Food and Drug Regulation

[softwareNerd]

... just look at Russia's problems with alcoholism.

Is it your thesis that Russian alcoholism can be blamed on evil companies who snuck alcohol into smoothies? Clueless Russian drinkers had no idea they were being duped into drinking alcohol? Edited April 15, 2009 by softwareNerd

[crizon]

not at all. i was just saying that a large drug problem causes other major problems within a society.

[softwareNerd]

not at all. i was just saying that a large drug problem causes other major problems within a society.

Did you mean to start a thread about the DEA rather than the FDA?

[JeffS]

I do believe that a complete deregulation of food, drugs and narcotics would in the end decrease your personal freedom and harm the population.

Where's your argument for it decreasing my personal freedom? How are you defining "population?" Is that everyone, a majority, a lot, more than 0? If it's the first two, do you believe the majority, if not everyone, is incapable of making proper decisions and therefore need babysitters? If the latter two, so what?

Sooner or later companies will discover the imense powers of physical addiction. even right now millions of people are addicted to alcohol and cigarettes although huge sums are spend to educate people on their dangers.

Everything on the planet is dangerous. Everything. Too much oxygen and you'll die. Should we ban/regulate oxygen?

think about what would happen if mc donalds or coca cola started to add a nice little substance to their products that would make you feel a little better, but that would eventually make you an addict.

Hmmm, judging by how much I love McDonald's and Coke, I think they've succeeded.

[crizon]

Yeah i didn't make that clear. I meant that when a larger part of a population becomes addicted you most likely get other problems too like increased crimerates, higher medical expenses and economic problems because of the lag of productive people (assuming that those substances do cause medical problems), which will decrease your personal freedom.

Everything on the planet is dangerous. Everything. Too much oxygen and you'll die. Should we ban/regulate oxygen?

that is true. so you're saying because everything is dangerous and we can't ban everything, we must allow everything? that sounds nice in theory, but would you allow deadly viruses or atomic bombs for everyone?

also, i believe that just because someone tends to make bad decisions for himself, does not make him a bad person or says that he does not have the potential to be a great productive human beeing.

you also make decisions for your children who would most likely make very bad decisions if they were on their own. the same thing is accepted for mentally disabled persons.

it is actually considered bad not to make a choice for children and mentally disabled people because it is very likely that they will make bad ones.

now my point is not why they are unable or are highly likely to make bad decisions (in this example being a child or a mentally disabled person) but that in some cases it is justified to make a choice for someone.

coming back to reality:

when it is highly likely that a lot of people would make the bad choice and buy these newly legal highly addictive products, then yes one should make the decision for them and ban those products.

just because you can make the right decision and live happily without drugs, does not mean that other people have to pay for your freedom with a choice that will lead them (likely) to a miserable life.

Edited April 15, 2009 by crizon

[softwareNerd]

when it is highly likely that a lot of people would make the bad choice and buy these newly legal highly addictive products, then yes one should make the decision for them and ban those products.

just because you can make the right decision and live happily without drugs, does not mean that other people have to pay for your freedom with a choice that will lead them (likely) to a miserable life.

So, you plan to boss other people around, even though they're neither kids nor mentally disabled? You plan to tell them what you will allow them to do? By what right do you get to decide what is good for the supposed unwashed masses? Edited April 15, 2009 by softwareNerd

[crizon]

My point was the fact that they are highly likely to make bad choices and _not_ why.

Let's say you have a crowd of people in an imaginary room with 2 doors. One is save, the other leads to certain death but has a warning saying that one should not enter the door.

You know that some people will still go through the door despite the warning and you have the possibility to simply look the door, wouldn't it be moraly right to look it? Do the people who do make the wrong choice really deserve to die?

And to answer you question on how to choose what to allow and what not: Well, obervation and empiric.

Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere, but that is what you have to do too if you don't want people to have access to deadly viruses or atomic bombs or other weapons of mass destruction.

[softwareNerd]

Let's say you have a crowd of people in an imaginary room with 2 doors. One is save, the other leads to certain death but has a warning saying that one should not enter the door.

You know that some people will still go through the door despite the warning and you have the possibility to simply look the door, wouldn't it be moraly right to look it?

Not sure about all the facts that surround this example. Let's say that locking it would be the safe thing to do.

However, if someone who is not crazy insists they be allows to commit suicide, do you presume to decide that their life is not their own?

I'm no longer sure what you're talking about here with the example of death. Are you talking about the sale of poisons, or antibiotics, or narcotics? Maybe the whole discussion is at cross-purposes.

Edited April 15, 2009 by softwareNerd

[JeffS]

Yeah i didn't make that clear. I meant that when a larger part of a population becomes addicted you most likely get other problems too like increased crimerates, higher medical expenses and economic problems because of the lag of productive people (assuming that those substances do cause medical problems), which will decrease your personal freedom.

Hmmm, I'm still not getting it. I don't commit any crimes, I keep myself healthy, I've got very stable finances. What personal freedoms would I be losing?

that is true. so you're saying because everything is dangerous and we can't ban everything, we must allow everything? that sounds nice in theory, but would you allow deadly viruses or atomic bombs for everyone?

Yes. I assume you wouldn't because these things could kill a lot of people if they were used? Cars have killed more people than all the nuclear bombs in history. Shouldn't we ban those?

when it is highly likely that a lot of people would make the bad choice and buy these newly legal highly addictive products, then yes one should make the decision for them and ban those products.

I see. And the people in charge of making these decisions for all us retarded children make "good" decisions because they're... what? Superhuman? Really, really, smart? You?

just because you can make the right decision and live happily without drugs, does not mean that other people have to pay for your freedom with a choice that will lead them (likely) to a miserable life.

I see. So, instead of them paying, I should have to pay? Why? Because I'm smarter than they?

[Chris.S]

It is only justified to make a choice for someone who is unable to make the choice for themselves if you are that person's legal guardian, ie a child, an invalid, comatose person, ie if their rational faculties are compromised or not fully-grown. Any power you have in this legal arrangement is derived from that person's individual freedoms. If that person is otherwise a healthy adult, they are able to make choices themselves without anyone else's interference - yours, mine or big daddy government.

just because you can make the right decision and live happily without drugs, does not mean that other people have to pay for your freedom with a choice that will lead them (likely) to a miserable life.

If I'm responsible for someone's poor decision making, I have no freedom. I'm their slave. They are profiting off my ability to make good decisions. Otherwise, they should be be free to live with their actions, including making the choice not to be educated on a product they're buying of their own free will, and the effects of that product. People know that high cholesterol foods cause bad effects on the heart and arteries, and yet the people that are most at risk for a heart attack continue to buy high cholesterol food. It's not my problem or fault that they are an idiot, and I shouldn't have to pay for the medical expenses that their eventual heart attack and transplant will incur. I am not my brother's keeper.

[crizon]

Hmmm, I'm still not getting it. I don't commit any crimes, I keep myself healthy, I've got very stable finances. What personal freedoms would I be losing?

You will be more likely to be victim of a crime; your company might leave the country because of the lag of qualified workforce and you could be "forced" to pay higher medical expenses, because let's say a close relative became one of those addicted.

Yes. I assume you wouldn't because these things could kill a lot of people if they were used? Cars have killed more people than all the nuclear bombs in history. Shouldn't we ban those?

In this case, i think you are putting living in a morally coherent system above the actual happiness of the people living in it. I can see no positive outcome whatsoever in allowing nuclear weapons for everyone; i just see a high possibility that someone will eventually use them (IE islamic fundamentalists) and cause a lot of death and sadness.

I see. And the people in charge of making these decisions for all us retarded children make "good" decisions because they're... what? Superhuman? Really, really, smart? You?

the answer to this should probably the same as the answer to chris.s's post.

I see. So, instead of them paying, I should have to pay? Why? Because I'm smarter than they?

Since you are smarter than them, you wouldn't even use your right to buy these harmful substances in the first place. so you value having a choice, where the outcome would be the same even if you did not have it, higher than the potential happiness of people whos only flaw might be to be easily addicted to drugs and might live an productive live without the choice (which would profit you in the end)

It is only justified to make a choice for someone who is unable to make the choice for themselves if you are that person's legal guardian, ie a child, an invalid, comatose person, ie if their rational faculties are compromised or not fully-grown. Any power you have in this legal arrangement is derived from that person's individual freedoms. If that person is otherwise a healthy adult, they are able to make choices themselves without anyone else's interference - yours, mine or big daddy government.

But you do make basically the same choice for children. You just take a number that was choosen through empiric and/or observation; often times 18; and accept that you will make choice for people who are already mature enough to make decisions for themself before the age of 18, just because you know that some percentage of them will make bad decisions.

Now what does being a child make this so special. Why doesn't this apply to older people who tend to make bad choices? Why does the reason for them making bad choices matter (ie being a child)?

Where do you draw the exact line between someone who needs a legal guardian and someone who does not?

If I'm responsible for someone's poor decision making, I have no freedom. I'm their slave. They are profiting off my ability to make good decisions. Otherwise, they should be be free to live with their actions, including making the choice not to be educated on a product they're buying of their own free will, and the effects of that product. People know that high cholesterol foods cause bad effects on the heart and arteries, and yet the people that are most at risk for a heart attack continue to buy high cholesterol food. It's not my problem or fault that they are an idiot, and I shouldn't have to pay for the medical expenses that their eventual heart attack and transplant will incur. I am not my brother's keeper.

Same as above: Why do you accept that we make choices for children? Why do you need to have a choice, when the outcome would be the same, if you did not have the choice?

And I'm not saying that just because I want some narcotics or weapons of mass destruction to be banned, that i want all potential harmful things to be banned.

Everything must be judged with empiric observation, logical thinking and within a democratic process.

and btw:

I'm sorry that my sentence structure is bad.. trying to improve that. And even while i agree with you guys here, i greatly enjoy arguing with you

[DavidOdden]

And I'm not saying that just because I want some narcotics or weapons of mass destruction to be banned, that i want all potential harmful things to be banned.

Everything must be judged with empiric observation, logical thinking and within a democratic process.

Is there a method for determining which things should be banned? Supposing that by "democratic process", you mean the existing legislative system where democratically-elected representatives make laws, do you mean that these lawmakers should ban all and only those things that the majority of their constituents wish to be banned? That removes empirical observation (of consequences) and logical thinking from the equation. If you are not saying that all imaginably harmful substances should be banned, what level of imaginable or actual harm is allowed? How do you justify allowing any level of harm? In other words, if you abandon principle, what are you left with?

[crizon]

The main principle, for me, must always be to make as many people as happy as possible. Freedom and a morally coherent system are merely tools to achieve that goal.

If freedom and/or objectivism leads to choices that would make more people unhappy than without them, then it has failed.

Is there a method for determining which things should be banned? Supposing that by "democratic process", you mean the existing legislative system where democratically-elected representatives make laws, do you mean that these lawmakers should ban all and only those things that the majority of their constituents wish to be banned? That removes empirical observation (of consequences) and logical thinking from the equation. If you are not saying that all imaginably harmful substances should be banned, what level of imaginable or actual harm is allowed? How do you justify allowing any level of harm? In other words, if you abandon principle, what are you left with?

Actually you are right: I probably did use the wrong words there.

More precisely would be: One has to use all tools available to judge whether the banning of a certain substance should leads to more happiness or less. That includes mostly sience (with that observation and empiric). A democratic prosess is indeed a different story.

Obviously you can never be sure, but you also have that problem. I don't know if you also would allow nuclear weapons and other extremly dangerous weapons / substances. If so, there is at least a good chance that one would determine with the tools available (ie psychology, crime statistics and empiric) that it is likely (or at least a lot more likely that with a ban on those devices) that someone (ie and extremist organisation) will use atomic bombs during a terrorist attack.

By this i'm not saying that it is impossible to come to a different conclusion, but that it is theoretically possible.

Personally i think it is _very_ likely that lifting a ban on virtually all dangerous substances will have a negative effect on the happiness of most people.

Therefore i'm saying that there is no concrete line on what substances will be allowed and what will be banned. Every single one has to judged with the intention to get the closest possible estimate on the effect of the happiness.

And therefore the justification for allowing something possibly harmful must be that the banning would result in greater harm.

[JeffS]

You will be more likely to be victim of a crime;

That's possible. So, you're arguing I should definitely give up freedom because it's possible I might have a loss of freedom thrust upon me?

your company might leave the country because of the lag of qualified workforce

What personal freedom have I lost here?

and you could be "forced" to pay higher medical expenses, because let's say a close relative became one of those addicted.

I would never presume to know what is best for anyone's life, let alone close relatives. Why would I be forced to pay higher medical expenses if they decide eating at McDonald's and drinking Coke is what's best for them?

In this case, i think you are putting living in a morally coherent system above the actual happiness of the people living in it.

So, morally coherent and rational preclude happiness?

so you value having a choice, where the outcome would be the same even if you did not have it, higher than the potential happiness of people whos only flaw might be to be easily addicted to drugs and might live an productive live without the choice (which would profit you in the end)

Yes, I value my own happiness more than I value the happiness of strangers. Are you arguing I should value their happiness higher than my own?

Where do you draw the exact line between someone who needs a legal guardian and someone who does not?

When they're capable of making their own rational choices. That doesn't mean, "When they're able to make choices which I agree with."

[DavidOdden]

The main principle, for me, must always be to make as many people as happy as possible.

How is that determined? For example, would you conduct customer satisfaction surveys to see what the effect was of enslaving all Turkish immigrants for the sake of the masses? How do you balance greater happiness for fewer people versus lesser happiness for more people -- would you simply look at the national sum of points on a 5-point happiness scale? I dunno how you would control for population growth (and surely you know that a single mean can come from a number of raw scores). Or would you just decide that it wouldn't matter if everybody was middlingly-happy versus half the population was miserable and half was ecstatic?

Of course, you surely realize that this only provides you with a measure of current happiness, and you can't relate that to anything specific. There would be no meaningful way to correct policy on the basis of happiness scores -- you can't correlate the cause (a particular enforced policy) with the effect (the scores); and this is a post hoc method, so all you would learn is that if you change from policy A to B and the scores then go down, you should revert to policy A. This presumes that there are fairly few policy changes and government is pretty stable -- that is, we're talking science fiction.

Finally, I suggest that you try to construct the survey that will determine people's happiness. If you want a truly scientific survey, you have to put a lot of thought into the questions -- you have to be careful that the questions themselves don't determine the responses. As they often do.

More precisely would be: One has to use all tools available to judge whether the banning of a certain substance should leads to more happiness or less. That includes mostly sience (with that observation and empiric). A democratic prosess is indeed a different story.

But science cannot predict happiness. There is no model of psychology that predicts rises in customer satisfaction, especially when you encounter something new.

And in fact, observed happiness scores will be primarily determined by two factors: the nature of the real world, and the state's propaganda machine. Even if in fact enslaving all Turkish immigrants does not lead to a material change for the better in the lives of Americans, a change in policy to enslave Turks would correlate with a rise in happiness scores if the propaganda division does a good job of selling the new policy. This is well-known and understood by dictators, that the objective misery that they cause can be ameliorated by a good ministry of information. We basically have that now, with Obama.

[Chris.S]

Majority rule can't violate individual rights to own property. If 50000 Frenchman say I can't own a gun, let alone a bomb, they are wrong. No rational person needs a bomb anyway, and insane unibombers or terrorists are going to have access to bombs no matter what, so banning them won't hinder them.

Some people being stupid and buying foods or drugs that harm them doesn't put a claim on me to pay for their idiocy. The knowledge of the effects of drugs and foods is available very easily. People that still wish to buy and ingest them can live with their decision and the effects that follow.

"Happiness" by itself is arbitrary. What makes me happy is different than what makes you happy, ie I'm happy with completely free individual rights and you're not.

Parents raise and make choices for children because that's the decision they undertook when they gave birth to the child. The child is in their care, and they do the best they can to make sure the child is raised properly. That means making choices as to what the child eats, where it goes to school, what clothes it wears etc, until such time as the law says that the parent no longer has responsibility for it. Before then, the parents and child can negotiate differences in responsibilities (and even have the child made a legal adult before the age of majority in a court), and even after then the parents can still help. The parents willfully accepted responsibility for the child at birth. The same thing goes for other types of legal guardianship or power of attorney for people who are unable to make decisions themselves. It's a willful acceptance of the responsibility and made legal by a court. But it is still not initiated by force of government, which is what you're advocating in me taking responsibility of another man's idiocy.

The democratic process is the best because individuals are free to make the decision on who is the best person to lead their country. But majority rule or happiness isn't a claim to do away with individual rights and freedoms.

[crizon]

How is that determined? For example, would you conduct customer satisfaction surveys to see what the effect was of enslaving all Turkish immigrants for the sake of the masses? How do you balance greater happiness for fewer people versus lesser happiness for more people -- would you simply look at the national sum of points on a 5-point happiness scale? I dunno how you would control for population growth (and surely you know that a single mean can come from a number of raw scores). Or would you just decide that it wouldn't matter if everybody was middlingly-happy versus half the population was miserable and half was ecstatic?

Of course, you surely realize that this only provides you with a measure of current happiness, and you can't relate that to anything specific. There would be no meaningful way to correct policy on the basis of happiness scores -- you can't correlate the cause (a particular enforced policy) with the effect (the scores); and this is a post hoc method, so all you would learn is that if you change from policy A to B and the scores then go down, you should revert to policy A. This presumes that there are fairly few policy changes and government is pretty stable -- that is, we're talking science fiction.

Finally, I suggest that you try to construct the survey that will determine people's happiness. If you want a truly scientific survey, you have to put a lot of thought into the questions -- you have to be careful that the questions themselves don't determine the responses. As they often do.But science cannot predict happiness. There is no model of psychology that predicts rises in customer satisfaction, especially when you encounter something new.

And in fact, observed happiness scores will be primarily determined by two factors: the nature of the real world, and the state's propaganda machine. Even if in fact enslaving all Turkish immigrants does not lead to a material change for the better in the lives of Americans, a change in policy to enslave Turks would correlate with a rise in happiness scores if the propaganda division does a good job of selling the new policy. This is well-known and understood by dictators, that the objective misery that they cause can be ameliorated by a good ministry of information. We basically have that now, with Obama.

I agree. One can not measure happiness in an absolute scientific way. But that does mean that one can not make decisions based on estimates.

In fact one can _never_ measure anything with 100% accuracy and yet we are forced to make choices all the time.

Objectivists argue that their solutions will create more wealth through a free market. Why? Because they estimate that more wealth will make the people more satisfied and happy.

Same thing applies here. One has to rely on things that are easier measurable (wealth, health for example) to make estimates.

Majority rule can't violate individual rights to own property. If 50000 Frenchman say I can't own a gun, let alone a bomb, they are wrong. No rational person needs a bomb anyway, and insane unibombers or terrorists are going to have access to bombs no matter what, so banning them won't hinder them.

I disagree. We saw on the 9/11 attacks that there is a lot of terrorist potential out there and they did not detonate a nuclear bomb until now. If you mean they eventually will get a bomb, then yes. On a big enough timescale everything will happen, but that's the important thing - time.

It will be the morally right choice to hinder terrorist to get access to a nuclear bomb, even if you know that they will get them in 100 years.

And besides, i don't think it is an impossible thing, to prevent a terrorist attack with a nuclear bomb ever from happening. There is always a chance, but allowing atomic bombs for everyone would greatly increase the chance for that to happen.

Some people being stupid and buying foods or drugs that harm them doesn't put a claim on me to pay for their idiocy. The knowledge of the effects of drugs and foods is available very easily. People that still wish to buy and ingest them can live with their decision and the effects that follow.

"Happiness" by itself is arbitrary. What makes me happy is different than what makes you happy, ie I'm happy with completely free individual rights and you're not.

Parents raise and make choices for children because that's the decision they undertook when they gave birth to the child. The child is in their care, and they do the best they can to make sure the child is raised properly. That means making choices as to what the child eats, where it goes to school, what clothes it wears etc, until such time as the law says that the parent no longer has responsibility for it. Before then, the parents and child can negotiate differences in responsibilities (and even have the child made a legal adult before the age of majority in a court), and even after then the parents can still help. The parents willfully accepted responsibility for the child at birth. The same thing goes for other types of legal guardianship or power of attorney for people who are unable to make decisions themselves. It's a willful acceptance of the responsibility and made legal by a court. But it is still not initiated by force of government, which is what you're advocating in me taking responsibility of another man's idiocy.

The democratic process is the best because individuals are free to make the decision on who is the best person to lead their country. But majority rule or happiness isn't a claim to do away with individual rights and freedoms.

My point was not about the choice of the parents, it was about the choice of the child. The law takes a more or less arbitrary number and says "until age x, you can't make all decisions on yourself". Why? Because, as i said, the writers of this law thought that a (high) percentage of children can't make good choices for themselfs yet, which would harm society in the end (and you seem to defend that).

The reason is _not_ the age, but the fact, that they can't make good choices! And keep in mind, the child or the mentally disabled person is not asked for permission.

If that law is ok with you, then what is so different about a similar law about drugs?

IE: Because too many people would make the bad choice, the people how can make good ones (like the parents above) can make the choice for them.

Also you seem to think it's just to "punish" the people who make the bad choice and get into an addiction, by exposing them to the risks of drugs.

I do speak from experience when i say: Stupidity is not the reason, but a weakness in character in that aspect.

So why do you value your right to have a choice, where the outcome seems to be the same without a choice higher than the potential happiness of those people who do have this weakness?

"Happiness" by itself is arbitrary. What makes me happy is different than what makes you happy, ie I'm happy with completely free individual rights and you're not.

That is absolutely right and that is the reason why any "system" be it economically or philosophically must look at a larger number of people.

Everybody is different so there can be no system that is optimal for every individual, so one has to make the compromise and search for a system that makes the most people happy.

If your solution provides absolute individual rights with the consequence of an terrorist nuclear attack and a big addiction problem which causes misery in the population, then it has failed.

[DavidOdden]

One can not measure happiness in an absolute scientific way. But that does mean that one can not make decisions based on estimates.

The point really is that you don't have any way at all of estimating total happiness. The concept is meaningless -- it can't be done in principle. The idea of making as many people as happy as possible is gibberish. It doesn't refer to anything at all in the real world. The only thing that makes any sense, and which is well defined to boot, is that each man should be free to act in whatever manner he believes will maximize his happiness, as long as he respects the rights of others. Then we don't need to care about net social happiness, which implies that it is acceptable to treat some people as sacrificial animals.

[crizon]

The point really is that you don't have any way at all of estimating total happiness. The concept is meaningless -- it can't be done in principle. The idea of making as many people as happy as possible is gibberish. It doesn't refer to anything at all in the real world. The only thing that makes any sense, and which is well defined to boot, is that each man should be free to act in whatever manner he believes will maximize his happiness, as long as he respects the rights of others. Then we don't need to care about net social happiness, which implies that it is acceptable to treat some people as sacrificial animals.

This a very good point, but still..

What is the purpose or intention of leaving every individual to strive for his personal maximum happiness? Isn't it by doing so to create the most general happiness? (and what if that does not lead to general happiness, but to misery?)

Also you seem to take it as matter of fact that any individual will succeed to get his personal maximum happiness by taking actions on his own, which is false. Take the example of children again. They, mostly, are not able to make choices that will lead them to their maximum happiness.

You are also not talking about a specific individual here. You generalize qualities and tendencies of men with the intention to apply these to more than 1 individual. I don't see any other logic reason for this but to apply those to a larger amount of people and by doing so you are also thinking indirectly about "general" happiness (or the happiness of larger amount of people).

[DavidOdden]

What is the purpose or intention of leaving every individual to strive for his personal maximum happiness?

Because it is in man's nature to survive by reason, seeking that which is of value to him. Only the individual can judge what that is.

Also you seem to take it as matter of fact that any individual will succeed to get his personal maximum happiness by taking actions on his own

No, I don't even seem to assume that. That is your conclusion, not based on anything I said.

You are also not talking about a specific individual here.

Because the statements I am making are valid for the concept "man", not limited to the concretes "that man there" and "this man here". My conclusion is based on the nature of the concept, not any massive enumeration research project.

[crizon]

No offense, but i feel that you're avoiding some parts of my post and the questions i asked.

Because it is in man's nature to survive by reason, seeking that which is of value to him. Only the individual can judge what that is.

Why can only the individual judge that? Why is not true for children or disabled persons?

No, I don't even seem to assume that. That is your conclusion, not based on anything I said.Because the statements I am making are valid for the concept "man", not limited to the concretes "that man there" and "this man here". My conclusion is based on the nature of the concept, not any massive enumeration research project.

Well actually i don't see why the concept of man is not a simplification of human qualities; IE the ability to reason.

This ability is not equal in all humans, some do unreasonable things all the time. Some can't reason whatsoever or barely more than animals can.

So, again, your concept is true for most humans but not all. So the point of the concept is to do this simplification to be able to apply it to a larger amount of people and not only to a single individual.

You are using this concept then to make conclusions again with the intent to apply them to a larger number of people. Since the concept is used to give solutions on the persuit of happiness you are eventually talking about the happiness of a larger amount of people or in other words general happiness.

[DavidOdden]

Why can only the individual judge that?

Because only the individual has the fullest possible knowledge of his nature, and therefore can judge what his goal is.

Why is not true for children or disabled persons?

By "disabled persons" I assume you mean people with mental illnesses. Being crippled does not mean you are mentally incompetent. Children (and I don't mean "all and only those under legal age") have not yet formed the ability to actually reason, to function as a human able to integrate facts logically and reach a conclusion. The mentally ill, in some cases, may have lost that ability, or for organic reasons never developed it.

Well actually i don't see why the concept of man is not a simplification of human qualities; IE the ability to reason.

The concept "man" refers to all men; you seem to be talking about a definition, which is secondary to concepts. So a proper definition would identify the same referents, but would also not include every other true fact about the referents.

This ability is not equal in all humans, some do unreasonable things all the time.

You're confusing "having the faculty of reason" with "having skills at focusing". Man's rights derive from the fact that he can and must survive by reason, at all, which distinguishes man from other beings. That faculty is an all or nothing proposition. The ability to focus and thus skillfully use your faculty of reason is a separate question; your rights are not gradiently determined by your ability to focus.

[crizon]

Because only the individual has the fullest possible knowledge of his nature, and therefore can judge what his goal is.

Hm. I'm tempted to agree, but I'm not fully convinced. I don't think it is impossible for another entity to know more about another ones nature than this other entity knows about itself, but that is probably a problem of definition.

Since, I think, we agree that the goal is the persuit of happiness; it is not about the goal, but how to get there.

By "disabled persons" I assume you mean people with mental illnesses. Being crippled does not mean you are mentally incompetent. Children (and I don't mean "all and only those under legal age") have not yet formed the ability to actually reason, to function as a human able to integrate facts logically and reach a conclusion. The mentally ill, in some cases, may have lost that ability, or for organic reasons never developed it.

Yes I apologize, I used the wrong word.

The reason why i bring children up again and again is the fact you reason it is ok to limit children's rights because a percentage of them "have not yet formed the ability to actually reason".

So the condition for limiting the rights of a group of individuals seems to be that the ability to reason is not not yet (fully) formed and therefore that they are not yet able to make good choices for them selfs.

Why do you apply that only to children and not to adults who match the condition and who did not fully develop their ability to reason or the ability to make good choices? I hope i made my point clear enough this time.

The concept "man" refers to all men; you seem to be talking about a definition, which is secondary to concepts. So a proper definition would identify the same referents, but would also not include every other true fact about the referents.You're confusing "having the faculty of reason" with "having skills at focusing". Man's rights derive from the fact that he can and must survive by reason, at all, which distinguishes man from other beings. That faculty is an all or nothing proposition.

Well this is getting off topic, but i don't think that men can be distinguished that way from other beings. Men do not only rely on reason to survive but also on other qualities like the ability to breathe air, to digest food or to use our senses to get information about our environment.

I agree on the fact that men need reason to survive, but so do other animals. Without the ability to learn and apply hunting techniques, dolphins would not survive.

Humans gradually evolved to what we are now. There was no freak of nature of an apeish creature that suddendly was able to reason; it was a development that lasted thousands of years.

The ability to focus and thus skillfully use your faculty of reason is a separate question; your rights are not gradiently determined by your ability to focus.

Any yet children gradually gain more rights as their ability to reason develops.

[DavidOdden]

Since, I think, we agree that the goal is the persuit of happiness

No, we do not agree. The goal is the pursuit of life, and happiness is the psychological product of achieving a goal.

The reason why i bring children up again and again is the fact you reason it is ok to limit children's rights because a percentage of them "have not yet formed the ability to actually reason".

No, there is no limitation on a child's rights. The child has the same right to live that all men have. The difference in that children need a custodian to supervise their actions, so that they do not seriously harm themselves by engaging in unreasoned actions.

Why do you apply that only to children and not to adults who match the condition and who did not fully develop their ability to reason or the ability to make good choices?

There has to be an objective legal standard for stating at what point a person has to be presumed to be sufficiently competent to grasp the concept of "right" and "wrong" that they can be responsible for their actions. I personally believe that the statutory age for contacts should be lowered (to 16) because I believe that people actually do get the relevant concepts, but that's a political matter of implementation. At least in principle, the problem can be resolved w.r.t. a prescient child via an emancipation or similar proceding. The converse is true of a legal adult who is in fact incapable of living by reason, who needs a guardian to be appointed for him. So the only assumption I'm haking about children and adults is that there is an objectively stated legal principle, and that given specific facts of extraordinary mental ability or disability, that default presumption can be overridden.

Well this is getting off topic, but i don't think that men can be distinguished that way from other beings.

Insofar as man is the only being that survives by reason, you can't reasonably think otherwise. Because

Men do not only rely on reason to survive but also on other qualities like the ability to breathe air, to digest food or to use our senses to get information about our environment.

this is irrelevant, given that I pointed out that man is the only being that can and must survive by reason -- not that man can survive by reason alone. The latter would be clearly false. Other animals do not have the faculty of reason.

Humans gradually evolved to what we are now.

First, that is irrelevant: humans originated as single-celled creatures, billions of years ago. That has no implications for morality. Second, you don't in fact know (because it is not known) how human reason evolved. It is a scientifically arbitrary claim to say that reason evolved gradually, no more supported by the actual facts than the alternative -- which I support -- that there was a sudden evolutionary change which caused man's ability to form concepts (something that animals can't do), which is one of the significant components of human reason.

[crizon]

I think we have problem of definition here again that we need to take care of before going on.

I'm surprised that you don't agree with on the pursuit of happiness. I did a quick google search before i wrote that i thought that was Rand's position, but she only seems to state that the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness and not it's goal..well ok.

Do you define "life" in the common sense, meaning the opposite of death?

How do you define "rights". Isn't a child not granted the "rights" to drive a car until 16 or 18, drink alcohol until 18 etc.

How do you define "reason"?