Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[Capitalism Forever]

Unless she gave the rational argument supporting any given opinion of hers - its not part of Objectivism.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not the part of Ayn Rand's philosophy you think she gave enough rational arguments to support. It is her intellectual property, and you have no right to cherry-pick among her philosophical statements and label your selection "Objectivism." That's what David Kelley and his cohorts are doing.

Objectivism consists of all the published philosophical statements of Ayn Rand, taken in their proper context--and the context of the "freedom not to look" quote makes it clear it was a philosophical statement made in support of the legal protection of people from certain percepts.

If you disagree with that statement, you are free to argue that it is incorrect; you are free to say that it contradicts the rest of Objectivism; you are free to advocate a philosophy that includes all of Ayn Rand's philosophical statements except that one--but you are NOT free to call that philosophy "Objectivism."

[hunterrose]

Regardless of whether your position is a part of Objectivism proper, if you or no one else have validated its objectivity, then it's philosophically irrelevant.

[JASKN]

Objectivism consists of all the published philosophical statements of Ayn Rand, taken in their proper context--and the context of the "freedom not to look" quote makes it clear it was a philosophical statement made in support of the legal protection of people from certain percepts.

What exactly are "philosophical statements"? Would Rand's comments on the morality of a female president qualify as such statements? Because I was under the impression that there are plenty of people who disagree with those particular ideas but still consider themselves Objectivists.

"Objectivist," I thought, referred to someone who agreed with Rand's fundamental ideas, not every particular application of those ideas by her. If you were to say, "You do not have a right to your property," that would clearly clash with the Objectivist belief in property and individual rights.

However, the right not to perceive, which is a ridiculous notion, has never been a part of Objectivism; to my knowledge Rand never stated anything to that effect. The quotes you keep referring to have to do with the application of property rights, or Rand's interpretation of her own Objectivist principle. If it can be objectively shown that the interpretation goes against a greater principle of the Objectivism, I do not see how that interpretation could still be considered part of the philosophy.

And it has been shown in this thread, over and over again.

[softwareNerd]

CF presented a summary of his position in this post. I wonder if someone from "the other side of the argument" could present a summary of their position.

For instance, are there any circumstances, where nudity would be against the law even though the nude person is present on property where the owner allows him to be nude? Can the law recognize that nudity may be a seen as a threat in some contexts, just as it recognizes a physical action (say a raised arm) as a threat? Do you think special rules apply in contexts where children may be present? etc.

Edited October 14, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Lathanar]

Certain sensations and perceptions can, through biological processes, cause nausea, dizziness, dazzlement, or other conditions that impair one's ability to deal with reality. Since the ability to deal with reality is an inescapable value to rational men, they have a rightful interest not to be subjected to man-made sensations and perceptions that, by their objective nature, impair their ability to deal with reality. The law ought to protect men from such man-made sensations and perceptions. Miss Rand used the term "loathsome sights" to name a subcategory of the percepts in question, which I have qualified as "objectively loathsome sights" to make clear that it is not any kind of whim-based legislation she and I are advocating.

Sex is the highest expression of love, and thus a rational man or woman will only want to perform sexual activities with a person deserving of his love. He will not want to find himself in a sexual situation with a stranger; he will value his sexual integrity. For this reason, rational men have a rightful interest in not being put into sexual situations against their judgment. There are certain sensations and perceptions that constitute sexual situations; the law ought to protect men from being subjected to such sensations and perceptions without their consent.

His "Certain sensations" I would say have to be caused by someone's actions and "perceptions" would have to be perceptions of someone's actions. Not the mere perception of an existant. Things do not violate rights, the actions of people do. A naked man is as much a threat as an ugly man. A naked man assaulting you is different. Simply seeing a sexual body part does not "cause nausea, dizziness, dazzlement, or other conditions that impair one's ability to deal with reality". Nor would a social context cause a sexual body part to do the same. Seeing someone doing something with a sexual body part might. Simply seeing a sexual body part does not create a sexual situation. He keeps asserting this but fails constantly to back it up expecting us to accept it as self evident. The rest of his argument I see no point in even going into since it fails at this step.

[mrocktor]

CF presented a summary of his position in this post. I wonder if someone from "the other side of the argument" could present a summary of their position.

Rights are a consequence of man's nature: a rational animal. Rights do not have a purpose; they are the objective conditions under which a rational animal can live as such. Rights are facts.

The rights of man have been identified and explained by Ayn Rand: the primary right to his own life and the consequent rights to act freely to sustain it and to dispose of the results of his thought and action. Objectivism holds that these conditions are necessary and sufficient for the proper life of man.

The enforcement of rights is a type of human action. Human actions have purposes. The purpose of enforcing rights is to provide the conditions required for the life of man, as a rational animal, in society. The enforcement of rules not derived directly from man’s nature is tyranny – and can always be reduced to a violation of one or more of the rights of man.

Applying these principles to the matter of nudity and sex is no different from applying them to any other context of human interaction.

From the right to life is directly derived the right to the physical integrity the body. Any action upon one’s body, sexual or not, must be consented to. As with every principle, context is necessary: it is not necessary to obtain consent from an unconscious person to perform CPR, it is a rights violation to perform CPR on someone who has previously stated they do not want it (by a DNR, for instance).

Children up to a certain age cannot be considered capable of giving consent to such things, as their rational faculty is not sufficiently developed. It is therefore immoral to tattoo, do surgery or have sex with children even with their consent. In each case the level of development of the rational faculty required to make a rational decision is different, in each case the consent of the parent or guardian may be adequate.

What is required to make a decision is the capability to understand the long term consequences of the decision. The decision to have a tattoo done carries the consequence of a permanent aesthetical change to the body, or possible scarring in case of removal, and a risk of infection during the procedure which can be eliminated by proper procedures. Making such a decision is well within reach of an adolescent, but not of a kindergartener.

Surgery can be simple or complicated. In some cases the option may be “do this or you die”. In other cases a complex set of risks and consequences must be weighed.

Sex is the physical stimulation of the genitals by another person for the purpose of pleasure. Masturbation (of yourself) is not sex. A gynecological exam is not sex. Oral sex is sex.

Sex can have serious physical and emotional long-term effects, from infection to pregnancy to psychological problems. As such, it requires a certain level of maturity for informed consent – just as the previous cases.

Unlike tattooing or surgery, sex involves two (or more) people who are basically subject to the same consequences (with the notable exception of pregnancy). Since a moral breach can only exist where one knowingly violates the rights of another, it is proper to consider the context of the participants. If two children have sex they probably cannot be considered capable of informed consent, they can also, by the same standard, hardly be held accountable for a breach of the other’s rights.

The law, having to apply generally and to all cases, usually deals with this difficulty by defining an age below which any sexual contact is automatically considered rape (statutory rape, typically children), an age window where consent is possible but informed consent not (adolescents) and full responsibility (adulthood). Within a given category (i.e. between children, between adolescents) the statutory rape laws do not apply, however an adolescent molesting a child or an adult molesting an adolescent are considered rights violations.

While the specific ages for each category are debatable – and mutable as children and adolescents mature faster due to being exposed to more information – the basic concept is ethically sound.

The rights to the integrity of one’s body and to freedom of action therefore completely deal with the matter of sex.

The next issue is nudity and pornography. Bluntly, there is no right to not see naked people. There is no right to not see people having sex. Man’s nature does not require him to be protected from the sight of his fellow men’s bodies in order to exercise his rational faculty, it requires him to be free to act as he sees fit.

Man should be free to avoid such sights if he wants to. He is free to forbid nudity and pornography on his property, free to enter agreements with his neighbors to that effect, free to avoid people and places where he thinks such exposure is likely. In today’s world, on “public property” it is proper that a standard should exist – though it necessarily is arbitrary. Ideally, of course, there would be no "public property". On government property the standards would be that which makes government work most effective (which would probably include people being clothed).

What man is not free to do is to impose obligations of his fellow men. To impose that someone should cover himself while on his own property, to impose that a television channel should not show certain images, to impose that others give warning about their acts – as if their freedom of action were subject to his approval.

The sight of naked people or sex by children is also a non-issue. Seeing naked people does not violate a child’s rights. If a parent thinks his child’s education requires preventing such sights, it is incumbent on the parent to act in order to prevent them – by entering contractual agreements with schools, by buying web filtering software and television channel blockers and by whatever other means they find necessary.

Finally there is the matter of threats. A threat is the manifestation of intent to violate a right. Accompanied by certain words or aggressive motion, nudity can certainly characterize a threat of sexual assault. The crime is assault; “sexual” is only a qualifier. Nudity alone cannot be equated with sexual assault nor with the threat of it.

In the case of Bill Clinton, assuming that he only exposed his genitalia and in no way forced the woman to stay, advanced towards her in a threatening manner or offered a verbal threat, no rights were violated. He was merely pathetic.

mrocktor

Edited October 16, 2006 by mrocktor

[mrocktor]

On a side note, regarding which decisions parents may or may not make for their children this is a rough rule I find adequate:

1- Parents may make any decision necessary for the survival and preservation of the child's physical integrity.

2- Parents may not make decisions with irreversible consequences for the life of the child except when characterized in (1).

For the examples used in the post above, parental consent is sufficient for the surgery, no amount of parental consent is sufficient to make tattooing or having sex with a child acceptable.

This deserves more thought, of course.

mrocktor

[IAmMetaphysical]

Very nice posts mrock.

[Capitalism Forever]

What exactly are "philosophical statements"?

Statements made on the subjects of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics as a branch of philosophy, and aesthetics. Specifically, statements regarding the foundation of rights (pertaining for example to the freedom of speech, or the freedom to see and hear) are philosophical statements.

The application of these philosophical principles to specific situations ("legal restraints on posters" etc.) belong to the specialized sciences; they should be based on philosophy, but do not form a part of philosophy. Thus, Miss Rand's statements on subjects like the music of Beethoven, the U.S. Presidency, or legal restraints on posters are not part of her philosophy--i.e. they are not part of Objectivism.

[mrocktor]

The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

mrocktor

[Ifat Glassman]

My participation in this thread has had the exclusive purpose of keeping your unsupported argument from being confused with the Objectivist stance on the issue - for the benefit of anyone seeking to learn about Objectivism and how it applies to life. I consider the effort completely successful as your essential errors have been identified and exposed.

mrocktor, not that I don't enjoy seeing your determination in action, but why do you think that people have a passive mind? If your arguments have been presented once, if someone fails to apply them to other posts on the next page, it means that no matter how many times you would repeat your ideas it would not sink in.

A rational man understands ideas, and does not forget that which has been understood. Only someone who thinks that the correctness of ideas is determined by "who said the last word" or "who screams louder over the pages of the forum" can forget what you said when turning a page.

That's why it is useless to repeat arguments.

Oh, and if you're still not convinced, there are a few threads that need this body-guard role very desperately as well. You have a lot of work ahead of you .

Hope I didn't ruin the fluency of the discussion, it's just that I wanted to say this somewhere on the forum and this thread gave me the opportunity. Thanks, bye-bye.

[Maarten]

Since a moral breach can only exist where one knowingly violates the rights of another, it is proper to consider the context of the participants.

Just for clarification, do you mean that knowingly violating the rights of another is the only way in which someone can commit a moral breach? Or do you mean that a moral breach can only exist when one knowingly violates the rights of another, as opposed to unknowingly violating the rights of another? I assume it is the second, but I think both interpretations can be gleaned from the way you said it.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Maarten

[mrocktor]

mrocktor, not that I don't enjoy seeing your determination in action, but why do you think that people have a passive mind? If your arguments have been presented once, if someone fails to apply them to other posts on the next page, it means that no matter how many times you would repeat your ideas it would not sink in.

True enough. Persisting has two advantages though, first it ensures that someone who jumps to the last page of the thread will know that there is a discussion going on and will not read one of CF's posts as "the Objectivist position". This is doubly important since he is a moderator and thus his opinion could be taken more seriously than that of some random member posting nonsense. This is triply important because he keeps doing his "what Ayn Rand and I are saying..." shtick.

The second advantage is exercising my mind and applying knowlege to this important subject. In that sense, perhaps "intellectual police work" was not my only purpose after all

I assume it is the second, but I think both interpretations can be gleaned from the way you said it.

Yes, the second. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity.

mrocktor

Edited October 17, 2006 by mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

This is doubly important since he is a moderator and thus his opinion could be taken more seriously than that of some random member posting nonsense.

Ain't that just too bad for random members posting nonsense! ........ (evil grin)

You still seem to hold that Miss Rand's statement about the corollary of the freedom to see and hear is not a part of Objectivism, though. Did you read my arguments concerning why it is a part of it? Are you going to ignore them?

Just in case it hasn't been clear to you, my concern in my recent posts (starting with #301) has not been the original subject of the thread anymore. I am not making arguments in support of the quotes from Miss Rand now; I've made enough of those. I am simply arguing that one particular statement from those quotes is a philosophical statement, and thus a part of Objectivism--and therefore if you disagree with it, your philosophy is not identical to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

There is nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with a part of Objectivism. Since I myself am still a student of Objectivism, I cannot say for sure yet whether I agree with all of it. Maybe when I get to read the Romantic Manifesto, I'll find some minor but philosophical detail that I disagree with. So what? That won't automatically make me a bad person. Perhaps I'll argue over it with some other members of this Forum and either they'll convince me or I'll convince them--or we'll continue to disagree. But I will not accuse them who agree with Miss Rand's position of being un-Objectivist and tout myself as the defender of Objectivism. I'll acknowledge that I am advocating a deviation from Miss Rand's philosophy.

Objectivism = The philosophy of Ayn Rand. That's all I'm asking you to agree with since post #301.

[mrocktor]

Objectivism = The philosophy of Ayn Rand. That's all I'm asking you to agree with since post #301.

True. But its not like other philosophies where the philosophy is the sum total of whatever its creator said. Since Objectivism actually is true, it is the sum total of Ayn Rand's philosophical works - a consistent, rational, integrated whole.

Unconnected statements, philosophical or not, are not part of Objectivism. You have not produced Ayn Rand's reasoning behind the statement you cling to, you have failed grossly at supporting it yourself.

You have proven you have faith in Ayn Rand. And that is what horrifies and disgusts me.

EDIT1: Just to remind you that you misconstrued or misinterpreted Ayn Rand's statement about "looking and listening" as IAmMetaphysical pointed out in post #298- his interpretation is consistent with Objectivism, yours frontally contradicts it.

Edited October 18, 2006 by mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

True. But

So which is it, "true" or "but" ? Make up your mind. Are you going to recognize Ayn Rand as the only authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy, or are you going to arrogate to yourself the right to decide what she thought and what she didn't think?

Objectivism is...

A - those of Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas that meet David Kelley's standard of tolerance

B - those of Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas that meet mrocktor's standard of integration

C - all of Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas, whether you like them or not

I choose C. Which do you choose?

Just to remind you that you misconstrued or misinterpreted Ayn Rand's statement about "looking and listening" as IAmMetaphysical pointed out in post #298- his interpretation is consistent with Objectivism, yours frontally contradicts it.

Too bad his interpretation frontally contradicts the context of the quote, which is about just the kind of thing we've been talking about: legal restraints on certain kinds of displays. And I already said this before:

the context of the "freedom not to look" quote makes it clear it was a philosophical statement made in support of the legal protection of people from certain percepts.

Just to remind you.

[Ifat Glassman]

Capitalism Forever, you and Ayn Rand are not saying the same thing.

You are misinterpreting things, and misrepresenting Ayn Rand's views. The right not to see/hear what one does not want to see/hear discusses long term, not short term. See my post about the time factor.

The issue of pornography in public is not an issue of rights, but of local rules.

[Capitalism Forever]

The right not to see/hear what one does not want to see/hear discusses long term, not short term. See my post about the time factor.

I saw your post about the time factor, but did you see the quote by Miss Rand on the legal restraints? If your freedom only applies in the long term, why is there a need for legal restraints, whose purpose is precisely to protect you in the short term?

The issue of pornography in public is not an issue of rights, but of local rules.

Aren't rights the only valid reason to impose "rules" (i.e. laws) on anyone?

[hunterrose]

CF, if the "sexual situation" rights aren't valid, why does it matter whether this was Rand's position or not?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Too bad his interpretation frontally contradicts the context of the quote, which is about just the kind of thing we've been talking about: legal restraints on certain kinds of displays. And I already said this before:

My interpretation is consistent with reality, which in the end, is the only thing that matters.

[LaszloWalrus]

True. But its not like other philosophies where the philosophy is the sum total of whatever its creator said. Since Objectivism actually is true, it is the sum total of Ayn Rand's philosophical works - a consistent, rational, integrated whole.

Unconnected statements, philosophical or not, are not part of Objectivism. You have not produced Ayn Rand's reasoning behind the statement you cling to, you have failed grossly at supporting it yourself.

You have proven you have faith in Ayn Rand. And that is what horrifies and disgusts me.

Philosophical written statements, unconnected or not, are part of Objectivism. Ayn Rand wrote it + it is philosophy = it is part of Objectivism. That does NOT mean, however, that the statement is true.

Postscript: In writing this post, I am not trying to imply that I believe Ayn Rand's position on this issue is "unconnected."

[mrocktor]

Congratulations to CF for once again leading off on a tangent and evading the discussion. Your lack of a rational argument over 17 pages of posts must be a new record.

To take a statement of Ayn Rand, unsupported by any rational argument of hers, supply your own argument reaching a conclusion that contradicts the fundamentals of her Epistemology and Ethics and try to pass that off as Objectivism because you used a sentence of hers takes the trophy for the lowest you have sunk in this discussion. Every time I think you bottom out, you surprise me.

That the "freedom not to look and not to listen" follows from freedom of action - i.e. choosing not to look at something or not to listen to something and being free to act in that direction is blatantly obvious. It ties in perfectly with Ayn Rand's definitions and reasoning on rights.

That the "freedom not to look and not to listen" means the freedom not to see and not to hear is your own creation. It is nonsense. It contradicts the core of Ayn Rand's philosophy. You have the audacity to say you are stating the Objectivist position while you defend a "right" that imposes obligatory action to others. That is so ridiculously divorced from reason that its pretty pointless to argue against.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a hierarchical, integrated, consistent body of knowlege. You dont take a sentence, supply your own interpretation and claim that is Objectivism. Period. Either you show her argument or you supply a rational argument of your own - and in the second case you are only applying the philosophy.

Edited October 28, 2006 by mrocktor