Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Breschau

Regulars
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Oregon
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Breschau's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Breschau

    Abortion

    I'm going to stop right here. This is the crux of the argument. "The right thing to do" is defined as that which is moral. If an act is "the right thing to do" it is the moral thing to do. You are obligated to perform the moral. Therefore, you are morally obligated to save the child. But, it hasn't been born yet, so it has no rights and is not a man. If you are morally obligated to save the child in this circumstance, what has changed the child from a non-value, to a value. The only possible explanation is that it is not the birth of the child that makes it gain rights, but it's viability outside the womb. Though the mother may be dead, the child will survive, and must be saved. With the mother still alive, and the child viable outside the womb, then too the child must be saved. So, for the child to have value, it must have purpose. If the child has value then it is good, and must be saved. You start by arguing that the embryo is a separate being, and is essentially a parasite until it can sustain it's own life. But, that dependence continues to apply to born children, up till about 3-4 years old. So it's status as a parasite, and not a man with rights, would then continue until it is truly independent, i.e. can sustain it's own life. So a dependent child could equally be destroyed without issue. There is nothing that fundamentally changes in the baby by being born. It passes through the birth canal, it's head is likely misshapen, to reform later, but nothing really changes in the child. That it passes through the birth canal is irrelevant too, as I'm sure a caesarean section counts. And as they are separate entities, it's not about spatial location. The crux then must be the viability of the embryo. The embryo is viable from about 5 months. Avoidance of the consequences of your actions is antithetical to Objectivism.
  2. Last I checked, the OP was inquiring on a philosophy forum, about a philosophical quote. I answered in kind. I am not part of the BDSM scene, and I was not using the terms as such. I did not claim to be an expert on anything. I simply tried to answer the OP's question. Don't assume anything about me. I find it rude that you have.
  3. Breschau

    Abortion

    I'm not on a law forum. I'm not talking about legality, but morality. As you say, some immoral things are legal. A pregnancy is not akin to an injured leg. The potential for consequences, given all reasonable safety precautions may be the same. But, an injury has a negative impact on your well-being. Having an unnecessary operation on a whim has a negative impact on you well-being. Intentionally going against your own well-being is a sign of mental illness, as I showed above. A potential consequence of biking is injury. A potential consequence of sex is pregnancy. Accepting the responsibility for that injury (and being rational) would mean you'd repair the injury. Accepting the responsibility for that pregnancy (and being rational) would mean raising the child (or adopting it out), not paying someone to "get rid of it". The point is that however low the risk is, you have to accept the consequences of your actions. That doesn't start with the abortion, but with the sex, as I stated in a previous post. It also applies to every other choice you make in life. That doesn't mean you should never leave your home, but when the potential consequences are greater, when you choose to engage in risk behavior, you can't avoid the consequences.
  4. Good philosophy teacher put the information before you and help you to interpret it. Bad philo teachers just leave you with riddles. Good teachers know what they are doing and why. Bad teachers know neither. Education is and end in itself as it teaches you how to live life. As Rand said... With someone there to mentor and help you find knowledge it's much easier than going it alone. OP: Honestly look into an education, if you don't like what you see, or don't think it's useful for you, then don't do it. Despite the party line, any higher degree will help improve your life in the long run over only having a high school education.
  5. Breschau

    Abortion

    No it is not detrimental to a woman's life. That was not my claim. My claim was that it affected her well-being. That "having to endure momentary discomfort: physical and mental" which you mentioned. I am a father. The mother isn't the only person responsible for the life of the child. It is a profound change of lifestyle, that is true. The issue isn't morality in general but the claims of Objectivist morality. Life is the only value. The selfish pursuit of that value the only good. Risk is a potential, not a certainty. However, according to Rand, that very risk taking is potentially a trade of value for whim as in So, it is that self-same potential of risk (and potential of sacrifice) that would go against being rationally selfish, which is Objectivism. Even if my definition is off, the result is the same. It isn't until the child is born that it meets the "other person" standard, according to the Abortion article. That assumption still yields that the child is part of the mother until birth. That doesn't derail the rest of the argument. No, it is not a necessary result, but it is an implied risk. Choice and consent are the key. You choose not to get a vasectomy. She chooses not to take the pill, chooses not to use a IUD, and chooses not to have her tubes tied. When you choose to consent to the sex, you also choose to consent to the consequences. Even potential ones. You can't go to Vegas and lose your money, only to ask for it back. From Rand... As a rational man, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Even the potential consequences.
  6. Breschau

    Abortion

    EC: note the huge difference between the Emotions article and the Abortion article. In Emotions, there is a reasoned explanation of what things are from an Objectivist perspective. In Abortion, there is a set of commandments, with no argument or discussion as to how the conclusions were reached, simply the conclusions themselves. That makes me suspicious as I remember lines from The Virtue of Selfishness to the effect of "commandments require that you submit your reason to another." I will find the exact quote. Everyone: As a request, can we please stay on the topic of Objectivism and Abortion. As a process to understand Objectivism better, I would prefer quotes from Rand that support any claim you make, coupled with a reasonable presentation of an argument (or counter-argument) by you. If you find flaw in my arguments, say so, but also include a reasoned argument as to why, and give specific examples from Rand's work that shows why. And no, saying that the Lexicon article on Abortion is correct because it's a Ayn Rand's Lexicon article on Abortion doesn't count. I want real philosophical discussion here. Appeals to authority and other fallacies are not welcome. "Because Ayn Rand said so," isn't good enough. I want her actual words. I want those words integrated into an argument that either show how I'm wrong, or a counter-argument as to why the conclusions presented in the Abortion article are correct. My thesis is that the Abortion article is contradicted by the quotes I presented from Rand's philosophy. If you think I'm wrong, don't tell me, show me. With quotes, reason, and logic.
  7. The pursuit of knowledge is an end in itself. If you are curious and want to, there is no reason not to.
  8. Breschau

    Abortion

    I think your question is sufficiently similar to the last quoted post here, so I'll attempt to answer you below. I know of no right, only the natural biological necessity. From Rand The biological function of pregnancy is reality. Except in the case of rape (which includes incest) the mother's consent was given to the act of conception. No, this is not simplistic. It is a good point in need of discussion. In the case of a kidney infection / disease, the person's continued well-being is jeopardized by the infection, thus treating the infection is in pursuit of well-being, thus is a moral act. So this doesn't apply. The question of a healthy, donated kidney is closer, but it offers some benefit to the well-being of another, so it to is not the same. Abortion would be more like deciding to have an organ removed (for whatever reason) and the organ is then discarded (i.e. it offers no benefit to anyone). That is where my confusion comes in. Considering the actual harm that is caused to the mother (enduring the procedure) and the risks of complication, the procedure is detrimental to the mother's well-being. Life is value. Saving the life of the mother is necessary. However, an abortion for anything short of that (aborting to avoid financial hardship, etc) is unnecessary, i.e. it doesn't positively affect the survival or well-being of the mother, and therefore, according to Rand, that abortion is a whim. And also according to Rand, one should not trade a value for a lesser value. To me that includes things like extreme sports (the temporary thrill traded for the risk of ending life), and an unnecessary abortion (the trading of a whim for the harm to the mother). Rand argues for the primacy of Reason as the guiding principle of life. Rationality is antithesis to emotionalism. Reason is antithesis to emotion. Hence the request for logical thought, critical reasoning, and the avoidance of emotion. I would appreciate comments directly tied to the quotes of Rand's work, and my process of thought. I have taken the time to find appropriate quotes from Rand's philosophy (not the Lexicon) to support my argument, and reasoned through to the logical end. Please do the same in return, providing your process of thought and supporting quotes from Rand's works rather than an unsupported conclusion.
  9. Breschau

    Abortion

    *** Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread on the same topic. - sN *** GIANT WARNING THING! This is not an emotion filled post. This is an honest attempt at a reasoned conversation about this topic as concerns Objectivism. This is not a flame, this is not an attempt at a fight. Please keep any posts free of emotion. I have set out the position I think Objectivism should take considering its precepts, and given the relevant quotes below (those I can find that is). The official version disagrees. Rather than appeal to authority (or any other fallacy), I've tried to lay it out as clearly and as logically as I can. Please feel free to comment. But, again, please keep comments on topic and free of emotion, instead let us use reason. Here goes... I was just reading over on this thread about the use of force. The statement that caught my eye was... I followed the link and immediately went for abortion, because after reading the above quote, I knew Objectivism would be anti-abortion. Wow, was I wrong... The manner of justification is what troubles me. The article goes through the trouble of stating the same thing essentially, in four ways, just to be sure. Yet, some of these have negative consequences from an Objectivist point-of-view. "An embryo has no rights." Until the moment of birth, a child is considered an embryo. So the mother could abort 5 minutes before birth, if she so chose. Also, as the embryo has no rights, there would be no crime in a third party killing an unborn child, other than assault. "Rights do not pertain to potential, only actual beings." Well, other than the giant problems this gives corporations (which are considered people by the Supreme Court) it's irrelevant to us "actual beings." "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." This is a restatement of the preceding, and a clarification. But, if the mother dies in childbirth, before the infant is born, there is no moral obligation to save the child. "The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." This one threw me. I take precedence over any of my (and your descendants). If we destroy the ecosystem, it's OK, because we've no moral obligation to leave them anything, moreover, we have no obligation to have descendants. Sure, I can handle that last part. "Abortion is a moral right." According to Rand, through the above quoted poster's filter, "Objectivism holds that a man has one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life." These are in obvious conflict. We must assume that either: a) the poster is incorrect, or; b ) the poster is correct. If a, then there is no issue. If b, then whoever wrote the Lexicon article contradicts Rand. Further, if a, then we must also assume that it is only when one is born that one becomes a man, thus gaining that singular moral right to life. From Rand The crux of the statement rests on the definition of 'others'. The philosophy definition of the Other is : that which is distinct from, different from, or opposite something or oneself. To be an "other" the embryo must be "distinct from" or "different from" the mother. I take it this is what the Lexicon means by "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." Sure, it acquires no rights until it is Other, until it is "distinct from" or "different from" the mother. But, that also means that until the baby is born it is part of the mother. It is indistinct from the mother, it is part of the mother, it is the mother in some sense. Again, from Rand As the baby is indistinct from its mother, it is part of her, and is the mother in some sense, according to Rand, this would amount to the intent, or the " "want," in some sense" to harm herself. From Rand To be mentally healthy you must pursue your survival and well-being. To harm one's self intentionally is contrary to one's well-being. Therefore, to intentionally harm one's self is a sign of mental illness. As the baby is indistinct from the mother until birth, causing harm to it is a sign of mental illness in the mother. I like my sig, I also like the necessary conclusion that is drawn from it: "That which is anti-life, is anti-mind."
  10. I would suggest reading the philosophy books. They may be harder to get through, but at least it's direct information instead of couched between narrative, description, plot, and dialog. Note: I am an English geek. I love me some books. But I'm also a philosopher, so if I want to read a good book I will, and if I want to read philosophy I will. If it's a good book with philosophy, that's fine. But I'd rather have the straight dirt with out the extras sometimes.
  11. Every choice we make presents the world with a glimpse of what we value. If you choose a submissive partner, you do not value strength. You prefer someone who will submit their will to yours. You need control, but needing control is also a sign of weakness. If you choose a dominant partner, you do not value weakness. You prefer someone who you can give your will over to. You can't handle control, you can't make your own choices. If however you pick a rational partner with self-esteem, you value reason and pride.
  12. I love these things. They threw 'em at me in philosophy classes all the time. Number two made the choice, for himself, to die. He has no right to my life. Kill him.
  13. I'd think the issue is with faulty definitions. Ethics and philosophy are not sciences. I think they could be if logic were rigidly applied at all times, but as philosophy stands, it is neither systematic nor based on observation and experiment. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Ethics is the study of what we ought to do. Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The only overlap, ostensibly, is the "reality" of philosophy and "the physical and natural world" in science. It is easy to avoid this by simply considering that philosophy is more esoteric and science more concrete. The thought experiments of philosophy are nothing like the real experiments of science. With philosophy, it is an endless debate of opinion. With science, the final arbiter is the data. If only philosophy, and ethics, were so simple. As you can see, this opinion is one of the reasons I'm drawn to Objectivism. Favoring reason over all else is something I'm all for. Grund über alles.
  14. I live in Oregon. This is a horrid story. That church has 2-3 other deaths on their heads from this nonsense. Including an infant whose parents put her on the altar rather than take her to a hospital. As for the Objectivist standpoint: It's mysticism. "Neither mysticism nor the creed of self-sacrifice is compatible with mental health or self-esteem. These doctrines are destructive existentially and psychologically." "The standard of mental health... is... man's survival and well-being." So by choosing to self-sacrifice in this way (to petty mysticism no less) is the definition of mental illness.
×
×
  • Create New...