Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Do You Have The Right To Do These Things?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Do you have the right to yell "FIRE!" or "BOMB!" inside a plane or a public place? Do you have the right to print or say Classified information(Remember the Geraldo Rivera incident)??? If you do have the right to do these things then you shouldn't be penalized for them, correct?

Also don't people that get the death penalty have there rights taken away??? If so then rights can't be said to be absolute. Am I right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have the right to yell "FIRE!" or "BOMB!" inside a plane or a public place? Do you have the right to print or say Classified information(Remember the Geraldo Rivera incident)??? If you do have the right to do these things then you shouldn't be penalized for them, correct?

Also don't people that get the death penalty have there rights taken away??? If so then rights can't be said to be absolute. Am I right?

:pimp: these questions are so elementary its funny.

No. You're wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='dadmonson' date='Sep 24 2008, 05:35 PM' post='191014'

Also don't people that get the death penalty have there rights taken away??? If so then rights can't be said to be absolute. Am I right?

Quick answer. Anything can only be absolute within a given context. If one drops context, then he drops reality from the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also don't people that get the death penalty have there rights taken away??? If so then rights can't be said to be absolute. Am I right?

I will reply with what I just recently posted.

I am a member of mankind, and I can allocate that because I have the capacity for logic and I apply logic to comprehend the world and decide what values are necessary for my survival (definition of human). But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).

But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws. I am under free will to move to a country or even state outlaws death penalty, but I choose not to.

There are three universal rights (or at least in my belief there are). Life, Liberty of the Mind and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In my opinion, a universal right occurs when there are no circumstances that exist in which those rights can be infringed.

But my ideas and morals are very different from others. Like I said beforehand, my idea of applying logic to reality is different than another person's concept of logic. As long as my rights aren't infringed, I don't mind what someone else believes. By being human, you are entitled to think whatever you want and practice those beliefs to the extent that you don't infringe on others' rights.

But by living under a certain creed of government that meets the bare minimum of first generation rights, you are submitting to the laws decided by the vast majority. You also have the right to challenge those laws or leave.

Its your right as a human. So if I live in North Carolina, where the death penalty is allowed but I'm morally against it,

I have the freedom to pack up and go. But if I'm convicted of a felony and punished with the death penalty, I cannot complain against the punishment because by living in that state I agreed with that law, and by committing a crime I agreed to the consequence of my action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).

I realize that you are talking about the death penalty but this statement seems more absolute than that, so I just want to clarify. You don't mean to say that there are absolutely NO circumstances when taking a human life is allowed, do you? Like war or self defense?

But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws.

You are correct when you say that by choosing to live in the US you must abide by its laws. However, just to clarify, the majority has no say in issues of Right.

In my opinion, a universal right occurs when there are no circumstances that exist in which those rights can be infringed.

Isn't this true of all Rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).
There are a few words maybe missing in your statement. If you are saying that you personally could not push the button to execute bin Laden if he is caught, convicted and sentenced to death, then I can understand your unwillingness even if I don't share your particular position on this point. In my book, the virtue "justice" means that actions have consequences, and some actions are such profound proof that an evildoer is not living qua man, that he has elected to live qua animal, and a dangerous predatory animal at that.

Now remembering that rights are moral concepts subordinating society to the individual, when a person totally repudiates morality and will not respect the rights of others, and especially when he absolutely abuses every last right of thousands of other individuals, the notion of an absolute acontextual "right" to kill becomes ludicrous. Again, a right is not an advantage that you can take of others, it is a moral restriction limiting what you can do to others. When you don't respect those restrictions, the virtue of justice (equal treatment for the same facts) dictates that others not respect that restriction as applied to you. Therefore, I would have no problem with pulling the lever or pushing the button for bin Laden.

But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws.
I don't know that you have to consent; they will shoot bin Laden, with or without your consent. If you cold-bloodedly murder a dozen innocent children (can't you just hear the violins?), you will probably get executed, consent or not. The "majority rules" argument is really a bad argument, since it means, among other things, that taxation is morally proper because the majority accepts it and indirectly supports it by not throwing out of office those elected officials who don't repeal taxes (or the death penalty). The question that you should be asking is whether it is morally proper to execute a person for an act -- what act, under what circumstances?
There are three universal rights (or at least in my belief there are). Life, Liberty of the Mind and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In my opinion, a universal right occurs when there are no circumstances that exist in which those rights can be infringed.

A propos the second, a man who makes "an unseemly amound of money" might be subject to a law prohibiting excess profits, resulting in 200 years in prison. He retains his "liberty of the mind", just not the body. Pursuit of happiness is kinda vague, I think. Should a murderer or rapist be allowed to "pursue happiness" through his perverted crimes? If it makes me happy to take away all of your world possessions, should I be free to do so because it is my right to pursue that happiness?
But if I'm convicted of a felony and punished with the death penalty, I cannot complain against the punishment because by living in that state I agreed with that law, and by committing a crime I agreed to the consequence of my action.
I disagree on two grounds. First, agreement is agreement: you cannot automatically turn disagreement into agreement by declaring "by doing X you agree to Y". That model only works when you want something that you have no right to and wish to trade for it -- by agreeing to something in exchange. You have a right to live in North Carolina, and do not have to negotiate with someone else to gain that right. Note that you always have the option of killing yourself, so by living, you agree to taxation and all other forms of immoral evil imposed on you by the government. Second, agreement is irrelevant: whether or not you agree with death penalty laws, they are facts that will be enforced. The concern should not be whether the death penalty is an ingtrinsic evil, but rather, in what context is it morally proper?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...