Marc K. Posted March 21, 2008 Report Share Posted March 21, 2008 Rule 1 is, always argue if you think you are right (and do so rationally). You have that right. I'd like to know exactly what you mean by this. Do you think I am breaking this rule? You seemed to not fully embrace your right to be argumentative in saying "I hate to be argumentative". I'm encouraging you to argue, as you're doing. I suspected that this is what you meant so I'm glad you confirmed it and I must say you've got me on the ropes with your deft conciseness. The sublime and simple eloquence of this two sentence summation of our argument has given me much to think about. Nicely done. This is where we probably disagree. I argue that the unifying concept is "right" which is to say "morally true", and that the concept "right" must be considered from two perspectives, the perspective of the individual, and the individual's relationship to society -- the latter is what I conclude Rand must be referring to in saying that rights are a moral principle defining proper social relationships. OK, I understand your position more fully now though I think your usage of "right" to mean "morally true" can be confusing. The concept I use in place of "morally true" is "good" as in: whatever action is good for the individual is right for him in society. Therefore "for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice." There is no "as long as" in this statement, i.e. "his own judgment a long as it is objectively necessary for him to live". I agree this statement is unequivocal. However, you left off the "Thus" from the beginning of this statement, which points to the preceding argumentation, providing the context: Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) The concept of a "right" pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus [...] Knowing that rights are moral principles, I have struggled to integrate the idea of a right to torture my dog with all of my previously integrated knowledge about morality. A proper conception of rights can only be derived from an objective code of morality. An objective code of morality tells us how we should act. We should always act for the good, the rationally defined good. Therefore rights, having been derived from the objective good, can only refer back to the objective good. Rights are a good thing and should always be described as such. Objectively speaking: we should always do the right thing (which is Rule 1). So we know objectively what is good for individual, now we want to know what is good for the individual in society. It is right for the individual to do all of the same good things he did on his own and with respect to others in society what is the right thing: freedom. The freedom to be left alone. Which requires nothing of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 What about Fox News and their spreading misinformation about Bovine Growth Hormone? Is that libel? It's not defamation of a person, no. But would that at least be illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 What about Fox News and their spreading misinformation about Bovine Growth Hormone? Is that libel? It's not defamation of a person, no. But would that at least be illegal?No, the essense of libel is knowingly making a false accusation. Besides, what they did was akin to my "false praise" category which is assuredly never illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 Oops... I started a new topic about that and didn't see your response. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 This is by far the best thread on the subject. So I'm reviving it, hopefully it will bury the new ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 This is by far the best thread on the subject. So I'm reviving it, hopefully it will bury the new ones. Good idea. Thanks, Nicky. The first question to ask: What qualifies as libel? A knowingly false statement by person A disparaging the character of person B and communicated to person(s) C that causes damage to person B. Libel is subject to civil litigation, not prosecution (it is a tort, not a crime.). The question being asked: Is a defamation lawsuit a violation of the defendant's (person A in the example) right to 'freedom of speech'? The real question to ask: Does person A have a right to defame person B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 The real question to ask: Does person A have a right to defame person B? Yes. In a free society, a person has the right to take any action he pleases, except to violate another person's rights by initiating physical force against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Yes. In a free society, a person has the right to take any action he pleases, except to violate another person's rights by initiating physical force against them. Does this mean that monetary damages awarded to a plaintiff in a defamation suit violate the defendant's right to freedom of speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Does this mean that monetary damages awarded to a plaintiff in a defamation suit violate the defendant's right to freedom of speech? Yes, that would be an initiation of force on the part of the plaintiff and the government. All initiation of force is a violation of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 This is by far the best thread on the subject. So I'm reviving it, hopefully it will bury the new ones. This was a good thread to read, though I remain confused... but the discussion on p.2 of misrepresenting a poisonous chemical mirrors a question of my own that I'd raised in the other thread I'd linked to in the other other thread. So, I guess I'll push that point here (in a broader fashion) and see whether it helps... *** I host Thanksgiving dinner. I invite friends and family over. Unbeknownst to all, I have poisoned the turkey, but I assure everyone present that it came out very well and should be great to eat. All of my friends and family subsequently die. Have I used force against them? Based on some of the reasoning and explicit examples I've seen used in this thread, it would seem that I have not. I've merely "lied" to my friends and family, and they chose to believe me. They've paid for their poor choice, but I am not legally responsible for their bad choices. Lying is not illegal, and therefore I have committed no crime. On the other hand, this conclusion strikes me as absolutely absurd. Clearly I have murdered them. Clearly this is poisoning and not just "lying." Clearly this is a crime. Isn't it? Or is murder through such lying -- recognized forever and everywhere as intentional poisoning -- protected by law in a "rational society"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.