Cheating vs. Rights

[Grames]

You are still equivocating. I will no longer go along with calling violations of formal, informal, implied or implicit contracts as violations of 'rights'.

Contracts are not rights. The right to have a contract enforced is not the same as the contract itself.

[Capitalism Forever]

You are still equivocating. I will no longer go along with calling violations of formal, informal, implied or implicit contracts as violations of 'rights'.

Contracts are not rights. The right to have a contract enforced is not the same as the contract itself.

Fine, I'm not a stickler on terminology. But if somebody enters a contract and then fails to deliver on the obligations it involves, it is still true that he is somehow ... how should I put it ... "not acting the way he's supposed to," right? And the moral basis of the government using force against him, if the other party can present objective evidence, is this "not acting the way he's supposed to" of his, right?

[Grames]

Fine, I'm not a stickler on terminology. But if somebody enters a contract and then fails to deliver on the obligations it involves, it is still true that he is somehow ... how should I put it ... "not acting the way he's supposed to," right? And the moral basis of the government using force against him, if the other party can present objective evidence, is this "not acting the way he's supposed to" of his, right?

Right! Correct.

"not acting the way he's supposed to" in regard to a contract can be be described as doing any of the following things to the contract:

abrogate, breach, break, contravene, infringe, transgress, violate.

Does a girlfriend have a contract or not?

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary "contract" means

An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.

If we accept this definition, then any agreement could be construed as a contract. A BF-GF relationship having an implicit agreement to fidelity is a contract. So what are the GF's contractual rights due to her because of the BF's unilateral violation of the terms of the contract? There never were any terms, just agreement, so she has no contractual rights. The contract existed, but it was empty, a null contract. Another name for a contract with no terms would be a nonbinding contract. Is it wrong for him violate a nonbinding contracts? Yes, he demonstrates his lack of integrity and honesty and generally diminishes his reputation. But that is all it does, it harms him not her. His agreement to be faithful did not give her ownership, control, or possession of any aspect of his person. She lost a value when her boyfriend was unfaithful but it was never her value.

The value in question, fidelity, is the result of an internal act of volition that must be renewed moment by moment just like any other virtue. It cannot be externally compelled, stockpiled or even given away.

[Capitalism Forever]

If we accept this definition, then any agreement could be construed as a contract.

This is what all law teachers have taught me.

A BF-GF relationship having an implicit agreement to fidelity is a contract. So what are the GF's contractual rights due to her because of the BF's unilateral violation of the terms of the contract?

None, but then let me ask you: In the example above about lending $10, what are my contractual rights in case of the borrower's failure to return the money on time? None, since it was just a simple verbal contract that did not stipulate anything with regard to the case of non-performance. It did not say anything about whether he will owe me interest at a penalty rate, or just at a normal rate (what's a normal rate?), or a lump sum penalty, or anything at all. If I could go to court (i.e. if I had a written IOU from him) then the court might apply some standard restitution procedure that they have for loans, but that's moot because I don't have any written evidence. I simply have to take the loss, period. I have no legal recourse. Yet, you have agreed that the borrower did not "act the way he was supposed to."

My point on this thread has simply been that the girlfriend is in the same kind of situation. If she had an (unwritten) exclusivity agreement with her boyfriend (and note that I say "if"--not all relationships have one, but there are ones that do), then that makes the boyfriend's act an act of cheating, which is in many ways analogous to the above-described act of not returning the $10 on time. It is clear that she can't go to court, just like I can't (so any talk about restitution is moot). She simply has to take the loss, period--like I have to. She has no legal recourse--like I myself don't. What I'm hoping to make you agree with is that the boyfriend did not "act the way he was supposed to," just like the borrower above did not.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Capitalism Forever
Added a missed word + the 2 sentences on having no legal recourse

[Grames]

I would agree that each did not "act the way he was supposed to", but the guy with the $10 also got away with a petty theft. Theft is a violation of a right even if it cannot be proven, so that case is not just like the cheating boyfriend. A boyfriend who lies to his girlfriend is a jerk but not a rights violator because her loss was damage to the relationship, but there can be no right to a relationship.

[Capitalism Forever]

I would agree that each did not "act the way he was supposed to", but the guy with the $10 also got away with a petty theft. Theft is a violation of a right even if it cannot be proven, so that case is not just like the cheating boyfriend. A boyfriend who lies to his girlfriend is a jerk but not a rights violator because her loss was damage to the relationship, but there can be no right to a relationship.

I see. I guess this is where we'll continue to disagree: I make no such distinction; in my view, both got away with breaking a promise, and that puts both under the same category.

Thanks for the discussion anyway!

[Jake_Ellison]

I think a strong argument exists that no living being has the right to hurt another living thing, regardless of rationality, for no purpose other than that of selfish, non-life sustaining pleasure.

Wow. Why don't you try living within your rights then? This sentence means that you're not even allowed to hurt plants. You have to wait for them to die, and then you can eat them. By the way, the seeds and fruit of a plant are essential for it's reproduction, so hands off of those as well.

Dead leaves and hey (but only if the grass died on its own), that's what you are allowed to eat, according to your own morality. So go ahead and show us how good you are, and live by it, smartass.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I think he's saying he's allowed to eat things, just not kill them for "non life sustaining pleasure" (whatever the hell that means.)

Nevertheless, I join you in challenging him to live by his principles.

[Capitalism Forever]

This sentence means that you're not even allowed to hurt plants. You have to wait for them to die, and then you can eat them.

When I was in England, I heard a radio show discussing a "vegan" guy who would wait for apples to rot and fall off the tree and only then would he eat them. He would not eat any plant that was not "ready to die." He was said to be very, very skinny.

smartass

A friendly reminder: The Rules say no personal insults please. This applies even when addressing people whose ideas have obviously nothing to do with Objectivism.

[Greebo]

Wow. Why don't you try living within your rights then? This sentence means that you're not even allowed to hurt plants. You have to wait for them to die, and then you can eat them. By the way, the seeds and fruit of a plant are essential for it's reproduction, so hands off of those as well.

Dead leaves and hey (but only if the grass died on its own), that's what you are allowed to eat, according to your own morality. So go ahead and show us how good you are, and live by it, smartass.

No, that is not what I am trying to say. I'm aware I'm not expressing it well - I'm still struggling to work out the argument and reasoning in my own head.

When I say "life sustaining", I mean for purposes which promote and sustain human life - not just for consumption but also for research and development, etc. Maybe "life affirming" is the better term.

A 'non life sustaining purpose' would be, for example, the torturing of an animal simply for personal pleasure. Such a pleasure is, I believe, equally anti-life and immoral whether one tortures a human or tortures an animal, for pleasure.

Put another way - an animal has a life of its own and its life is a means to its own end. It isn't a life of reason - in that it doesn't survive as the product of its own mental efforts - but it is a life that is a means to its own end. We cannot reason with animals, but I still believe we are obligated by our own ability to reason to limit our treatment of animals to life affirming ones. That is - by all means EAT them, we must eat, after all, but do not simply kill them pointlessly for no gain, or torture them, etc.

[Capitalism Forever]

A 'non life sustaining purpose' would be, for example, the torturing of an animal simply for personal pleasure. Such a pleasure is, I believe, equally anti-life and immoral whether one tortures a human or tortures an animal, for pleasure.

Yes, but a very important distinction that you always have to make is whether an act is an infringement of someone's rights, or whether it is simply an immoral act. The law ought to concern itself only with the former, not with the latter. There should be no law against torturing animals because doing so does not infringe anybody's rights.

Spitting on your own image in a mirror is also an anti-life and immoral act, but it is clear--isn't it?--that there is no place for a ban on it in a free country. The mirror has no rights; it is your private property and you are free to do whatever you please with it as long as you respect the rights of other individuals. The same is true for animals.

[Jake_Ellison]

No, that is not what I am trying to say. I'm aware I'm not expressing it well - I'm still struggling to work out the argument and reasoning in my own head.

When I say "life sustaining", I mean for purposes which promote and sustain human life - not just for consumption but also for research and development, etc. Maybe "life affirming" is the better term.

A 'non life sustaining purpose' would be, for example, the torturing of an animal simply for personal pleasure. Such a pleasure is, I believe, equally anti-life and immoral whether one tortures a human or tortures an animal, for pleasure.

Put another way - an animal has a life of its own and its life is a means to its own end. It isn't a life of reason - in that it doesn't survive as the product of its own mental efforts - but it is a life that is a means to its own end. We cannot reason with animals, but I still believe we are obligated by our own ability to reason to limit our treatment of animals to life affirming ones. That is - by all means EAT them, we must eat, after all, but do not simply kill them pointlessly for no gain, or torture them, etc.

The question is not what is considered "life affirming" or necessary as opposed to pointless, in respect to the treatment of animals.

The question is what animals are, and from that what rights do they have? (naturally)

I believe what Capitalism Forever said: they are someone's property: they have no rights. Only human beings have rights, therefore the government-or anyone- may only step in to defend a person's right to life and property.

Neither the government, nor anyone else, have the right to protect an animal from its owner.

Also, no one has the right to step in to protect a wild animal, which has no owner, and is therefore out there to be claimed.

The reason why an owner would do anything to this animal does not come into this discussion of rights.

On the other hand, if you believe animals have some type of rights, then please describe them. However, then, you have to respect those rights no matter what your needs are. If an animal has a right to life for instance, you are not allowed to kill it, even if your child is starving, and anyone can step in and stop ypu from killing it, the same way they could stop you from killing an innocent human.

And that is close to what PETA believes, with one serious inconsistency however: they are willing to allow other animals to violate this animal's right to life. -- Somehow, in their mind, an animal has an inalienable right to live, if a human needs food, but not if a lion does.--and that is not ethical, that is quite a capricious treatment of animals.

[Greebo]

Yes, but a very important distinction that you always have to make is whether an act is an infringement of someone's rights, or whether it is simply an immoral act. The law ought to concern itself only with the former, not with the latter. There should be no law against torturing animals because doing so does not infringe anybody's rights.

Spitting on your own image in a mirror is also an anti-life and immoral act, but it is clear--isn't it?--that there is no place for a ban on it in a free country. The mirror has no rights; it is your private property and you are free to do whatever you please with it as long as you respect the rights of other individuals. The same is true for animals.

But on the other hand, the mirror is not a living organism, while an animal is.

Consider a question based on an all too common scenario: Lets suppose that we live in a fully objectivist society for a moment. (Ah, wonderful fantasy...)

You are walking down the street and see that someone has a dog chained up in the yard. The dog is bleeding, looks to have a broken leg, and appears to be half starved.

The dog is the rightful property of the property owner upon which the dog is chained.

If only human beings have any right to life, then if you chose to intervene and rescue that dog, then you would be morally wrong for violating the dog's owner's right to treat that animal in such a manner. I find the idea that one could face criminal prosecution for rescuing an animal in such a condition to be absolutely repugnant (in no small part because two of my own three dogs are rescue dogs).

I can't find any reference from Rand regarding any right to Life that doesn't pertain only to Man...so I think this topic needs to be explored further in its own thread under ethics.