SN, can you explain to me what straw man argument I am making against DH or anyone else? What do you mean by a “straw man argument” and how did I employ it?
Since the “straw man argument” is a logical fallacy, I certainly do not want to engage in it.
Thomas, I’m not going to use the eating-babies example. As I said above, I find that type of example as being of little real life use.
So, instead, I will use the example of the NYC mosque. Your claim is that DH (and perhaps others folks “defending” the NYC mosque) did not understand the context of rights/hierarchy of rights. This claim – i.e. that DH think rights are context-less absolutes – is the straw-man I’m talking about.
For starters, let me ask you if Diana has ever made such a claim explicitly. Even though I do not read her blog or listen to her podcast, from what little I know of her I’m willing to bet that she has not said this.
If she has said explicitly that people have rights as some type of contextless absolutes, even if they want to use those rights destroy our rights, then I will apologize to you and attempt to make recompense.
If no such explicit claim was made, then you are actually inferring that she believes this, based on her other arguments. Now, to prevent another straw-man, let me state this explicitly: it is often perfectly fine to infer things even if people do not state those things explicitly. However, one has to have good reason for such inference.
Consider this, I will bet that from other things that DH has posted on other topics, it is reasonable to believe that she does in fact think that context is critical to all sorts of philosophical principles, including individual rights. So, there is evidence against the straw-man, and when one has counter-factuals like the mosque example, one would be jumping to conclusions to think that DH changed her view.
Take an example… obviously, there is no such thing as a right to start a bomb-making factory that is making weapons to attack NYC people and property. Do you seriously think DH would argue that there is such a right? Of course not. Do you seriously think many of the other Objectivists who said the mosque ought to be allowed would also argue for such a context-less right? Again… obviously not.
Take a second example. Consider some other mosque in some other American city – say in Chicago, attended by taxi-drivers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Imagine that there was no reason to think this mosque was radical. If an Objectivist said that such a mosque does not rise to the level of a threat upon which government should act, would you say that this person is wrong? Perhaps you would, but would it valid to call this person’s judgement of the nature of this activity and the level of threat a fundamental philosophical error? Would it be honest to claim that this person thought rights were context-less absolutes? To do so would be to argue a straw-man.
However, there is a difference between such a mosque and the one that was planned in NYC, and we ought to look at reality, and not allow people to smooth talk us with bullshit about good intentions if other evidence tells us the contrary. So, it is completely relevant to ask who is organizing the controversial mosque, what their motives are, etc. With this information, one can argue – as many have done – that these people are an actual threat – and are no comparison to some no-name mosque frequented by regular middle-class immigrants. Fair enough… make that case then, and expect to convince your opponent or not. However, if you cannot convince your opponent that there is a real threat to individual rights, do not accuse them of not understanding that it is perfectly legitimate to act in the face of a real threat to rights.
I hope he above makes clear what I was referring to as being a “straw-man”. The example of juries is similar. Juries are just one particular implementation of a justice system, and Objectivism is silent about whether it is a good implementation. There have been threads on this forum discussing why juries sometimes result in a miscarriage of justice. Now, if one were to show conclusively that individual freedom and justice cannot be served without having this particular implementation (viz. juries), then you can make the case that to be against juries is to be against individual right. If so, make that case before you raise the straw-man of people wanting to have their rights and eat them too.
I’m sure you’d agree that when encountering examples like this, it is wise to understand what your opponent is a actually saying, before starting to attack them. However, there is a certain method to doing so when that opponent is an Objectivist: try to understand how they tie their argument to the fundamental Objectivist principles. You will find that the disagreement is often not about principles, but about something far down the hierarchy. Often, the disagreement is about actual evaluation of some messy bundle of facts where one has to make one’s best assessment, while knowing that one might be wrong.
In such instances, to attack one’s opponent’s basic philosophy is a straw-man that hurts your own position. Two sides of a small philosophical movement, who agree on fundamental principles, accuse the other side of disagreeing with the principles on which they – in fact – agree. The poster above was right: it is a farce.