Legal foundation for public decency, lewdness, nudity

[Inspector]

A larger point is this: you can't derive principles of what should be rights violations by thinking of situations that you "just know" are rights violations and then find out what is similar amongst those situations, that's begging the question.

No, that is a valid inductive method if one subsequently is able to find a common denominator and then tie an unbroken logical chain to first principles.

[mrocktor]

The general consensus seems to be that I have a right to not see certain things.

There is no consensus. Some of us just got tired of hearing "because Ayn Rand said so" as an answer.

[blackdiamond]

It is entirely appropriate to exclude arbitrary examples as a basis for making generalizations about the real world. I acknowledge that it makes your task harder; so be it. The question I have is, what reason do you have for thinking that a particular example is possible (not arbitrary)? In the case of public nudity, the answer is obvious: because there are particular laws against it, we can reasonably infer that it actually happened at some point. So, where is the law against sending embalmed heads to someone? There isn't one (is there?)...

Arbitrary? I'll tell you what is properly arbitrary: You saying that because a law exists against a particular action then that action must have happened, is a perfect example of an arbitrary assertion. Even more arbitrary is demanding that this be the test applied to every example to see if it is "based in reality" (which means that before anyone discards an example in their head, they must find out if none of the laws in none of the States of America or the world have forbidden such a thing before).

But secondly, how do you even know that there is no law against exposing another person to a (close) view of a dead body without their permission - in all the states of America or the world? Do you actually know this or do you just feel there isn't? Or are you talking about a law that specifies every detail of my example (i.e. with the words 'embalmed,' 'one-eyed', etc)? [if i also go by my feelings, I seriously feel there must be a law somewhere against deliberately exposing others to a close view of dead bodies (without their consent), and if this is so, then the only problem you have with my example is the SENDING part, which is a very small part of the example and it can easily be taken out without affecting the essence of the example. So get over it, will you?]

No, that is a valid inductive method if one subsequently is able to find a common denominator and then tie an unbroken logical chain to first principles.

That's what I thought, too.

Since dead things carry disease, it can be seen as an attempt at assault, physical assault, not psychological.

I forgot to state that the head was tightly covered in a (transparent) platic bag to keep the germs from coming out!

[Ifat Glassman]

Aha. I think we are closing the gap in our disagreement. If you can invoke a charge of psychological assault, you are not too far from my position.

I am not into closing gaps in positions about particular cases. It's not the policy on certain issues that I am interested in (i.e.do we, or do we not agree to ban public nudity). I am asking about the principle that differentiates the cases, and not to get a list of many cases with your opinion on each one.

I am interested in identifying the principles involved, and also in making sense of what Ayn Rand wrote (though I suspect that for this, I will have to read the full essay).

But even if they do (represent anti-life ideas, etc), why should someone be stopped from expressing such ideas? In short, someone could argue that stopping someone from freely expressing anti-life ideas (to another person) is an infringement on their right to free expression. But I won't argue that. I think that's supposed to be your argument, if I understood your position correctly.

Hell yeah! it is a violation of their right to free expression. I never said that any idea which is anti-life is psychological assault (when others are exposed to it). I admit I didn't base my argument that the dead-head-in-a-jar is a psychological assault, but I certainly didn't mean that any expression of anti-life idea is psychological assault.

[mrocktor]

psychological assault

Please do define this concept if you are going to keep using it. Is it even a valid concept? Accepting anti-concepts in your discussion will only open the door to having your opponents steamroll you with "logical" deductions drawn from them. "Seeing naked people is psychological assault, which is assault, which has been rationally proven to be a violation of rights, end of discussion".

[IAmMetaphysical]

No, that is a valid inductive method if one subsequently is able to find a common denominator and then tie an unbroken logical chain to first principles.

The last part is what you're missing, the first part is called rationalism. You do not just think of things that you feel are violations (accepting them as violations) while you are trying to fidn out and define the principle that defines them, its circular reasoning, begging the question. Its not induction when the source of your data is arbitrary whim.

[Seeker]

Arbitrary? I'll tell you what is properly arbitrary: You saying that because a law exists against a particular action then that action must have happened, is a perfect example of an arbitrary assertion. Even more arbitrary is demanding that this be the test applied to every example to see if it is "based in reality" (which means that before anyone discards an example in their head, they must find out if none of the laws in none of the States of America or the world have forbidden such a thing before).

I didn't say it must. The manner is inductive, not deductive. Laws are passed, in general, in response to the problems they purport to address. Knowing that laws a,b,c were passed to address particular concerns suggests that d was, too. A law against public nudity supports the conclusion that such is not an arbitrary example, in my view.

You are free to disagree with that particular support. I didn't say it was the only type of evidence allowed, did I? Let me ask you this. How do you know what goes on in the real world? It's not just figments of your imagination, is it? What's wrong with demanding that the concretes used to abstract real-world principles be similarly based in reality?

[Seeker]

A more fruitful basis for inquiry might be (and I am still mulling this over) to focus not on purported rights violations right away, but instead on what man's needs qua man are. To take one example, we know that man requires food and water to survive; we know that without it, he will die. We can conclude that, in principle, forcibly denying him food and water violates his right to his life. So, as it pertains to man's mind, what does man require? ONce we know that we can say that, in principle, whatever forcibly denies him that violates his right to life.

Then we can get into a good discussion about what man's actual requirements are versus arbitrary whims. We might say, for instance (if, of course, the evidence leads us there), that since man requires control of his sex life, uncontrolled exposure to public nudity is a denial of that requirement and a violation of his right. Then you can list all the bizarre unrealistic examples you wish that deny him his right in every colorful manner; it won't matter because we won't be relying on them to say what the principles are.

[mrocktor]

We might say, for instance (if, of course, the evidence leads us there), that since man requires control of his sex life, uncontrolled exposure to public nudity is a denial of that requirement and a violation of his right.

That is exactly the argument they have tried to use. Of course being exposed to public nudity in no way reduces or impairs someone's freedom of action, so it in fact does not affect his control of his sex life and the whole argument is invalid.

[blackdiamond]

The last part is what you're missing, the first part is called rationalism. You do not just think of things that you feel are violations (accepting them as violations) while you are trying to fidn out and define the principle that defines them, its circular reasoning, begging the question. Its not induction when the source of your data is arbitrary whim.

I don't mean to use an argument from intimidation, but there are many people who make that error in their approach to life once they discover a rational philosophy. There are things we can reasonably be certain are wrong or immoral, even before we reduce them to first principles. This is neither rationalism nor intuitionism; it is just quick (rational and intuitive) integration arising from one's dominant premises (or "sense of life," to use another arguable expression). For example, you know that lying is immoral. Do you know the precise reasons why? I've seen some papers that show why lying is immoral from first principles, but I am quite sure they did not begin from there. They most definitely started from the answer and worked backwards to the proof. Do you think Ayn Rand was uncertain that lying was wrong before she worked out the metaphysics of Objectivism? Would you want to listen to a moral system that claims it has established that murder and lying are actually virtues? Or that sex with animals should be an important rational value? (Let me stop with the extreme examples before old Seeker accuses me of having a comical imagination )

The point is that even though the proof should be presented from first principles, the epistemological process that establishes or discovers the proof does not necessarily (or even normally) proceed from there, but rather TO there.

[mrocktor]

The point is that even though the proof should be presented from first principles, the epistemological process that establishes or discovers the proof does not necessarily (or even normally) proceed from there, but rather TO there.

The trouble begins when the proof does not proceed where your "intuition" expected it to, and you choose to discard reason and keep the intuition. Or continue to build rationalizations that lead to your "intuitive" conclusions in the face of rational arguments to the contrary.

I used to think paying taxes was right, I hated tax evaders for "not carrying their share of the burden". I used to hate cigarette companies and wish they were taxed to oblivion and smoking banned in all places of public congregation (my grandmother died of emphysema). I used to despise drug dealers and wish they could somehow all be rooted out and killed.

All of that was "intuitive". All of it was wrong. I didn't hold on to those mistaken ideas for one second having seen rational arguments to the contrary. That is the difference between a rational individual and someone blindly following a whim.

Edited May 10, 2007 by mrocktor

[Inspector]

The trouble begins when the proof does not proceed where your "intuition" expected it to, and you choose to discard reason and keep the intuition. Or continue to build rationalizations that lead to your "intuitive" conclusions in the face of rational arguments to the contrary.

That is correct and thus Meta's accusation is thus inaccurate. The trouble begins there, not on the use of inductive method as such.

[IAmMetaphysical]

It's not induction!

At least not induction about the principles regarding rights, but induction about YOUR feelings about what should be rights violations. Its a good way of finding out what you assume should be rights violations and why you feel that way, but it is never a good approach when trying to know reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition.

[Inspector]

It's not induction!

At least not induction about the principles regarding rights, but induction about YOUR feelings about what should be rights violations. Its a good way of finding out what you assume should be rights violations and why you feel that way, but it is never a good approach when trying to know reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition.

Perhaps if you pointed out what the difference is between this induction and other inductions? I say it is perfectly fine to use your emotions to hone in on an issue. Of course, nothing is proven until you finish connecting it to principles but your idea that you must never ever use your emotions as tools is totally wrong. If they are not to be used in this way, then how are they to be used?

[blackdiamond]

All of that was "intuitive". All of it was wrong. I didn't hold on to those mistaken ideas for one second having seen rational arguments to the contrary. That is the difference between a rational individual and someone blindly following a whim.

Read my post again. Firstly, I used the word "reasonable" and added some emphasis there. And then i also said this (emphasis added):

it is just quick (rational and intuitive) integration arising from one's dominant premises (or "sense of life," to use another arguable expression).

When i ask people whom i know generally have the correct consciously decided premises (rational people) to tell me if they think something is right, something at a simple near-perceptual level, I expect that their instant reactions will be reasonable, even before they isolate the fundamental reasons. It's just the mind-emotions integration. Given all your premises, from your years of living a rational life or studying Objectivism, etc. why can't your emotions be relied upon to give us a reasonable evaluation of some simple concrete situations, before we integrate what is common among these and then compare them to well-established (first) principles?

[IAmMetaphysical]

BD: So whim worship is okay, as long as you're an Objectivist??

Inspector: The difference between using your emotions and inducing from there and using induction to gain knowledge about reality is that when you induce using your emotions, you are only finding out about your emotions, i.e. you are gaining inductive knowledge about your emotional state and hierarchy, these conclusions may well be consistent with reality, or they may not be, but one does not figure that out unless one engages in actual rational induction or deduction from previously validated principles.

E.g. If I took a bunch of situations regarding moral principles and, based on my emotional reactions and being raised a Catholic, decided that profit motive was obviously a vice, humility was obviously a virtue, and sex was obviously a sin, all I could learn about those emotional reactions to moral situations would be MY EMOTIONAL reactions to those situations. I could not form objective principles from those premises and not only because they are false. In another example if I do what BD suggests and given a pretty good implicit sense of life, decide that profit motive is a virtue along with productivity and rationality because it seems obvious to me and my emotions give me an affirmation of these feelings and then try to induce principles from that, all I am left with is a better understanding of my subconscious sense of life, not of the nature of reality. Emotions ARE NEVER TOOLS OF COGNITION, they are tools to let you know YOUR automatized evaluations of certain situations. THe meotion of fear tells you THAT you are afraid, not what you SHOULD be afraid of, the emotion of anger, tells you that you are mad, frsutrated, etc, not what you SHOULD be angry about. That is the role of emotions, not to give one a starting point in any rational endeavor to uncover the nature of reality, unless it the reality of your emotional state.

[mrocktor]

Induction must ba based on reality to be a valid tool of cognition. Inducing from emotion is equivalent to inducing from complete fantasy. You might stumble on truth by complete coincidence, but never by design.

No matter how integrated your emotions are to your rational conscious knowlege, they will never be a tool to gain new knowlege. They only let you react quickly with regard to what you already know and have integrated.

Edited May 10, 2007 by mrocktor

[Seeker]

I wonder though whether induction from instrospection isn't really the whole point here. The argument would be (indeed, would have to be) that inducing certain emotional responses interferes with man's mind such that forcing those responses is a denial of right to life.

As to whether that is in fact true, there are two ways to examine it. First, you can look to how others react when presented with certain sights and sounds that induce severe emotional reactions, and see how it affects their behavior - and since we humans have language, you can also ask them to explain it. Second, you can experience such reactions yourself and see whether they interfere with your ability to live (freedom of action) or not. I take the examples to be trying to invoke such introspective observations. The point is not to reach agreement about what specific examples themselves have in common but rather the psychological effects that they evoke. The examples aren't the point, the reactions to them are, and those reactions are real even if the examples given are not. So with all that said - can emotions interfere with man's mind?

As to the matter of force - the premise must be that the very nature of public spaces implies the equivalent of physical force inasmuch as you can't avoid being there. The regulation comes about in response to that physical fact - since the equivalent of physical force is assumed, the law seeks to regulate what it may and may not do.

Both of these strike me as fertile grounds for argument.

[blackdiamond]

BD: So whim worship is okay, as long as you're an Objectivist??

Your question sneaks in a false accusation: that what I just described is whim worship. That's like the question: have you stopped beating your wife? First tell me why you think what i said is whim worship.

So would you give someone the benefit of the doubt if he told you he had new proof that having sex with dogs is a very virtuous thing which every rational person should try? Do you always need to be conscious of your reasons before discarding something like that or can you, like me, dismiss this theory before you even hear it out? Am I a whim worshipper just because i can instantly judge some simple propositions as false before i can articulate all (or any of) my reasons?

Edited May 10, 2007 by blackdiamond

[IAmMetaphysical]

BD: I would dismiss it, but not for emotional reasons, but because I already understand with my mind why bestiality is not in one's self interest.

[Seeker]

Can emotions interfere with man's mind?

Hopefully someone will take on this question. After reviewing the thread, the principles used in debate include such things as disgust, harm, and psychological assault, and typically the lines of reasoning end there. I would like to focus on the positive, to know what the negative is - I have posited the notion that life qua man has certain psychological requirements, the forcible denial of which would amount to the disgust, harm, or psychological assault that has heretofore been the end-point of the argument favoring laws on public decency. Instead of the negative forumations (i.e. the right to not be harmed, to not be assaulted, to not be disgusted) I would like to see what positive formulations we can arrive at (i.e. the right to life, which includes [include your positive formulaton here]).

One approach is to start with the "life is not morgue avoidance" position. The psychological need for pleasure, for instance (see Virtue of Selfishness), is a positive formulation of man's needs qua man. Displeasing sights and sounds, publicly (which is to say forcibly) viewable, thus deny man his right to life and may be justly proscribed (which is to say, hidden behind barriers with warnings to the unconsenting). The end result is cold comfort with those who wanted an objective razor, I'm afraid - individuals vary so widely as to what pleases and displeases them that there is no limit to restraints on everything that anyone finds displeasing. In the end, those things that we thought were "merely annoying" and those that "rational men cannot tolerate" are really the same thing. But then, if the chain of logic was valid, then that's still got to be the correct result.

In addition, we might conclude that certain types of freedom ought to exist notwithstanding the displeasure to others they engender, like freedom of speech. The prudential need to allow citizens to publicly voice disagreeable points of view may justifiy exceptions to the rules on public decency. We might also choose, as a prudential matter, to decline to set very high standards of decency in favor of tolerance. These things are exceptions to the general principle that public regulation of anything that displeases anyone is proper. So if you want to set a low bar for decency that's fine, but not because the bar cannot justly be set very high.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Seeker

[Inspector]

Inspector: The difference between using your emotions and inducing from there and using induction to gain knowledge about reality is that when you induce using your emotions, you are only finding out about your emotions, i.e. you are gaining inductive knowledge about your emotional state and hierarchy, these conclusions may well be consistent with reality, or they may not be, but one does not figure that out unless one engages in actual rational induction or deduction from previously validated principles.

Yes, precisely. So what is the problem? Your emotional response can still give you a starting point. If you are to check your premises, you must first lay them out.

So would you give someone the benefit of the doubt if he told you he had new proof that having sex with dogs is a very virtuous thing which every rational person should try? Do you always need to be conscious of your reasons before discarding something like that or can you, like me, dismiss this theory before you even hear it out? Am I a whim worshipper just because i can instantly judge some simple propositions as false before i can articulate all (or any of) my reasons?

You would be a whim worshiper if you did not seek to discover the source and reasoning of why you instantly judged a simple proposition to be false.

[Inspector]

In addition, we might conclude that certain types of freedom ought to exist notwithstanding the displeasure to others they engender, like freedom of speech. The prudential need to allow citizens to publicly voice disagreeable points of view may justifiy exceptions to the rules on public decency. We might also choose, as a prudential matter, to decline to set very high standards of decency in favor of tolerance. These things are exceptions to the general principle that public regulation of anything that displeases anyone is proper. So if you want to set a low bar for decency that's fine, but not because the bar cannot justly be set very high.

Well, now, we can certainly see where that idea leads to.

Alternatively, there is the idea that sex is different and that the statement applies only to one's sex life.

[Starblade Enkai]

... publicly (which is to say forcibly) viewable... Now HERE is the CRUX of the argument. Thank you.

You automatically make the assumption that you have a positive right to go to the public. I'm sorry, but there is only a negative right, IE no right for people to use force to prevent you from going on the public. Just because you've demonstrated a public nuisance does NOT give you the right to proscribe said nuisance. For example, if somebody had a bad smelling scent on them and any rational person would try to avoid it once they knew of it; you could say that it is a nuisance. Where is the line drawn between when a public nuisance is simply inconvenient and when it is actually a violation of rights? There IS a line, not just a gray area.

Visible pornography, drunk driving, public possession of a gun without state verification of ones responsibility... these are all things which would go away naturally if there were no public spaces except for what government NEEDS to own in order to operate, which means that roads and sidewalks and all other things not government owned would be open to private ownership. Even worries about violation of intellectual property could conceivably be relieved if we simply assured that everything, even individual quanta of information in space-time, could be protected by property rights.

However, the typical Objectivist response to this is that this is Libertarianistic wishful thinking. However, I argue that the principle of action counts more than cause and effect pertaining to said action. In the end, principle wins, no matter how long it takes. There will always be an end because there are no infinities in the actual, only a concept of infinity as the lack of a limit, and that is a potential.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Starblade Enkai

[Seeker]

Well, now, we can certainly see where that idea leads to.

Alternatively, there is the idea that sex is different and that the statement applies only to one's sex life.

Oh, I don't contest that Rand's statement applies only to sex. But that may simply have been because she chose to address only the topic of pornography in the essay, which isn't a philosophical razor, just a writing decision. To be clear, I am not basing this particular reasoning on that essay, although I do think it is consistent with either the wide or narrow interpretations of "the freedom not to look and listen" mentioned therein.

What is logically wrong with the position I outlined? As I said, "if the chain of logic was valid, then that's still got to be the correct result".

Edited May 11, 2007 by Seeker