Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Broken units, broken men

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

As long as you believe that human beings with no volitional conciousness also have rigths, though, you will remain confused.

As long as you believe that there is a sort of "contract" between parents and their children, you will remain confused.

I encourage you to read through the thread I posted above. Pay particular attention to RationalBiker's posts beginning approximately around page 20. The logic is clearly laid out there. If you have a counter argument to that logic, I would be more than willing to consider it.

No contract is possible between an existent and a non-existent. Parents cannot come to an agreement with a son who does not exist yet.

No contract is possible between a being with volitional conciousness and a being without it. Parents cannot come to an agreement with a small baby.

A baby is an existent. A human baby is an existent with a volitional, rational consciousness.

Imagine I make a robot at home. I know I must keep it in good operating conditions if I want him to go on functioning as a robot. But suppose I get bored and I want to destroy it. Do I have the right to destroy it? Yes! Why? Beacuse it is mine. It is my property. I do not owe any explanation to anyone, including the State.

What is different then when we take the case to the severily mentally disabled human being, or the baby?

In the case of the baby, the difference is a volitional, rational consciousness. You're making an assumption that some undefined, some unnamed something values all babies, all retarded people, and all disabled people. I don't think that assumption is valid. As it stands, your assertion seems like a floating abstraction.

I could summarize my proposal like this: Stop focusing on the rights of the disabled, and focus on the rights of the valuers.

No problem. Just show me the valuers.

Allow me to restate your argument to verify I understand where you're coming from:

Someone, somewhere values something. Therefore, the state should step in and use force to ensure that something is protected for that someone.

Do I have that right?

Yes, I can. If the presumption is high enough, I can justify it.

The State commonly acts on the base of presumptions.

For example, the police normally take people to the court, using force, because the judge thinks there is enough evidence to make a presumption. Later on, in court, the accused may demostrate to be innocent.

You've switched the context. In your example, there is an actual plaintiff - someone, a definable, clearly identified individual must come forth to claim their rights have been abridged. What happens when no one comes to claim their rights have been abridged when Johnny gets tortured? Does the state step in anyway because someone, at some undefined point in time, might come along to demonstrate they value Johnny and their rights have been violated?

The very fact that we are spending so much time writing about insane and retarded and babies shows that we are concerned about their fate.

I'm actually writing about them because I want to understand the logical principle underlying the nature of rights. There are so many more things I value more highly than the great mass of insane and retarded individuals that they barely register on my screen. In short, I could care less, but it would be really difficult to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if children are Men, then they must have the same rights as all other men:
I don't see why. "Rights" is an abstract concept that refers to the rights to perform actual concrete actions: e.g. to paint my living room, to eat the food I like, to ignore someone, to sign a contract, to go to a school I choose (all assuming I pay etc., and am not violating someone else's rights in the bargain) and to do all sorts of actions that have not even been thought of as yet. So, to say that two beings literally have the same rights is to say that they any actions that one may do, the other may do as well. A billionaire has the right to buy a palace, and so do I, even though I do not have the means.

However, with children, they literally do not have the right to do some things, except via their parents. We come back to the early example where a very young child may not sign a contract. Now, you may conceptualize that as saying that he can sign it in the sense that his guardian can. However, that does not make the range of actions he may legally do identical with the range of actions his guardian may do. A child may say "I hate this school, I don't want to go there", and his adult guardian may sign a contract with the school anyway. One may conceptualize that as saying that the adult guardian is acting for the child, exerting the child's rights. The fact is that the difference between this and times when an adult acts on his own behalf are substantially different from a legal point of view.

Maybe this time we can agree to agree B), realizing that we're use two different conceptual frameworks to reach the same conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to say that two beings literally have the same rights is to say that they any actions that one may do, the other may do as well. A billionaire has the right to buy a palace, and so do I, even though I do not have the means.

However, with children, they literally do not have the right to do some things, except via their parents.

This limitation on the actions of children arises because they lack the means, the same as in your billionaire example. This is a difference of degree, not of kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why [children must have the same rights as other men].

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mesh with what Ms. Rand wrote in the quotes I provided. Not to commit argument from authority, but what am I missing in what she wrote?

However, with children, they literally do not have the right to do some things, except via their parents. We come back to the early example where a very young child may not sign a contract. Now, you may conceptualize that as saying that he can sign it in the sense that his guardian can. However, that does not make the range of actions he may legally do identical with the range of actions his guardian may do. A child may say "I hate this school, I don't want to go there", and his adult guardian may sign a contract with the school anyway. One may conceptualize that as saying that the adult guardian is acting for the child, exerting the child's rights. The fact is that the difference between this and times when an adult acts on his own behalf are substantially different from a legal point of view.

Acting as the child's guardian, the adult needs (properly) to evaluate the most advantageous (to the child) path for exercising that child's rights. The child may hate the school, but it's the best school for him to contract with based on his long term goals (as evaluated by the adult). That's the nature of guardianship - the guardian is obligated to make the best decisions possible for their charge, regardless of the whims and wishes of the charge. After all, that is why there's a guardian in the first place - because the charge isn't capable of properly (rationally) exercising his rights.

If the guardian isn't exercising the rights of the child, then whose rights is he exercising? His own? If so, what principle gives rise to this right?

I'm not clear what your position is on whether children, the retarded, the insane, or the otherwise incapable of rational thought have rights. Do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This limitation on the actions of children arises because they lack the means, the same as in your billionaire example. This is a difference of degree, not of kind.
No, that's an equivocation. There are some means that the law takes cognizance of, and others which it does not: it is up to you and the person with whom you deal to judge means when it comes to everything but the "competence to contract". Children can have all the external and monetary means that the billionaire has, but the state recognizes that they do not have the mental means. Clearly there is a difference in what the state will allow a child to do, when it comes to concrete actions. They might have the same rights in an abstract sense ; however the law takes cognizance of their mental ability (just as it might when it comes to an adult in coma and so on). This whole discussion has been about whether the law should take cognizance of a person's mental ability. If you prefer to call this "having the same rights", it is fine by me -- the fact of such legal cognizance remains. Let's say children have the same rights as adults, but that some of these are delegated to their guardians. Fair enough. However, in those terms, the whole of this discussion simply becomes "why should the law delegate the rights of some (children and retards) to a guardian?" The essence here is legal cognizance of incompetence to contract.

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mesh with what Ms. Rand wrote in the quotes I provided. Not to commit argument from authority, but what am I missing in what she wrote?
Those quotes weren't addressing the issue of children at all. If you really want to understand someone's views on children, you cannot take one quote that says "all men have equal rights" and take another that says "children are men" and conclude that they think children and adults should have identical rights. Do you have the "Answers" book or the Objectivism-CD? If no, I'll try fishing out some more specific references to children and their rights.

I'm not clear what your position is on whether children, the retarded, the insane, or the otherwise incapable of rational thought have rights. Do they?
I think it is appropriate that the law recognizes competence/incompetence to contract when it comes to certain clearly-defined objective criteria: like age, certain drug-induced states, or certain types of mental defects. So, I think it is right that the law recognizes a child's age and disallows the child from doing certain things without approval of a guardian. I think it is appropriate for the law to allow parents to be that guardian, and to have procedures by which other people can adopt, by which other people can take guardianship on the death of a child's parents, and so on. I think it is appropriate that the law not allow a stranger to walk up to an orphaned 12 year old and kill him or molest him, so it should provide that type of protection; nor should it allow a parent to (say) decide that a child may be sacrificed to the Gods. I think retarded folk should be in the same position as such children; however, as I said earlier, I think the actual argument is weaker here. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those quotes weren't addressing the issue of children at all. If you really want to understand someone's views on children, you cannot take one quote that says "all men have equal rights" and take another that says "children are men" and conclude that they think children and adults should have identical rights. Do you have the "Answers" book or the Objectivism-CD? If no, I'll try fishing out some more specific references to children and their rights.

Why would the two not follow? I mean, if All men are mortal, and Aristotle is a Man, then Aristotle must be mortal, right? If All men have equal rights, and children are men, then all children have equal rights, right?

I don't have the "Answers" book (what is this, please?), nor the Objectivism-CD. I should probably get the latter, but have never heard of the former.

I think it is appropriate that the law recognizes competence/incompetence to contract when it comes to certain clearly-defined objective criteria: like age, certain drug-induced states, or certain types of mental defects. So, I think it is right that the law recognizes a child's age and disallows the child from doing certain things without approval of a guardian. I think it is appropriate for the law to allow parents to be that guardian, and to have procedures by which other people can adopt, by which other people can take guardianship on the death of a child's parents, and so on. I think it is appropriate that the law not allow a stranger to walk up to an orphaned 12 year old and kill him or molest him, so it should provide that type of protection; nor should it allow a parent to (say) decide that a child may be sacrificed to the Gods. I think retarded folk should be in the same position as such children; however, as I said earlier, I think the actual argument is weaker here.

What is all this based upon? Why do you think any of it, but specifically why is it appropriate that the law not allow a stranger to walk up to an orphaned 12 year old and kill him or molest him? Should the law allow a parent to sacrifice their dog to the gods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's an equivocation. There are some means that the law takes cognizance of, and others which it does not: it is up to you and the person with whom you deal to judge means when it comes to everything but the "competence to contract". Children can have all the external and monetary means that the billionaire has, but the state recognizes that they do not have the mental means. Clearly there is a difference in what the state will allow a child to do, when it comes to concrete actions. They might have the same rights in an abstract sense ; however the law takes cognizance of their mental ability (just as it might when it comes to an adult in coma and so on). This whole discussion has been about whether the law should take cognizance of a person's mental ability. If you prefer to call this "having the same rights", it is fine by me -- the fact of such legal cognizance remains. Let's say children have the same rights as adults, but that some of these are delegated to their guardians. Fair enough. However, in those terms, the whole of this discussion simply becomes "why should the law delegate the rights of some (children and retards) to a guardian?" The essence here is legal cognizance of incompetence to contract.

Competence to contract is not the essence. The whole thread is about why the law should protect the lives of "broken men". The right to life is prior to any contract. Since it would be pointless for rightless creatures to enter into contracts, even considering the issue of competence to contract is a tacit admission children have at least the right to life.

The legal principle behind the rights of the severely retarded or the comatose is simply "innocent until proven guilty". "Presumption of innocence" also applies to criminals, another population that can be deprived of their rights and lives as a legal judgement. It should be possible to remove an irrecoverably brain-dead comatose person from life support, but the fact that the person is truly irrecoverably brain-dead had better be provable by an objective evidentiary standard.

Objectivism CD
The search "rights NEAR children" results in one hit:

From the Comprachicos: "Instead of teaching children respect for one another's individuality, achievements and rights, Progressive education gives an official stamp of moral righteousness to the tendency of frightened half-savages to gang up on one another, to form "in-groups" and to persecute the outsider."

I think it is appropriate that the law not allow a stranger to walk up to an orphaned 12 year old and kill him or molest him, so it should provide that type of protection; nor should it allow a parent to (say) decide that a child may be sacrificed to the Gods. I think retarded folk should be in the same position as such children; however, as I said earlier, I think the actual argument is weaker here.
I'll second Jeff on this, what is the justification for this opinion? Why is it appropriate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to restate your argument to verify I understand where you're coming from:

Someone, somewhere values something. Therefore, the state should step in and use force to ensure that something is protected for that someone.

Do I have that right?

Yes, although I would argue that, generally, that "someone" will have raised his hand already and said: "Here, State! I have this charity organization ready to take 19 severily mentally disabled people. So next time you know about one, let me know".

Generally, the valuers would be already there, organized, and ready.

If they are not ready, if no charity association is ready, if they all are full and can't take a single more, and a deadline has passed, then the State will authorize a sort of euthanasia. It is hard to me imagining that nobody within a period of 12 months after the initial announcement, would be raising their hand and offering protection. But I admit it could happen.

Remember, the essential premise here is that human life, or any life, has no intrinsic value.

I have no intrinsic value. I am valued by someone... at least, by myself. This is why I have the right not to be murdered. I value my life because I can say the "I". I know the meaning of "I" as I am a self-councious being, and a volitional being. I can say "I want to live". But small babies and people with severe brain damage cannot say the same.

Christian morality has taught the world that human life has intrinsic value. Under Christian optics, it is not how meaningful this life is, but the sole fact that it is human. This comes from the supernatural belief in a God who is the owner of the person. As the owner, it is only Him who can take that life.

So, any time we want to treat humans as if they had an intrinsec value, we are being influenced by a wrong philosophy.

I personally think we do not need Christian altruistic and supernatural views to find value in most of our human fellows. I think it is in our nature to feel sympathy for them.

So, most rational people would feel sympathy for these severily mentally retarded people and most would help, in a non-sacrifical way, to contribute to charity associations. They would prefer it to reading on the newspaper that, over the last year, 42 people have been given a lethal injection because no one wanted them.

Sometimes we underestimate the generosity of people who live lucid lives.

Rational selfish people tend to live happy lives and treat well any person, any animal, any living thing they get in contact with. Not because it is their moral obligation, but because they are having such a whale of a time living their lives.

In a rational selfish world, people would prosper so much, that they would have enough resources to care willingfully for these sort of retarded beings, just to honour their human phenotype, or their past lives, or any hope of a better future.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the essential premise here is that human life, or any life, has no intrinsic value.

I have no intrinsic value. I am valued by someone... at least, by myself. This is why I have the right not to be murdered. I value my life because I can say the "I". I know the meaning of "I" as I am a self-councious being, and a volitional being. I can say "I want to live". But small babies and people with severe brain damage cannot say the same.

Christian morality has taught the world that human life has intrinsic value. Under Christian optics, it is not how meaningful this life is, but the sole fact that it is human. This comes from the supernatural belief in a God who is the owner of the person. As the owner, it is only Him who can take that life.

So, any time we want to treat humans as if they had an intrinsec value, we are being influenced by a wrong philosophy.

I personally think we do not need Christian altruistic and supernatural views to find value in most of our human fellows. I think it is in our nature to feel sympathy for them.

Your negative arguments against christian morality are good, but you are not using the principle of egoism at all in your construction of rights. Why do I give a damn about your values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, although I would argue that, generally, that "someone" will have raised his hand already and said: "Here, State! I have this charity organization ready to take 19 severily mentally disabled people. So next time you know about one, let me know".

Generally, the valuers would be already there, organized, and ready.

Hmmm, okay. So, if I stand up and say, "I believe someone, someday, will value whales (for example)." The state should initiate force in order to protect those whales?

We could put anything we want into that statement: whales, dogs, poor people, sick people, trees, air, money, etc. ad nauseum and pretty much end up with any collectivist's wet dream for a government. Is that what you're advocating? If not, how is it different in principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, okay. So, if I stand up and say, "I believe someone, someday, will value whales (for example)." The state should initiate force in order to protect those whales?

We could put anything we want into that statement: whales, dogs, poor people, sick people, trees, air, money, etc. ad nauseum and pretty much end up with any collectivist's wet dream for a government. Is that what you're advocating? If not, how is it different in principle?

I am reviewing the concept of property, and specially what objective actions/behaviour of the owner imply that he wants to forfeit his ownership rights.

I am sorry for not being able to give you a proper answer now.

But I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hotu Matua wants to protect severely mentally damaged human beings but he thinks they do not have rights so naturally this is a problem. But they DO have rights, so the question of justifiably protecting them is easy. The only thing which is not easy, for him and a few others here, is recognizing a human being. Applying the concept man to a specific unit is the essence of the problem here, so asking about the concept of man is exactly the right question to ask. What he did not understand about the broken units idea was that broken units are still inside the concept. Broken men are still men. Once it is established that we are dealing with a man, the political principles that apply to all men apply to this one as well. This is what it means to think in principle.

But how rational is to deal with a broken referent, as we deal with a normal referent?

For example, if the essential characteristic of fridges is to keep things cold inside (no matter their color, size, brand, energy saving system, etc.), how should I deal with a fridge that does not keep things cold inside: a broken fridge?

Should I fool myself and store my food in it, honoring his teleological structure? No: my food will go off.

Should I fool myself by cheating my neighbour and selling it to him as a fridge? No: I would be commiting fraud.

Acting according to the nature of that broken fridge entails that, unless I can have it fixed, I will use it as a cupboard, as junk, or any other thing but not as a fridge.

A concept, as a way to deal with referents, requires a context. Am I right? If I change the context, my way to deal with them may be totally different.

Thus, even if within a biological context those broken men are inside the concept of men, why should they also be inside the concept of men when the context is individual rights?

Children, the deranged and the incapacitated all have rights, but they cannot exercise them rationally or at all.

They have it, but they cannot excercise them... sounds weird to me. Please help me to understand this.

I have the right of pursuing to buy a nice house in Beverly Hills.

Considering many factors of my reality, it will be extremely hard for me. The most likely thing is that I will never buy it... but I can strive for it without being interfered. It is my right to try. I have the right.

A broken men like the ones we are describing, though, could not pursue that. They could not engage in any free, deliberate action aiming at earning the house. Neither now nor in the forseeable future.

The right to life is the right to action. To self generated actions. To free actions. To flourishing.

It is like a man condemend to life in prison. What would be the case of saying "this prisoner has the right to do his shopping in Walmart, but he cannot excercise it, nor will ever excercise it"? What is the difference between saying that he has the right but will never excercise it than saying he just lost that right and doesn't have it any more?

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights considered as laws are justified in principle and apply to all. If they are to removed (and they can be for the reasons Hotu Matua and Jeffs have brought up) then they are to be removed individually, case-by-case. I will repeat myself:

The legal principle behind the rights of the severely retarded or the comatose is simply "innocent until proven guilty". "Presumption of innocence" also applies to criminals, another population that can be deprived of their rights and lives as a legal judgement. It should be possible to remove an irrecoverably brain-dead comatose person from life support, but the fact that the person is truly irrecoverably brain-dead had better be provable by an objective evidentiary standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights considered as laws are justified in principle and apply to all. If they are to removed (and they can be for the reasons Hotu Matua and Jeffs have brought up) then they are to be removed individually, case-by-case. I will repeat myself:

The legal principle behind the rights of the severely retarded or the comatose is simply "innocent until proven guilty". "Presumption of innocence" also applies to criminals, another population that can be deprived of their rights and lives as a legal judgement. It should be possible to remove an irrecoverably brain-dead comatose person from life support, but the fact that the person is truly irrecoverably brain-dead had better be provable by an objective evidentiary standard.

I'm afraid I still don't get it. I understand why children have rights - they are beings with a volitional, rational faculty and the concept of rights is necessary for their continued living as such beings in a society. These children grow to adults and maintain all the rights they had since birth.

I understand why someone who is accused of being insane (or otherwise incapable of volitional, rational thought) must be assumed to have been a being with a volitional, rational faculty at one time, therefore had rights, including the rights necessary to protect himself against false accusations. However, if this person actually is insane, and is objectively proven to be so, does he still have rights? If he does have (any) rights, then what is that based upon? He is no longer capable of volitional, rational thought, so why does he need rights?

I don't understand why those who are born insane (or otherwise incapable of volitional, rational thought) should have rights. As above, what is that based upon? They are beings who from the beginning do not possess a volitional, rational faculty - something that is required for the concept of rights to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if this person actually is insane, and is objectively proven to be so, does he still have rights?
No, and it does not have to be all-or-nothing. Legal rights can be stripped in proportion to the degree of insanity, just as they can be stripped in proportion to the degree of criminality.

I don't understand why those who are born insane (or otherwise incapable of volitional, rational thought) should have rights. As above, what is that based upon?
The problem is: Who is the authority to decide what is insane? If you decide to strangle your healthy newborn baby girl because you wanted a son, should your mere assertion that she was insane be enough to legally justify your action and keep you out of jail?

It is not the essence of the problem that the insane (or otherwise incapable of volitional, rational thought) should have rights, but that the sane have rights and the law does not know a priori to examining a particular case who are the insane. Therefore the insane must be presumed to have rights or the sane have no rights after all. If the mere accusation of insanity (or of witchcraft, communism, pedophilia, etc.) strips a person of his rights then there are no rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, and it does not have to be all-or-nothing. Legal rights can be stripped in proportion to the degree of insanity, just as they can be stripped in proportion to the degree of criminality.

The only problem with that I see (and this might be ancillary to the current discussion) is "there is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. " (AR) If you take away a man's right to freedom (e.g. lock him in a cell) aren't you effectively taking away all his rights? I mean, he no longer has "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." (AR)

Do convicted felons have rights? Certainly they can't take "actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fullfillment and the enjoyment of [their lives]." Neither can an insane or otherwise irrational person, whether they are locked up or not.

The problem is: Who is the authority to decide what is insane? If you decide to strangle your healthy newborn baby girl because you wanted a son, should your mere assertion that she was insane be enough to legally justify your action and keep you out of jail?

It is not the essence of the problem that the insane (or otherwise incapable of volitional, rational thought) should have rights, but that the sane have rights and the law does not know a priori to examining a particular case who are the insane. Therefore the insane must be presumed to have rights or the sane have no rights after all. If the mere accusation of insanity (or of witchcraft, communism, pedophilia, etc.) strips a person of his rights then there are no rights.

Okay, great point. So, to reference an earlier post, rights are assumed to be held by a being based upon its DNA (that which matches human) until proven to lack a rational faculty? Or, would you rephrase that to "a being based upon its recognizable human form" since DNA isn't something immediately observable? Or, would it be something else entirely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem with that I see (and this might be ancillary to the current discussion) is "there is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. " (AR) If you take away a man's right to freedom (e.g. lock him in a cell) aren't you effectively taking away all his rights? I mean, he no longer has "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." (AR)
Anything short of the death sentence is not depriving a criminal of all of his rights.

Do convicted felons have rights?
Yes. Not every crime should be punishable by death. Murdering a prisoner is murder. Prisons should not permit prisoners to abuse each other.

Okay, great point. So, to reference an earlier post, rights are assumed to be held by a being based upon its DNA (that which matches human) until proven to lack a rational faculty? Or, would you rephrase that to "a being based upon its recognizable human form" since DNA isn't something immediately observable? Or, would it be something else entirely?
Recognizable human form and behavior. Corpses and statues don't count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything short of the death sentence is not depriving a criminal of all of his rights.

Yes. Not every crime should be punishable by death. Murdering a prisoner is murder. Prisons should not permit prisoners to abuse each other.

So, in her use of the word "life" in the passage I quoted, Ms. Rand meant only death avoidance, not living a full and productive life? That doesn't seem to mesh with everything I've read about her view of "life."

Recognizable human form and behavior. Corpses and statues don't count.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in her use of the word "life" in the passage I quoted, Ms. Rand meant only death avoidance, not living a full and productive life? That doesn't seem to mesh with everything I've read about her view of "life."

This is a fascinating topic, and it deserves a thread apart. :P

It seems that rights of an individual are contextual, and that the context is the nature of the individual itself.

Take two prisoners sentenced to 40 years in prison.

One of them has as a long term goal writing a book on Bioethics.

The other one's long term goal is travelling around the world and doing hiking, climbing, diving and snorkeling.

Suppose that books and reading are not only permitted but encouraged within the prison.

Which man will see his right to a flourishing life nipped at the bud?

Or take two persons who are attacked by an intruder, severily injured and left unable to move their arms and legs for the rest of their lives.

One of them is a top theoretical physicist (like Stephen Hawking) and the other one a gold medal skater.

Which one's right to life was more severily affected?

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in her use of the word "life" in the passage I quoted, Ms. Rand meant only death avoidance, not living a full and productive life? That doesn't seem to mesh with everything I've read about her view of "life."

What quote, this one?: "there is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. "

There are many different rights. The rights are related to each other hierarchically, one is more fundamental than the rest. The fundamental right is life.

Prisoners have many of their several rights restricted or stripped, they are not living a full and productive life. Yet they remain alive. This is punishment short of death. What is the problem here, what is your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What quote, this one?: "there is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. "

There are many different rights. The rights are related to each other hierarchically, one is more fundamental than the rest. The fundamental right is life.

Prisoners have many of their several rights restricted or stripped, they are not living a full and productive life. Yet they remain alive. This is punishment short of death. What is the problem here, what is your question?

You began by asserting a man could have his rights taken away piece-meal. I replied that locking a man up effectively takes away all his rights. You replied that a locked up man still has a right to live. However, that doesn't mesh with the way Ms. Rand explained the concepts of "life" and "rights." My question is: How do you reconcile what Ms. Rand wrote with what you wrote?

Ms. Rand wrote:

"...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."

A man in prison does not have "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." Therefore, a man in prison cannot be said to have a right to life. If a man is denied this fundamental right, then where would any other rights derive from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You began by asserting a man could have his rights taken away piece-meal. I replied that locking a man up effectively takes away all his rights. You replied that a locked up man still has a right to live. However, that doesn't mesh with the way Ms. Rand explained the concepts of "life" and "rights." My question is: How do you reconcile what Ms. Rand wrote with what you wrote?

It is precisely because the right to life means the right to take action that depriving a man of his right to take action is punishment. Time behind bars in years of life taken away, in a manner of speaking it is very similar to a reduction to the state of a child or the incapacitated. The state is the guardian of a criminal while he is imprisoned, in the same way a parent is of a child or next-of-kin is of the incapacitated. If a court decrees a certain term of confinement instead of death then it would be unjust to kill him anyway or be careless in his treatment while he is powerless.

Only the state has the legitimate power to prosecute and persecute convicted criminals. Letting criminals abuse each other violates the principles governing force and simply trains any eventually released prisoner to be more dangerous because he learns (or reinforces his conviction) that only force matters when dealing with people, that there is no such thing as law or justice even in a prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi JeffS:

Yes, rights, including the right to life, can be taken piece-meal.

By sending a man to prison, The State restrains the framework of the reality within which he can pursue his flourishing.

In other words, restricts the scope of the excercise of rights.

The man in prision could still pursue some degree of flourishing within the prison.

Same if the sentence is to live only in Detroit, work every day outside the prison and come back to prison only overnight.

A Communist state could also restrict the scope of excercise of right to life by prohibiting you to choose a job, to move to another city, to pursue a better housing.

With property rights, it is the same thing.

A thief can take from you one dollar, ten dollars, or ten thousand dollars. All of them represent violation to your property rights, but in different degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is precisely because the right to life means the right to take action that depriving a man of his right to take action is punishment. Time behind bars in years of life taken away, in a manner of speaking it is very similar to a reduction to the state of a child or the incapacitated. The state is the guardian of a criminal while he is imprisoned, in the same way a parent is of a child or next-of-kin is of the incapacitated. If a court decrees a certain term of confinement instead of death then it would be unjust to kill him anyway or be careless in his treatment while he is powerless.

I think the answer is there, though I'm not sure if it's what you meant. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assert prisoners have any rights at all. Everything about their situation goes against my understanding of rights and life. I don't think their situation is similar to children or the incapacitated. Children and the incapacitated have rights, and their guardian acts to protect those rights.

I think the answer is, when convicted of a crime, the state denies your right to live. It might deny your right to live permanently (it might kill you), or it might deny your right to live for a limited period of time (it might simply imprison you). If convicted of a crime that objectively requires only imprisonment, allowing one prisoner to harm or kill another prisoner would go against the state's monopoly on force. The prisoner who injures or kills another prisoner violates not the rights of the injured or killed prisoner, but the rights of every individual who has empowered the state's monopoly on force.

@Hotu Matua -

If I need to ask permission to perform some action, can it be said I have a right to perform that action? If I am prevented, through the use of force, from acting in a way which will enable me flourish and live a full life, can it be said I have a right to live? If a thief only takes $1 of my millions, can it be said that I have a right to choose the disposition of my property?

You must try to think in principles.

Link to comment
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...