Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Furthermore "risk level" is going to be based on a "vote". Not objectively

Why?

One free society will consider 10 percent as a risk level that is actionable, another with choose 20 percent, and another will consider 5 to 2 percent chance. There is no number given. It's a TBA. Unidentifiable.

12 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

what is the chance of dying because of an unvaxinated person. I will bet you, it is VERY SMALL

Don't bet the ranch.

You're blowing that one off. Give me a number, you're the statistical expert.

13 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

mandates and or lockdowns

I am not defending lockdowns at all.  I am saying that mandates, which are much less disruptive, may be justified depending on the technical details of a particular disease.

Doug, a lock down occurs due to a mandate (it's mandatory backed by governmental force).

In the case of Covid, i.e. this particular disease, is it justified to force everyone to be vaccinated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DM, your intention is to make someone or some persons responsible for inadvertent, careless or malicious behavior in spreading the coronavirus. "Physical force". By your comments I can safely assume you believe the spread and mortalities could have been limited.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYr9G92e71AhWehP0HHbiHBSEQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldometers.info%2Fcoronavirus%2F&usg=AOvVaw3kNWYzks92mP5xVSU6CwDa

The numbers of 'cases' were certainly far under-counted - people untested, asymptomatic, etc. - although you'll get a low estimate of the infections here. Critically, that undercount changes the infection- to -death rate accordingly much lower.

I think the immensity of the chain reaction, of this uncontrolled and uncontrollable virus spread hasn't quite sunk in. That comes under the list of things we the public were not made fully aware of, two years ago. Now reality has caught up and the proper, but suppressed sciences are finally being heard.

Good luck sifting through the global recorded infections, officially close to 400 million and clearly much greater, for those individuals 'liable'.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

One free society will consider 10 percent as a risk level that is actionable, another with choose 20 percent, and another will consider 5 to 2 percent chance. There is no number given. It's a TBA. Unidentifiable.

There's no way to analyze it objectively?

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Give me a number, you're the statistical expert.

 

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

In the case of Covid, i.e. this particular disease, is it justified to force everyone to be vaccinated?

I don't claim to be an expert on either COVID-19 or statistics.  I am just trying to clarify certain philosophical points.

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

a lock down occurs due to a mandate (it's mandatory backed by governmental force)

So you're defining "mandate" in such a way that "lockdown" becomes a subcategory.  But there are mandates that are not lockdowns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYr9G92e71AhWehP0HHbiHBSEQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldometers.info%2Fcoronavirus%2F&usg=AOvVaw3kNWYzks92mP5xVSU6CwDa

The numbers of 'cases' were certainly far under-counted - people untested, asymptomatic, etc. - although you'll get a low estimate of the infections here. Critically, that undercount changes the infection- to -death rate accordingly much lower.

I think the immensity of the chain reaction, of this uncontrolled and uncontrollable virus spread hasn't quite sunk in. That comes under the list of things we the public were not made fully aware of, two years ago. Now reality has caught up and the proper, but suppressed sciences are finally being heard.

If you want a figure for risk, one approach is to compare infected but not recovered figures to total population.  This would give us (398,809,771 - 318,729,335) / 8,000,000,000 = 80,080,436 / 8,000,000,000 = .0100100545 (using the figures you linked for COVID-19 and a total population figure that is an overestimate for 2020 and 2021, resulting in a slight underestimate of the risk).  This is a bit more than 1%, and includes deaths, long COVID-19 which can be drastic in its effects, and those who just haven't recovered yet.  If we count only deaths, we get 5,771,527 / 8,000,000,000 = .000721440875, or slightly more than 1/14 of 1% so far - there will be more.  This may seem like a very small number, but bear in mind that we are talking the risk of death, not the risk of getting long COVID-19, losing a job, having a bad crop year, or having an investment tank.  The risk is substantially larger for some people.

 

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Good luck sifting through the global recorded infections, officially close to 400 million and clearly much greater, for those individuals 'liable'.

I am not advocating trying to hold a particular individual liable for a particular infection - that is nonsense.  I am advocating holding people responsible for unnecessarily increasing risk.  We've been over this before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

 

 

I am not advocating trying to hold a particular individual liable for a particular infection - that is nonsense.  I am advocating holding people responsible for unnecessarily increasing risk.  We've been over this before.

I've understood what you advocate all along. You wish to control a virus by controlling (and punishing) the "people responsible", if you could see what you are suggesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
18 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

One free society will consider 10 percent as a risk level that is actionable, another with choose 20 percent, and another will consider 5 to 2 percent chance. There is no number given. It's a TBA. Unidentifiable.

There's no way to analyze it objectively?

18 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Give me a number, you're the statistical expert.

But Doug, based on your background, you are far better versed at statistics than I am. Based on my cursory calculation you multiply all those probabilities and you come up with a small probability that you say "don't bet the ranch on it". Well, I'm asking what is your calculation?

As far as Objective identification, I don't see it. Similar to the age of consent. Is it right after puberty of several years after like 16 or 18 (how many years after). As time goes on the age can change or different cultures will choose it differently. 

At what percent do we have an emergency which brings up the other other question?

Are you basing your position on the fact that it is an emergency? Like at some point it is an emergency and we do the best we can and figure it out later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I am not advocating trying to hold a particular individual liable for a particular infection - that is nonsense.  I am advocating holding people responsible for unnecessarily increasing risk.  We've been over this before.

I've understood what you advocate all along. You wish to control a virus by controlling (and punishing) the "people responsible", if you could see what you are suggesting.

That is an interesting nuance. I am the one advocating holding the particular individual liable for a particular infection. Assuming there is a fool proof way to detect it. At that point, it is not statistical, it actually happened or happening. And the liability would be based on what they could have done to prevent it etc.

The "holding people responsible" depends on who. Ultimately it has to end up being specific people. Because if it is "all" then you are holding people that have never gotten the virus or never will get it responsible. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what of one's responsibility to one's self?

At what level of 'emergency' does one forego a rational self interest in safety and efficacy to submit to governmental dictates?

In the specific instance of Covid , the deployment of a leaky vaccine in the face of a pandemic is 'healthcare' at an extreme, the 'evidence' of such a necessity was not spelled out and the questions and concerns aimed at determining the level of necessity were censored along with any discussion of alternative treatments or courses of action. Why do those same agencies and officials maintain that the level of emergency still exists, and that it is still necessary to inoculate children with a novel /experimental vaccine , when the immediate emergency to their health is far from apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Well, I'm asking what is your calculation?

I'm not claiming to have carried out a specific calculation or gotten a specific number.

Maybe you should give us more details on your "very small" conclusion.

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

As far as Objective identification, I don't see it. Similar to the age of consent. Is it right after puberty of several years after like 16 or 18 (how many years after). As time goes on the age can change or different cultures will choose it differently. 

The issue of age of consent probably needs to be more carefully studied and analyzed.  It might need to be something more nuanced than a one-size-fits-all cutoff age.

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

re you basing your position on the fact that it is an emergency?

I am not talking about emergency, although that concept might need to be considered in particular contexts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The "holding people responsible" depends on who. Ultimately it has to end up being specific people. Because if it is "all" then you are holding people that have never gotten the virus or never will get it responsible. 

Since the point has to do with unnecessarily causing increased risk, it can apply to people who may be carrying the virus, even if we never know whether they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

In the specific instance of Covid , the deployment of a leaky vaccine in the face of a pandemic is 'healthcare' at an extreme, the 'evidence' of such a necessity was not spelled out and the questions and concerns aimed at determining the level of necessity were censored along with any discussion of alternative treatments or courses of action. Why do those same agencies and officials maintain that the level of emergency still exists, and that it is still necessary to inoculate children with a novel /experimental vaccine , when the immediate emergency to their health is far from apparent.

The authorities have made mistakes in communication and in other respects.  This is a separate issue from the philosophical point I am trying to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

And what of one's responsibility to one's self?

At what level of 'emergency' does one forego a rational self interest in safety and efficacy to submit to governmental dictates?

I assume you're saying the person who gets the disease could have prevented it too. As in that would counter the liability that the "infector" has.

But I think Doug is making the point that an infectee is also an infector and that a vaccine, leaky or not, decreases the "risk". I am countering the idea that risk is "the actual". That there is a risk of harm is equivalent with being harmed. Once that is acknowledged then the only issue is that one risk is higher than another and how do you determine when the "amount" of risk become actionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The "holding people responsible" depends on who. Ultimately it has to end up being specific people. Because if it is "all" then you are holding people that have never gotten the virus or never will get it responsible. 

Since the point has to do with unnecessarily causing increased risk, it can apply to people who may be carrying the virus, even if we never know whether they actually are.

Geez Doug, doesn't that mean all of us. All of us may be carrying a host of diseases.

All one has to do is say maybe to anything. Maybe he's a murderer. Maybe he's a thief. The fundamental question is: at what point do you try to prevent them from murdering or stealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That is an interesting nuance. I am the one advocating holding the particular individual liable for a particular infection. Assuming there is a fool proof way to detect it. At that point, it is not statistical, it actually happened or happening. And the liability would be based on what they could have done to prevent it etc.

The "holding people responsible" depends on who. Ultimately it has to end up being specific people. Because if it is "all" then you are holding people that have never gotten the virus or never will get it responsible. 
 

Just like the various governments involved in removing our rights, DM doesn't think that a populace can be trusted to take care of themselves - and intend no harm to or be considerate of others (who should anyway, be protecting themselves). No one wants to contract and transmit a virus, but number one, morally, is taking care of yourself and your immediates. First off, I find he has a low opinion of mankind.

This: civil trust, self responsibility and rights, the governments and scientist bureaucrats have disallowed from the start. They were replaced by edicts and bans on any freedoms. Clear: Govt's believe the people are children. With some justification, since a large portion of society is turning out as authoritarian as their govts., seemingly needing to be taken care of. I have heard this from any country: "we all must obey, since they know best and will look after us".

Doug is going to retort he didn't say, mean or imply any of that. But what does it signify when anyone looks for culpability during something as huge as a global pandemic? Someone must pay!

If the nature of a virus and who was most at risk (etc.etc.) had been made clear early, under the assumption the public are responsible adults who could comprehend the dangers, this would not have been anything like as bad. Even now, while great majorities were vaccinated and - fresh surges of the virus (proving there's no connection, this is now 'a pandemic of the vaxxed'), societies are fighting over vaxx mandates. So it's more about punishment than public health.

The sort of premise which has since turned the scared (by an irresponsible media) people on each other, is that 'you' personally and your every action, are responsible for others' lives above your own. 

The vast majority applied themselves to the harsh measures, usually self- sacrificially. But there have been 400 million++ infections and 5 million+ deaths. What went wrong? Corrupted advisement by scientists and Govt' force.

Against those huge numbers - 99.9xx obviously incidental infections - unless anyone believes one's fellow citizens have murderous intentions, it's ridiculously trivial to look for fault by one person or any number who "increased the risk" and caused "physical force". Making for one outcome that's already taken place, the loss of good will among the people which will not recover soon.

The virus spread was ¬bigger¬ than human beings and petty malice.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Doug is going to retort he didn't say, mean or imply any of that. But what does it signify when anyone looks for culpability during something as huge as a global pandemic? Someone must pay!

Here you're simplifying it too much. I see it as more him saying "if someone is the cause they should stop". There is some merit to that. The question is how does one find the intentional initial cause in the haystack.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

First off, I find he has a low opinion of mankind.

In so far as authoritarian justification is based on having a low opinion of the average human, I don't think he is pushing that angle.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Just like the various governments involved in removing our rights

That is the other risk that I will argue Doug is not including in his calculations. As in what is the "unnecessary risk" of a government using these measures to advance an authoritarian system. I see a very high risk, actionable as in let's stop it from happening.

In other words, how would one know that the government is not involved in some nefarious endeavor using these systems that are being put in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug consistently maintains his argument is aimed toward whether or not a an objective set of laws , ie a government vested with the protection of individual rights by retaliatory force only, incorporates the principle that rights protection involves the use of power to limit risk, or at least if not he will correct my misunderstanding.

The counter arguments and examples have used analogy , which unfortunately dilutes an argument at best and at worst the employment of analogy signals the loss of the 'main' argument or cogent points.

Having said that, and not with an intent to further slide away from the main philosophic principle discussion, but ... I think the analogies made between the risks associated with remaining 'unvaxxed' and reckless actions eg driving under the influence or fire arm handling 'in public' miss the mark. 

As a principle the idea that government exists to protect individuals' rights and within that rubric could be found risk mitigation and identification of liability in those whose actions create 'unnecessary risk to others' isn't something with which I would disagree.

But in drilling down and trying to apply the principle to actions designed to protect against existential threats and risks associated through individual actions , the , um, analogy could be more pointed to government actions against existential threat ie the 'right' of government to establish armed forces vs the 'right' of government to establish drafts or the 'right' of the government to establish courts and executive functions of law enforcement vs funding through property confiscation.

ps added

To me the argument is whether or when a 'principle' and its application through government action results in rights violations of individuals.

Edited by tadmjones
added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Here you're simplifying it too much. I see it as more him saying "if someone is the cause they should stop". There is some merit to that. The question is how does one find the intentional initial cause in the haystack.

 

Why should one -want- to find "the intentional, initial cause" in a pandemic? Among the millions of "causes" daily in the world, which are the natural effect of a virus. I find this obsessive, at least. Like catching a bad cold and wanting to find whom one caught it from (alike, in kind, while not degree of potential severity). And then investigating further to maybe find the first cause.

You answered your question, it would be impossible to ascertain who was infected by whom, was it deliberate, and who became ill and who died as a result. Impossible means irrational, after all.

Doug's repeated refrain has been "physical force". Right off, it invites - more, necessitates - govt. retaliation.  "They should stop": who will make them?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The fundamental question is: at what point do you try to prevent them from murdering or stealing.

You take reasonable precautions in any case, such as locking up your residence and workplace and safeguarding your valuables and not revealing too much information to strangers or casual acquaintances.

If you have gold coins, precious stones, or valuable collectibles, you should be especially careful whom you tell.

My brother was running a postage stamp business out of his residence for a while.  Whenever he put something relating to this in the trash, he wrapped it up well and put it under something else.

If a stranger is on your property uninvited, you can ask them what they're doing there or "May I help you?".

If you're alarmed enough you can call the police; you don't have to be sure anyone means any harm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Someone must pay!

I'm not asking that anyone "pay", just that people take reasonable precautions.

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Even now, while great majorities were vaccinated and - fresh surges of the virus (proving there's no connection, ...),

No, it proves that vaccination does not give absolute, exceptionless, 100.0% protection.  Vaccines are effective and necessary.

***

Governments have bungled and had too low an opinion of mankind.  This does not mean that anyone who advocates limited mandates is guilty of such things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

 As in what is the "unnecessary risk" of a government using these measures to advance an authoritarian system. I see a very high risk, actionable as in let's stop it from happening.

In other words, how would one know that the government is not involved in some nefarious endeavor using these systems that are being put in place.

I know I'm not the only one who sees, in all of the past two years, a "dry run" or rehearsal for socialism.

"How far can 'we' control the people? After convincing them that centralized control is for their own good?"

Opportunistic, given a fortuitous pandemic, at the bare minimum I think. Conspiratorial, perhaps that too.

The amount of compliance to authoritarianism by many of the public in several countries will be encouraging to those with a socialist agenda.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

intentional

It may be more a matter of carelessness, blundering, faulty reasoning, or narrow focus than of intention.

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

In other words, how would one know that the government is not involved in some nefarious endeavor using these systems that are being put in place.

Even clearly legitimate government actions, such as using the police against violence and theft, can be twisted into evil.  Totalitarian regimes do a lot of this.  Even in this country, there seem to be instances of police misconduct motivated by such things as racism and/or out-of-control emotions, or even by corruption.  We need to clearly identify just what government should be doing, and to get as close as possible to the government doing those things and no others, and to improve what is possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I know I'm not the only one who sees, in all of the past two years, a "dry run" or rehearsal for socialism.

"How far can 'we' control the people? After convincing them that centralized control is for their own good?"

Opportunistic, given a fortuitous pandemic, at the bare minimum I think. Conspiratorial, perhaps that too.

The amount of compliance to authoritarianism by many of the public in several countries will be encouraging to socialists.

This has been going on as long as the country has existed, in connection with a lot of things.  But at least some of it is ignorance, not malice or powerlust.  

We still have to get it clear exactly what the government should be doing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

But in drilling down and trying to apply the principle to actions designed to protect against existential threats and risks associated through individual actions , the , um, analogy could be more pointed to government actions against existential threat ie the 'right' of government to establish armed forces vs the 'right' of government to establish drafts or the 'right' of the government to establish courts and executive functions of law enforcement vs funding through property confiscation.

And isn't Doug pushing the idea that in fact, being unvaxed is an existential threat. Kind of like the probability of another country invading the US at some point. But even in the case of the police and armed forces, payment or participation SHOULD BE voluntary. But the argument being put forth seems to be that a vaccine should not be voluntary, it should be forced on you, for your own good. That is when my alarm bells go off.

But I suspect the mindset is that the other country HAS invaded, i.e. this is an emergency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Even clearly legitimate government actions, such as using the police against violence and theft, can be twisted into evil.  Totalitarian regimes do a lot of this.  Even in this country, there seem to be instances of police misconduct motivated by such things as racism and/or out-of-control emotions, or even by corruption.  We need to clearly identify just what government should be doing, and to get as close as possible to the government doing those things and no others, and to improve what is possible.

Well yes, I doubt if anyone disagrees with that. But in the case of a "forced", and I vehemently object to the use of "limited mandate", sort of like "limited poison" argument. Like "it's limited, we'll kill your individual rights very slowly.

The vaccine is a specific concrete example and a vague limited mandate solution is risky idea being pushed forward. Again, "unnecessary" too.

But I am wondering about one thing. From and Objectivist point of view, is having police, an army, and the judiciary a mandate? If so, it will give Doug's argument more legs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."   would suggest that the state itself is not a mandate, but it does bring the question of whether or not view the state's actions after inception as 'mandates'. But my position would be that each 'mandate' would have to adhere to non-violation of rights principle(s).

Edited by tadmjones
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...