Merge: Rights, Life

Political Philosophy
41

But libertarianism isn’t a philosophy, is it?

Everyone has at least an implicit philosophy. For Libertarians, the denial of the need for a philosophical base for politics is a part of their implicit philosophy.

So in the field of politics, libertarians draw the same conclusions as objectivists because the libertarian principle (liberty) implies everything an objectivist can expect from a government

Not quite. Libertarians at best tend to dodge the issue of what exactly they expect from a government; at worst, they are explicit anarchists.

If you ask them, “Is it OK for the government to violate the rights of individuals?” they will say exactly what Objectivism says: “No.” But if you ask them, “Should the government make laws against crime? Should the government prosecute and punish criminals? Should the government maintain a standing army and use it actively against foreign threats?” they will either hem and haw and refuse to give a clear answer–or give a clear answer of “No.” Objectivism, by contrast, answers all those questions with a definite, uncompromising “Yes.”

So the similarities go only as far as the negative–what the government shouldn’t do–but they are absent when looking at the positive, at what the government should do.

so it differs in private issues, right?

Yes, it differs very much in private issues.

42

If you ask them, “Is it OK for the government to violate the rights of individuals?” they will say exactly what Objectivism says: “No.” But if you ask them, “Should the government make laws against crime? Should the government prosecute and punish criminals? Should the government maintain a standing army and use it actively against foreign threats?” they will either hem and haw and refuse to give a clear answer–or give a clear answer of “No.” Objectivism, by contrast, answers all those questions with a definite, uncompromising “Yes.”

So the similarities go only as far as the negative–what the government shouldn’t do–but they are absent when looking at the positive, at what the government should do.

How come? If their main objective is “liberty”, their answer should be just the same, since the liberty of a person ends where the liberty of another one begins. How could they claim to be respecting “liberty” if they actually didn’t wanna make the effords to grant it? Such kinda “liberty” would be just a wishy-washy conception, which may be the main reason for its survival on the political landscape.

43

How come? If their main objective is “liberty”, their answer should be just the same, since the liberty of a person ends where the liberty of another one begins. How could they claim to be respecting “liberty” if they actually didn’t wanna make the effords to grant it? Such kinda “liberty” would be just a wishy-washy conception, which may be the main reason for its survival on the political landscape.

In a roundabout way you are decribing exactly how the libertarians lack a solid philosophic base and why there ideas either can never work consistently or are wrong.

44

In a roundabout way you are decribing exactly how the libertarians lack a solid philosophic base and why there ideas either can never work consistently or are wrong.

Right.

45

Bobby66,

I think you might be smitten with utilitarianism - a theory totally at odds with Objectivism or any theory of individual rights. This theory (utilitarianism) is so all pervasive in political philosophy and our modern way of thinking that it is not so easy to detect.

The signature quote you enclose in every one of your posts is from the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham - in the history of political philosophy Bentham is an arch enemy of individual rights. It was he who called Locke’s theory of individual rights “Nonsense on Stilts” and it was he who lead the main initial attack on individual rights.

As you may see, if you study your signature quote, Bentham bases his whole idea of morality - and so his political morality - on the hedonistic pleasure-pain mechanism (hedonism stems from the Epicureans). He says that all of man’s thoughts and actions are basically stemming from “two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (a view we now see in the modern “emotivism” doctrine). Reason, for instance in the form of a morality upholding man’s rights, is for him really just rationalized emotion (and so can hold no more weight than other “thoughts” or “notions”). For him reason is not king but “a slave of the passions” (Hume’s formulation but it holds for Bentham too). If you read Hobbes Leviathan, that disastrously influential tract defending authoritarianism, you will see the same ideas at work in Hobbes view on man (and hence his view of morality and political philosophy). This view of reason has had disastrous effects. If you effectively dispense with reason you are inviting disaster, and certainly you cannot defend liberty if you view man as basically a beast driven by his passions (would you open the door to the lion gates?).

After Bentham came JS Mill and his rule utilitarianism (a part of which I recognize in your posts), but Mills more sophisticated utilitarianism still suffers from the same problems as Bentham’s.

The theory of utilitarianism is incompatible with individual rights and has been picked apart so many times by political philosophers, Ayn Rand included, that I refer you to those critiques for a more in-depth understanding of the weakness of this theory. Suffice it to point out that the theory lacks any correct understanding of human nature, reason, knowledge, morality (it preaches self-sacrifice), standard of values. Utilitarianism leads to authoritarianism and the violation of rights and is collectivist in nature (“greatest happiness for the greatest number”, being its stale dead-end mantra).

46

Bobby66,

I think you might be smitten with utilitarianism - a theory totally at odds with Objectivism or any theory of individual rights. This theory (utilitarianism) is so all pervasive in political philosophy and our modern way of thinking that it is not so easy to detect.

The signature quote you enclose in every one of your posts is from the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham - in the history of political philosophy Bentham is an arch enemy of individual rights. It was he who called Locke’s theory of individual rights “Nonsense on Stilts” and it was he who lead the main initial attack on individual rights. 

As you may see, if you study your signature quote, Bentham bases his whole idea of morality - and so his political morality - on the hedonistic pleasure-pain mechanism (hedonism stems from the Epicureans). He says that all of man’s thoughts and actions are basically stemming from “two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (a view we now see in the modern “emotivism” doctrine). Reason, for instance in the form of a morality upholding man’s rights, is for him really just rationalized emotion (and so can hold no more weight than other “thoughts” or “notions”). For him reason is not king but “a slave of the passions” (Hume’s formulation but it holds for Bentham too). If you read Hobbes Leviathan, that disastrously influential tract defending authoritarianism, you will see the same ideas at work in Hobbes view on man (and hence his view of morality and political philosophy). This view of reason has had disastrous effects. If you effectively dispense with reason you are inviting disaster, and certainly you cannot defend liberty if you view man as basically a beast driven by his passions (would you open the door to the lion gates?).

After Bentham came JS Mill and his rule utilitarianism (a part of which I recognize in your posts), but Mills more sophisticated utilitarianism still suffers from the same problems as Bentham’s.

The theory of utilitarianism is incompatible with individual rights and has been picked apart so many times by political philosophers, Ayn Rand included, that I refer you to those critiques for a more in-depth understanding of the weakness of this theory. Suffice it to point out that the theory lacks any correct understanding of human nature, reason, knowledge, morality (it preaches self-sacrifice), standard of values. Utilitarianism  leads to authoritarianism and the violation of rights and is collectivist in nature (“greatest happiness for the greatest number”, being its stale dead-end mantra).

I realize the lack of legality for utalitarianism as a political system. My quotations are not meant to determine what political system we are supposed to be living in, but to point out human motivations for their actions and their subjective thinking.

But what do you mean by reason being king? King of what? Surely not of your motivation. What do you think tells you what you value? Reason tells you what is true and false, but “interesting” or “worth pursuing” is a voice that is expressed by the emotion. Reason is a means to happiness, i.e. pleasant emotions, but not happiness itself. I surely wouldn’t be trying to be succesful at something without the outlook for pleasant sensations as fun, self-esteem etc. in the future.

47

I realize the lack of legality for utalitarianism as a political system. My quotations are not meant to determine what political system we are supposed to be living in, but to point out human motivations for their actions and their subjective thinking.

Don’t presume that everyone’s thinking is subjective.

But what do you mean by reason being king? King of what? Surely not of your motivation. What do you think tells you what you value? Reason tells you what is true and false, but “interesting” or “worth pursuing” is a voice that is expressed by the emotion. Reason is a means to happiness, i.e. pleasant emotions, but not happiness itself. I surely wouldn’t be trying to be succesful at something without the outlook for pleasant sensations as fun, self-esteem etc. in the future.

Emotions are not tools of cognition. REASON is your only means of knowledge. Your emotions are programmed by the premises you hold, consciously or subconsciously. How do you identify what exists in reality to BE “interesting” or “worth pursuing?” By wielding your reason on the evidence of your senses. Your reason can tell you, as you said, “true or false?”, “right or wrong?” You have no choice but to feel that SOMETHING is good for you or ill, but WHAT it is must be identified by your reason. Without identification no emotional response can exist.

Emotions are instant evaluations. If properly tied to reality by consciously-identified premises and principles that you judge, in reason, to be correct, they assist you tremendously in the task of living your life; instead of having to pull up every fact of your knowledge about a subject to evaluate it, you receive, by means of a sensation, everything you need to know.

48

But even if this sounds so trivial to us, how do we rationally explain this right?

We use our knowledge of the human condition, IOW, we deduce that a right to life is a virtual absolute based on our knowledge of the human condition, ie, ALL mentally stable people want to live, our physiology is geared towards living.

Knowledge of the human condition should be the basis of any objective ethics.

49

Emotions are not tools of cognition.  REASON is your only means of knowledge.

Let me get something straight: When I say “reason”, I mean logical and factual thinking alone. This doesn’t include any feeling of “good” or “bad”. Only the ability that e.g. enables you to solve a mathematical task at school.

Your emotions are programmed by the premises you hold, consciously or subconsciously.  How do you identify what exists in reality to BE “interesting” or “worth pursuing?” 

By the quality of experience, i.e. the quality of the sensation I feel. This can be pleasant in many ways or painful.

By wielding your reason on the evidence of your senses.  Your reason can tell you, as you said, “true or false?”, “right or wrong?”  You have no choice but to feel that SOMETHING is good for you or ill, but WHAT it is must be identified by your reason.  Without identification no emotional response can exist.

And without emotional response it would all be boring, wouldn’t it? This makes the emotion the main thing, the essence of the enjoyment. What would everything be without the emotional sensation? Uninteresting.

Talking about identification prior to emotional response, I can’t remember to have had things like “clear cut face”, “blonde hair”, “brunette hair”, “silky skin”, “tiny lips” or anything else directly in my brain before feeling attracted by a beautiful girl, all though all these things more or less have often been neccessary for the sensation to occur. It is the image as a whole that causes the sensation, without being aware of anything in abstraction in my brain.

Emotions are instant evaluations.  If properly tied to reality by consciously-identified premises and principles that you judge, in reason, to be correct, they assist you tremendously in the task of living your life; instead of having to pull up every fact of your knowledge about a subject to evaluate it, you receive, by means of a sensation, everything you need to know.

There you are, “by means of a sensation”.

50

We use our knowledge of the human condition, IOW, we  deduce that a right to life is a virtual absolute based on our knowledge of the human condition, ie, ALL mentally stable people want to live, our physiology is geared towards living.

Knowledge of the human condition should be the basis of any objective ethics.

That’s right, but adding that all people are selfish in nature, i.e. they value their own life each, one could also continue arguing that not all people need the constitution of rights as long as they know they are protected by a group large enough to defend them against enemies. But that would lead to a hobbesian world picture.

What about the human drive for rightousness and selfjustification, the desire for “freedom of guilt” (with being guilty = having destroyed his means of survival)? Would that be an alternative?

51

Our physiology is geared towards living.

Say what? Our physiology is geared towards life in the conditions on land on this planet. Even then, it’s not geared towards enabling us to live in the depths of the Sahara or the frigid wastelands of the Antarctic. It is not physiology that provides man with a means of survival, it is the use of his rational faculty.

52

What about the human drive for rightousness and selfjustification, the desire for “freedom of guilt” (with being guilty = having destroyed his means of survival)? Would that be an alternative?

Can’t say I entirely understand what you’re saying here Bobby, but IMO the assignment of the right to life is a basic fundamental of any meaningful and automatically objective ethical system/doctrine, ie, once we’ve decided that humans have the right to life, we then have to decide the implications of that and cater to those implications{the right to freedom and productiveness}.

53

Say what?  Our physiology is geared towards life in the conditions on land on this planet.  Even then, it’s not geared towards enabling us to live in the depths of the Sahara or the frigid wastelands of the Antarctic.  It is not physiology  that provides man with a means of survival, it is the use of his rational faculty.

Madam, telling me that I have to ecologically qualify my statements amongst this forum would seem redundant to me.

I said that our physiology is geared towards life, I didn’t say anything about the intellectual quality of our life, ie, a child raised on a diet of food, exercise and minimal emotional/intellectual contact will still function physiologically, proving that we are geared towards living by virture of our physico/chemical properties.

Objectivism will maximize the totality of one’s life.

54

Hi Bobby,

all your questions and all the issues you raise have been adressed by professional Objectivist philosophers. The best among them is Dr. Leonard Peikoff. His book “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” is a systematic presentation of the philosophy this forum was created to discuss. It is difficult to discuss these ideas with someone who has next to no knowledge of what these ideas are (I didn’t either before I actually read the books by Ayn Rand or Peikoff). So I suggest to you that you pick it up from amazon for a mere 13 USD, or used for 6 USD, please see:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai…=glance&s=books

Dr. Peikoff has devoted his whole life to learning the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and Ayn Rand was also his teacher and mentor. This is now available for 6 USD - and your own effort in reading the book.

You seem to be genuinly interested in philosophy and Objectivism, so I suggest you buy and read the book. Ask yourself: What is your time worth? You can spend 1 year on this discussion forum trying to learn what we non-prosessional hobby-philosophers think about the various aspects of Objectivism, and still not learn as much as you could by reading this one book for say, one week. It is understanding and knowledge I gather you seek, not discussion for the sake of discussion. So, why not save your valuable time and go directly to the source? and avoid unnecessary confusions discussing with other non-professionals? It is difficult enough for us students of Objectivism to discuss ideas with each other, but at least we have, or some have, read the works that we talk about. But discussing them with someone who has not read them, is next to impossible, at least for me.

Then, later on we can talk about the nature of reason and emotion, their relationship and role in cognition (perhaps after you read the section on “Emotions as a Product of Ideas”, in the chapter on “Reason” in the book referred to above?).

You will be surprised at the view Objectivism has on reason and emotion and I think you will be amply rewarded in reading this book. I know I was.

55

Hi Bobby,

all your questions and all the issues you raise have been adressed by professional Objectivist philosophers…

Well, maybe you’re right, maybe I should read some of Rand’s philosophy first. But are you sure Peikhoff’s book is the right one to start with? How about a book from Rand herself? How about “Philosophy - Who Needs It?”? Wouldn’t that be better? Or should I be reading “Atlas Shrugged” at the same time?

[Removed excessive quoting. - GC]

56

Well, maybe you’re right, maybe I should read some of Rand’s philosophy first. But are you sure Peikhoff’s book is the right one to start with? How about a book from Rand herself? How about “Philosophy - Who Needs It?”? Wouldn’t that be better? Or should I be reading “Atlas Shrugged” at the same time?

Right, reading Atlas first then the formal non-fiction and systematic presentation after that, makes sense.

Also, the people at ARI has given this some thought and provided a suggested reading list, see www.aynrand.org

Good reading, I sure enjoyed reading Atlas the first time and hoope you will too.

All the best,

Harald

57

Bobby.

IMO, Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is a good start, especially as it’s only 165 pages, which means you get a great overview{plus some hardcore explanations} which you could read over the weekend if you’re keen enough.

I’ve just ordered OPAR, 500 pages, so that should do the trick, IOW, once you’ve got the basic principles, you shouldn’t really need endless examples, you should be able to duplicate many of the analogies/examples that Rand created herself.

If you’re a youngster, just ask your parents that you’d like them to buy you two popular philosophy books, I’m sure they won’t object{hopefully, lol}.

58

Done merging. There turned out to be fewer threads on this particular topic than I thought; almost all of the rights threads are about property instead, or some fine application of said rights that doesn’t deserve to be smooged all in one thread.