Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How many masks do you wear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

What is being proposed here, is that it is initiation of force to transmit a virus, right? Therefore, it is the imposition to not infect others, and the corollary, indeed you are arguing IS the "right to not being infected". No strawman.

False.

It just means that if you transmit the virus, you are/should be   liable for that act. 

That's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This discussion has been rather far removed from the fundamental principles regarding man’s rights, and has focused instead on notions of aggression, spreading (versus other means), sensory inputs, af

https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA. Great conversation.

I wear one when required, out of respect for the fact that a private business is required to enforce the mandate. I never decided on a consistent policy to use in situations where I have a choice. I g

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

False.

It just means that if you transmit the virus, you are/should be   liable for that act. 

That's all.

"Transmit" - to whom? "Liable" - to whom?

The "whom" has the right to not catch a transmittable disease (by this argument) and therefore the one who transmits it is liable for initiation of force.

So: "The right to not being infected"[by an initiator of force] is the core of this argument or we can't claim "force" was applied by someone to someone. No victim, no initiator.

(Or: One needs to find individuals to blame for the metaphysical given).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

So: "The right to not being infected"[by an initiator of force] is the core of this argument or we can't claim "force" was applied by someone to someone. No victim, no initiator.

This assumes a narrow meaning of "force." It need not be limited to actual physical force. What about threats or even unintended force? "My parents made me eat all on my plate when I didn't want to." Laws punish attempted murder and manslaughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy Truth, from your response I surmise that you understand “force” to be the intent to cause “damage” to another person: is that correct? If not, I’m looking for a single-sentence definition of force, so that I can see what your concept depends on. And as a corollary, I take it you reject “fear” as having any relevance to the question of rights and force.

I do not understand your apparent claim that if another person convinces me to make a bad investment, that is the initiation of force – even if we limit this to investment professionals. Can you explain how persuasion becomes initiation of force?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 8:41 AM, whYNOT said:

Would you stroll onto a shooting range or walk across a busy highway - and claim it's others' moral duty to not accidentally injure you? Or have traffic and the guns banned?

Entering a shooting range or a busy highway is a choice by the person doing it to take the risk.  But if we extend this to not venturing out at all, isn't that demanding paralysis and self-sacrifice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 11:22 AM, DavidOdden said:

I take it that you are not satisfied with this, and instead focus on the effect of an action, irrespective of intent. You seem to hold that creating a risk of harm to others can be initiation of force, or perhaps is by definition initiation of force. It’s not at all clear why you don’t make the stronger claim that it is force, unless you have some further condition that you want to add. A really significant difference between these views is that you seem to deny the relevance of a person’s intent.

Why can't both effect and intent be relevant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

It seems that your threshold for detecting initiation of force is “reasonable fear”, which is a bit of a problem. Fear is an emotional reaction, and we know that emotions are not a source of cognition. The principle should be framed in terms of reasonable conclusions, about a proposition, such as “he intends to shoot me”.

I agree that "fear is an emotional reaction." So what? If someone pulls a gun on another person, the person so assaulted must make a decision (with regards to self defense; a potentially life-or-death decision) in that context and no other. We can describe it, or "frame" it, as you suggest: that the person concludes "he intends to shoot me." But I don't think that does justice to the situation, to how human beings actually operate, in reality.

You're pulling our conversation to the abstract; I'd rather make things more concrete. A man pulls out a gun and points it at a police officer. The police officer pulls out his own gun and fires first, killing the first man. Upon investigation, it turns out that the first man's gun was a toy. Obviously there was never any actual intention (or capability) on his part to shoot the officer. But who is responsible for what has happened -- for this man's death? Who has "initiated the use of force"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Easy Truth, from your response I surmise that you understand “force” to be the intent to cause “damage” to another person: is that correct? If not, I’m looking for a single-sentence definition of force, so that I can see what your concept depends on. And as a corollary, I take it you reject “fear” as having any relevance to the question of rights and force.

In this context (not in others as force can be the force of your stomach ache etc.)

Starting/causing the process of "preventing/interfering" with another from using his faculties of survival.

  • Survival qua man
  • "Initiating" meaning starting vs. intending
    • causing (even unintentionally)
      • This is required to determine responsibility
    • beginning
    • being first
    • being a necessary condition
  • It is usually some sort of interference with your natural mechanism
    • interfering with your efficacious thought process
      • fraud is preventing you from using your interfered with thought process (you would have done something different if you had known)
    • interfering with your senses
      • sight
        • preventing a blind person from seeing something is not an initiation of force
  • Your natural survival should not interfere with another
  • Equal as in no privileges in terms of interference
    • No one can interfere more or less than another

As far as fear goes, there is a relevance but it not a necessary and sufficient condition

  • It is related to determining what a Threat is objectively. 
  • A third person judging would have to determine if it was a "reasonable threat". (or in hindsight)
  • A scary act could cause problems,
    • a loud noise when a surgeon is trying to operate on someone.
    • If an opposing country amasses forces near your border, should you attack?
Edited by Easy Truth
clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I agree that "fear is an emotional reaction." So what? If someone pulls a gun on another person, the person so assaulted must make a decision (with regards to self defense; a potentially life-or-death decision) in that context and no other. We can describe it, or "frame" it, as you suggest: that the person concludes "he intends to shoot me." But I don't think that does justice to the situation, to how human beings actually operate, in reality.

You're pulling our conversation to the abstract; I'd rather make things more concrete. A man pulls out a gun and points it at a police officer. The police officer pulls out his own gun and fires first, killing the first man. Upon investigation, it turns out that the first man's gun was a toy. Obviously there was never any actual intention (or capability) on his part to shoot the officer. But who is responsible for what has happened -- for this man's death? Who has "initiated the use of force"?

The so-what part is that Doug Morris’ argument suggests that the fact of fear is itself sufficient to say that a person has initiated force. I’ve invited him to reject that implication, and I’m inviting you to do likewise. It’s not the emotion, it’s the specific facts that tend to have some relation to fear which are relevant. However, I do agree that many, perhaps most people act on the basis of emotions and not facts. In fact, that is really the fundamental problem of popular politics, that people do not use reason to arrive at moral principles, instead they decide “I don’t like this: the government should do something about it”. This is a fact of the man-made, not the metaphysically given. I am not denying that corner of reality, I am denouncing it: it is a wrong choice.

The problem with being too concrete-bound is that it’s impossible to hold all of the relevant concretes in your mind. What justifies the conclusion that you should not defend your life when Smith is apparently in the process of murdering you in your home, when you know that Smith is a law enforcement officer? How can you know whether you should not defend yourself? You always have to relate choices to abstract principles.

Your specific shooting example should be compared to a some very similar cases: the man pulls out his toy gun and does not point it; he pulls it out and drops it; he pulls out his cell phone; his wallet; the man reaches for his wallet. In each case, the officer shoots and kills. In those cases, who bears responsibility for the death? Do all of these cases have the same evaluation (the man initiated force)? Does that mean that if I’m in some public place with people around me and I take out my cell phone, that is the initiation of force? If you analyze the facts in terms of reasonable inferences of intent, they are not the same. Remember that the position which I’m advocating holds intent to be a crucial determinant of “initiation of force”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

I do not understand your apparent claim that if another person convinces me to make a bad investment, that is the initiation of force – even if we limit this to investment professionals. Can you explain how persuasion becomes initiation of force?

Not anyone.

Someone that can override your freewill. Someone you trust that lies to you in that regard. Generally fraud or a breach of trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Someone that can override your freewill. Someone you trust that lies to you in that regard. Generally fraud or a breach of trust.

In case it might help the conversation:

initiating force isn't bad because it overrides someone's free will, if by free will you mean one's capacity to choose. Your ability to reason does not disappear when somebody initiates force, nor does it ever disappear unless you are asleep or unconscious. What's wrong has more to do with denying you the ability to act out your choices as determined by you. Although I always agreed that initiation of force is wrong, It took me a while to understand the complete Oist argument against force as preventing one from using their mind. It didn't make sense because I thought the argument was, as you phrased it, that someone's free will has been overridden or that they were stopped from thinking entirely. 

Anything anyone does will always interfere with your thinking, your senses, your expectations, your beliefs, your neurons, your heartbeat, and so on. But none of these interferences will deny your ability to choose and act out your choices as determined by you. A person may insult you and make you so angry that you punch them, but you don't say that they initiated force because they interfered with your thinking. I will add more to this, depending on what you ask - I was rereading part of "moral rights" by Tara Smith, and she had a lot of clarifying things to say about the initiation of force.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

initiating force isn't bad because it overrides someone's free will, if by free will you mean one's capacity to choose.

Correct. It is "bad" when your capacity to choose what is good for you is taken way (efficacious thought process). Not just your capacity to choose.

If you never had that capacity then there was no interference and therefore no force in this context. If you can only make bad choices for yourself, then the concept of force in this context becomes meaningless.

Someone caused you to make a bad choice by taking away your ability to choose a good one (if they were never there(interfered)).

  • By putting a gun to your head,
  • or shining a light in your eyes,
  • breaking your leg,
  • etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

The so-what part is that Doug Morris’ argument suggests that the fact of fear is itself sufficient to say that a person has initiated force.

Never.   The fact of danger may itself be sufficient to say that a person has initiated force.  The fact of creating an appearance which can reasonably be interpreted as danger may itself be sufficient to say that a person has initiated force.  The fact of fear never is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

If you analyze the facts in terms of reasonable inferences of intent, they are not the same. Remember that the position which I’m advocating holds intent to be a crucial determinant of “initiation of force”.

But the issue of ownership is being ignored. If that which you own causes damage, then you by extension are the cause of the damage. People think that ownership is all benefits, not realizing that it also means responsibility.

If X has a tumor that causes him to hurt people, it is not intentional, but he is in fact initiating harm i.e. force, because his body, that which he owns is doing it.

Nevertheless, your position does have some merit as, intention is not irrelevant. If someone hurt me and said "I didn't mean to", or "it was an accident", I would naturally be more lenient that if they said "I gave you what you deserved". The relevance of intention definitely exists in regards to retaliation.

The basic (webster) definition of force itself is "the energy exerted". The question with regards to
initiation" is the "source" of the energy. Granted, there is a difference between "intended exertion" vs. "exertion".

Let's go with "intention" to be defined as the source: That would imply that "retaliation" to stop this exertion is ONLY morally justified if there was an intention.

In practice, people could simply ignore "unintended possible consequences" and cause all sorts of havoc. All you have to do is go to court and say "I did not intend it". How do you absolutely prove intention?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Correct. It is "bad" when your capacity to choose what is good for you is taken way (efficacious thought process). Not just your capacity to choose.

What do you mean that I am correct? You are saying that I am wrong. I'm saying that no such capacity of choices taken away. It is not the capacity to choose that is the issue. It is not the capacity to choose what is good for you that is the issue. Your capacity to choose has not gone away. It is the capacity to act on your choices as determined by you that is denied.

You want to say that you're not allowed to choose good options, and that's when force is been initiated. But I can think of so many cases where there are no good options but forces not been initiated in any sense. Is "your money or your life" is wrong because you are not allowed to choose your life? Certainly not, you can do so and you won't be killed. In fact, you aren't even denied the option to choose what is good for you. You are perfectly welcome to pick your life and get rid of your money, because your money is a lesser value. Pretty easy to pick the good choice.

Any choice presented by someone is interference. If I say you have to pay rent or else go homeless. You can't pick to live in the apartment unless you acquiesce to my demands. And say you don't have the money. You have been prevented from making the good choice, now you go homeless! You might say that a contract fixes this issue, but the whole point is whether such a choice (money or your life) is illegitimate in the first place, in the same way we say contracts that literally enslave yourself would be illegitimate. 

I might seem to be making a nitpick about how you said the capacity to choose has gone away. After all, if you can't make a choice by your determination, isn't that the same as saying that the ability to choose has been eliminated? But it's different. The mugger has made you relinquish your control in a way that you can't make use of something that you require or need. The key is loss of control over something you already control. The mugger is simply providing the conditions of bartering back your money. It's the same logic as a mobster asking you to pay insurance, or providing a deal that you can't refuse. In a sense, the mobster knows exactly what they are doing: you already lost control but they give you the choice to get it back. You could not say the same thing about a landlord who has not made you relinquish anything that you already had control over. 

From here, it's easier to think of the big picture. If you care a lot about this issue, I really recommend reading Tara Smith's book so you don't get bogged down in thinking primarily about exertion of energy. It's relevant, but doesn't say much about the ways force can deny freedom of action. And yeah, I'm leaving a lot out from the argument, but it's definitely a different direction of reasoning than you are using now.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Is "your money or your life" is wrong because you are not allowed to choose your life? Certainly not, you can do so and you won't be killed. In fact, you aren't even denied the option to choose what is good for you. You are perfectly welcome to pick your life and get rid of your money, because your money is a lesser value. Pretty easy to pick the good choice.

Choice is one thing, a choice to do what you want is another. A freedom to do x, is having the choice to do x.

The way you are formulating it, "voluntary" ends up having no meaning at all. EVERYTHING is voluntary. You always have a choice. (as in you are always free)

But when you have gun to your head, you can't go where you were going to go without this interference.

Similarly, if you were tricked into thinking such and such investment is good by someone you trusted, you were not "allowed" to see the truth which you would have done without this interference.

Force within this context is a certain kind of interference. Ultimately "force" is an interference with the good/freedom that you deserve (although that is a circular definition but in the end it still fits). A metaphoric judge would have to determine what was deserved in the end.

The words "choice" and "interference" are being used within the overall context.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The key is loss of control over something you already control.

That phrase sounds good (within the context indicating interference). Outside the context, one could ask, did he deserve that control in the first place. In that case it would not be a mugger but a police that is retrieving what was stolen.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Any choice presented by someone is interference.

Some choices presented by others "allow" and some choices "disallow", so some don't interfere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Entering a shooting range or a busy highway is a choice by the person doing it to take the risk.  But if we extend this to not venturing out at all, isn't that demanding paralysis and self-sacrifice?

That's rather back to front. Not paralysis but the opposite, vital activity. Not venturing out at all would be, to specific aged or unhealthy individuals, an act of proper self-interest. Or those people (somewhat older, and fairly healthy) continuing their lives, choosing - or needing - to work and purposefully function, could be what they assess as greatly self-interested too. i.e. Having knowingly accepted they are at small risk, they place a far higher value on maintaining their proper lives. The category I and others fall into. A few might pay the price for that. Individual choice of freedom of action. That is all. Nothing is 'demanded' in this formula. Go out, or don't. Take full precautions when out, or in some situations, or not at all.

But the life-restriction forced on those who are completely healthful and productive - the bulk of populations - to those who -might- die, have and will of Covid 19 has been THE immense sacrifice of this era: the many to the some. Only one obvious self-sacrifice: the economy we all depend upon, the healthy and unwell. And I'm far from convinced any lives were saved by the arbitrary, draconian measures. More like the reverse. If all of us had been seriously advised to make our own choices and NOT been assured the false promise of 'protection' by masking and distancing procedures - by nanny governments and societies - and had voluntarily self-isolated, many could be living.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, merjet said:

This assumes a narrow meaning of "force." It need not be limited to actual physical force. What about threats or even unintended force? "My parents made me eat all on my plate when I didn't want to." Laws punish attempted murder and manslaughter.

I don't know that force is sufficiently explained (in the O'ist writing) or probably don't remember. Plenty on initiation and retaliation, of. My tendency used to be to want to include all things potentially forceful e.g. threatened force, psychological force, authoritative force, but I since have narrowed down the definition. Those 'pressures' I call them remain highly significant and must be identified as such - e.g. the pressure of threatened force - but for "force" to be meaningful it should remain uncompromised and narrow, I think: Direct, physical force - (inclusive of the force used to unintentionally take life, manslaughter).

Fraud the exception of an "indirect" force.

The 'force' initiated by one to transmit a disease doesn't hold up in that view.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 8:41 AM, whYNOT said:

Would you stroll onto a shooting range or walk across a busy highway

It would be most unreasonable to demand the right to do this without accepting the associated danger.  But simply venturing out is not in the same category.  Anyone who ventures out is entitled to demand that others not fire guns in inappropriate places such as a supermarket, sidewalk, sports stadium, math classroom, or food court.  Anyone who ventures out is entitled to demand that others not drive in highly reckless ways that can easily cause an accident, such as unnecessarily swerving back and forth or driving 100 miles an hour on a busy downtown street.  In a different case, I am maintaining that there may be a situation where there is a right to demand that others take reasonable precautions to avoid spreading disease. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dream_weaver

Just to be clear, can you answer a question:

Should you have a right to be "reasonably safe" amongst other people in the society you live in?

This is based on your own definition of reasonably safe. No definition of "reasonably safe" is necessary right now, just the fundamental principle. Please start your answer with either: Yes, No, I don't know

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Before you can claim the right to demand that another take reasonable precaution to avoid spreading a disease, there is the onus to demonstrate the individual you want to take the precautions has the disease in question.

No, just that they are increasing the risk of spread if they don't take precautions.

Link to post
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...