Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

*** Next 80 posts split from Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point? ***

On 8/22/2021 at 4:56 PM, Doug Morris said:

The effects of physical force may or may not involve damage.  In particular, fraud and breach of contract do not necessarily involve damage.  But they do involve wrongful physical possession of property.

I've never thought about this like this before but I'm leaning toward: it involves damage or potential damage.

The key point being the effect and or the potential effect.

If there is no potential damage or harm, it can't be something to defend against.

There is no need to avoid it or prevent another from "doing" it i.e. having a right to prevent it.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I find contract theory useful as a metaphor. But philosophically there is the problem that if such a contract exists, then intrinsic social values exist. As in, you are born with certain duties toward others.

Why must the social values be intrinsic? Can't they be objective, based on their relation to a particular society? For example, a navy might be critical for the survival of an island nation, yet a complete waste of production for a landlocked one.

Also, an obligation or "duty" under a social contract wouldn't be something you were born with, it's something you're born into, assuming your parents live in a society. Yet, you can still reject the contract and try to live outside society or outside the law. This of course can be difficult to do, as man is a social animal and has populated the world with various societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Also, an obligation or "duty" under a social contract wouldn't be something you were born with, it's something you're born into, assuming your parents live in a society. Yet, you can still reject the contract and try to live outside society or outside the law. This of course can be difficult to do, as man is a social animal and has populated the world with various societies.

But you see, viewing a value in terms of a social contract, you're talking about an obligation, a need, a want, a value that is based on a contract.

Since you want to fulfill it ... fulfilling the obligation is a value.

Either way, born with or born into, you never actually made an agreement.

Since the contract/duty exists, because "it just does", the the obligation and/or the value exist, because "it just does".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But you see, viewing a value in terms of a social contract, you're talking about an obligation, a need, a want, a value that is based on a contract.

That's not the sort of social contract I'm talking about. The value would be based on its objective relationship to the particular society, so if you value your society, you should rationally value that which is good for it. If building a navy is objectively good for your nation, let's say, and you value your nation, you would be obliged under your social contract to contribute to that cause when and however possible.

I understand that this gets real messy when societies value things that are bad for society, and the social contract is more like a social bondage. But here I'm trying to present a principle for creating the ideal sort of social contract. I'm not trying to detail what we have now in America or elsewhere, which, like the economy, is very mixed up.

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Since you want to fulfill it ... fulfilling the obligation is a value.

Technically wouldn't that be a virtue? You fulfill or honor your obligation in order to gain the value of citizenship in that society.

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Either way, born with or born into, you never actually made an agreement.

When you become an adult and choose to remain in society and be a good citizen who obeys the laws, this is you accepting the agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

When you become an adult and choose to remain in society and be a good citizen who obeys the laws, this is you accepting the agreement.

Or it would simply mean you are moral and trying to survive. Why the extra baggage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2021 at 12:23 AM, Easy Truth said:

I've never thought about this like this before but I'm leaning toward: it involves damage or potential damage.

The key point being the effect and or the potential effect.

If there is no potential damage or harm, it can't be something to defend against.

There is no need to avoid it or prevent another from "doing" it i.e. having a right to prevent it.

The telling part of DM's quote from AR and fraud, is "...refusing to pay for them, and thus keeping them by force".

Ask for your unpaid goods back? He replies "Nope, mine now - try to get them off me!". (Implied: With force against his force).

Which spells the end of rational discourse/persuasion/etc.

I'd think it's simpler to consider fraud to be ¬implicit¬ force.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2021 at 7:52 PM, MisterSwig said:

This is why I am a fan of a social contract theory. When we agree to be part of a community or society, we agree to accept the normal interactions and risks involved with communing and socializing. Certainly we accept the fact that many people wear perfumes and colognes in public areas, and if they make you sneeze, you don't have a right to sue over such a trifle assault on your person. Rational people should be able to sort that out without government involvement.

As for being infected by diseases, I think this is also something we must accept as part of the social contract--to a certain degree. We accept it as a natural risk of interacting with other living organisms in society. If, however, malicious intent or reckless behavior can indeed be proven, then I think a case could be made for a violation of rights. I don't think any social contract should accept purposeful infliction of harm against others.

There are vast numbers of minor interactions which take place in society, most of which can be answered by basic good manners.

I think it's understood where Rand was coming from, when she wrote somewhere in counter to "Man is a social animal" (Aristotle?) that, rather: "man is a contractual being". Probably, she presumed upon as given, good behavior by most decent human beings. 

What's at the crux, is that men operate by rational choice and objective value with one's fellow man. (And consideration of the existence of others of our species? inarguable).

Not - out of duty. Never by sacrifices, made or accepted.

---

"A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?

Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.

Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes".

“Textbook of Americanism”

---

Back to infectious disease.

Seeing as this is the time of overtly rampant collectivism, it follows "society can make any laws it wishes, and force them..."etc.

Most people do not question that they have an unlimited social duty, thereby have obediently accepted that they can be locked down, separated, vaccine- mandated and prevented access or employment -  everything that violates the "inalienable, individual rights of man". Without even the backing of the proper fields of science!

In the face of the unlimited power of "society", who can argue?

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

vaccine- mandated and prevented access or employment

As related to the OP, these are exactly the things that should be dealt with agreements and consent, exactly the sort of things that we can make agreements about without signing anything away. When the government is involved, that's different, but telling people to get vaccines at the individual level is a great and rational response for deciding how you would like to hire people or what sort of people you would like to trade with. I think that's the type of social contract that Swig means, just having some basic social agreements and expectations. If you aren't signing away a right to life (there is no way we could have agreements about forcibly limiting the movement of others), then any kind of expectation could be reasonable. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

As related to the OP, these are exactly the things that should be dealt with agreements and consent, exactly the sort of things that we can make agreements about without signing anything away. When the government is involved, that's different, but telling people to get vaccines at the individual level is a great and rational response for deciding how you would like to hire people or what sort of people you would like to trade with. I think that's the type of social contract that Swig means, just having some basic social agreements and expectations. If you aren't signing away a right to life (there is no way we could have agreements about forcibly limiting the movement of others), then any kind of expectation could be reasonable. 

 

 

The purpose and benefit of vaccination has forever, traditionally, primarily, been a choice made by an individual (or by his parents) to protect the individual from the worst of a disease. Not to 'stop the spread' to the entire population. Iow, nowadays one gets vaccinated to no longer be a transmitter (not totally valid) primarily as one's duty to society.

What's there to say to the individual who responds: I don't need it. I am young and very healthy; or, I've already been infected by Covid and/or I know my immune system is in great shape? And - the same goes for my child. He/she doesn't need it and, as is known, is easily capable of shrugging off the virus (than - perhaps - the possibility of the reported side effects of a vaccine). "I won't risk him/her being jabbed for the sake of slowing the spread".

He is quite right, rational and self-interested and his freedom of action, his individual rights, are beyond Gvt. coercion. If one's body isn't one's own property, one's actions aren't free.

Plainly, one's choices and self-assessments make not a jot of difference in this populist rush to acquire herd immunity through vaccines. This must be the first time in epidemiological history the mass of people are being forced - or go willingly - to comply for 'the good' of everybody else in society - to a vaccine, like it or not, need it or not. The immune or invulnerable people make up the bulk of society and they are the added victims of Covid.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"I won't risk him/her being jabbed for the sake of slowing the spread".

I mean, you are free to think that, you should have the freedom to be stupid. But most people know better about vaccines. That's why some of the things you listed aren't rights violations necessarily (only if they are done by the government are those things violations). 

45 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

If one's body isn't one's own property, one's actions aren't free.

I think the most important thing to recognize about the foundation of rights for Oism is that you couldn't possibly own yourself. You can't trade yourself, you can't sign away portions of your body, you can't consent to rights violations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I mean, you are free to think that, you should have the freedom to be stupid. But most people know better about vaccines. That's why some of the things you listed aren't rights violations necessarily (only if they are done by the government are those things violations). 

I think the most important thing to recognize about the foundation of rights for Oism is that you couldn't possibly own yourself. You can't trade yourself, you can't sign away portions of your body, you can't consent to rights violations. 

The foundation of rights: the right to life.

And since life is self-directed action, the right to freedom of action. As I remarked, one has the freedom to choose wrong.

BIG mistake to think people know better about vaccines. Many "know" what they are told by the loudest voices.

 I've been quite distinct about where businesses etc. have their property rights and rights of employment, and where Gvt. force has been imposed - or being threatened - the evidence of which no one seems to deny..  

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This must be the first time in epidemiological history the mass of people are being forced - or go willingly - to comply for 'the good' of everybody else in society - to a vaccine, like it or not, need it or not.

Not entirely true.  From the Wikipedia article on vaccination policy:

At various times governments and other institutions have established policies requiring vaccination, with the aim of reducing the risk of disease. For example, an 1853 law required universal vaccination against smallpox in England and Wales, with fines levied on people who did not comply.[23] In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that states have the authority to require vaccination against smallpox during a smallpox epidemic.[24] All fifty U.S states require that children be vaccinated to attend public school,[25] although 47 states provide exemptions based on religious or philosophical beliefs.[26] Forced vaccination (as opposed to fines or refusal of services) is rare and typically happens only as an emergency measure during an outbreak. A few other countries[which?] also follow this practice. Compulsory vaccination greatly reduces infection rates for the diseases the vaccines protect against.[23] These policies stirred resistance from a variety of groups, collectively called anti-vaccinationists, who objected on ethical, political, medical safety, religious, and other grounds.[27] Other reasons including that socioeconomic disparities and being an ethnic minority can prevent reasonable access to vaccinations.[28][29]

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The immune or invulnerable people make up the bulk of society

What is your justification for this statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I've been quite distinct about where businesses etc. have their property rights and rights of employment, and where Gvt. force has been imposed

It sure sounded like you think that businesses don't have the right to require employees or customers to get vaccinated. My point is that these things don't require signing away any part of your right to life, so they are perfectly fine. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

they can inform Me that they will only allow vaccinated individuals to be employed at their business.

But they will not "only" inform you of it when you try to get in. Because they have a right to do more than just inform you.

The point being, they have a "right" to have that requirement. (and I think we agree on that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But they will not "only" inform you of it when you try to get in. Because they have a right to do more than just inform you.

The point being, they have a "right" to have that requirement. (and I think we agree on that)

Analogous to having the right to free speech but not your printing press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

My employer can not require me to get vaccinated, they can inform Me that they will only allow vaccinated individuals to be employed at their business.

What's the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I said, saying I'm wrong, then immediately saying the same thing I did, except in more obtuse words? "I only allow vaccinated individuals to be employed" means "I require employees to be vaccinated", stop the sophistry, okay? I don't tolerate it.

You know as well as I do that "require" doesn't mean force. 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The point being, they have a "right" to have that requirement. (and I think we agree on that)

He's just being pedantic, he doesn't actually care. I'm trying to make the conversation productive rather than feeding his (accidental or intentional) trolling. Something to help with the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I was responding to tone . I was provoked to retreat to a more concrete filter. 

So I’ll grant that an employer can ‘require’ that a condition of employment would be vaccination And that requirement would apply to any potential employee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to get clear is if the core argument is:

A Covid infection is never an initiation of force, therefore it is always the responsibility of the "catcher" of the virus.

Based on that, no one should be culpable i.e. you live in society, and these are the risks.

I am asking if that is Tony and Greg's position? Tad seemed to go that direction and then backed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is that everyone is reasonable for their own health.

How is a recognition of the principle of free association backing off that position?

If one has the position that being in public without symptoms of the plague is an initiation of force then vaccines should be mandated as self-defense , no ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not have a Covid infection, it should stand to reason that you cannot impart it to others.

If you test positive for a Covid infection, only then should the question of quarantine legitimacy arise. In the absence of a legitimate quarantine policy, common courtesy should keep those interested in such decorum to refrain from putting others who potentially could be infected by it at risk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So treat the wounded and stay out of the line of fire. What else is there? So far the only being offered is a cloudy mixture of therapeutic care and leaky vaccines( which even in the best light can only be seen as preemptive therapeutic care) ?

Lockdowns do more harm and will not eradicate viral transmission , unless they are implemented universally and permanently.

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...