According to objectivism’s proposition for government, would it be illegal to torture a retarded, 2-year-old orphan in the privacy of one’s own home? Does a retarded, 2-year-old orphan have rational faculty?
A retarded 2 year old orphan is a human being with rights, and that’s all that matters, so no.
Was X behaving immorally (according to objectivism)?
I find the fact that you started a thread to discuss the morality of some action to be hilariously ironic.
You are a DETERMINIST!!! Right??? 
Morality deals with the choices humans make. You don’t believe in choice. You think we are just like animals:
Humans are animals.
You aren’t actually going to judge some torturer’s actions are you? He had no choice in the matter. He had to torture that dog, right? You don’t propose to punish him for something he had no control over do you? That would be like punishing someone because of the sunrise. Could he have chosen not to torture the dog? Not according to a true determinist.
So maybe you are not a determinist, you do seem to believe that we have a choice:
(I’m purposely cherry picking the parts I disagree with rather than the majority of the book that I do agree with.)
I mean if you have the ability to cherry pick, then you are choosing to focus on some things and not others.
And I don’t understand how you can agree with some parts and disagree with others? How? Did you make some judgement about some parts of the book? No, that can’t be, you didn’t actually evaluate the book, you had to agree with the parts you agree with and you had to disagree with the parts you disagree with, you had no choice in the matter. So then why would we care to know whether you disagree or not? It makes no difference one way or the other, it had to be that way. You aren’t saying that some parts are true and others false, right? Is there such a thing as truth? How do you know? What does “truth” mean? How does one discover the truth? By what process? Is it possible to be wrong?
So, according to objectivism, man has a right to torture a dog? Interesting. According to objectivism, man has the right for himself not to even be pushed, yet the right to mercilessly torture an animal as he pleases, so long as it’s declared as his “property?”
You don’t seem to understand what the reason for rights is.
If you claim rational faculty as the difference between man and a chimpanzee, then what purely logical, unemotional grounds can you declare it morally unacceptable (according to objectivism) for a retarded, 2-year-old orphan to be owned as property? Any?
On the grounds that the latter is a man, while the former isn’t. Do you really think that that statement relies on emotion? Which emotion?
According to objectivism’s proposition for government, would it be illegal to torture a retarded, 2-year-old orphan in the privacy of one’s own home? Does a retarded, 2-year-old orphan have rational faculty?
No, and of course.
No, and of course.
…I hope you meant that YES it would be illegal, and that of course the child has a rational faculty.
…I hope you meant that YES it would be illegal, and that of course the child has a rational faculty.
Yes, that’s what I mean. I misread he question.
A retarded 2 year old orphan is a human being with rights, and that’s all that matters, so no.
Can you explain, by logic alone, leaving all whims out, why a retarded orphan cannot be owned? What rational faculty does a retarded, 2-year-old orphan have that a complex chimpanzee does not? In the last chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand thought that assertions without logic are insufficient. Perhaps at 2 years old a child may have more advanced cognition than a chimpanzee, so I should revise this to a 1-month-old, retarded baby. My point is simply that if a human at any point in development has less reasoning ability than an advanced chimpanzee, and Objectivism holds that a human has rights because of rational faculty, precisely where is the logic in that? Anyone can claim it is an axiom that a baby deserves rights over a chimpanzee, but what I like about Ayn Rand is that she finds claiming something as an axiom as insufficient. I like how she tries to look strictly at the logical reasoning behind something.
Thanks. I enjoy hearing your thoughts.
On the grounds that the latter is a man, while the former isn’t. Do you really think that that statement relies on emotion? Which emotion?
Well, you haven’t provided a logical reason (yet?), and if you consider it axiomatic without logic to support it, could it be anything but a whim?
Let’s examine the structure of:
X is true because X’s truth is logical. Why is it logical? Because it is. You don’t see why? Really?
Let’s try plugging something else in for X:
The Koran statement is true because the Koran statement is logical. Why is it logical? Because it is. You don’t see why? Really?
If you say a 1-month-old, retarded baby has rights because it is a human, and an animal with more advanced cognition does not because it’s an animal, you have not explained why on purely logical grounds. You have just asserted a conclusion without presenting an argument to support it.
People who argue for taxes (for the record, I dislike the idea of any taxation whatsoever) sometimes assert their conclusions that “of course we need taxes,” as if it requires no justification.
Thanks.
(I wasn’t sure whether I should double-post or edit because my last post was so long ago that it was probably read by people. Sorry.)
Can you explain, by logic alone, leaving all whims out, why a retarded orphan cannot be owned? What rational faculty does a retarded, 2-year-old orphan have that a complex chimpanzee does not? In the last chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand thought that assertions without logic are insufficient. Perhaps at 2 years old a child may have more advanced cognition than a chimpanzee, so I should revise this to a 1-month-old, retarded baby. My point is simply that if a human at any point in development has less reasoning ability than an advanced chimpanzee, and Objectivism holds that a human has rights because of rational faculty
You are misunderstanding the Objectivist position. Objectivist ethics assigns rights to men because, unlike all other animals, men have the capacity to reason. The existence of someone not yet fully developed, or less intelligent, does not have any bearing on the principle. They still have the capacity to reason to some extent, or can be expected to develop their ability to reason after some time.
Men are the only entities which have that capacity, so only men ought to be treated in accordance with the principle of individual rights. The reason for doing so is entirely selfish, men have the capacity to reciprocate, and treat me the same way, not to mention they might be useful trading partners. Treating men as property, on the other hand, would be quite unwise, in the longterm, and would mean destroying their rational mind (potentially the mind of someone who could cure cancer or develop a cheap source of energy). If there were other intelligent creatures, I would consider treating them according to the same principle of individual rights, if at all possible.
But there are no such creatures, so I don’t. It would make no difference whatsoever if I did treat a chimpanzee according to that principle. It would still proceed to do exactly what it does, which is alternate between flinging its excrement at people passing by and biting their faces off. It does not have the ability now, or the capacity to ever in the future grow to understand the principle of individual rights, and treat humans in accordance with it, thus becoming a value to me.
So I treat chimpanzees the way it is selfish to treat them. As property. I don’t torture them, but when it comes to other people’s rights, I know better than to deny their right to their own property. If I did that, who’s to say they can’t turn around and deny me some of my rights, because their feelings are hurt by something I own or say? How would I go about explaining that it’s the rational thing to do to respect my rights, after I just chose to not respect theirs? It doesn’t mean I support the torture of animals, but I’m not ready to forfeit my own rights based on the feeling of revulsion such a sight might cause me. Not because I like that person, but because I put my claim to my own rights ahead of my emotions.
My point is simply that if a human at any point in development has less reasoning ability than an advanced chimpanzee
I’m not aware of any chimpanzee with any reasoning ability, or capacity for complex abstract thought. If you can show me any creature that is capable of ever understanding what rights are, and could develop the ability to choose to respect mine, I’d be happy to treat it the same way I treat any man, and would be entirely opposed to treating it as property. However, the closest anyone can come to that is to buy a chimpanzee, keep it as his property, and train it, through repeated reward and punishment as opposed to the sharing of rational ideas, to not harm humans and perform menial tasks. And then, if it bites his face off while acting purely on instinct, put it to death.
Men are the only entities which have that capacity, so only men ought to be treated in accordance with the principle of individual rights.
I have no doubt that most men do, but all men?
Does every last human alive have, or at some point will have, more advanced cognition than every last chimpanzee that exists?
I have no doubt that most men do, but all men?
Does every last human alive have, or at some point will have, more advanced cognition than every last chimpanzee that exists?
I don’t know about all men and all chimpanzees. If I did have the ability to know everything about every instance of every category of entities, I wouldn’t need concepts at all, or any philosophy or thinking for that matter. I would be a perfect robot who knows everything about everyone, past, present and future.
But since I don’t, I use the method of induction to form my view of the world, which means that I form the concept “man” based on the men I have encountered or learned about from others, and the concept “chimpanzee” based on chimpanzees I encountered and learned about, and then from those concepts, and all the others I formed over the years, I deduce principles to guide my interactions with them. All very logical. It is how human intelligence works, and it is the only way it works.
Without it, we’d all be paralyzed every time we encountered a new entity, since we would not know anything about it. (I mean literally, nothing, for instance we wouldn’t know if another man we never met, dressed in a suit, reaching towards us is trying to shake hands or attack us, or if he’s about to talk or bite – the reason why we know is the concept man, which tells us they’re usually civilized, just as the concept lion tells us they’re usually vicious – even though some men aren’t civilized, and there’s even the occasional lion which is not gonna attack you)
If you liked “The Virtue of Selfishness” because it tries to be logical at every step, I bet you would like “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” (where all this stuff is described) even more, especially since it will also help you place the methods Rand uses in Virtue of S. in perspective.
I have no doubt that most men do, but all men?
Does every last human alive have, or at some point will have, more advanced cognition than every last chimpanzee that exists?
Since having the capacity of reason is an essential part of the concept of ‘man,’ anyone without that capacity wouldn’t fall under the concept of ‘man’. Part of what indicates if someone has the capacity of reason is if they can form concepts. Although a person who is severely retarded may be functioning at a suboptimal level, they still have the ability to form concepts. A case could be made that people in a permanently vegetative state no longer fall under the concept ‘man’ since they are no longer able to think and form concepts, so therefore they would have no rights. Just to be clear, the fact that something has no rights does not justify torturing or killing it.
I find the fact that you started a thread to discuss the morality of some action to be hilariously ironic.
OK.
I find the fact that you started a thread to discuss the morality of some action to be hilariously ironic.
You are a DETERMINIST!!! Right???
YES!!! Right!!! lol I meant that light-hearted. I’m glad you used that punctuation. It makes me feel like I’m not the only one who gets excited in discussions.
Despite the possibility of true random quantum indeterminacy (which would not necessitate choice and physicists like Weinberg find it a less preferable explanation), I don’t see any viable contender to determinism.
You think we are just like animals.
I don’t think we are just like animals. We are animals. We are in the anamalia kingdom. I was stating a biological fact.
You aren’t actually going to judge some torturer’s actions are you? He had no choice in the matter.
Well, I had no choice but to judge him because I’m determined too. But that’s actually irrelevant to my main response to your main point. The semantic, metaphysical truth operates at such a vastly complex level that the truth is entirely impractical. In practice, I implicitly speak of deliberations as action driven by frontal lobe activity of someone with a reasonably functional brain. (That’s at least a rough sketch of a description for now. I might be able to find a loophole in the semantics of that I tried hard enough.) The difference between me and Ayn Rand is that I’m not claiming moral truths can be discovered via metaphysical philosophy. I am realizing this topic alone could branch off into a huge discussion. Maybe I’ll append to a determinism thread.
That last argument you implied is actually similar to one used by Christians a lot. Natural selection can select for brains that model reality better than others. I have a pretty lengthy response for that and I’ll post when I have more time.
Would a moderator change the name of the thread to its actual topic please?
I just finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness, and despite the first chapter, I loved most of it. It begged a few questions, so I start with these:
A man, X, spots another man, Y, sadistically torturing a dog and realizes it has been going on for weeks straight. X initiates force against Y by pushing him out of the way and allowing the dog to run away.
Should Y be allowed to call the police to initiate force against X for violating his individual right? Was X behaving immorally (according to objectivism)?
Do you remember this part from your reading?:
Chapter 3: The Ethics of Emergencies
by Ayn Rand
(pieces from page 39)
The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great
many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as:
“Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning,
B)
trapped in
a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails
over an abyss?”
Consider the implications of that approach. If a man accepts the ethics of
altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree
of his acceptance):
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
amorality
[snip]
…
By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue
of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or
good will among men. …
[snip]
The men who accept that dichotomy but choose its other side, the ultimate
products of altruism’s dehumanizing influence, are those psychopaths who
do not challenge altruism’s basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion
against self-sacrifice by announcing that
they are totally indifferent to
anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man
or a dog left
mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind).
Most men do not accept or practice either side of altruism’s viciously
false dichotomy, but its result is a total intellectual chaos on the issue of
proper human relationships and on such questions as the nature, purpose or
extent of the help one may give to others. Today, a great many well-
meaning, reasonable men do not know how to identify or conceptualize the
moral principles that motivate their love, affection or good will, and can find
no guidance in the field of ethics, which is dominated by the stale platitudes
of altruism.
So… I would just ask… Is this a scenario you’ve come across in your life, or one you’ve heard of happening on occasion? Are you trying to solve a particular ethical dilemma in relation to animal cruelty? If not… why this approach to ethics?
There should be absolutely zero question about whether a sadist dog torturer is acting morally in terms of the Objectivists ethic.
I just finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness, and despite the first chapter, I loved most of it. It begged a few questions, so I start with these:
A man, X, spots another man, Y, sadistically torturing a dog and realizes it has been going on for weeks straight. X initiates force against Y by pushing him out of the way and allowing the dog to run away.
Should Y be allowed to call the police to initiate force against X for violating his individual right? Was X behaving immorally (according to objectivism)?
The term “minarchism” isn’t a good term. It’s not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.
There should be absolutely zero question about whether a sadist dog torturer is acting morally in terms of the Objectivists ethic.
Precisely. But moral and illegal are not the same thing. Ethics and politics are not the same discipline. While it’s immoral to torture an animal for fun, it should not be illegal, whereas assaulting a human being regardless of claimed provocation is properly illegal. There is no question of how the use of property “affects” you as long as it doesn’t violate your rights. The only effect on you that the law is properly concerned with is some kind of violation of your rights. A man torturing a dog (assuming some other factor is not involved) is not violating your rights.
Now, as for why a proto-rational human (or one without the ability to ever become fully rational) has rights, that’s based on a complex logical integration regarding the function of principles in human cognition.
Keep in mind that the fact you are not entitled to use force does not mean that you have no options. Pull out a video camera and inform the person that you’re putting them up on YouTube. In a fully free society, their bank would be free to foreclose on their house, their boss to fire them, the local grocer to refuse to sell to them, etc.
While it’s immoral to torture an animal for fun, it should not be illegal…
On property that you own unconditionally, this is true.
However, if I have sold you land in part of a larger development that I own (and for some reason the determinist can explain to us, dog torturing is a big problem in free societies) then you would have most definitely agreed prior to my “no dog torture” clause in the contract. And therefore, the breach of contract would be enforceable.
Logic exists independent of government force. A society of rational Objectivists would not be a near utopia only marred by dog torturers. 
If a group of people want to live in a dog torture free zone, in a free society they would be able to arrange that situation.
Human infants, criminals, and the mentally retarded have the possibility of developing rational faculties.
It is important to treat a man as though he is conscious enough to be influenced by rational means? If you believe you can not find an objective resolution you will subversively control the situation.
Examples…Find out what the dog beater hates, and taunt him with it, hoping he will strike you. Follow the man home, and steal the dog when he is out. These kinds of reactions do not solve anything.
Emotion comes after reason, your emotion could be telling you that there is a reason for it, but it is up to you to justify your emotions objectively. It would be good to present an argument against torture. What is the core reason for repulsion of torture? Can torture be justified Objectively? Decipher the problem clearly. Spread the right kind of ideas.
Are you able to give the dog a reasoned argument for it to obey its master? Can you present a convincing argument to the owner of his own self-interest in training a dog that obeys without torture?
Excessive force is not the optimum for bringing out the greatest potential in the dog, it will create a skittish neurotic dog that makes the same mistakes again and again because it doesn’t know how to behave in a way that will appease its master.
Is the owner torturing the dog for his own pleasure? Is this rationally justifiable or whim worship? What does it mean about the dog owners sense of life? Is he intelligent enough to realize the difference between dogs and humans or will he end up treating humans with a similar disrespect? Many murderers have admitted to torturing animals in their youth.
Perhaps the torture of the dog is superfluous to the owner, and he is doing it to get a reaction from you. He then proceeds to go down the road every day followed by a hundred protesters as he beats the dog, knowing that no one will force him to stop. This doesn’t seem like a very likely scenario in a rationally dominated society. As others have stated, there are many ways to rationally deal with immoral behavior without using physical force.
Ayn Rand had pets of her own that she probably felt affectionate toward, and wouldn’t want to see tortured… though… cats won’t put up with being beaten the way dogs will.
The term “minarchism” isn’t a good term. It’s not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.
Minarchism implies anarchy? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I realize this is Wikipedia but it appears to reasonably cite sources:
In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism.[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state’s only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.[2][3] (Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.) Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil,[1][4] but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.
A minarchist state would therefore consist of very few branches/parts of government, in the most minimal way - such as, for an example, courts (but not necessarily). Generally, minarchists identify themselves within the broader propertarian libertarian movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Even after what I quoted, it elaborates on how it differs from market anarchy. It sounds like Ayn Rand’s ideal government vision perfectly fits into that description of minarchism.
Human infants, criminals, and the mentally retarded have the possibility of developing rational faculties.
To paraphrase Sam Harris: Every cell in your body with a nucleus, given the right manipulation, is a potential human being.
Examples…Find out what the dog beater hates, and taunt him with it, hoping he will strike you. Follow the man home, and steal the dog when he is out. These kinds of reactions do not solve anything.
Ignoring the situation or attempting to verbally persuade a sadist/sociopath seems at least equally doubtful.
This doesn’t seem like a very likely scenario in a rationally dominated society.
The majority of the world is religious. What does that say about how rationally dominated humanity is?