seems natural rights are not natural. They are things we have invented in our head that are pseudo-natural. If they are not practical, if they do not bend to the reality of human relationships and needs, then how can they be "rights"? I wholly wish this wasn't the case (please, tell me it's not the case). Because just leaving these standards up to the criterion of "what's reasonable" (like a judge picking an arbitrary property line, a legislature picking an arbitrary age of consent) is what opens up society into collectivism (since absolute protection of things we can't even identify isn't "reasonable," they'll say). These things have to be discoverable, they have to be real, or they are not natural or reality-based, and they certaintly aren't "rights"!

Ohh, so if I don't put it to "productive use" then it's not mine? If I build a fence around a plot and leave it there, is it still mine? What if I plan to build a house on it in 5 years when I finally get enough wood? Do I have a right to claim it and keep it for 5 years? What if I leave it unattended for 5 minutes and then someone else comes and claims that it now belongs to them because I hadn't put it to "productive use" yet? I don't mean to act like an ***hole, I just don't think my question has been answered. Eventually, disagreements between property plots are going to have to be resolved. How is it not arbitrary (ie, not not connected to reality) for a state or a stronger party to say this is where the property line is going to be drawn because I say so, and then later feeding you some line about "mutual survival". Sure, everyone wants to mutually survive! Everyone acknowledges the right to property! We just want a natural (not arbitrary) criterion of how we are going to draw boundaries besides "welp, there it is says I the person/group with the most guns for no particular reason." For example, let's say I farm roughly in a square about 10 acres by 10 acres. You build a house about 10.1 acres from me (in other words really really close because you like the view of my crops) After a year or two my crops begin to literally grow and spread around your house. How does the newly formed state going to decide where the line is going to be drawn? Do I get a right to my crops that extended around your house as a result of their natural spread (remember, they were only there because I created the ones nearby in the first place)? What if the crops only spread and stopped 1 inch from your house. Is that where the property line is? Or is it 10 feet away from the house (allowing you to actually have some say about what goes on in your immediate front yard)? Assuming you and I can't decide on a contract (which would be the first step in this conflict), how does is a state to decide where the boundary is without entering into the land of the arbitrary?

I understand Rand's theory of property rights - you have the right to keep what you create. Let's say I "create" a house on unowned land. I then have the right to keep my house. My question is how do we get from the fact that I have a right to keep my house to "my property extends 1 acre x 1 acre around my house in a neatly drawn square". It seems that the only way we get to that point is when we have arbitrary lines drawn for us by states and/or forced contracts. For example, although Person A and Person B might agree where their property line should be drawn so they can live in peace, person C and person D might never agree. Both of them will think their right to property is being violated by each other and the only way to solve it out is through force (a forced contract by a state, for example). Secondly, why do we even own the ground the house is on to begin with? All that we "created" was the house, not the ground. As a clearer example, let's say I build a fence around a plot of land. The only thing I created was the fence, which lays on a line surrounding a plot in the shape of the square. Why do I not only own the fence (ie, why do we assume that we own any land to begin with)? Whatever the case, what would stop someone from (before property was appropriated) building a fence around the entire earth, or claiming all of North America (as many people tried to do), etc etc. Answers to any of these questions are appreciated. PS - I want to note that I do not contend with Rand's theory of property. I am only curious as to how it is applied in the real world without arbitrary force.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand. if I wake up one day and I am surrounded by property of another man, then how am I even supposed to get to court? Is an "easement" something I secure way beforehand, making sure I have the right-of-way through someone's land in case they buy it? Finally, I'm not convinced that someone building property around me isn't a form of attacking my right to liberty. Why isn't it? I've read these posts but their just so uncrear. They have turned into flame wars and I get lost into the simple question at hand: what specifically is the right being violated when land surrounds me? and if no right is being violated then is it the moral thing for me to just die in the middle of my property because it was my own damn fault? Finally, I didn't mean to suggest I owned the air, but if I can't legally stand on any property where am I supposed to breathe? In jail? Thanks for everyone's help.

1) A man has a peice of property. Another man buys up all of the property around it and thus prevents the man in the center from legally leaving. The man in the center dies. What would objectivism say about the above scenario? Is it not true that force was not involved in the above scenario and thus it is legitimate for the government to allow it to happen? 2) All of the property on the planet is owned by humans. A man is homeless. Since he has no land to legally stand on, he can't legally breathe the oxygen in the air without violating someone's property rights. In fact, he can't stand anywhere without violating someone's rights. ******* These questions were presented to me during an objectivist debate as extreme examples to show why free-market Austrian economics is wrong. What would you say to them?

I sense that those recieving this answer won't "buy it". They'll then just say "yeah, because they are greedy and don't care about future products - only their own products."

I understand that "greed" is necessary for human survival, for in order for man to make any rational decision to advance his life he must first be "greedy" for his own life. Many people then say: "Suppose a man wanted cars, books, houses, etc. so much that he was willing to cheat, steal, and bribe his way to them (ie, violate rights)?" How would I tell someone that living this way is in fact not greedy, since it doesn't advance one's life or happiness?

David I appreciate your lengthy reply but I'm not sure you answered any of my questions. It seems to me that what you wrote was a longer version of what was summarized in the wikipedia entry. I understand that it is "moral" to have a right to life if "life is your highest standard" - but I'm asking a question that goes even before that: why is life the highest standard? It you answer this question, it would then be easy to answer these: Why is "the basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics that every human is an end in himself"? Why must 'man live for his own sake"? Furthermore, I still don't understand how these questions are answered: "According to who? Why is it INVIOLABLE? Why am I BORN with it? If it's based on my "nature" as a "rational being" then why do CHILDREN have this right? Why do MENTALLY RETARDED individuals have this right?" *********************** I completely understand that if man wishes to have life as his highest standard then he needs the preceding right to life in order to live this way, but that still doesn't answer my question of why this necessitates a human "right" to anything.

"Although Objectivist literature does not use the term "natural rights", the rights it recognizes are based directly on the nature of human beings as described in its epistemology and ethics. Since human beings must make choices in order to survive as human beings, the basic requirement of a human life is the freedom to make, and act on, one's own independent rational judgment, according to one's self-interest. Thus, Objectivism contends, the fundamental right of human beings is the right to life." - Wikipedia I agree with this statement completely - man needs to be able to make choices in order to survive as a human being - but why does this make life a RIGHT? What IS a right? According to who? Why is it INVIOLABLE? Why am I BORN with it? If it's based on my "nature" as a "rational being" then why do CHILDREN have this right? Why do MENTALLY RETARDED individuals have this right? Just because it is a necessity of my human nature in order to live - why does this make life a RIGHT?

So we don't entertain the "arbitrary" because we would never have enough time to consider all of the possible "theories"? I still don't see how this proves they can't be true. If it were you, would you tell my friend "Yes, you could theoretically be right, just as the spaghetti monster theory could be right"? And now onto this other aspect of my friend's attack: "There are other forms of knowledge besides perception and reason, such as revalation, the bible, etc." So then are "revalation" and "the bible" forms of the "arbitrary"?