Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

masked

Regulars
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Indiana
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Max

masked's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. bluecherry, thanks for the response. I think that your argument is a good one. I also think that it is based on the first paragraph and if I can prove the first paragraph to be wrong than the entire argument is wrong. As the result of this I am going to only focus on the first paragraph. In summery, you say that since people need each other to survive they are no different from a baby needing his parents to survive. Obviously I think that this is wrong. A man does not NEED any other man to survive. Any interaction that happens is by a voluntary mutual agreement. Each man can benefit from the interaction, but does not NEED it. I can choose not to trade with you or not to work for you and still remain alive. On the other hand, a new born can not choose and even if they could, they would die. To conclude, I will quote Ayn Rand:
  2. I am asking for the person to present evidence in his argument. If you believe that presenting evidence in an argument is somehow giving a handout than you are correct. I believe that presenting evidence is the proper way to argue and is not considered a handout.
  3. Look at this quote from Ayn Rand: The way that I read her quote is that if a man (lets call him Bob) has the right to violate the right of something else (that us call that Joe) than Joe can not be man because if Joe was man than Bob would not be able to violate his rights. Therefore, being a man is what gives you rights, but not having rights implies that you can not be man. As a result, it is a valid argument to say that if something does not have rights it can not be man. Maybe I am not interpreting the quote correctly. Do you have thoughts on this?
  4. I said that in the US legal system, children, like animals, do not have rights but have protections. I was wrong because IN THE US LEGAL SYSTEM children do have rights. Animals on the other hand do not and are simply protected from things such as cruelty and thus have protections. How does that make me wrong when talking about Objectivism rights? I never claimed that in Objectivism there is a difference between a right and a protection. I defined what a right is (in Objectivism) and everyone has ignored me. I will try it again, for the 3rd time: My understanding is that a right is simply a freedom of action. I also explain what a right to live is and everyone ignored me again: A right to live means that no one can stop you from living. The reason that man has rights is so that man can exist. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. A child that is not self sustaining is not man because man has rights and a child does not. This is the prove that a child does not have rights: A young child can not sustain itself and is alive only because of some one else. The parents are not slaves to the child and therefore have the right to refuse supporting it. Since the child can not support itself, the refusal of the support by the parents would mean that they (indirectly) have the right to stop the child from living. If some one has the RIGHT to stop you from living, it means that you do not have the right to live. If an entity does not have the right to life, it logically can not have ANY other rights. DavidOdden, I am not sure if this is the format that you prefer. I said this a few times now and everyone still ignores me. Please show me at least one flaw in the logic of the above statement.
  5. Who is asking you to prove a negative? All you have to do is to show ONE characteristic that separates a young child from property. Some people here have tried and failed. This is subjective and I was talking about myself. Unless you are suggesting that other Objectivists benefiting from this would somehow imply that I would benefit from it too you don't really have an argument. None of you have been able to show that there is at least one difference between young children and property. You did show that in the US I am legally wrong. Is that what you think proves that I am philosophically wrong? Also, I hope you can see that I am not arguing against all men having inalienable rights. I am arguing against young children being men.
  6. Please look back at what I was talking about. It was the United States legals system. In our legal system there is an actual difference between a right and a protection. I did not say and I did not imply that this is the same in Objectivism. I was not talking about Objectivism or about a proper moral legal system. You are confusing the two arguments and using my argument about the legal system to show that I have a bad understanding of Objectavism. In the US legal sense I already said that I was wrong so I am not sure why you keep bringing that up. If you are trying to argue the philosophical argument, please use my Objectavist logic for arguing that position:
  7. I was making two arguments. The first was on a philosophical level and the second was on a legal. The distinction was made on a legal level because in law there is a difference. As I pointed out, I was wrong about the US law. This does not in any way make my philosophical argument less valid or impair my understanding of an Objectivist definition of a right. You know, you might be completely right about this. I did not read a lot on this subject so it is very possible that I am wrong. The reason that I made that conclusion is because all of her arguments for abortion were actually for the moral right to make the choice of abortion. She wanted to make sure that government could not stop people from making that choice. I am sure that she did not want every women to always have an abortion though
  8. I did some of my own research and it is true that in our legal system children have rights. I did not pretend to know this and warned that I am very possible wrong about it, which I was. In terms of Objectivism, I believe that I made a valid argument and my legal error does not in any way make it weaker. I did read Virtue of Selfishness and many other writings by Rand. Is there anything specific that "will help [me] to correct [my] errors" or are you simply going to tell me to read until I agree with you? If Rand (or anyone) proved that children are not property, please provide a link. Currently it just sounds like your personal wrong interpretation of what they proven, but again, I can be wrong. I am not asking for handouts. If you feel like I am proposing that you to re-prove something feel free to ignore this post. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. If I knew everything about Objectivism I would have no reason to be here... The point is, I made a very valid philosophical (not legal) argument about why young children do not have rights and none of you have tried to prove me wrong. Please, show me a fault in my argument. Link to an Objectivist definition of a 'right' that proves me wrong.
  9. This is a great place to start! So, the first assumption that you are making is that the reason that morally you should not strangle the baby is because it has a right. The second assumption that you are making is that it is not legal to strangle your baby because it has a right. The reason that I say that you are making an assumption is not because I am trying to offend you, but because you offer no proof. I think that morally it is wrong to strangle your baby because of your love for it, which is the love for you property. If the baby is somehow a leach (perhaps a 30 year old "baby" who is forcing you to work and feed it) than I would argue that you have the moral right to strangle it (joking). This is also an assumption, but I am just trying to demonstrate that your way of looking at it is not infallible and that my way of looking at it would fit just as well. Legally, I think that the child has protections, not rights. I could be wrong about this, but I would only trust an actual lawyer to be an expert on this subject.
  10. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you proposing that I need to provide proof to show you that a newborn can not survive with out assistance? First of all, I am not an expert on rights so if anyone can see flaws in my logic please let me know. I am here specifically to see other viewpoints (aka get information on Objectivism), which I think is a valid use of this forum JMeganSnow. I don't believe that I am breaking rules or forcing anyone to respond. My understanding is that a right is simply a freedom of action. A right to live means that no one can stop you from living. It does not mean that anyone has to help you live. Living is the process of self-sustaining. The right to life therefore means the right to engage in self-sustaining action. A young child can not sustain itself and is alive only because of some one else. The parents are not slaves to the child and therefore have the right to refuse supporting it. Since the child can not support itself, the refusal of the support by the parents would mean that they (indirectly) have the right to stop the child from living. If some one has the right to stop you from living, it means that you do not have the right to live. If an entity does not have the right to life, it logically can not have ANY other rights. I hope that this makes sense. BTW, I think that I am arguing 2 different ideas of rights. One is a philosophical and one is legal. The above statement was my view on rights philosophically. Legally, a baby has no rights. They can not own property, they can not vote, they can not access the courts, they do not have the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly or petition. They have protections, but not rights. Your pet also has protection and killing it can also send you to jail. In fact, there is a very recent case of a girl baking a cat and getting jail time for it. I am not a lawyer, but I think that you are mistaking what legal rights are. Maybe some one (a lawyer) can confirm/deny my claim?
  11. Why do you assume that children have rights? Legally, children are unable to enter into a social contract and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights. Philosophically I am going to have to quote Ayn Rand: A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service. Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.
  12. I never claimed that "property" is undefinable. I said that there is no way to know how each person in the world characterizes property and thus I can never show that young children have ALL characteristics of property. All I can say is that children are treated as property and thus they are property, but I can not give you a list of all the possible ways to treat property...
  13. Property is legally defined as anything that is owned by a person or entity. You are assuming that a young child has the same rights as an adult human being.
  14. I agree that in order to qualify something as property, it must have all of the characteristics of property. The list of characteristics that defines something as property is subjective. As such, it would be impossible for me (or anyone) to list every possible characteristic. The logical approach is for me to make a statement that young children are property because they have all of the characteristics of property and for you (or anyone) to refute that statement using examples. The example that you provide shows how children do not have characteristics of non-living property and since children are in fact alive, your example is not valid.
  15. A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service. Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.
×
×
  • Create New...