Well, wait a minute. A moment ago you just said it was based upon property. Which is it? Well-being or property?
I think he’s saying that since everything he is (mind, body, etc) is his own property, his morality is based on protecting the said property. It doesn’t really contradict his previous statement.
I think he’s saying that since everything he is (mind, body, etc) is his own property, his morality is based on protecting the said property. It doesn’t really contradict his previous statement.
I assume by protecting you mean (as he implies) protecting from others. So after he has his property protected from others, what then? Protecting his property and working toward his well being are two different things.
He seems to imply that anything then it ok, given he’s protected it. But then he implies that being a pleasure seeker is a bad thing. I’m asking him to tell me how he decides that given a pleasure seeker who has protected his own property.
Let’s let him clarify shall we. It wholly does contradict his statements.
Under an Objective government would dueling to the death be permitted?
No, because you cannot waive your fundamental rights, only procedural rights. Let’s use an analogous example: Can you voluntarily become a slave? No, because slavery contradicts the idea of voluntary. Likewise you cannot voluntarily consent to be murdered or killed, because being murdered or killed also contradicts the concept voluntary. If someone fights back, (as in a death match) they didn’t exactly consent to be killed, now, did they?
Advocates of dueling are using the term consent as a stolen concept; they are ignoring the antecedents of what makes consent possible and using it loosely as “whatever you once said you agreed to”. However, there are limits on the things that you can actually consent to, regardless of what you think you can say.
If you guys want to discuss Mr. Kolker’s personal morality, take it to PM’s. I can’t exactly split this thread into one titled “Bob Kolker’s Morality”. This is a board about Objectivism and ideas, not personalities. Don’t try to convince Bob he’s wrong, explain to other people *why* he is wrong.
I think he’s saying that since everything he is (mind, body, etc) is his own property, his morality is based on protecting the said property. It doesn’t really contradict his previous statement.
The closest that I think he has ever come to having a valid foundation for morality is based on the statement “My morality is based on the well being of me and mine”. The “and mine” add-on is pointless verbal fluff – I don’t know what it even refers to. Hank Rearden had a wife who was rotten, but she would count as “his”, so by Bob’s morality, he would have to protect her (from…). If we shave off his pointless verbal wart (and using the flexibility of English grammar w.r.t. possessive pronouns), then we could reduce his morality to “My morality is based on my well being”. Now here is where the standard plugs for Tara Smith’s two books are inserted, and I will assume familiarity with her argument. This what he would be saying, if he had said what he really meant, is “My morality is based on my life”. I can get behind that position. Then we can and should ask for any choice, “Does this choice further my ultimate goal, of living?”. Property cannot be the basis of morality, but it is something that’s necessary to reach your goal. Water is also necessary for that goal, but water is not the basis of morality. Well, not a rational morality.
Faced with that realization that life is the basis of morality, it’s clear that suicide is the ultimate immoral choice. And yet, Bob holds that suicide is morally just hunky dory. A and not A.
No, because you cannot waive your fundamental rights, only procedural rights. Let’s use an analogous example: Can you voluntarily become a slave? No, because slavery contradicts the idea of voluntary. Likewise you cannot voluntarily consent to be murdered or killed, because being murdered or killed also contradicts the concept voluntary. If someone fights back, (as in a death match) they didn’t exactly consent to be killed, now, did they?
Jenni, agree with your first example of voluntarily becoming a slave. However, not sure how that applies to voluntary death. I have a right for instance to commit suicide, but I don’t have a right to have someone else kill me? In the first example I still exist as a person, so create a contradiction. In the 2nd I don’t set that up. How is agreeing to entertain the possiblity of death not simply an extension of my choice to live, as such (i.e. to dispose of that life as I see fit). Life is not a fundamental right, it si the choice that brings the idea of value and rights into being. It is a pre-ethical choice, and there is no should about it. I can certainly not choose it. It is only in the choosing of it, that I create the idea of value, a moral code, and the idea of rights in the first place. As such, it’s far more fundamental than the “fundamental” rights of which you’re speaking.
If you guys want to discuss Mr. Kolker’s personal morality, take it to PM’s. I can’t exactly split this thread into one titled “Bob Kolker’s Morality”. This is a board about Objectivism and ideas, not personalities. Don’t try to convince Bob he’s wrong, explain to other people *why* he is wrong.
You’re addressing this at Bob, right? The guy who brought it up after all. If I’ve discussed personalities, then please point that out, but I believe that “personal morality” would fall under the category of ideas, not personalities. If Bob wants to use his own personal ideas as a defense of his principles, then why is that off limits. The discussion is not getting personal as I see it, in the sense of straying from his ideas as such.
Let’s use an analogous example: Can you voluntarily become a slave? No, because slavery contradicts the idea of voluntary.
Right, and while you can voluntarily become a “virtual slave”, you can still opt out of slavery. Analogously, you can agree to fight to the death (his death, presumably), but you cannot be forced to continue fighting until you are dead – you have the right to leave the arena if you wish. A proper government would allow men such a morally dubious but voluntary activity as long as it remains voluntary. Fighting back does not, in that context, indicate that you have withdrawn consent.
I have a right for instance to commit suicide, but I don’t have a right to have someone else kill me?
That’s like saying “I have the right to live, but I don’t have the right to have someone else provide for my life?” No. You cannot have the right to have someone else kill you because you can’t waive your primary rights. You can’t *give* someone the right to commit murder. Oh, you can *say* that you did, but it is neither legal nor ethical.
This is why assisted suicide has to be *assisted*. The doctor can’t just shoot you in the head, there has to be a procedure whereby you kill yourself with the doctor *helping*.
I find David’s comment about the fact that the person being beaten to death could have left the ring to be horribly naive. Yeah, he *could* have left the ring before the physical damage became so great that he couldn’t move. Have you ever *seen* someone get beaten to death?
There is no room in any kind of civilization for people killing each other under any kind of terms.
You cannot have the right to have someone else kill you
Living wills?
Living wills?
Yeah, that’s where I was headed.
Is a duel, consented to by both parties before, permissible?
Or is it an immoral use of force?
*** Mod’s note: Merged with a previous thread. -sN ***
This is something that has been popping around my brain for a little while, and I’d like to get your take on it.
Violence, as I understand it, is not something that is evil in and of itself. It is only when it is used as a agent of force to violate the rights of other human beings that it becomes evil. A couple boxers sparring with each other could hardly be called evil for doing something they both enjoy and agree to.
But what about lethality? Should two people be allowed to sign a contract, validating their intent, state of mind, and the rules of the duel? I’m not asking if it is moral (deciding to simply kill each other, however you look at it, doesn’t seem very rational to me, except maybe in extreme contexts that I can’t think of right now), but whether it should be allowed under law, since apparently no coercion is involved, and both parties are consenting.
In the movie Fearless, they made the contestants sign “Death Wavers” in order to fight, because it is so dangerous. While death was not the intended outcome, it was certainly a possibility. I am not sure, but I think they actually did make them sign Death Wavers in order to fight in China up until relatively recently.
Also, in the show Metalocalypse, the fans must sign Death Wavers before attempting to go to a Dethklok concert, for fear that they might have boiling oil poured upon them or have their fingers cut off and thrown up on stage, only to have the Bass Guitarist, William Murderface, smoke them like cigarettes.
Now, this should be politically legal if all parties have signed a contract, similar to a Death Waver, although the question comes to the moral and ethical level. In other words, why the HELL would you want to put yourself in that kind of risk unnecessarily? I can understand the fighting more than the dueling, being that the fighting, death is not an intended outcome. Would I do it? Probably not.
I believe the old Ultimate Fighter used to do this also. When I was in highschool (over 10 years ago), a few of my friends used to beg their parents to buy the pay-per view events. You would see some of these guys 5’ 120lbs taking on 500lb+ sumo wrestlers. They did it for money, but geez, there has to be an easier way to make a living 
:lol:
