criminals

[ObjectivRealiTT87]

From what I understand the basis of Objectivist ethics is self-interest. It doesn't matter what is rational if we don't or don't want to live. Something being rational means that it makes sense, it makes sense (is rational) for puzzle piece A to fit into puzzle piece B, but that doesn't mean that its wrong (ethically) for a child to put piece A into piece C. But if we want to live like human beings we must learn to put pieces into the correct places. A criminal doesn't know how to put the puzzle together, but does that mean he doesn't deserve life? He denies reality, but can reality deny him? In the Virtue of Selfishness Nathaniel Branden said "one cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of another. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself" But individual rights exist regardless of whether one personally accepts or rejects them. The only way I can see for an individual to "throw-away" his rights is for him to commit a crime in society, if that's the case no one will be obligated (rationally, morally)to respect him. Reason can't require people to respect those who will hurt them, we have to defend our lives. Of course there should be limits on how far the government can punish a criminal, it would not be just for the state to execute a man for stealing or put someone in jail for a parking meter violation.

[LovesLife]

From what I understand the basis of Objectivist ethics is self-interest.

That's rational self-interest.

It doesn't matter what is rational if we don't or don't want to live.

What does it mean for something to "matter"? It means that it rationally supports your life in some way. If someone doesn't want to live, then they are being irrational, in which case nothing can matter to them.

Something being rational means that it makes sense, it makes sense (is rational) for puzzle piece A to fit into puzzle piece B, but that doesn't mean that its wrong (ethically) for a child to put piece A into piece C.

Being rational is much more than just "making sense." The irrational "makes sense" to many people.

It is morally wrong for a child to put piece A into piece C if that action involves a use of force or fraud against others, for example. What that child believes has no bearing on it.

A criminal doesn't know how to put the puzzle together, but does that mean he doesn't deserve life?

The only way to "deserve" life is to act rationally.

He denies reality, but can reality deny him?

Well, it's not active denial -- reality just is. But if you deny reality, you won't survive long -- just try it on a busy street, or even on a desert island.

[ObjectivistMathematician]

I think it's worth mentioning that criminals are not detained because they're irrational, immoral, or because they don't ''deserve life'' (i.e. not because they don't know how to fit the puzzle pieces together). Criminals are detained for only one reason: to protect rational, moral people from coercion.

[LovesLife]

Criminals are detained for only one reason: to protect rational, moral people from coercion.

Even if you could be sure that someone wouldn't use coercion / force in the future, wouldn't you still detain them if they had already used it against someone? That's the foundation for retaliatory force, right? The standard isn't future intent, it's past actions. Otherwise, I think there's a slippery slope in there somewhere.

Also, does detention of criminals only protect rational, moral people? Doesn't it protect irrational, immoral people too? The latter may not want such protection, but that's a different issue.

[ObjectivRealiTT87]

"The only way to "deserve" life is to act rationally."

The word "deserve" means to merit or have claim to. The only way a person can merit anything is if they are rational enough to stay alive. But when I say deserve I'm talking about morality. Is it morally right for any one to attack a criminal? Only if it is for self-preservation, we have an inalienable right to protect ourselves. But whether people believe in it or not, individual rights is more than just a concept. It is irrational for anyone to use anyone else for their own interest. Nature intended every man to live for himself, that's why we have an independent thinking mind. We need neither sacrifice ourselves to others, nor sacrifice others to our self. Nothing changes that, even if another person refuses to accept our right. A criminal may owe us something, in that case it isn't against our rational self-interest to take it from him (we earned it by our own right) and we definitely have the right to defend our self against another assault. But an irrational man should be left alone and allowed to die off by natural selection. And the point about the puzzle pieces was this: I can buy a puzzle and put it together anyway I want, even if that's irrational it isn't immoral. It is only immoral to act irrationally if it hurts personal self-interest, if it keeps us from living like a human being. A creature with no self-interest can have no morals. But a man who wants live a life appropriate for a human being will not attempt to live for others and he won't make others life for him.

[ObjectivistMathematician]

Even if you could be sure that someone wouldn't use coercion / force in the future, wouldn't you still detain them if they had already used it against someone? That's the foundation for retaliatory force, right? The standard isn't future intent, it's past actions. Otherwise, I think there's a slippery slope in there somewhere.

How could you possibly be 100% sure of such a thing? The only purpose of retaliatory force is to protect yourself from harm. The only exception to this I can think of (i.e. the only reason I'd detain someone even though I am somehow 100% they will not be a threat to anyone again) is as deterrent, so that people will not think they can use force and get away with it.

Also, does detention of criminals only protect rational, moral people? Doesn't it protect irrational, immoral people too? The latter may not want such protection, but that's a different issue.

I admit I misrepresented myself there; perhaps instead of "rational, moral people" I should have just said "non-criminals" or "people who don't initiate force".

[LovesLife]

How could you possibly be 100% sure of such a thing?

That's what courts and trials are for. You can't be 100% sure, but sure "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The only purpose of retaliatory force is to protect yourself from harm. The only exception to this I can think of (i.e. the only reason I'd detain someone even though I am somehow 100% they will not be a threat to anyone again) is as deterrent, so that people will not think they can use force and get away with it.

I've always viewed the concept of retaliatory force as including police action to bring someone suspected of a crime in for trial, and detaining them afterwards if they are found guilty, as a form of punishment. Forced detention might also act as a deterrent, but that seems like it would be a secondary function (particularly since that type of deterrence usually isn't very effective).

[RationalBiker]

Nature intended every man to live for himself, that's why we have an independent thinking mind.

Can you describe how nature has intentions? Is nature volitional?

[ObjectivRealiTT87]

"Can you describe how nature has intentions? Is nature volitional?"

My body has intentions, scientists tell us that a lot of evolution comes from self-adaptation or self-mutagenesis. A human mind evolved over billions and billions of years and is still evolving, but the point is that some things in nature have a specific function, a natural "intention" or "purpose."

[ObjectivistMathematician]

That's what courts and trials are for. You can't be 100% sure, but sure "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You can be sure beyond reasonable doubt whether or not someone has committed a crime, but I don't see how you can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that a person will never commit a crime ever again.

I've always viewed the concept of retaliatory force as including police action to bring someone suspected of a crime in for trial, and detaining them afterwards if they are found guilty, as a form of punishment. Forced detention might also act as a deterrent, but that seems like it would be a secondary function (particularly since that type of deterrence usually isn't very effective).

Surely ''punishment'' is not an end in itself, is it? I could see punishment being important for minor violations. I think the most important effect of the police using retaliatory force for more major crimes is to keep non-criminals safe from these crimes.

[Greebo]

"Can you describe how nature has intentions? Is nature volitional?"

My body has intentions, scientists tell us that a lot of evolution comes from self-adaptation or self-mutagenesis. A human mind evolved over billions and billions of years and is still evolving, but the point is that some things in nature have a specific function, a natural "intention" or "purpose."

Careful with your language, please.

Having evolved to serve a purpose, like a stomach, or a liver, does not equate to having been intentionally evolved to have a purpose (ie deliberately designed as such).

Nature did not "intend" man to be free - man IS free by his nature, which developed naturally, not with any intention.

We could have evolved more like ants for all we know - in which case socialism would be rational for us.

[ObjectivRealiTT87]

"We could have evolved more like ants for all we know - in which case socialism would be rational for us."

But we did not evolve to become ants, we are human beings. And the human mind does have an intention, a purpose: to survive. We have personal thoughts and feelings that move us onward in that direction, even as small children.

[Zoid]

"We could have evolved more like ants for all we know - in which case socialism would be rational for us."

But we did not evolve to become ants, we are human beings. And the human mind does have an intention, a purpose: to survive. We have personal thoughts and feelings that move us onward in that direction, even as small children.

True, but the point is that nature did not "plan" the way we evolved; it is not purposive in any sense.

[Greebo]

"We could have evolved more like ants for all we know - in which case socialism would be rational for us."

But we did not evolve to become ants, we are human beings. And the human mind does have an intention, a purpose: to survive. We have personal thoughts and feelings that move us onward in that direction, even as small children.

I'm not saying we did. I'm saying that intent and purpose aren't interchangeable synonyms. Human beings weren't "intended" - we happened. We DO have a purpose - our purpose is our own lives. When you talk about the intention of nature you're talking about what some outside entity called nature consciously desired for humanity.

If we HAD evolved like ants, that also wouldn't have been *intended*. Our purpose as living beings would still be the same - living - but our fundamental nature would be different, and colony survival WOULD be our means of survival.

Both ants and humans have the same core purpose, both have very different natures, but neither was "intended".

Edited July 20, 2011 by Greebo

[ObjectivRealiTT87]

"Both ants and humans have the same core purpose, both have very different natures, but neither was "intended"."

I still find it hard to believe that my mind developed its thinking processes without a personal goal. Nature has an intention for many things, the body consciously sends out antibodies to fight disease.

Edited July 20, 2011 by ObjectivRealiTT87

[LovesLife]

I still find it hard to believe that my mind developed its thinking processes without a personal goal.

The goal is **life**

Nature has an intention for many things, the body consciously sends out antibodies to fight disease.

The concept of intention requires a will, which in turn implies free choice.

When the body sends antibodies to fight diseases, it is not willful; there is no choice. It's automatic -- so it's not intention. Nature doesn't "intend," it just "does."