A human is not acting rationally right now, therefore I should treat it like it is forever incapable of being rational without any concern for what it is capable of by its nature to do differently in the future? And/or that I just can’t assume anything is capable of anything I do not see it currently in the process of? Is this what you are saying? If so, that sounds like saying the TV is not playing right now, therefore I may as well just throw it out and I shouldn’t try to appeal to any “intrinsic capacity” of the TV to play again later as reason to keep it around.
Putting aside the fact that in real life there absolutely are humans that lack the capacity to be rational, I have no logical reason to believe that a human acting irrationally has the capacity to act rationally, therefore no reason to accord them the rights of a rational being. An appeal that humans have some kind of intrinsic capacity for rationality and therefore rights is an appeal to deontology.
Once again, the assertion that a human that is acting irrationally posseses the capacity for rationality is impossible without a deontological appeal to the intrinsic rationality of humans.
Again, deontology.
So any recourse at all to a generalization is an example of deontological thinking? Is “all men are mortal” a deontological premise? Since you use that word so often without knowing what it means, here are some links:
… I have no logical reason to believe that a human acting irrationally has the capacity to act rationally…
You should stop right here and question your entire approach to logic.
What you are saying is that of all the hundreds of human beings you have met, all were perfectly rational, or completely insane. That is so obviously a faslehood that you need to question what incorrect view of “logic” leads you to conclude things that are so contrary to the reality of your observations.
You should stop right here and question your entire approach to logic.
What you are saying is that of all the hundreds of human beings you have met, all were perfectly rational, or completely insane. That is so obviously a faslehood that you need to question what incorrect view of “logic” leads you to conclude things that are so contrary to the reality of your observations.
What I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that a human which shows no capacity to be rational has a capacity to be rational, other than a kind of faith in the belief that since most humans have the capacity to be rational every human has the capacity to be rational. If I were to conclude that a particular human had a capatity to be rational despite the fact that they had never shown a capacity to be rational that would contradict my observations, and assume a kind of duty to treat all beings as persons with rights regardless of observable capacity to be rational.
So any recourse at all to a generalization is an example of deontological thinking? Is “all men are mortal” a deontological premise?
No, but according rights to a human that has shown no greater capacity for rationality than say, a dog, is a deontological premise.
What I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that a human which shows no capacity to be rational has a capacity to be rational, other than a kind of faith in the belief that since most humans have the capacity to be rational every human has the capacity to be rational.
But I seriously doubt that you have ever encountered a human which shows no capacity to be rational. They generally die within hours or days of birth.
No, but according rights to a human that has shown no greater capacity for rationality than say, a dog, is a deontological premise.
How would he have shown it?
No, but according rights to a human that has shown no greater capacity for rationality than say, a dog, is a deontological premise.
So what’s your view on people while they’re asleep? Are they rational? Are they irrational? Are they human? Are they dogs?
How would he have shown it?
By acting in a rational manner.
So what’s your view on people while they’re asleep? Are they rational? Are they irrational? Are they human? Are they dogs?
I don’t know, is sleeping something a rational being would do?
But I seriously doubt that you have ever encountered a human which shows no capacity to be rational. They generally die within hours or days of birth.
Teri Schaivo might count. Someone with a better understanding of what objectivism considers to be rational might disagree.
Teri Schaivo might count.
Or not. The burden is on you to prove that a person lacks a rational faculty, if you wish to deny a person their rights.
There’s no evidence that Rawls Was Right has the capacity to be rational, so whatever.
Ultimately, this entire discussion is a huge example of concept-dropping. People only need rights because reason does not function automatically–i.e. we all possess equally the capacity to be rational OR irrational. The very concept of rights is genetically dependent upon the volitional function of reason.
Ultimately, this entire discussion is a huge example of concept-dropping. People only need rights because reason does not function automatically–i.e. we all possess equally the capacity to be rational OR irrational. The very concept of rights is genetically dependent upon the volitional function of reason.
I’m interested in hearing your justification for the bolded claim (bolding mine). Also, I’m going to attempt to unpack your last sentence, please correct me if I flub: the concept of rights only exists because a rational being is able to use reason to determine how it ought to act.
I’m interested in hearing your justification for the bolded claim (bolding mine). Also, I’m going to attempt to unpack your last sentence, please correct me if I flub: the concept of rights only exists because a rational being is able to use reason to determine how it ought to act.
Oh, excuse me. All of us–except you, since you deny it–possess the capacity to choose to be rational or irrational, within the limitations of our mental capacity, of course.
And, no, rights don’t only exist because a rational being is capable of using reason to determine how it ought to act. Imagine, for instance, a mythical perfectly-rational being which has no volition about its rationality/use of reason. (Dr. Peikoff uses this same example in OPAR, I believe). Such a being cannot decide to be irrational, its consciousness is perfect, automatic, and non-volitional.
It is because the use of human reason is NOT infalliable, automatic, and non-volitional that we need rights, NOT because we have reason and can use it to decide what to do, but because we have to CHOOSE to think and constantly monitor how well we think if we’re to arrive at a rational conclusion and afterwards act in a rational manner. *Because* we have the capacity to err, either through irrationality or simply a lack of severity or misinformation, we require freedom–freedom to experiment, see the consequences, change our minds, and always pursue better thinking and more rational decisions. Reason is a constant process in motion and a lack of political freedom and respect for rights leads to mental stagnation, the antithesis of human life.
Oh, and in that earlier post it should have been “stolen concept”.
It is because the use of human reason is NOT infalliable, automatic, and non-volitional that we need rights, NOT because we have reason and can use it to decide what to do, but because we have to CHOOSE to think and constantly monitor how well we think if we’re to arrive at a rational conclusion and afterwards act in a rational manner.
How do you know the use of human reason is volitional? How do you know someone acting irrationally is not utilizing their capacity to reason to the best of their ability?
…there is no reason to believe that a human which shows no capacity to be rational has a capacity to be rational, other than a kind of faith in the belief that since most humans have the capacity to be rational every human has the capacity to be rational.
The above statement is true, but it does not lead to the conclusion you are putting forth. Reason, as Objectivists define it, is the tool that allows man to learn how to feed himself, clothe himself, and to learn language. We aren’t born knowing how to stay alive or live in society; we learn it, and the only way we can learn it is reason. Thus, anyone who has survived to adulthood (excepting the case of a person in a vegetative who has been cared for since birth) has demonstrated the *capacity* for reason.
Of course most Objectivists would say that most people are irrational in some regards; one of Rand’s main points is that people are exceptionally good at compartmentalizing reason, to use it in certain instances and avoid it in others. However, “irrationality” in this sense has nothing to do with the capacity for reason. Anyone who has learned language or how to feed themselves has demonstrated that they possess the capacity.
Thus, we are left with only the cases of those who have never demonstrated the ability to form concepts; basically, people in vegetative states, which is a whole other debate.
How do you know the use of human reason is volitional? How do you know someone acting irrationally is not utilizing their capacity to reason to the best of their ability?
If I may interject. By introspection, to your first question. And to your second question, because the use of reason is not a function of knowledge or intelligence or ability. It is each person choosing to exercise reason. If choice is not involved, then reason is not involved.
If I may interject. By introspection, to your first question. And to your second question, because the use of reason is not a function of knowledge or intelligence or ability. It is each person choosing to exercise reason. If choice is not involved, then reason is not involved.
Your first answer is HIGHLY subjective and your second makes no sense in the context of the question.
The above statement is true, but it does not lead to the conclusion you are putting forth. Reason, as Objectivists define it, is the tool that allows man to learn how to feed himself, clothe himself, and to learn language. We aren’t born knowing how to stay alive or live in society; we learn it, and the only way we can learn it is reason. Thus, anyone who has survived to adulthood (excepting the case of a person in a vegetative who has been cared for since birth) has demonstrated the *capacity* for reason.
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. If this is how objectivism defines capacity for reason, then of course any living person must at some point have shown a capacity for reason. My concern now is that the types of things you listed that are characteristic of reason are learned behaviors. Animals, to varying degrees, are able to learn behaviors too. What is it that differentiates person from animal to an objectivist?
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. If this is how objectivism defines capacity for reason, then of course any living person must at some point have shown a capacity for reason. My concern now is that the types of things you listed that are characteristic of reason are learned behaviors. Animals, to varying degrees, are able to learn behaviors too. What is it that differentiates person from animal to an objectivist?
Complex abstract thought. And I’m sure your next question will be what that is, so, when you decide whether to ask it, consider this: in my opinion you can continue to ask questions about Objectivism on the Internet for the rest of your life, and never come near understanding it. If understanding is what you’re looking for, instead of pointless discussions that lead to nowhere, read it.
Complex abstract thought.
Language is abstract and some animals can utilize language. Tools are an abstraction of a percieved object and some animals can use tools. If you think this discussion is pointless then don’t reply.
Language is abstract and some animals can utilize language.
This has been discussed at length in other threads on this forum. Language requires words; words require concepts; animals do not have concepts. Animals communicate, but not with language.