Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oakes

Regulars
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oakes

  1. Oakes

    Abortion

    Food doesn't have rights. grr. Agreed. I don't understand that argument. Whether or not the mother consented and must accept the consequences can be vague; what if the male "coerces" her to have the baby with his charm and wit. She may or may not realize and regret the mistake before actually giving birth to the child, but in any case, she can't (literally) kill the problem away if the thing has rights. Gee, I guess if we can't have a firm dividing line, at least we can have a enormously significant one Parents not wanting their child is a totally seperate issue. Noone would support the murder of a child to "put him out of the misery" of bad parents. If we make the assumption that a fetus has the same rights, the same thing applies. So let's find out if this assumption is correct. I dare you all to stick to the same basic topic without straying off: Does it have rights?
  2. Oakes

    Abortion

    I'm quoting both of these since they are the same argument: that noone is obligated to keep you alive. This is true for adults, but not for minors (DPW pointed this out right after saying that). This is new to me. I didn't know rights required the combination of these two things. I actually figured these were two seperate arguments made by objectivists. Let's assume this is true. Couldn't physical seperateness be considered part of our nature as well? It is a stage we will eventually reach (not a potential, but a guarantee). Again the question is, why does degree matter? BTW what does this mean for the rights of conjoined twins? It doesn't matter when it begins; only that volition is a part of us (genetically?) for the start. It is part of our nature. Except that cancer bares no rights, while theoretically we are arguing that the fetus does.
  3. It's not what you're thinking. I want to remain an objectivist even if I disagree with a minor point, because I find it detrimental for a philosophy to be so strictly defined and static. It is possible just to move on to a new name, and admit that the past one was a failure. I plan to avoid that beforehand via dynamic philosophy. I plan for it to have shelf-life. The purpose is to efficiently identify you with core values and beliefs, and that's all.
  4. Oh, I'm sorry. That wasn't my question at all. I already know all this, you need not re-assert it. My question was and is, why do you insist on remaining in a closed system philosophy? Why do all objectivists do so? Why do we seek more to preserve the integrity of a word than to find answers? Actually so far only you and DWP have asserted that I'll arrive at all of Rand's conclusions if I would only *think* hard enough.
  5. Oakes

    Abortion

    Doesn't matter. If the fetus truly has a right to life, you cannot impede on that right by declaring the rights of another. Capitalism stands the freedom of an adult to do anything unless it impedes on the rights of others. Are you going to be consistent? If a child has the right to life, doing this would be illegal because it would result in the death of the child. If we had the technology to keep it alive, this would be an option, though only with the consent of the mother (because she is the legal guardian). That might actually be convenient, since they wouldn't have to go through all the agony of labor. So are you making the same mistake Spearmint and nimble made? Are you saying that the issue isn't whether they have rights, but just the fact that it is within the mother? Who cares what the fetus can and cannot do? Rights come from the fact that humans are volitional, not that they are physically separate beings. So the same question is posed: Why is degree of volitional development important? A fetus is inherently a volitional being, whatever the development cycle. He may not always practice that volition -- he certainly doesn't when he's asleep, in a coma, under anesthesia, or suffering a debilitating disease (such as old age :-/) -- but generally we regard him as needing rights anyway for when (if) he wakes up. Why is a fetus different?
  6. Oakes

    Abortion

    Maybe I'm just lazy, but could just tell me what the big secret is? I have read enough from that site and enough from this thread, and I haven't heard anyone say they would willingly allow a person to impede on the rights of another person (assuming that a fetus has rights). I got the impression that most people here go by the argument that they don't have rights in the first place.
  7. Then it looks like you need not worry. To be honest, I shouldn't be worrying either. I could easily go on like any closed-system objectivist, insisting on absolute agreement, because I personally haven't yet found disagreement on anything. But there may be people who do find disagreement, and I want to be able to communicate with them, and possibly even change my mind, all under the name of objectivism. Enough people have made it clear that this is the way things are. My premise at the beginning of this thread was to ask why. I know I've got a lot to learn, and my current state demands an open system, but so does everyone else's. We are all humans with limited knowledge, and we could all use the input of others, even if it means a change in our own beliefs.
  8. Good, then we're in agreement. Remember my hypothetical situation: "... Let's hypothesize further that I believed I was being more consistent with my reasoning than mainstream objectivists ..." The point is that people may think (and may be right) that they are being more consistent with the philosophy, and yet are still finding disagreement with Rand. Damnit, this is what DPW was doing. I'm not interested in actually arguing about any specific issue right now, and I don't need someone else assuring me that everything is fine and dandy. As long as A remains A, we humans will be here, looking for the best way to live our lives. Far from saying it is unattainable, I think its search requires that objectivists allow the possibility of logical failure when it comes to truths that aren't as self-evident as 1+1=2. wtf?
  9. Are you saying there are no true conclusions objectivism draws that rational people could possibly disagree with? Let's say I agreed with every major idea, but disagreed with a few of the specific conclusions drawn after that. Let's hypothesize further that I believed I was being more consistent with my reasoning than mainstream objectivists. Am I supposed to create a new word? If I ever had to, I'd be sure to not make the same mistake of having a closed system. Knowledge of the world and of philosophy are not implicit -- we must do everything we can to get the best answers.
  10. Oakes

    Abortion

    That doesn't scare me away from my position. I believe wholeheartedly everything I said to you regardless of what the majority thinks. Reason -- not intimidation -- is the only way to change my mind. So, what is this "mother's right to choose" argument you speak of? If a fetus does indeed hold the right to life, why would the mother's rights hold supremacy?
  11. Oakes

    Abortion

    I disagree. If a fetus truly had the reasoning powers of a healthy adult, and is entitled to the right to life, one could flip that argument around and say that there is no justification in killing the fetus. My friend, it is important to know if a fetus has rights. To everyone: I've read a portion of this thread. I've gone to abortionisprolife.com. And no, I still find it hard to form an opinion of this issue; m0zart was right to say this is the most confusing issue of objectivism. The above-mentioned website states that man has rights "to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking." So essentially our rights come from our need of them as volitional beings. It goes on to state that "As a fetus does not use reason to survive ... a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights." My question is the one posed by m0zart (which I don't think was ever answered): "Why is degree of development important in this case, when absent of violent interruption or deprivation the human being and his rational faculty will develop on its own? Why is degree in this case ... acceptlble as a standard, rather than ... the already inherent nature of the child to be a rational being (without which he would never become one -- anymore than a dog could become one since its not in his nature) when the standard is rejected by Rand and Objectivists in general across the board for almost every other conceptulization?" I think the normal argument is that "Only volitional animals need rights, a fetus is not a volitional animal, thus a fetus doesn't need rights." But couldn't it be considered a volitional animal by nature? Whether it is genetically or something else, we've had it programmed into us from the beginning. Why wait until the inevitable actually happens? Note bene that my mind is far from being made up. I pose these questions only to further my understanding of the topic.
  12. jedymastyr, I'm not just talking about expansions, I'm talking about changes. Any opinion on some future issue will obviously be called an "expansion" or "application", but apparently the trouble comes when one seeks to change an idea -- not central to objectivism -- that Rand has already established.
  13. I'm still not clear what the importance is. Is it to stay true to Rand's version? If so, then it is an issue of open vs. closed system. Of course, but when I suggest Ayn Rand's word on X should not be chiseled in stone, it doesn't work to respond by saying that opposing X requires that you reject premises of objectivism. It sure is my "epistemological responsibility" to show you where the error in X is, if I truly disagree with X, but I'd rather do it within the framework of and open-system objectivism, where I wouldn't be denied the name over minor disagreement.
  14. I would've replied earlier but I couldn't connect to the site. While I was away, I casually browsed Nathaniel Branden's website. I was quite surprised how closely his thoughts resemble my own: "...the debate has been whether Objectivism is a philosophical system that can be refined, expanded on, amplified, and applied in new directions by those who share its basic premises or whether Objectivism is confined exclusively to the positions propounded by Ayn Rand during her lifetime." I disagree. Abortion and other real-world issues are philosophical in nature. Catholics have one view, subjectivist liberals have another. EDIT: I read your next post. I find your distinction between philosophical issues/principles to be irrelevent. Perhaps it wasn't part of the philosophy "proper", but as a proponent of an open-system I really don't care about what's proper. I'll be the judge of that. And others interested in objectivism should be the judge of that. Your logic is not infallible, and neither was Rand's. Trust me, I know I'm free to disagree with her. I've got freedom flowing through my veins. The problem is that ideally a philosophy would be open to, as Branden said it, refining, expanding on, amplifying, and applying in new directions. I don't mean that objectivism should be allowed to become altruistic, collectivist, subjective, and mystical. I mean that the specifics should not be confined to the word of Rand. BTW, Branden says he himself was angered when Objectivism was misrepresented as materialistic, dog-eat-dog, and fascist. I suspect he wouldn't have felt the same anger if it was a more specific issue like abortion that distanced from the original stance.
  15. Are you just talking about asthetics? I'm talking about making opinions on any given issue, like abortion. I would think that the best way to keep your philosophy free of contradictions is to have it be a dynamic philosophy with a firm base and an active outer sphere of applications to the real world, filled with lively debate. But some of that outer sphere seems to have an official Ayn Rand definition attached, and although I haven't found any disagreements so far, I still am hesitant of this.
  16. heheh, I guess you answered my question :-) I still am confused about why this is so, though.
  17. erandror, But the real world will require constant moral evaluation, things that Rand herself never lived to know of. Does that mean, anything not evaluated during Ayn Rand's life is open to debate among those who wish to call themselves objectivists? But they must agree with the things she did get to evaluate or drop the name?
  18. Hi, I'm Oakes. I've come here to learn more about Objectivism. I have been severely left-brained since 7th grade. The peak of my left-brain mania was in 8th grade when, after being forced to go on a field trip to an amusement park, I refused to indulge in any "irrational fun", so I did nothing but walk around. This kind of lifestyle made me depressed after a while, even after finding ways to convince myself to have a little fun once in a while. Thus began my search for a world-view that made sense. I have been roaming the internet for years (I'm a high school senior now), going through transhumanism, nihilism, scientism, and back around again. I think Objectivism embodies most of what I've believed, some that I've never thought of, and refutes still more that I used to believe. I knew early on that I would never be religious. But as a secular person, I inevitably fell into the subjectivist pit that characterizes much of the intellectuals today. I was undoubtedly a Marxist; as a matter of fact, I remember three years ago on an Isaac Asimov forum when I argued for over ten pages with no other than an objectivist! My arguments, in retrospect, were embarassing. I want to say one last thing. Since this philosophy has been so strongly tied to its creator, Ayn Rand, I feel a strong obligation to think through the logic myself rather than accept her own conclusions. There is no disputing self-evident axioms, and hard to dispute the immediate conclusions of them, but as you branch out and deduce more and more specific applications to our lives, there is a chance of logical error. My goal in talking to objectivists is to reach the best answers for these out-standing parts of my philosophy, armed with the combined insights of a group of free thinkers who share a common philosophical foundation. So comes the question: how open is the definition of "objectivism" to differences in opinions and such?
×
×
  • Create New...