Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

You're not getting this. You can't measure another person's risk. It is not always easy to assess one's own, leave alone, others at large.

You can't be sure of the value another puts on avoiding negative risk that you see. You can only say, if "I" was in their place, I would put this value on (avoiding) it.

Similar to the value in a transaction. You know what your interest is and they know what their interest is. Otherwise we could dictate terms to the other person.

I suspect that at the core of Doug's argument is that "if you were rational, and were aware of all the relevant data, you would conclude that being vaxinated is the right thing to do. And if you don't think that, then you are not rational or don't have the appropriate data" therefore … join the dark side.

The problem is that "being rational" is one's best attempt at "being rational".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You're not getting this. You can't measure another person's risk.

All the more reason to refrain from unnecessarily increasing it.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I think you enjoy the notion of people dutifully looking after one another.

No, that's bad, but I think we should refrain from endangering one another.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

this exposes the altruism

Respecting the rights of others is not altruism

Part of your problem is that you conflate my concern about individual rights with the altruism, statism, collectivism, power lust, and sloppiness that dominates our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

You can't be sure of the value another puts on avoiding negative risk that you see. You can only say, if "I" was in their place, I would put this value on (avoiding) it.

Similar to the value in a transaction. You know what your interest is and they know what their interest is. Otherwise we could dictate terms to the other person.

I suspect that at the core of Doug's argument is that "if you were rational, and were aware of all the relevant data, you would conclude that being vaxinated is the right thing to do. And if you don't think that, then you are not rational or don't have the appropriate data" therefore … join the dark side.

The problem is that "being rational" is one's best attempt at "being rational".

One can do no better than make the assumption: "This individual is out in public, therefore knows his/her possible negative risk to themselves, as they understand their risk to other people". We haven't insight into others' health (and minds). By going out, he's ostensibly prepared to take that risk.

For most healthy people, or those who have had previous infection, or have been vaccinated - of course the risk of severe infection is negligible. Others ought to be very careful about venturing outside. But one can't stop them making a possibly fatal mistake. 

The fears of infecting others/being infected should have ended by now. A person is safely vaxxed and boosted - what is their further concern? The people can get on with their personal lives, worry-free.

Except, many are still disallowed their freedom and things are still deteriorating, for reasons plainly, less and nothing to do with the virus, and most to do with bringing those 'selfish' people under moral and political control. People, who are probably more nervous/cautious of the vaccines than the disease (and/or have natural immunity).

Who's to say they, individually, are wrong?

That is not a judgment one can make for others. Who will take the full responsibility for someone's life, by ordering anyone - do not get vaxxed (which hasn't happened that I know) - or get vaxxed? Then something goes wrong? Not a government and not an individual has that right. One may consider the unvaxxed foolish and irrational but their freedom of chosen action isn't arguable.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

You can't be sure of the value another puts on avoiding negative risk that you see.

All the more reason not to put additional risk on them.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

I suspect that at the core of Doug's argument is that "if you were rational, and were aware of all the relevant data, you would conclude that being vaxinated is the right thing to do. And if you don't think that, then you are not rational or don't have the appropriate data" therefore … join the dark side.

No.  At the core of my argument is that increasing the risk of spreading germs increases the physical danger to others and that increasing the physical danger to others can rise to the level of physical force.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

One can do no better than make the assumption: "This individual is out in public, therefore knows his/her possible negative risk to themselves, as they understand their risk to other people". We haven't insight into others. By going out, he's ostensibly prepared to take that risk.

For most healthy people, or those who have had previous infection, or have been vaccinated - of course the risk of severe infection is negligible. Others ought to be very careful about venturing outside. But one can't stop them. 

This does not give us license to increase the risk.

17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The fears of infecting others/being infected should have ended by now. So the people can get on with their personal lives, worry-free.

We may be tired of COVID-19 but COVID-19 is not tired of us.

18 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

That is not a judgment one can make for others. Who will take the full responsibility for someone's life, by ordering anyone - do not get vaxxed (which hasn't happened that I know) - or get vaxxed? Then something goes wrong?

You are being too simplistic.  Preventing someone from stealing may cause his children to starve, but that is not a reason to let him steal.  Preventing someone from endangering others by the way they use a gun or a car may negatively impact his life, and in some cases this negative impact might escalate into something serious, but that is not a reason to let him endanger others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

All the more reason to refrain from unnecessarily increasing it.

No, that's bad, but I think we should refrain from endangering one another.

Respecting the rights of others is not altruism

Part of your problem is that you conflate my concern about individual rights with the altruism, statism, collectivism, power lust, and sloppiness that dominates our society.

 How did you mix up respecting rights - with altruism? I certainly don't. They are opposing.

Placing pressure on everyone to care for (general) others is telling them that concern for others' lives is primary.

Because, it must seem to altruists, the "others" are too helpless to think and value, or to act for themselves and their best interests.

Therefore, a sacrifice made of one to another is necessary - and then one's life is no longer one's own. Which I'd think you can see has been the ruling doctrine of this pandemic's responses.

DM, you seem to think that "individual rights" preclude transmission of disease. You are wrong. No one has the 'right' to not be infected. That's no 'right', it's ¬a claim¬ on others.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

DM, you seem to think that "individual rights" preclude transmission of disease. You are wrong. No one has the 'right' to not be infected. That's no 'right', it's ¬a claim¬ on others.

The right to be safe from purely accidental or unintentional harm may be a claim on others. But you have a right to be protected from negligence and I assume that is what he's getting at.

But I still maintain that it is a monopoly on force declaring, you must live your life in this "good" manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I suspect that at the core of Doug's argument is that "if you were rational, and were aware of all the relevant data, you would conclude that being vaxinated is the right thing to do. And if you don't think that, then you are not rational or don't have the appropriate data" therefore … join the dark side.

.

Probably, Doug reckons on omniscience. And intrinsic knowledge. You "must know" the right thing to do, and what comes next. Cause to effect.

That cough? You have just increased the unnecessary risk to someone, who will infect someone, who will...

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been over most of this before.  This is getting repetitive.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

 How did you mix up respecting rights - with altruism? I certainly don't. They are opposing.

I'm saying that you are conflating them, because you don't understand how the concept of rights applies to increasing the risk of spreading disease.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Placing pressure on everyone to care for (general) others is telling them that concern for others' lives is primary.

This is not what I advocate.  I advocate refraining from wrongly endangering others.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Because, it must seem to altruists, the "others" are too helpless to think and value, or to act for themselves and their best interests.

The altruists are very wrong about this.  But when someone spreads germs, others are helpless to put them back.  And this must be considered in dealing with people who increase the risk of spreading germs, even if it can't be determined whether they actually did.  Guilt can reside simply in increasing risk. 

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Therefore, a sacrifice made of one to another is necessary - and then one's life is no longer one's own. Which I'd think you can see has been the ruling doctrine of this pandemic's responses.

We must neither sacrifice ourselves to others nor sacrifice others to ourselves.  In today's world, most people don't understand this well enough and don't know how to do it.  This makes it all the more urgent to sort out what sacrifices whom to whom.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

DM, you seem to think that "individual rights" preclude transmission of disease.

No, I think wrongfully increasing the risk of spread can rise to the level of violating individual rights.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

No one has the 'right' to not be infected.

I have never claimed or implied that such a "right" exists.  I'm saying there is a right not to be subjected to excessive risk.

***

I am well aware that a lot of details must be worked out before implementing any of this as policy, and that most people today do not sufficiently understand the basic principle of individual rights, and therefore are fumbling in the darkness when they try to work out details.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Probably, Doug reckons on omniscience.

No.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And intrinsic knowledge.

No.

You are conflating recognizing and dealing with risk with some sort of nonsensical omniscience which would make everything certainty and nothing a matter of risk.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

That cough? You have just increased the unnecessary risk to someone,

We may have great difficulty controlling whether we cough.  But we can control whether we wear a mask.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You have just increased the unnecessary risk to someone, who will infect someone, who will...

If it is risk, then your "will" should be "may".

Again,

8 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Guilt can reside simply in increasing risk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2022 at 2:59 PM, Doug Morris said:

At the core of my argument is that increasing the risk of spreading germs increases the physical danger to others and that increasing the physical danger to others can rise to the level of physical force.

And risky behavior by anyone can rise to an unacceptable amount by others. Agreed.

That includes spreading germs, or having a bee hive in your yard, or having certain chemicals in your house.

We can't dissociate your argument from the risk of Covid. Is the risk of Covid enough to force vaccination? You could make the case that for people over sixty five, it is ten percent or more, then it is.

Knowing that, would you say that children should be vaccinated? Since they increase the risk for older adults. Meanwhile we don't know the risk to reproduction or later effects as they grow older.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

We've been over most of this before.  This is getting repetitive.

I'm saying that you are conflating them, because you don't understand how the concept of rights applies to increasing the risk of spreading disease.

This is not what I advocate.  I advocate refraining from wrongly endangering others.

 

 

Well, I've put this several ways. Because your refrain is - repetitive. Another approach.

Assuming there is a "risk" existing out there - "endangering" some people, not all - then who does the responsibility lie with, on balance?

A. With those who may be the source of risk to others?

B. With those to whom the risk is potentially serious?

The risker or the riskee?

If it's individual rights you want to stress, the individual has the right to freedom of action "in a social context" (- based on his right to life). This is a *positive* right. He cannot be interfered with.

When as you'd argue, the riskee wishes to venture into public and, by his rights, not be placed at unnecessary risk, - while simultaneously there are many others going about pursuing their (positive) rights to action, where does and on whom lies the balance of responsibility and self-responsibility?

The negative right for one to be protected by, and from others (for his self-interest) OR the positive right to act (in one's self-interest)?

The former is what clearly led to mandated lock downs, masking, etc. for EVERYbody, and lately, to forced vaccinations for EVERYbody. The blanket, one size for all, measures and policies which drew heavily from 'negative rights'.

"We" were given a duty to protect any and all others. While others have 'the right' to take unnecessary, or irrational risks. (Or like me and others I know, who could be, in theory, in the age-risk category, make personal risk-reward assessments about our health status and choose rather to continue to lead active lives - at our own risk, placing freedom above all).

The immense incursions into individual liberties in all places is obvious to you. Unknown by you I believe, DM, is that you implicitly sanction them with your arguments.

Briefly: For the riskees, their "freedom of actions" should be to protect themselves and take evasive action to avoid risks. The potential riskers cannot be disallowed from living an active life because of them.

You may think there's a compromise to be made socially inclusive of all parties. Take a look at where compromised thinking has brought us. Awareness when encountering other people with simple, considerate behavior is all the inclusion needed.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

We can't dissociate your argument from the risk of Covid. Is the risk of Covid enough to force vaccination? You could make the case that for people over sixty five, it is ten percent or more, then it is.

Knowing that, would you say that children should be vaccinated? Since they increase the risk for older adults. Meanwhile we don't know the risk to reproduction or later effects as they grow older.

This is getting into technical questions, and away from the philosophical issue which was my main point.  I will pass on these for now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Briefly: For the riskees, their "freedom of actions" should be to protect themselves and take evasive action to avoid risks. The potential riskers cannot be disallowed from living an active life because of them.

You may think there's a compromise to be made socially inclusive of all parties. Take a look at where compromised thinking has brought us. Awareness when encountering other people with simple, considerate behavior is all the inclusion needed.

The policy decisions were made by people with flawed premises at best.  At least some of their decisions were wrong.  This does not necessarily mean that all of their decisions were completely wrong.

 

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...