Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who has been Violated?

Rate this topic


Peripeteia

Recommended Posts

An army, (pick any nation you want, it does not matter) marches into Nome, Alaska, and burns down three homes. In one home lived a husband and wife in a loving relationship, who live with and take care of their son, who is afflicted with Down Syndrome. In the second home lived an old man, with a personal motto of "I will give only to those who give to me.", and who is a hermit and never did anything with, for, or even remotely associated with his neighbors or relatives. In the third house lived a chronic liar and a thief.

My question is, in your view, whose rights are violated? Are the rights of only those who are now homeless violated by the army, or have the rights of all those living in the city, state, or country been violated? Does the liar-thief's actions somehow exempt his rights? If the rights of all those living in the city, state, or country have indeed been violated, since each entity is a collection of all of individuals residing in it, each of whom has been violated, then, therefore, has the rights of the city, state, or country been violated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, in your view, whose rights are violated?
You agree that the aggressor has violated rights -- at least of the narrowest possible set of a few people. Now, you wonder if the rights of someone in (say) Florida are also being violated. Would the answer to that question make a difference to anyone...e.g. to the Floridan? How would it be of any relevance? Are you wondering, perhaps, if the Floridan may act against the aggressor? If so, the answer is resoundingly "yes". You may act against someone who violates rights. The caveat is that there are contexts where you must act via your government. Other than that caveat, you do not have to be the specific target of the aggressor, in order for your reaction to be moral. If you have a suit of armor, you may morally rescue damsels in distress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... has the rights of the city, state, or country been violated?

I don't know what that means, since you have not defined a system of rights that applies to cities or countries. If you intend to define one that gives a dictatorship the same rights a free Republic has, I will have to disapprove, since that comes in conflict with the individual rights of the people in the dictatorship, and possibly even in the free country.

In Objectivism, there is only one system of rights: the system of individual rights, where each individual has the objective rights to life, liberty and property, and no individual may initiate force against another's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All three people in the homes have had their rights violated. Government is here to protect us from criminals and from attacking countries. So while the rest of America have not had their rights threatened, America has been attacked, and every individual is under threat of the army continuing to advance and attack others.

It is right for an individual to use violence in defense of himself, his property, or someone he cares about when violence is instigated first by the opponent. It is right for a government to retaliate against an attack that has been directed at the people it is established to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveOdden- I was just interested in hearing your opinions. More than enough information. Thanks.

Jake Ellison- What I meant is that if two or more people have the same individual rights, then both of them have that right. If each individual in a village of fifty people has an individual right, then all fifty, the whole village, has that right. Keeping in mind that I am wholly unfamilliar with Objectivism and nearly all of your beliefs, does it answer your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Ellison- What I meant is that if two or more people have the same individual rights, then both of them have that right. If each individual in a village of fifty people has an individual right, then all fifty, the whole village, has that right. Keeping in mind that I am wholly unfamilliar with Objectivism and nearly all of your beliefs, does it answer your question?

No. Individual rights stem from the metaphysical nature of one human being. They are defined to apply to human beings. They simply do not apply to a group, since a group does not have the ability to think, make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions the way an individual can.

A group is nothing like an individual. Depending on the nature of the group, it can already be a rights violator, and thus in the wrong. For instance a tribe that takes away any one of its member's life, liberty or property, is already a criminal entity, even if it did not intiate force against any other tribe. If it does it as a rule, sytematically, and with no regard tothe concept of individual rights, then that tribe is evil and savage. No individual who is defending it in any way is in the right.

So, any system of rights you would define to apply to groups, that does not treat groups differently depending on their nature, is evil, because it disregards the rights of the individuals in those groups.

Please note that I use the word "right" in two different senses. When I say "the rights of someone", I am referring to the system of individual rights described by Objectivism. Being in the right, on the other hand, means to be just, acting in accordance with the principles of freedom we should be acting on, when dealing with human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Ellison- In my thinking, if single person has a right, then that individual person has an individual right. If another person has the same right, then those two people each have that individual right. If each person in that village of fifty has that individual right, then everyone in that village has that right.

However, if you believe that a group "does not have the ability to think, make decisions, and take responibility for those actions the way an individual can", how, then, can the entire group be regarded as evil? If five people in that village of fifty commit a crime or do an evil act, how can the other forty-five also be regarded as evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If five people in that village of fifty commit a crime or do an evil act, how can the other forty-five also be regarded as evil?
Who would consider the 45 as evil? Obviously, the 45 will arrest the 5 and throw them into jail. Case closed. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if you believe that a group "does not have the ability to think, make decisions, and take responibility for those actions the way an individual can", how, then, can the entire group be regarded as evil? If five people in that village of fifty commit a crime or do an evil act, how can the other forty-five also be regarded as evil?

It's amazing that someone would refuse to read what people say, and instead speculate on what they must've said.

Here's what I characterized as evil:

...then that tribe is evil and savage.

Here's what you said I said:

how can the other forty-five also be regarded as evil

And here's why I said it:

If it(the tribe) does it as a rule, sytematically, and with no regard to the concept of individual rights

And here's you, in the next post, saying why I said it:

If five people in that village of fifty commit a crime or do an evil act

So the answer to your question is: they can't be ragarded as anything, now please get back on topic and address my post, if you disagree with it.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Ellison - By no means was I speculating on what I falsely believed you had said. Rather, I was attempting to fit your explanation into an example entirely of my own invention. Obviously, it was a poor (and evidently confusing) descision on my part. However, I do realize now that perhaps it would have been better if I had used your example, so I shall use the tribe.

When you say that the tribe does something evil, do you mean that the tribe's government and leaders performed the atrocity, or that each and every person in that tribe did the evil act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Ellison - By no means was I speculating on what I falsely believed you had said. Rather, I was attempting to fit your explanation into an example entirely of my own invention. Obviously, it was a poor (and evidently confusing) descision on my part. However, I do realize now that perhaps it would have been better if I had used your example, so I shall use the tribe.

When you say that the tribe does something evil, do you mean that the tribe's government and leaders performed the atrocity, or that each and every person in that tribe did the evil act?

Again, I'm not talking about a single act, or isolated events, but rather a tribe that is systematically committing evil acts, against individuals within it and/or against outsiders. And in that case, no individuals who support the tribe, or fight for the tribe, are innocent.

As for the word "evil", when assigned to people (as opposed to an action or ideas):

There are few people who are pure evil, obviously, but the tribe's structure and driving ideas are, themselves, evil, and its members are evil to the extent that they subscribe to the tribe and the ideas behind the tribe.

In the case of Native tribes, their hatred for European outsiders and for their superior technology and culture were evil ideas, and the Indians who fought in the name of those ideas deserved their faith. Obviously, atrocities were committed by both sides (I'm sure you're also aware of Indians attacking and murdering white families and peaceful settlers, just as white individuals and entire armies killed peaceful Indians), but those atrocities do not amount to genocide. The driving force behind European settlers was not the extermination of the Natives- they were seeking their own freedom and prosperity, ans rightfully saw most Native tribes as a threat. If they sometimes went too far, that's the reality of war-you crush the enemy.

But the good side in that war was the European, later US side: they were fighting for the better culture and political system. Just as the Allies were the good side in WW2, from every perspective, including that of a German, supposedly fighting for his nation--he was, in reality, fighting for the driving ideas behind his nation, neatly summed up for him in Mein Kampf and other Nazi publications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If another person has the same right, then those two people each have that individual right. If each person in that village of fifty has that individual right, then everyone in that village has that right.

When you make the distinction "each" in the first sentence you still recognize a difference between an individual right and the non-existent "group" right. In the second sentence you drop the "each" distinction when you refer to everyone. Yes, each of the 50 people each have individual rights. That does not magically create a group right or rights. A group does not have rights that can be violated but any or all of the individuals within a group can each have their rights violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...