RoR: Forum

Luke,

"I would walk past the starving kitten in the woods and not assist it. Do you still want to know me?"

I certainly don't expect everyone to have a personal fondness for cats that I have. But I think this statement still holds:

"I don't believe you can have the extreme high regard for human beings required for objectivism to resonate within you and simultaneously have the ability to abandon a human child to die."

I don't expect you to give up your life to save a strange child, however.

I have gained value from your articles and insights on this website and your personal websites, I respect you and your accomplishments. Yes, I still want to know you.

Post 201

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 8:40pm

Pete, you asked:

Is it merely the rights of children?

Yup. That is all I was discussing, nothing more. Ever since the discussion with Luke that prompted this.

The trouble is that you start talking about something, then a person goes off on you before the issue even gets to be an issue. (They call this a kneejerk in the jargon.) Then you are accused in public of being fascist and crap like that. Then more people pop up with more kneejerks.

I will admit that there is a bit of tension that is longstanding between me and the site owner (but not from my end - I happen to like the guy, some of his essays, and I think he made one hell of a software program, something I admire tremendously). But the kneejerk atmosphere and blind constant accusations of Altruism! Altruism! Altruism! show clearly that there is very little intent to understand by many here.

So in this kind of environment, it takes some time to get the proper words out. Hell, even the example I was trying to use did not pop out of my mind completely perfect in every detail. It started by Luke badgering, "Give me an example. Give me an example. Give me an example." This was done in an increasingly nervous tone of voice. So I thought up one on the spot. The conversation went downhill from there. Him trying to say that he had the right starve a child to death, so long is it was not his child, and me saying that I would have his hide if he ever did something like that on purpose.

No matter how you phrase it, starving children to death is a BAD THING.

Back to law. If you see my previous posts you will see that I am almost tired of repeating repeating repeating that I was restricting my case to one specific instance. (If we can't get the principles straight for one instance, how in hell are we going to expand the concepts to apply to other cases?)

I also stated that the study of rights was complex. Not kneejerk simple. I even showed where Rand said this. Yet some of the louder voices here kept clamoring for kneejerk simple. So OK. I go kneejerk simple too.

I cannot condone murder as a right. Murder is evil.

Anyway, a law of this nature would need very careful study. You are correct about that. Getting it wrong would be disastrous for individual rights under any government. Power tends to grow in the hands of a government. (Actually, I don't know the USA criminal statutes for murder by starvation, but I would bet that there are plenty on the books.)

Still, the fact that so many people around here so passionately want to have the RIGHT to starve a kid to death makes me all the more want to have a LAW prohibiting starving kids to death. And where there is no law, I will protect the child's life and punish his killer as much as I can (within objective knowledge). I would expect any man who claims to own a pair of testicles to do the same.

How that kind of law would impact other rights, though, and how to align things morally are issues that need careful study. I was only talking about one case so far - a life-and-death emergency case involving a child and a non-sacrificed adult - and that case arose only because of a person who claimed that he did have a right to destroy another life through willful negligence. I do not agree with that.

In my thinking, nothing will ever justify having a RIGHT to murder a child by starvation. Nothing.

Michael

Post 202

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:00pm

Joe Rowlands,

For the record, I finally came across where I came up with the idea of the pyramid. (Remember I said that it was in connection with OPAR by Peikoff?) Also, for the record, remember that I said that the more I think about it, the less I like it?

It is in an essay by Luke Setzer about OPAR on his site.

Here is the pyramid Luke put together:

Here is how he starts the divisions of the book in his discussion:

BRANCH I:

CHAPTER ONE: REALITY

As I said, I did not originate the idea.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/21, 5:39am)

Post 203

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:14pm

Michael, do you know the difference between positive rights and negative rights? One means "freedom from others non-consensual destruction or use of your own body and property" the other means "others must provide for the needs of Y"

The baby's only property is its own body. You are arguing for positive rights. That is why you are being attacked so passionately, and that is why people are only supporting you through anonymous sanctions. You are attacking the philosophy that enables the producers to live and enjoy there lives. You are surrounded by producers on this forum.

There are a great number of negative rights/individual rights supporters/capitalists here, you guys are great! :)

Post 204

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:31pm

Dean Michael,

So, I know that there are those who don't care for others' freedoms at all. These are the type you described, and we both know to disregard them and to protect yourself and others from them. I am writing about those who are okay with legislating degrees of sacrificed freedom, because it goes to help someone; those who value liberty, but feel it's necessary for people to give up just a small portion in aid. In the spirit of the deep-down altriust, these people probably do uphold liberty--but halfway; they uphold productivity--but not for everyone; God spits them out.

Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. [Galt's Speech]

So what could one say to the person who only claims a fraction of a man's life, and who sputters at being called anti-life? Those who think that only a little theft is morally permissible? Those who are fine with just a little initiation of force? They may claim to not be negating man's rights, but just borrowing, just taking....a bit.

And Dean, Jason, as far as the economic issues, I was thinking that there were some principles I hadn't realized when I formed the thoughts. Thanks very much for pointing them out and showing me the next steps. What you two wrote will be helpful...in the morning when I'm not so sleepy. Yeah, it (especially Quintana's) is nearly incomprehensible now [dying for want of sleep], so I'll have to read and reply to those later. Thank you.

Michael Allen Yarbrough
PS: no, I just like the analogy of a furious God rejecting his very own children for not being sufficiently kickass, for wavering in indecision long enough for the Reasonous Authority to lay down the GED slap. The GED Slap? Hitting you so hard that I have to leave school to get my GED. In another STATE.

(Edited by Mike Yarbrough on 2/20, 9:34pm)

Post 205

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:41pm

Mike -- After rereading that last post I think I probably laid it on a bit thick. I condensed a lot of heavy concepts into a single post. You are welcome to email me for a less technical explanation if you don't get what I was saying. Sorry about that.

- Jason

Post 206

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:19pm

Dean,

A child has a right to be cared for based on "fact of nature." Read Rand on this. It's in a post if mine above. Just because a parent is not present in an emergency, but another adult is, that child's right simply does not evaporate. Especially when the situation gets to a life-and-death level (the mother of all rights). I get the feeling that the child's right is being blanked out of existence and treated as not worthy of consideration by the others here.

Luke specifically told me to my face that, in an emergency, if it is not his baby, and it dies while Luke has plenty enough that no real sacrifice would be made, the child's slow starvation is not his problem. (I said I would have the hide of someone who did that - that jail would be too generous - and the conversation sort of deteriorated...)

I say that this is one case where it is his problem, based on the infant being a citizen with rights, and the adult having no equivalent right to life violated.

It is merely a survival thing until help can be found. A man who withheld food in that condition is a murderer.

There is no one-size fits all emergencies. Once again, Rand even said that the issue of rights is complex, not simple.

Michael

Post 207

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:57am

I'm back,

Here is the thing. Michael is now saying this is just about rights. I say that the whole discussion is a red herring.

The last question Michael wanted an answer about was a very specific emergency situation (babe alone in the woods.) The question itself is so specific that it means little beyond itself. I read somewhere about an early interview with either NB or LP and Ayn Rand. They gave Rand a scenario and asked her to apply her ethics to the situtaion which seemed like a loop hole or inconsistency. She answered and then they revised the siutation a bit to deal with her answer and asked again. After a few rounds of this, Rand was said to say "Can't you think in principle?" Question like this babe in the woods are a waste of time. I'm convinced that anyone here would help the child out of the emergency. This has nothing to do with rights or government force. The worst thing you can see is a case of someone getting you to answer one question and claiming it means more than it does (my previous archery analogy.)

Michael, you should go to the ARI website and sign up. View LPs intro to Objectivism videos, especially the QA session. It will make things more clear.

Suppose a child is abandoned. The parents are dead or can't be found. Further suppose that no relatives, friends, neighbors, no one wants to help the child. That's right, no private charities, no compassionate person. No one. Does the government have the right to force you to take care of the child?

The answer is no. And the situation would never happen, so it's meaningless in any case.

If you think the answer to this is yes, then please explain.

So Michael, think long and hard about this one. If you just post and "agree to disagree" or a "Rand said," or "your just wrong" thing you'll just confirm my earlier conclusions. So, produce an arguemnt or admit you're wrong.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/21, 6:18am)

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/21, 6:19am)Grammar grammar grammar

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/21, 6:21am)

Post 208

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:12am

MSK noted in Post 202 my notion of a philosophical pyramid to represent OPAR. I had created that diagram long before I had seen Peikoff's video lecture at the ARI site in which he used a different diagram to illustrate the five branches. His looked like a big X with metaphysics and epistemology at the top on an equal level, ethics in the center, and politics and aesthetics at the bottom on an equal level. So I will acknowledge the shortcomings of my diagram. I confess a feeling of disappointment that Peikoff did not include any diagrams in his book. I would have found that highly useful. I will consider correcting the page when I have some time.

MSK noted in Posts 201 and 206 that the live conversation that took place in the Steak 'n' Shake restaurant after our Return of the Primitive discussion on the night of Saturday, February 18, 2006 "went downhill from" his statement that he would legally penalize a person who allowed the child of another to starve. He also claimed that I was "badgering" in a "nervous tone of voice." Naturally, when I learned that a person I considered on the side of freedom was actually on the side of fascism, I found it unsettling. Yes, I did call him a fascist to his face when he explained himself. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade.

Another person at the table, Jack, took my side on this and we both confronted MSK on his mistaken thinking. Jack has a Ph.D. in economics, taught the subject for years, has a number of published works under his belt, has long advocated laissez-faire, and thoroughly understands the distinction between the moral and the legal. Simply put, I respect his opinions more than those of MSK. The others at the table were involved in other conversations and so had no comment.

Jack and I both agreed that social ostracism, not jail, would be the proper response to such a person. At no time did I say that abandoning the child represented the good. Alas, MSK keeps conflating "the good" with "the legal" and "the bad" with "the illegal."

MSK contends:

Back to law. If you see my previous posts you will see that I am almost tired of repeating repeating repeating that I was restricting my case to one specific instance. (If we can't get the principles straight for one instance, how in hell are we going to expand the concepts to apply to other cases?)

This is either concrete-bound thinking or a trick to get us to yield to this "one specific instance." Once he gets us to yield this once, he can then expand the allegedly adduced principle to many other instances, leading to fascism. I will not yield. If that means losing him as a friend, so be it. I do not want to be friends with fascists, no matter how "caring" they may claim to be.

Post 209

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:22am

Michael,

I don't agree with something just because Ayn Rand said it. If she takes your position on infants/babies/children/anyone, then I disagree. But I doubt she takes your position. You proposed this situation:

Luke specifically told me to my face that, in an emergency, if it is not his baby, and it dies while Luke has plenty enough that no real sacrifice would be made

I bet Ayn Rand would take this position:

It would be despicable, but not criminal, to not help the baby. Since you say "no real sacrifice would be made", whether to help the baby was completely independent on his ability to achieve his goals, or helping the baby would actually help him achieve his goals. So then not only is he despicable, but he may very well also be passively allowing another chance for him to help himself achieve his goals evaporate-- and he is doing something immoral to his own life and happiness.

Despicable yes, maybe immoral to his own life, but not criminal.

It very well IS in the baby's nature to need others to provide food, shelter, and water. But Any Rand surely must have recognized that one individual does not intrinsically value or benefit from helping some baby. (I am not quoting Rand, I am thinking of what Rand might say.)

Look Michael: it is in everyone and every life forms nature to need me to help keep it alive and healthy. An extremely large portion of that population could live much longer if I were to just give them a little of my resources now. To what extent do you think I should be forced to make sure they get what they need to survive?

How about this situation:
We have the baby in the forest who is going to die in ten minutes of starvation. A man sees the baby, and realize it will die in ten minutes. This man has a backpack full of baby food and water. A woman beside him has a gun. The baby wants to be fed (apparently,, since the baby is crying). The man doesn't want to feed the baby, instead, the man wants to chuck his backpack off a nearby cliff. The man is a producer, and any crimes he may have committed in the past have all been resolved with justice.

What actions are in the woman's best interest? Compare: Is she the mother? Does she know the mother and like her? Does she know the man and like him? Does she know the baby and like the baby?

Do you know the result of forcing men to give up what they have gained through production, trade, and donation?

Post 210

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:30am

Michael you have mis-characterized and maligned Luke intentionally. Luke has said nothing about murder by starvation. In fact nowhere on this disgraceful thread has anyone advocated murder, or willful neglect. What most are advocating, is that they be free from State *coercion* to assist starving children.

You have repeatedly said you would have the "hide" of anyone who did nothing while a child starved. There are, as I write this, children starving in Florida. You are wasting precious time posting long diatribes when you should be out feeding and caring for them. If you are a man of your word, then please, start with your *own* hide.

Do you see the ridiculous nature of this logic?

John

Post 211

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:44am

If I were the woman:
I would ask the man if he would give me some food and water before chucks the backpack.
If he says yes, hurray!
If he says no, I would ask the man what he would trade for some food and water.
If he names something I would want to part with, I would trade. If not, I I would try to negotiate for something I would want to part with.
If he would not name anything that I would want to part with, or he is absolutely unwilling to trade, then I would beg and plead.
If he still didn't give me the food and water, and he proceeded to chuck the backpack off the cliff, I would tell everyone, and I probably would never trade with him again.

For me to draw my gun and force him to give me the food would be an initiated attack on his body and his property. I would not do that.

Post 212

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 7:45am

Folks,

Here are the principles. Ethan, you wrote:

Question like this babe in the woods are a waste of time. I'm convinced that anyone here would help the child out of the emergency. This has nothing to do with rights or government force.

Waste of time? Isn't that a bit of a sidestep? (Evasion, maybe?) I never even wanted to go there. The whole conversation started because I stated that using the starvation of children was a stupid way to sell Objectivism. Then Luke proceeded to justify his position precisely with that.

What are the principles? The philosophical principles?

Ethics:
Individual rights are ethically absolute.
The individual life of a person is his highest selfish value.
"Species solidarity" (Rand's term) is a proper selfish value.

Politics:
Individual rights are protected by the government.
No man may initiate the use of force against another.
The use of force is delegated to a government monopoly.
Retaliation by force against initiated use of force is ethically proper.
All adult citizens have individual rights that are protected by the government.
All infant citizens have individual rights that are protected by the government.

Ethics-Politics connection (rights):
The right to life is the most basic right of all.

Any doubts so far? Those are basic Objectivism principles. I certainly do not consider it to be a "waste of time" in applying them to a hypothetical example.

In our particular example (i.e., how to be stupid in selling Objectivism to the world through starving children to death), the exercise of one right (the adult's) results in the violation of the right of another (the child's). (A VERY STRONG CASE can be made about how this is the indirect initiation of force, if you really want to go into split-hairs land.) How that gets resolved is the problem we are trying to discuss. Blanking out the right of the one violated is not good thinking. And the right being blanked-out happens to belong to a child who starves to death.

That is horrible PR for Objectivism.

And anyway, that is murder, which is a crime.

btw - John, Unfortunately I did not mischaracterize. I gave practically a verbatim quote. Luke did state (to my face) that physically withholding food from a starving infant encountered in the woods and letting him die over time was not his problem if the kid were not his. Here's how it came down. He interrupted my attempt to try to explain and understand several times with "Not my problem. Not my problem. Not my problem." Sorry, but that description is completely accurate. He then claimed that this would only be his problem if there were a biological connection to the child - and then, in that case, it would be proper for the government to punish the adult with jail. Once again, that statement from our conversation is fully accurate.

The ethical reason he gave was that the parents were the ones who produced the child, not a stranger. Thus in an emergency, the child's right-to-life (which, by definition, the child cannot exercise by himself) is not the stranger's problem.

His thoughts. Not mine. I don't agree in the event of a life-and-death emergency. I believe that the individual rights of all citizens are to be protected by the government, irrespective of biological connection. We get on really complicated grounds when we start thinking about the individual rights of orphans, for instance, and this deserves serious thought. Not just blank-out.

Ethan, I fully agree that "anyone here would help the child out of the emergency." (The people around here actually are good guys.) That still does not deal with the issue of how that child's rights get violated and how they are to be protected. If I understand you correctly, that particular issue is "a waste of time." I completely disagree.

So, in the interest of my own understanding of your position, is that correct? Do you believe that a child's right-to-life when a parent is not around is not worth considering as a legal matter? (Seriously, I want to know.) Or do you have any thoughts on how to protect that child's rights? Or do you prefer merely to leave children's right-to-life up to the goodwill of others when a parent is not around? If so, why not go whole hog and leave your own right-to-life up to the goodwill of others?

What you guys are arguing is the correctness of ignoring the child's right-to-life when the issue gets complicated. You just blank it out. Still, that does not make it go away. A is A.

Luke, I only posted the pyramid because Joe brought it up again - and he had left the impression that the pyramid idea was one of my own "stupid ideas" (his phrase, not mine). Your article was my source for that. I am glad you wish to correct it.

Michael

Post 213

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 8:24am

Michael, you asked:

So, in the interest of my own understanding of your position, is that correct? Do you believe that a child's right-to-life when a parent is not around is not worth considering as a legal matter? (Seriously, I want to know.) Or do you have any thoughts on how to protect that child's rights? Or do you prefer merely to leave children's right-to-life up to the goodwill of others when a parent is not around? If so, why not go whole hog and leave your own right-to-life up to the goodwill of others?

You first. Clearly you considered my above scenario of the abandoned child that no one wanted (repeated here:)

Suppose a child is abandoned. The parents are dead or can't be found. Further suppose that no relatives, friends, neighbors, no one wants to help the child. That's right, no private charities, no compassionate person. No one. Does the government have the right to force you to take care of the child?

Please detail why the governemnt has a legal right to force someone to take care of that child. Don't say ick. I noted that this would never happen, but you seem to think it would and therefore there should be a law. Why should there be a law and by what right should it be enforced.

Ethan

Post 214

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 8:43am

Ethan,

Why don't you use my example?

But, sure, I will answer. If there are other adults around, then because of the child's right-to-life, it is reasonable to assume that the government would be around and the child would become a ward of the state until adoption or maturity.

If there are no other adults around at all, and never will be, we have a situation where there is no society. So there obviously is no government - and the question becomes moot.

If the situation were temporary, but you are insinuating that the adult then had to "take care of the child" for an extended time, like until he grows up, then my answer is no. An obligation like that would be slavery.

If the situation were temporary (meaning only until help found them or could be found), the issue were life-and-death by starvation, the adult was the only adult around, the adult had the only source of food, there was enough food for both to survive, and the adult withheld this food until the child died, yes, I would say that this constituted the crime of murder through malicious negligence.

I would want to see that adult punished.

Your turn. I shall repeat the question.

Do you believe that a child's right-to-life when a parent is not around is not worth considering as a legal matter?

There are a few more questions, if you are interested in discussing principles and not my motivations. The topmost in my mind is a legal definition of the crime of murder by starvation. I believe the technical legal terms for this are "depraved indifference to human life" and "depraved indifference homicide."

Obviously, if these laws are on the books everywhere, there are many people who do not consider this to be a "waste of time."

If Objectivism is to make any difference in disciplining or changing these laws, then this issue is very important. Critical. Blanking out the child's right-to-life is to surrender this issue to statists by default.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/21, 8:50am)

Post 215

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:27am

Let's try a somewhat different and perhaps more realistic scenario: you're driving on a lonely road when you see someone lying on the roadside, seriously wounded and obviously the victim of an accident. There's no one else around and the odds are there won't come anyone soon. Do you have the right to drive on (it's none of my business)? I'm no legal expert, but AFAIK you are punishable by law in some (many?) countries if you drive on and do nothing further to help that victim in such a situation, and rightly so IMO.

Post 216

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:35am

Cal,

You may stop and help. Perhaps not? What if the person is merely a decoy for the theives in the woods? Perhaps this reflects paranoia, but all situtaions are not always what they seem, and in some cases being helpful can have dire personal consequences. If you were suspicious and didn't stop should you be guilty of a crime? What if you didn't stop,but called the police instead? What's legal and illegal now may not make sense Objectivly.

Ethan

Post 217

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:47am

I have followed some, not all, of the arguments here, and have noted some increasing hostility towards MSK. I have felt that for some people who post here, but even then I try to keep it in perspective. These kinds of arguments are bound to create a certain level of hostility, but in the end it is just an argument, no actual actions have been taken against anyone. This is especially true when discussing hypotheticals. If this really had taken place and someone here was involved, then the "disowning" and the like would be justified. Otherwise, try not to go off the deep end. There are too many of these "splits" in Objectivism already. Arguments should not lead to this, even the most heated ones.

Post 218

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:48am

MSK is trying to stretch "depraved indifference" beyond its normal usage. A Google search led to no formal definition I could find. Perhaps he could share a defining link with us. The few news stories I found indicated much more intimate situations, involving either family abuse or physical assaults, than the situation he describes.

Calopteryx, I object to the laws you cite mandating that a person must stop to assist an accident victim. I am not saying those laws are not on the books. I am saying that those laws should not be on the books. I also object to your assessment that government should "rightly so" punish the passers. Wrong! Such punishment flies in the face of individual liberty.

If "depraved indifference" means this, then I object to that definition of "depraved indifference."

EDIT:

Kurt wrote:

There are too many of these "splits" in Objectivism already. Arguments should not lead to this, even the most heated ones.

If I know for a fact that a person's ideas, coupled with the opportunity to act on them, would lead him to oppress me, how should I treat him?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/21, 9:51am)

Post 219

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:14am