| | I wrote, ". . . . every moral agent has the right to life, which means the right to pursue what he judges to be conducive to his survival." Jordan replied, I believe that is a misstatement of Objectivism. It's not a misstatement of Objectivism. It's exactly what Objectivism endorses. Quoting Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness, "LIfe is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action -- which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. . . . The concept of a "right" pertains only to action -- specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive -- of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice." ("Man's Rights, VOS, pp. 93, 94)
But in order to engage in self-sustaining, self-generated action, one must be free to act on one's own judgment, even when others view it as irrational or mistaken. If you are not free to act on your judgment -- if I have the authority to force you to act against it in the event of a disagreement between us -- then it is I, not you, who has "the right" to determine your behavior, in which case, you become my subject or slave.
It won't do to reply that I have the right to determine your action, if it happens to be anti-life or against your interest. Anti-life or against your interest by whose judgment -- yours or mine? Someone has to decide what course of action is appropriate in the event of a disagreement. If it isn't the actor, then it's someone else. What gives someone else the authority to make that decision if the actor himself doesn't have it? Only a double standard in which some people are masters, and others, slaves -- only a political system in which some people command and others obey. Is that the kind of society you view as an answer to racism? Just because one deems a judgment to be conducive to survival does not mean it is. I agree. And, by the same token, just become someone else deems a judgment to be conducive to your survival doesn't mean it is. Obviously, in order to be free to do what is in your objective self-interest, you must be free from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by those who disagree with you. One's life could be jeopardized from such judgment, could easily compromise one's "self-sustaining action," could undermine one's "survival requirements." Yes, and so could the bad judgment of someone else, if he or she has the right to dictate your behavior. Such bad judgment -- and racism is a product of bad judgment -- is neither necessary or sufficient for the right to life. I agree. What is necessary is the right to act on your judgment even when it is bad or mistaken. Therefore, control of one's own life is not required for one to make the best of it, if that control is irrational/immoral. Irrational or immoral by whose judgment? Yours or someone else's? Your position amounts to the assertion that you should have control over your behavior only when it is not regarded as irrational or immoral by someone else. Such control would be necessary only if every choice were actually conducive to one's life, which holds water only in a subjectivist system. Not true. You are advocating intrinsicism and calling the alternative "subjectivism." To be sure, there are objectively right and wrong choices, but someone must evaluate them as such. Someone must judge them as right or wrong. So, the question then becomes, if my judgment is at odds with yours on which choices you should make, do you have the right to act on your judgment, or do I have the right to force you to obey mine? Were you to opt for the latter, you'd be making a judgment that it is proper for me to force you to act against your judgment.
I wrote, "...If someone else has the right to determine your actions, then he or she can force you to act against your survival requirements in the event of a disagreement." But racism is not conducive to survival according to Objectivism. It is irrational and immoral, which means necessarily anti-survival. I agree. So are you saying that I, as an Objectivist, have the right to force non-Objectivists to do what I think is rational and moral? If so, then why don't they have the right to force me to do what they think is rational and moral? After all, they believe in the validity of their judgment just as much as I believe in the validity of mine. So, if I should try to control them for the sake of my values, then why shouldn't they try to control me for the sake of theirs?
I wrote, "The fundamental issue here is: do you control your life or does someone else control it? If you don't have the right to control your own life, then neither does anyone else have the right to control his. But if no one has a right to control his own life, then he cannot have the right to control the lives of others." I don't think it's too important . . . You don't think the issue of control is too important?! It's the main point of the discussion, isn't it?! but the last sentence does not follow: Lack of right to control one's own life does not imply a lack of right to control lives of others. Sure it does. If you don't have the right to control your own life, then how can you have a right to control the lives of others? The right to control your own life is a precondition for the right to control the lives others. You can't have the one without the other. More important is that you're creating a false dichotomy. None of us has complete control over her or his life. We're not omnipotent. Oh, for Pete's sake, did you really think that that's what I meant by "complete control." What I meant is complete control over one's choice of action. The question really is: What parts of one's life can and should be under our own control? Perhaps one's good judgment can and should be under one's own control. "Good" by whose judgment -- yours or someone else's?! Perhaps some bad judgment can and should also be under one's own control, as a learning tool, or if the issue is unclear, where some say the decision is bad and some don't. "Bad" by whose judgment -- your's or someone else's?! As for the issue being "unclear, where some say the decision is bad and some don't," the issue is always unclear where someone else is claiming the right to force you to act against your judgment, since he views your decision as bad whereas you obviously don't. But it seems untenable that a person can and should always be free to act on her or his own judgment, so long as it doesn't involve the initiation of force, no matter how clearly bad the judgment is. "Clearly bad," according to whom? Evidently, according to someone other than the moral agent. Indeed, there are times when I suspect we'd agree it's okay for us to intervene, like where an irrationally distraught friend has a gun pointed at his head. Is his ploy for suicide conducive to his right to life? I think not. His suicide is not conducive to the preservation of his life. But if the right to life implies the right to act on one's judgment, then it implies the right to commit suicide, whether slowly by the practice of poor health habits or quickly by a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The alternative is to surrender control of one's life to the dictates of others, which is itself irrational and immoral. Doubtful. Is there any doubt suicide is a good idea here? Doubtful to whom? You and I may not think it's a good idea, but there may be no doubt in the mind of the person who is committing suicide that it's a good idea. Nope. So if it's okay to intervene here, then why not in other circumstances like with blatant racist behavior? Well, one could make the argument that, unlike the committed racist, the distraught friend is not in his right mind. But if the person is clearly of sound mind and chooses to commit suicide (say he has an agonizing, terminal disease and no longer values his life), then he has the right to make that choice. In the same way, a person who sincerely believes in racism has the right to act on his judgment, so long as he doesn't violate the equal rights of others to act on theirs.
- Bill
P.S. Ed, I just now saw your reply to Jordan's rejoinder to my earlier post. Thanks! Great minds think alike. ;-)
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/19, 12:06am)
|
|
