Rawls was Right

Touche, but this is exactly why Lamb wasn't a true altruist, and why real altruism is probably impossible. She was more of a collectivist.

You're assuming that the human in question has the capacity for reason. Also, I'm not saying they should be denied the use of the drug, only that you aren't obligated to let them. Apes can utilize language on the same spectrum as humans can. The difference between the hermit crab and humans that utilize metallurgy etc. is one of positions on a spectrum, not of category.

Language is abstract and some animals can utilize language. Tools are an abstraction of a percieved object and some animals can use tools. If you think this discussion is pointless then don't reply.

Your first answer is HIGHLY subjective and your second makes no sense in the context of the question. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. If this is how objectivism defines capacity for reason, then of course any living person must at some point have shown a capacity for reason. My concern now is that the types of things you listed that are characteristic of reason are learned behaviors. Animals, to varying degrees, are able to learn behaviors too. What is it that differentiates person from animal to an objectivist?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism You're wrong. Literally the only thing that defines an altruist is someone who gives of themselves for another's benefit. Whatever other behavior so-called altruists engage in is not intrinsic to altruism.

You aren't fighting a blatant and honest altruist in Bioshock 2 just as you aren't fighting a blatant and honest objectivist in Bioshock; an altruist only gives of themselves to the greater good and would never force another to do the same. Also you seem to be contradicting yourself in the second sentence, it's impossible to be completely volitional if you are being genetically coerced as Johnny Topside is. He's a slave just like Jack Ryan was.

How do you know the use of human reason is volitional? How do you know someone acting irrationally is not utilizing their capacity to reason to the best of their ability?

Agreed. There are plenty of ways to paint PMC groups as evil without turning them into comic book villian stereotypes.

Uh, so you didn't think Andrew Ryan was a bad person for ordering political assassinations, torture, executions and literally enslaving people (Big Daddies)? Also, Ryan allowed the sale of Adam technologies to the general public despite knowing there were risks of side effects AND against the governing council's wishes. Oh, and let's not even mention those technologies were acquired from nationalizing Fontaine Futuristics, which he did despite Fontaine's will specifying that his holdings should be passed down to his family. Oh, and let's also not mention that the entire reason why he and Fontaine were at odds in the first place was because Fontaine was 'smuggling' goods from the outside world into Rapture, which were banned by Ryan, which is a pretty gross limitation on personal liberty. Andrew Ryan was a Bad Person, at least as bad as Sofia Lamb. I'm actually pretty astonished at the entirely un-critical way you are looking at these two characters. I disagree that this is the message the developers were trying to send. Their message is closer to "These people lived according to pure egoism and therefore all died."

I'm interested in hearing your justification for the bolded claim (bolding mine). Also, I'm going to attempt to unpack your last sentence, please correct me if I flub: the concept of rights only exists because a rational being is able to use reason to determine how it ought to act.

First, explain how it is hypocritical. Next, rationalize how it is somehow the fault of the left that they had to compromise with the right who wanted to continue injustice.

By acting in a rational manner. I don't know, is sleeping something a rational being would do? Teri Schaivo might count. Someone with a better understanding of what objectivism considers to be rational might disagree.

What I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that a human which shows no capacity to be rational has a capacity to be rational, other than a kind of faith in the belief that since most humans have the capacity to be rational every human has the capacity to be rational. If I were to conclude that a particular human had a capatity to be rational despite the fact that they had never shown a capacity to be rational that would contradict my observations, and assume a kind of duty to treat all beings as persons with rights regardless of observable capacity to be rational. No, but according rights to a human that has shown no greater capacity for rationality than say, a dog, is a deontological premise.

Putting aside the fact that in real life there absolutely are humans that lack the capacity to be rational, I have no logical reason to believe that a human acting irrationally has the capacity to act rationally, therefore no reason to accord them the rights of a rational being. An appeal that humans have some kind of intrinsic capacity for rationality and therefore rights is an appeal to deontology. Once again, the assertion that a human that is acting irrationally posseses the capacity for rationality is impossible without a deontological appeal to the intrinsic rationality of humans. Again, deontology. And yeah, I did a google search for "objectivism man definition" and that was cached. My bad for not verifying its authenticity, it didn't jump out as a parody site.

Please elaborate on how Rawls creates disharmony between reason and this so-called romanticism. Also, you still haven't proven that your 'rational romanticism' philosophy was the dominant first world philosophy for the past 30 years or that it is responsible for the decline of the US and Europe.

That's a subjectivist argument. If P = person and R = rational, then modus tollens says this is wrong. To say otherwise is to admit that rationality is a spectrum, which poses all sorts of problems for the epistemology. I promise I'll try to get a copy of Rand's epistemology book, but if anyone has a good resource regarding how rationality translates to rights that would be great.

Thanks for the read Greyhawk. From what I can tell, this is the crux of her argument: From what I can tell, Rand is saying that just because something lacks a characteristic of of the group of which it is a member does not exclude it from that group (concept). I have to ask then, is this a deontological argument? Persons, by objectivism's own standards, are beings that are animals and can think rationally. This is not only a characteristic, such as being with eyes, or being that can smell, but a fundamental characteristic in objectivism's definition of a man, and therefore a being with rights. So would this make, say, a refusal to let your child stay up as late as it wants a violation of its rights? Does the degree to which one is able to rationalize dictate the degree to which their rights should be respected? Who determines a person's ability to rationalize? Who determines what rights should and should not be respected? Note: edited for a better child analogy. It would have every right to that cookie if it earned it!

The definition of man in Objectivism is literally "rational animal." Pulled straight from line 1 of her Ethical Egoism proof: (1) |- man(x) <==> animal(x) & rational(x). In other words, "a being is a man if and only if they are an animal and rational." The moment a being ceases to think rationally, it ceases to be a man. Therefore, when a being requests that I repect its rights while it is not thinking rationally (in this case, the purchase of a drug that will harm it), I am not obligated to respect its rights, precicely because it is not a man and therefore has no rights.

Rawls and Rand have a lot in common in their premises. Vastly different conclusions, I admit, but I respect objectivism a lot for its premises. I'm not trying to make anyone mad or anything.

This is a direct contradiction of man as a rational animal. What you are saying here is "man is rational, except when he isn't."

The facts don't agree with your premises, to put it mildly. I see no reason to further debate an argument that has nothing to do with Reality. The first of the three R's.

Do I HAVE to point out a logical contradiction or can I just use the first of the 3 R's?

What is the defining characteristic of man?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Objectivist philosophy THE defining characteristic of a person who is in possession of rights is the ability to think rationally. This implies that you give up your personhood, and therefore your rights, when you are unable to think rationally. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. *** Mod's note *** This has led to some discussion about whether non-rational men have rights, and also whether men can be irrational in the first place. This has been split into a separate thread: here. - sN *** End Mod's note ***

Here's the argument, in Socratic form: 1. Is a company that knowingly puts out a product that is or could be harmful to its customers, even if used properly, without informing those customers about the risks associated with using that product defrauding their customers? 2. If this is the case, and I ask this in particular of Jake_Ellison, is an agency such as the FDA not necessary to police and prosecute those companies that knowingly defraud their customers? 3. And since preventing a violation of rights is prefferable to undertaking the often impossible task of trying to fairly compensate a party whose rights have been violated, is it not the case that an agency such as the FDA would operate most effectively as a kind of permission-giver whose standards must be met in order to release a product into the market? Aaaaaand... What else do I need to do?