Rights of severely mentally ill

[thenelli01]

Let me put it this way:

if you stab one repeatedly with a knife and they die, you violated their right to life. If you steal money out of a retards wallet/purse, you violated their property rights. How can they pursue happiness when dead? Or have had their money just taken?

I see that those inalienable individual rights, can be violated in such individuals, so they must have those rights then, correct?

Edit to add: for cases of brain dead, look at what we can do now to them now if they don't have living wills, or next of kin, etc. The decision can't be made by them, it can be made for them.

You first have to establish why humans that are conscious with no conceptual capacity and no chance of improving have the right to life in the first place. That is the point of this topic.

[tadmjones]

The right to life is not something granted. What would it mean to not have the right?

Do you ask simply if (big O) Objectivism has an official position on this specific matter?

Edited March 23, 2013 by tadmjones

[Dormin111]

There's many people who lack 'full reasoning capacities' that are not mentally ill. Should their rights be written away, too?

 

Yes. Who else belongs in this category beside the retarded, brain damaged or those in a coma?

[tadmjones]

Without advocating for a mind/body dichotomy or duality or suggesting the nonexistence of mind, are we sure nonreversible brain damage or coma victims are not conceptually aware? The brain really really seems to be the 'seat of the mind' I mean Really seems to be , but are we sure?

[intellectualammo]

You first have to establish why humans that are conscious with no conceptual capacity and no chance of improving have the right to life in the first place. That is the point of this topic.

Those that are pronounced as being brain dead, are no longer there consciously, "they" are no longer there, keeping a body alive is all you are doing. So it really comes down to what gives US the right to "pull the plug" on them. If they do not have a living will, then what right does anyone have in deciding what to do next with the brain dead person, is the question. Keep the body alive till it dies naturally? Do they lose their right to life because they are brain dead or not going to come out of a coma, that when the brain dies or is dead or not able to be conscious any longer like with coma, they can no longer exercise that right, that it's OK to pull the plug stop supporting a body? Of course this is again largely a medical/legal issue to be dealt then by the philosophy of law. But also, if one that is brain dead, is really dead, just not their body, so we or family can then decide if no living will. Edited March 23, 2013 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

I think I have found a compelling Answer:

"A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty"

Don Watkins says that in this thread:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=1099

So a brainless baby, is not human, but an anomaly as Mimpy in that thread said?

So then someone who is now brain dead, no longer has rights.

Edited March 23, 2013 by intellectualammo

[thenelli01]

Though they would be "broken units", they would still be human. And because of the law of identity, those that are human have inalienable individual rights.

I am not particularly interested in the brain dead case.

I am interested in conscience human beings with no conceptual capacity.

Your answer and understanding of rights isn't the Objectivist position on rights. Rights aren't inherent because of your DNA.

Individual rights rest on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. So to the extent that you have less conceptual capacity is the extent that you have less rights (specifically under the law). It is properly seen in limitations on a child's ability to consent or sign contracts due to their lack of capacity to make rational long term decisions.

So if a human is conscious, but no conceptual capacity, why does he deserve any rights at all, including the right to life? What separates him from the status of an animal?

(I feel like a broken record :-P)

Edited March 23, 2013 by thenelli01

[intellectualammo]

I edited my posts before your last post. So that may help.

Yes mans nature is where rights come from. If you are human, then you have inalienable individual rights, as I have been saying.

No brain - not human - no rights

human but became brain dead - no longer human - no longer has rights

severely retarded - rights depend upon the degree of rational faculty

How's that sound so far?

What makes us human, what separates us from other animals, is our rational faculty, conceptual level of awareness, I gather is the Oist position.

Edited March 23, 2013 by intellectualammo

[thenelli01]

I edited my posts before your last post. So that may help.Yes mans nature is where rights come from. If you are human, then you have inalienable individual rights, as I have been saying.No brain - not human - no rightshuman but became brain dead - no longer has rightsseverely retarded - rights depend upon the degree of rational facultyHow's that sound so far?What makes us human, what separates us from other animals, is our rational faculty, conceptual level of awareness, I gather is the Oist position.

I appreciate you trying to answer, but this is getting a bit frustrating. This will probably be my last response to you if you don't stay on topic.

I am specifically speaking of those that are conscious but no conceptual capacity. Not brain dead (no consciousness) or no brains (lol). We are dealing with the rights of the severely mentally ill. We agree that rights depend upon the degree of rational faculty. My question is (last time I say it) does a conscious human with no conceptual capacity have the right to life and what is the source of that right?

[intellectualammo]

Ok I am now on the same page with you after all that.

Let me venture an answer:

No conceptual faculty to me would mean no rational faculty and existing then only on a perceptual level of awareness. They could then seemingly no longer be considered human then, and then no longer have rights.

But what about human babies? They aren't on the conceptual level of awareness yet, right? but have the capacity, or potential that they eventually will. Those other ones, such capacity, potentiality, either does not exist or no longer is present with them.

Rand:

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” […]

So then it would follow, that losing the rational conceptual capacity or faculty, one is then an animal, or no longer human, and animals don't have rights. Only rational animals do. Now does that sound?

Edited March 23, 2013 by intellectualammo

[thenelli01]

Ok I am now on the same page with you after all that.

Let me venture an answer:

No conceptual faculty to me would mean no rational faculty and existing then only on a perceptual level of awareness. They could then seemingly no longer be considered human then, and then no longer have rights.

But what about human babies? They aren't on the conceptual level of awareness yet, right? but have the capacity, or potential that they eventually will. Those other ones, such capacity, potentiality, either does not exist or no longer is present with them.

Rand:

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” […]

So then it would follow, that losing the rational conceptual capacity or faculty, one is then an animal, or no longer human, and animals don't have rights. Only rational animals do. Now does that sound?

Ok - so killing them would have no consequences under the law?

[tadmjones]

thenelli01

I'm confused as to the OP , do you mean to ask what the status of rights holding/protection would be in a fully rational (O'ist?)society?

[thenelli01]

Yes.

[tadmjones]

I don' think that makes it any less a borderline test case for rights. But probably along the lines of a perpetual guardianship, akin perhaps to what would be put in place to handle orphaned children.

[thenelli01]

I don' think that makes it any less a borderline test case for rights. But probably along the lines of a perpetual guardianship, akin perhaps to what would be put in place to handle orphaned children.

 

Orphaned children have rights. We are trying to establish whether or not a conscious man with no conceptual capability has the right to life and what the source of that right is. Since rights are dependent on man's rational nature, I would argue that they wouldn't have the right to life. My question would then be, under an LFC government, if a guardian killed or abused this being, would their be legal repercussions or would it be similar if this person was an animal with no legal repercussions? Would those people be at the same status of an animal?

[tadmjones]

Why would infants have rights in an LFC society?

[thenelli01]

Why would infants have rights in an LFC society?

 

Because they still have a rational faculty, even though it isn't fully developed. That is why the right the to life, just less rights than a fully developed adult. 

[mdegges]

Since rights are dependent on man's rational nature, I would argue that they wouldn't have the right to life. My question would then be, under an LFC government, if a guardian killed or abused this being, would their be legal repercussions or would it be similar if this person was an animal with no legal repercussions? Would those people be at the same status of an animal?

 

It's hard to believe these sorts of responses. Think about it for a minute: do you see anything wrong with killing a mentally ill person? A mentally ill child? If you do see something wrong with that- what is it?

 

What's wrong is that you're ending another person's life. (Yes, mentally ill people are human. They are not animals in any sense of the term: they are people. Just because you are physically or mentally disabled, you are still a human being.) Worse, you are ending someone's life who has not harmed you, initiated force against you, or anything of the sort. As a guardian, you would be taking your child's life to shirk your responsibility for him.. and that is wrong, especially since there are many other options available to relieve you of this responsibility. As a guardian, abusing your child would be initiating force against a defenseless person.

 

Think about it another way: Do you see anything wrong with abusing or killing a die-hard communist, or a person who lives off the state- someone who is not 'rational' in any positive, productive way? Again, the same thing is true: these people have rights, no matter how evil or destructive they may appear to you. They have the right to live their lives in almost any way they see fit, as long as they do not violate others' rights.

 

Any human life is more valuable than an animal life, no matter how subpar it may be. Think of heroic acts: saving your children from being hit by a car, talking someone out of jumping off a bridge, rescuing someone from a burning building. This happens because the 'hero' is concerned about other lives, values them, and wants them to live on even at risk to himself. This is all done in the name of valuing human lives.

Edited March 23, 2013 by mdegges

[tadmjones]

I suppose infants as a class could be considered that way, but the question of whether or not a specific infant would possess that faculty would , I think, be a question for a medical diagnosis.

If an infant that is 'normal' has rights based a potentiality, how does it gain something(rights) that only apply to an actuality(fully conceptual)?

Are you saying that in a LFC society, the penalty for killing an adult mongoloid should be different because they are less human? Should the penalty be less for killing an infant or child up to any specific age be different than killing a 'normal' adult?

My point is the rights of man/human are philosophically determined, but isn't 'human' a biologically/medically defined term?

[thenelli01]

I suppose infants as a class could be considered that way, but the question of whether or not a specific infant would possess that faculty would , I think, be a question for a medical diagnosis.

If an infant that is 'normal' has rights based a potentiality, how does it gain something(rights) that only apply to an actuality(fully conceptual)?

 

Infants don't have rights on potentiality. They have rights based on their possession of rational faculty - just because it isn't fully developed, doesn't mean it isn't there. That is where they get the right to life and the parents have the responsibility to take care of them until a certain age.

 

 

 

Are you saying that in a LFC society, the penalty for killing an adult mongoloid should be different because they are less human? 

 

 

I'm not saying that. I am asking that... That is the point of this thread. If the legal system is based on rights, and if the Objectivist position is that they don't have rights (most importantly the right to life), then I don't understand what the penalty would be. I am asking whether or not they have the right to life and if they do, what is the source of that right.

Edited March 23, 2013 by thenelli01

[tadmjones]

Btw I do not agree that a human wouldn't have rights.

[thenelli01]

It's hard to believe these sorts of responses. Think about it for a minute: do you see anything wrong with killing a mentally ill person? A mentally ill child? If you do see something wrong with that- what is it?

 

What's wrong is that you're ending another person's life. (Yes, mentally ill people are human. They are not animals in any sense of the term: they are people. Just because you are physically or mentally disabled, you are still a human being.) Worse, you are ending someone's life who has not harmed you, initiated force against you, or anything of the sort. As a guardian, you would be taking your child's life to shirk your responsibility for him.. and that is wrong, especially since there are many other options available to relieve you of this responsibility. As a guardian, abusing your child would be initiating force against a defenseless person.

 

Think about it another way: Do you see anything wrong with abusing or killing a die-hard communist, or a person who lives off the state- someone who is not 'rational' in any positive, productive way? Again, the same thing is true: these people have rights, no matter how evil or destructive they may appear to you. They have the right to live their lives in almost any way they see fit, as long as they do not violate others' rights.

 

Straw man, emotional argument.

I am simply asking whether or not someone has the right to life if they are conscious, but no conceptual ability and no chance of improvement. I didn't say that it would be moral to kill them, just as I don't think it would be necessarily moral to kill a pet. However, a pet doesn't have the right to life, which is why they wouldn't be protected under the law. They are property. So you need to first establish if those severely mentally handicapped people have the right to life and how that fits in with the Objectivist position on rights. That is how the legal system in an LFC works - it is based on rights.

[tadmjones]

So what are really asking?

Aren't you asking what the source of rights are? Or are you trying catagorize abnormalities in humans and then try and find a threshold that you think demonstrates the inability to conceptualize and as soon as that limit is met rights are recognized or withdrawn?

Take a real world example, someone like Hawkings without the advantages of technology , were you to come upon him and found his drooling distasteful enough you could , in a LFC society off him with little fear of consequences? Now I understand the fact is he does possess a conceptual faculty(heh understatement) but his conceptualness is not obvious sans technology.

[mdegges]

Straw man, emotional argument.

I am simply asking whether or not someone has the right to life if they are conscious, but no conceptual ability and no chance of improvement. I didn't say that it would be moral to kill them, just as I don't think it would be necessarily moral to kill a pet. However, a pet doesn't have the right to life, which is why they wouldn't be protected under the law. They are property. So you need to first establish if those severely mentally handicapped people have the right to life and how that fits in with the Objectivist position on rights. That is how the legal system in an LFC works - it is based on rights.

 

Which part? ...Accordig to you in post #40, "Since rights are dependent on man's rational nature, I would argue that they wouldn't have the right to life." Not having the right to life meas that you can be killed, (as a deer can be run over with a car and left to die on the side of the road), and the killer will not be penalized. As you say, killing deer on purpose is not moral in all cases, but it would be legal to kill deer on your own property (or with permission on someone else's property) in an LFC society. Contrast this with killing human beings - or as Rand puts it, initiating lethal force against others. Morality aside, would such an act be legal in an LFC society? Even if the person you're killing is a die-hard communist, a non-rational person, etc? Of course not. Killing someone who is not initiating force against you is and should be illegal. All humans are entitled to the right to life unless they violate others rights.. in which case, they will be penalized as the law sees fit.

[tadmjones]

In a LFCS would murder be defined as the intentional killing of a human being? If yes, then the definition of human would be a medical/biologic one, not philosophic.

If you want to maintain that an infant is the same as a man , it must be on a biologic basis. To say that is rather based on an undeveloped faculty is to claim the potential is equivalent to the actual.