A challenge to Yaron Brook

[Marc K.]

And what do you mean by this: "a moral code is necessary to establish the source of individual rights"? Why is a moral code "necessary" for this? Is man's nature not enough to establish rights?

Thanks for the questions. I have given much thought to this issue, let me explain my process. The sources I used were “The Objectivist Ethics” and “Man’s Rights” in VOS and (one of my favorites) “An Introduction to Objectivism” -- Video Lecture by Leonard Peikoff -- I quote from it:

Given the foundation [metaphysics and epistemology], a certain ethics is necessary. Given the ethics, a certain politics is necessary.

I always envision Dr. Peikoff’s sketch on the board when he calls ethics the “central branch” of philosophy; metaphysics and epistemology the “basic branches”; and politics and aesthetics the “derivative” branches.

Thus: looking at reality; and using reason; a certain ethics (selfishness/rational self-interest) is necessary; so as to inform how we should act in a social context; and how we should judge art.

So a man’s nature is not enough to establish rights. Man’s nature as a living being who must act in a certain way in order to keep himself alive necessitates an ethics of rational self-interest to guide his choices -- that which furthers his life is the good, that which is a detriment to it is the bad. In politics "a 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."

Thus in order to determine (or derive) what is right one must first know what is good. What is good for an individual is right for him in society.

[Marc K.]

I have given you the essence of my argument

That's what I thought I smelled, the essence of an argument.

I'm still waiting for the actual argument.

[Zeus]

[...]

Thus: looking at reality; and using reason; a certain ethics (selfishness/rational self-interest) is necessary; so as to inform how we should act in a social context; and how we should judge art.

[...]

Thus in order to determine (or derive) what is right one must first know what is good. What is good for an individual is right for him in society.

You don't understand the argument -- and are deducing from abstraction to abstraction. You'll be very embarrassed when/if you find out how utterly off-the-mark you are.

Well, if Mr. Swig cares to answer you, fine. I don't appreciate your dishonest attitude and certainly won't sanction it.

[AisA]

Marc, forgive me for interjecting, but I have a question here. You say:

So a man’s nature is not enough to establish rights.

Then you say:

Man’s nature as a living being who must act in a certain way in order to keep himself alive necessitates an ethics of rational self-interest to guide his choices -- that which furthers his life is the good, that which is a detriment to it is the bad.

Is this not a statement about man's nature?

I can understand the statement that it is not enough to merely say that rights proceed from man's nature -- one must be able to show how they are derived, which is where your statement is headed. But let us not confuse the process of making inferences (the derivations) with the observations on which they are based (man's nature).

The statement that rights are based on man’s nature is not intended to mean that no reasoning or inferences are required. But those inferences can be made solely on what we observe about the nature of man.

Thus in order to determine (or derive) what is right one must first know what is good. What is good for an individual is right for him in society.

We can determine (or derive) that since man is a rational being who survives by thinking and producing the values he needs, he has a basic requirement vis-à-vis other men -- namely, freedom from the initiation of force.

Thus, we can derive and prove man's basic rights without necessarily deriving all of the virtues of the Objectivist ethics: rationality, productiveness, pride, etc.

A man living alone would not need the concept of rights. However, he would still need all the virtues his nature dictates. When he co-exists with other men, he needs the concept of rights to insure that he can continue to practice those virtues. It is in this sense, I think, that Miss Rand meant that rights are a means of subordinating society to moral law.

Edited to remove an unnecessary word.

[Marc K.]

AisA:

My understanding is that since a right is a moral principle, one must first determine what is moral.

I guess our disagreement comes down to: under what branch of philosophy is the concept "rights" subsumed? I submit: if it is politics, then ethics is required.

[MisterSwig]

I always envision Dr. Peikoff’s sketch on the board when he calls ethics the “central branch” of philosophy; metaphysics and epistemology the “basic branches”; and politics and aesthetics the “derivative” branches.

First, let's keep in mind that the Objectivist political system is capitalism, not individual rights. Capitalism is the political system that recognizes individual rights.

nder what branch of philosophy is the concept "rights" subsumed? I submit: if it is politics, then ethics is required.

Whether the principle of individual rights is part of ethics or politics is a very interesting question. To properly respond, I'll need more time than I have right now. But I'll throw this out there to start with ...

Ayn Rand wrote that "'[r]ights' are a moral concept ... the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics." (Man's Rights)

If we agree that this statement is true, then I think we can conclude a few things from it. First, rights are part of ethics, since they are a moral concept (indeed, a "moral principle").

However, rights are also something else. They logically connect ethics with politics. They are a link. So we can say that rights are necessary to establish the proper political system. And, in fact, Peikoff does say in OPAR that "[t]he basic principle of politics, according to Objectivism, is ... individual rights."

Now, this raises the question: Is individual rights also part of politics? I think the answer is "yes." It seems to me that individual rights is a linking concept which is part of both ethics and politics. It is part of ethics as a "moral principle" relating to one's freedom of action in a social context. And it is a "political principle" which establishes the moral base for capitalism.

I don't think that the principle of rights necessarily needs to be either part of ethics or part of politics. Why can't it be part of both branches? After all, politics is an application of morality to a social context. Shouldn't we expect some overlap between the two branches?

I'll have to leave it there for now.

[Marc K.]

First, let's keep in mind that the Objectivist political system is capitalism, not individual rights. Capitalism is the political system that recognizes individual rights.

I hope I didn't say anything contrary to this.

So we can say that rights are necessary to establish the proper political system. And, in fact, Peikoff does say in OPAR that "[t]he basic principle of politics, according to Objectivism, is ... individual rights."

Yes, I can see this is where we will have difficulty. My understanding is that rights are a part of the political system and that ethics is necessary to establish a political system.

To requote Leonard Peikoff from above:

Given the foundation [metaphysics and epistemology], a certain ethics is necessary. Given the ethics, a certain politics is necessary.

[MisterSwig]

At some point it will become obvious all of us that the United States is slowly – too slowly – winning this war.

My disagreement with Yaron Brook is with how he evaluates some of the concrete issues of the war. The application of philosophical principles to the specific issues of military power and war policy requires a consideration of all relevant facts. The specific lessons of history and the differences between the conditions of the past and today need to be considered. Collecting and appraising these facts and evaluating some of the specifics of history are not philosophical skills. Having a superior grasp of philosophy gives one less of an advantage in these specific issues than one might think.

Neither Yaron Brook nor I have a substantial track record of projecting the future trajectory of world events on the scale of months and years. So there is no clear evidence I can offer to you to claim that I will make fewer mistakes in my projections than he does. Meanwhile I'll sit here with an amused smile, waiting patiently to be proved right.

Back in December of 2004, Jack Wakeland sat at his computer with an "amused smile," believing that "at some point" all of his opponents would see the "obvious"--that we are "winning this war." In light of subsequent developments, I wonder if Mr. Wakeland is prepared now to change his mind ... two years later.

Perhaps he is. I found this very recent comment in a post by him over on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans:

I now have a caviot in my support of Mr. Bush. He and his administration have failed to function since sectarian violence flared after the Samara Golden Mosque bombing in February. They have failed to function since the decision to open a path to "negotiations" with Iran over its nuclear weapons program in June. They have acquessed to Gen. Musharraf's "peace" treaty with the pro-Talian, pro-al-Qeada tribes of Wiziristan in September (if I recall it correctly the peace agreement was signed in September). This is a change in my evaluation of Mr. Bush and it is brought on by a major change in Mr. Bush's behavior. For the first time since he began leading the fight, the president has repeatedly demonstrated an inability or reluctance to continue the fight.

This has been going on for no more than about ten months. Because I have not had the time to write much about the war in the past six months, I've commented very little on this change--but that is the ONLY reason why I have commented very little.

I am not withholding judgement. The Bush Administration has quit the battlefield. This makes Mr. Bush (and his people) guilty of taking half measures that--for the first time--actually are worse than none.

Now this is certainly a strange admission, coming from the man who only two months ago, days before the November election, was still arguing that we should vote for Bush because he will "fight theocracy abroad." And it's a strange admission from someone who only a couple days after the election, after the Republicans lost, felt compelled to call Dr. Peikoff--and every other Objectivist in America who voted Democrat--a "fool":

Speaking without expertise will lead to foolish comments: like Dr. Peikoff's call for Democratic Party victory in the election. Now that we have Democratic Party control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, 28 governorships and both houses of the legislatures in 18 states, we'll see just how well considered that off-the-cuff call was.

For Objectivists who voted Democrat, the left who controls the party you voted for will prove your foolishness. You were foolish to join the headlong stampede for retreat from Iraq. You were foolish to follow Dr. Peikoff's advice--advice that was based on the purposefully manipulated distortion of the events of the world on front page of the New York Times.

None of this seems to add up correctly. If Wakeland, since at least six months ago, was coming to the conclusion that Bush has "quit the battlefield" and that his "half measures" are "worse than none," then why did he only two months ago forcefully and repeatedly accuse his opponents of being "foolish?" And why would Wakeland attack Dr. Peikoff, calling him a "bully," when Wakeland himself was in the very process of accepting the idea that Bush's "half measures" are "worse than none"? This, after all, is one of the main reasons for rejecting the Republicans (another being their injection of religion into politics), and it represents an important reversal of Wakeland's previous position, upon which he advocated for supporting Bush as the man to fight this war.

In addition to all of that, I wonder whether Wakeland has accepted the fact that reality has not looked kindly upon his predictions of two years ago. It is not "obvious" that we are "winning the war." (According to Wakeland's own words we have now "quit the battlefield.") Indeed, it is abundantly clearer now that we are losing, which is what Dr. Yaron Brook has been arguing in speech after speech for several years now.

If Wakeland is honest, he will acknowledge that Dr. Brook is far superior to him when it comes to "projecting the trajectory of world events." If he is honest, he will also re-consider his belief that: "Having a superior grasp of philosophy gives one less of an advantage in these specific issues than one might think." I submit that it is precisely Dr. Brook's superior understanding of Objectivism that enabled him to see what Wakeland couldn't.

And if Wakeland is honest, he will apologize to every Objectivist who voted Democrat--for calling them foolish. For, if anyone in this debate is a fool, it is Mr. Wakeland himself.

[Atlas51184]

That was an excellent post, MisterSwig. Of course, having a superior grasp of philosophy (which means having the honed skill of philosophical detection) aids one in identifying trends from much less data. What Brook saw two years ago Wakeland is only now begining to kinda see after being overwhelmed by data. This is a solid example of the power of philosophy. Hopefully it will be interpreted that way.

[tps_fan]

Back in December of 2004, Jack Wakeland sat at his computer with an "amused smile," believing that "at some point" all of his opponents would see the "obvious"--that we are "winning this war." In light of subsequent developments, I wonder if Mr. Wakeland is prepared now to change his mind ... two years later.

Speaking of Winter 2004....!!!! Mr. Swig, do you remember this thread? (My comments are halfway down the page.) Aside from Mr. Swig and I and others warning this forum accordingly, what I really want to say is that Dr. Peikoff was right ...and still is 5 years later!

I think that it is very telling that this weekend it came out that an American solider who recently returned from Iraq has been commanded to be redeployed _against his will_. ...and (wait for it) he's facing a court martial if he doesn't return to fight again in Iraq. (I haven't yet found the exact same story on the WWW, but I saw the reference on TV likely via a PBS station.) In other words, 2 years later the backdoor draft is still in effect. Are there any Objectivists who till think that Pres. Bush is a Republican fighting for core American values?!?

Nevermind Jack Wakeland, I would like to see evidence that the "vote for Bush again" Objectivists are starting to understand that Dr. Peikoff was right ...because he was evaluating the issue by essentials. e.g. 1) that Iran is (still) the essential threat to America 2) that American soldiers' individual rights are also protected by the Bill of Rights as civilians are to be and 3) war for sacrifical causes is always wrong.

Let's not forget that, several months ago, the news reported that a country openly admitted to doing research in deveopment of nuclear power, and that country was Iran.

This isn't an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to the facts of reality interpreted in proper context.