About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 13Page 3


Post 260

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 7:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The only right a criminal has is the right to be treated humanely in accordance with the scope and limits of his punishment.


why? a psychpath has abrogated his rights - is, by his/her actions no longer human, and deserves to be burried in an anthill.....


Post 261

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 4:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rev',

According to Rand, those with mental impairments such as Down Syndrome have the right to be treated as perpetual children (folks with potential, like all of the rest of us are). However, I'd say that psychopaths are more than mentally-impaired, but are instead mentally-deranged. Good Reverend, you may have a point that that means that they shouldn't have human rights. It really seems like psychopaths have the "rightful expectation" to be treated like incurable predators (i.e., wild animals).

The moral dilemma would seem to be found in their correct diagnosis then, not in the consequently-inhumane treatment of them. Psychopaths are a bugaboo. They seem to be individuals, but they don't seem to have individual rights. This seems to contradict Rand's statement that "all men, all the time" do (have individual rights, to be respected or infringed). That is ... unless we challenge what it really means to be a (hu-)man.

Ed


Post 262

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed asked in post 242: "before I address these I am compelled to ask: are these generous interpretations of the quotes from Bill and Joe – or are they misrepresentations (i.e., a Straw Man fallacy)?"

I don't accept these interpretations. I don't accept any of the three arguments you presented. I don't accept the view that rights imply obligations in the strict sense of the word, otherwise rights would simply be intrinsic values. And as was clear in this thread, I'm not actually in agreement with Bill on the nature of rights. I agreed with him in the other thread because he wasn't arguing in terms of rights. He was arguing in terms of self-interest.

I feel no need to discuss this further, except to say that my recent article could shed some light on your particular confusion:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Rough_Draft_Functions_of_morality.shtml

One more thing to note. I think there is a time and a place for quoting Rand. If she makes an assertion that rights are unalienable, that's all it is. An assertion. It's okay to quote her arguments, since she often made her arguments in clear ways. But they're only as good as the argument she makes. Quoting assertions, on the other hand, is just an argument from authority.


Post 263

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

That's too bad that you don't feel a need to discuss this, but thanks anyway for chiming-in with those tips for me. I'll check out your article under the assumption that you are open to discussing it.

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 264

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe wrote,
I don't accept the view that rights imply obligations in the strict sense of the word, otherwise rights would simply be intrinsic values.
An "obligation" in this context simply means a moral requirement.

I am not using the term in the Kantian sense of an unconditional duty or a categorical imperative. I don't mean anything different than Rand does when she uses the term. She writes, "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." I agree. The only obligation that rights impose on one's neighbors is the obligation to abstain from violating them. But it is an obligation nonetheless.

To be sure, the obligation does not exist in a life-threatening emergency, but then neither does the right. There can be no right against the initiation of force, if others aren't obligated to abstain from violating it.

- Bill




Post 265

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 11:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I really don't disagree with anything Bill is saying in post #264, but I maintain that thinking about morality in terms of rights and obligations as is being done here is responsible for overlooking the spirit of how a moral code is supposed to function.

Notice how in this discussion and the previous one regarding emergencies, as situations become more dire and threatening to one's life, Bill says that there comes a point where those rights/obligations suddenly disappear. At that point, it seems to many in these discussions that it becomes a free-for-all where any and every action suddenly becomes available, with one's survival as one's only self-interested goal. This then leads to a need to define where that tipping point occurs as a situation worsens - something I have not seen anyone able to do with any satisfaction. Also, some people, myself included, do not agree that mere survival can always be taken as a proper definition of one's best self-interest in many of these scenarios. The point is that when viewed from this perspective, things get quite messy.

My view on this subject is that a moral code is a set of guidelines for making decisions that are in one's best interest. If I have any "obligation", it is to myself, and I can reduce it down to one principle - always act with maximum awareness and rationality. The concept of "individual rights" is simply one idea I hold in my head about my understanding of personal autonomy and the boundaries that exist between individuals. I have arrived at that concept by way of some careful thinking about the nature of the world and my place in it. As I have said elsewhere, at any point in time I can choose to honor my conception of "rights" or choose to violate it. Of course, the concept of "rights" is just one small component of my mental arsenal that I rely upon when making moral choices. I also refer to a deep understanding of my personal character, my full set of values, an awareness of the goals in my life, and so on. And just as with the concept of rights, I can choose to honor or abandon any of my personal goals, values or character traits at any moment of my life. The degree to which one integrates all of these components and then adheres to them is the level of one's integrity. There is no special existential category for "rights" that connects it in some unique way to "obligations" to act in a particular manner. A "right" is just an idea you hold and the only obligation you have is to your own integrity. Just as with all of the other mental constructs I mentioned, you should recognize the reasons why you personally respect the rights of others and then decide how that applies in the context of any given situation.

Therefore, I really don't see why emergency situations are such a source of trouble for everyone. As the circumstances of your life changes over time you need to constantly consider the full set of factors that contribute to your moral (i.e., decision making) compass and then act accordingly. When you find yourself in the midsts of an emergency situation, just as with any other situation in life, you have only to weigh all the factors and decide upon an appropriate course of action. Should you decide that the correct course is to rob or kill another person, sobeit. You made a personal decision based upon the context of you and your life and that decision is as much a moral decision as any other you make in life, regardless of the circumstances.

But what I cannot understand is this idea that "rights" somehow winked out of existence. The "rights" we are talking about are just an idea, a principle, that you hold. Maybe your concept of "rights" is flexible enough to not apply for you when your life is threatened, or maybe you simply decided to violate a more rigid principle under these circumstances, or maybe you know how you will apply a rigid concept of rights under these circumstances. But the idea that, "the obligation does not exist in a life-threatening emergency, but then neither does the right", sounds more like a justification for ones actions than an explanation of anything concrete. Why are people apparently not comfortable simply stating what decision they would make and leaving it at that? Different actions taken imply different conceptions of rights, which is a valid subject for discussion. But saying that rights simply do not apply in these circumstances seems like begging the question to me.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 266

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the thrust of Jeff's post. My recent article, which I mentioned above, describes this idea in more detail. I distinguish between moral concepts that used for foreseeing consequences, and standards of value that actually compare choices. When rights are treated as standards of value, they become intrinsic values. If you treat them as principles of understanding, tools for seeing the likely consequences of your alternatives, then the issues Jeff points out no longer exist. You don't have these mysterious "obligations", and you don't have the concept of rights winking out of existence. Instead, you can use them as moral guides that function by providing you a better understanding of your options. It's still up to you to weigh the choices based on your life as the standard. I think this is the right approach to dealing with this topic in a clear way. Any insistence on referring to "rights" as "obligations" blurs the line between these two functions of morality.



Post 267

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

Why are people apparently not comfortable simply stating what decision they would make and leaving it at that?
I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean for that question to sound like it does. If you do, then my answer is that it wouldn't be useful at all, and it would hardly even be informative, for each person in this forum to simply chime in and say how they'd respond (and to just leave it at that). In this forum, like other high-minded forums, the "what" questions take a back-seat to the "why" questions. I know that you know that but I had to state it (because of the way that your question sounds).

:-)

Different actions taken imply different conceptions of rights, which is a valid subject for discussion.
And that's almost exactly what it is that Bill and I are engaging in here in this thread.

But saying that rights simply do not apply in these circumstances seems like begging the question to me.
And it does to me, too -- which is why I'm engaging Bill in the manner which I am.

:-)

Ed


Post 268

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I take it that you don't believe there is any sense in which a right implies an obligation on the part of others to respect it. If so, then what does it mean to say that I have a right, if others have no obligation to respect it? To say that you are "obligated" to respect my rights, simply means that you "ought" to respect them -- nothing more. And that obligation is conditional. If you want the benefits of having your own rights respected, then you ought to respect the rights of others.

As for rights "winking in an out of existence," they don't. They apply in some contexts but not in others. You might as well argue that the moral principle of honesty "winks in and out of existence," because it applies in some contexts, but not in others -- which is an absurd characterization. It is no less absurd in the case of rights.

- Bill

Post 269

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, did you read my article?  I know it's long, but I did mention the honesty thing in there too.  It's ultimately a methodology issue.  When you use short-hands like saying we are obligated to respect rights (within a context), it throws out the principle of understanding for a kind of moral rule-of-thumb.  And then you have to say that the moral rule-of-thumb doesn't apply in some contexts.  But the principle still applies, even in those circumstances.  Converting it into a rule-of-thumb doesn't provide any benefit, and throws out vital information.  The article describes it more.  But the bottom line here is that treating rights as a "obligations" creates a barrier to discussing it clearly.  As evidence, I can simply point to this entire thread.

Since my article was very long, I don't demand that you read it.  But since it states my overall position on the topic, I don't want to participate in this conversation any further.  I've already stated my methodology.  Perhaps later I'll write my application of that methodology to the issue of rights.  But without a better methodology, this debate is doomed to go around and around.


Post 270

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote:

> Why are people apparently not comfortable simply stating what decision they would make and leaving it at that?

And Ed responded:

> I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean for that question to sound like it does. [...]
> the "what" questions take a back-seat to the "why" questions.

Joe stated:

> But without a better methodology, this debate is doomed to go around and around.

What I was getting at by this comment is that, like Joe, it appears to be a lost cause trying to get a clearer idea of the exact nature of the ethical theory that each person is using with regards to applied ethics, let alone trying to come to a common understanding and agreement of the proper application of that ethical system. Despite having participated in these conversations for quite some time now and read each contribution carefully, I have not been able to develop a theoretical model that lets me predict how others are going to act under different scenarios starting from first principles. However, when people state how they would act under various conditions, including emergency situations, I find those comments extremely useful in helping me gauge the other person. With those comments, I can then begin to construct an understanding of their character and their moral code. It's the old inductive/deductive issue, where deduction has not been proving to be very useful. At this point, I believe that this is all I can expect to get out of these (there are now four concurrent threads on rights/ethics) discussions.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 271

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 9:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the response, Jeff.

I understand your dismay with the seeming "perpetuality" of these discussions. However, if Joe is correct to be suspicious of Rand's assertions regarding rights because they were not necessarily argued well enough to be convincing to all (to the point that quoting her assertions is considered presumptive or an appeal to authority), then there must be more work to be done on rights -- work like the kind of work found in this very thread.

If, on the contrary, I could quote an assertion of Rand and everyone nodded their heads and silently said to themselves: "I totally understand and agree" -- then there wouldn't be work to be done (and this thread would be just a rivalry and nothing more). Notice that this works if we can all agree that Rand was right about a point or that she was wrong about it -- as long as we reach that mutual understanding.

The very difference of opinion shows that there's still work to do, and I enjoy that kind of work, as tedious as it sometimes gets.

Ed


Post 272

Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 5:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff and others,

I think that an issue here is that there are 2 ways to view an "individual" and that one side of the debate uses one way, and the other side the other. One way to view "individual" is simply numerically, as in an individual apple, rock, or tree. Viewing individuals in this way leaves out their nature, and in ethics -- with just a little sprinkling of Rand -- leads to Nietzschean egoism (subjectivism).

The other way to view "individual" is more detailed, involving logical assumptions about humanity, and the process of building character, and the having of a life-long (foreground and background) mental scope for even our immediate decisions. You can't just argue "Just be rational" and leave it at that. That leads to crazy notions like non-understanding Game Theory professionals coming up with supposedly rational behavior that involves only immediate personal advantage. It's been used against the market, too -- when non-understanding economists talk about "perfect competition."

What it boils down to is that you have to have it integrated in your mind what it means to be human, too. I started an article series subtitled: "The only kind there is" in order to address this specific deficiency of almost all of the historical thought on the matters of philosophy, "rational choice theory", economics, ethics, etc.

It doesn't start with a blank slate "individual" -- where folks (because they see themselves as fully individuated) get to just plug-in their current psychology and their premises -- and then start morally theorizing. There's more homework involved about what it really means to be a human being. On this, Aristotle was right on track. Rand, too.

Ed


Post 273

Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In reply to my Post #268, Joe asks:
Bill, did you read my article?
Yes.
I know it's long, but I did mention the honesty thing in there too. It's ultimately a methodology issue. When you use short-hands like saying we are obligated to respect rights (within a context), it throws out the principle of understanding for a kind of moral rule-of-thumb. And then you have to say that the moral rule-of-thumb doesn't apply in some contexts. But the principle still applies, even in those circumstances.
How does the principle still apply in those circumstances? You're saying, in so many words, that it doesn't if it doesn't pass a cost-benefit analysis.
Converting it into a rule-of-thumb doesn't provide any benefit, and throws out vital information.
But moral principles are not "rules of thumb." They apply without exception to every case falling under them. For example, I cannot simply decide on the basis of expediency whether or not I should respect your rights? I cannot say, "Well, Joe isn't around, and his wallet is laying on the table. I can steal a couple of bucks, which he probably won't miss, and even if he does he won't know that I stole them. Granted, I believe in the principle of rights, like the principle of honesty, but in this case, I find that it doesn't pass a cost-benefit analysis. So, I'll steal the money, because I can get away with it. But, of course, I still believe in the principle of rights."
The article describes it more. But the bottom line here is that treating rights as a "obligations" creates a barrier to discussing it clearly. As evidence, I can simply point to this entire thread.
Joe, I already stated in the very post to which you're replying that by "obligation," I mean nothing more than what Rand means by it, when she uses the term. Do you disagree with Rand here? Are you saying that it is wrong for her to say that we have an "obligation" to respect the rights of others -- that instead she ought to say what you're saying? Recall her essay, "The Wreckage of the Consensus," (CUI) in which she writes, "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected." (p. 256-257) This doesn't mean that, according to Rand, there aren't exceptions to that obligation. Obviously, she's indicated that there are (viz., in life-threatening emergencies). Nor does it mean that, according to her, rights are simply "rules of thumb." She is saying that we have an obligation to respect the rights of others, if we are to be logically consistent.

In your article, you state:
What happens when the principle [of honesty] is converted into some kind of rule? In the context of the murderer at your door, the rule is said to be taken out of context. You have to discard the rule. But what's the point in formulating it as a rule, especially one that can be broken? What do you gain from it?
Joe, the rule isn't "broken" when you lie to the murderer; it doesn't require that you tell him the truth.
You don't get the benefit of having a real moral rule, which is that you can apply it in an unthinking way. Because the rule has exceptions, you can't simply follow it. You have to decide whether the rule is beneficial to follow or not.
The so-called "exceptions" are PART of the rule or principle. The principle is qualified qua principle. You might as well argue that there is no such thing as a "right" to free speech, which everyone must respect on principle, because there can be no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. There is no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because the right to free speech doesn't include it, to begin with. The right to free speech already has certain qualifications. It doesn't mean the right to say anything to anyone at any time. All moral principles are qualified by reference to one's ultimate standard of value.
The end result is that you just add an extra level of complexity to your decisions. You formulate a rule, intended to make it easier to act without thinking through the consequences, but you still have to think through the consequences to decide if the rule applies. Formulating a moral rule out of it is a worthless step.
You think through the consequences in advance, which is what you do when you formulate moral principles to begin with, since these principles are designed to serve your life and happiness. When I refrain from stealing your money, I don't do so based on assessing the likelihood of your finding out or of being apprehended by the police. If that were my approach, what value would the principle of rights have to begin with? It would serve no useful purpose, since it would be entirely irrelevant to my decision. When I refrain from stealing your money, I do so based on the recognition that unless people refrain from sacrificing others to themselves, they will create a society in which no one is safe from his neighbors or free to produce the values his life require. When I decide to be honest, I do so based on the recognition that trustworthiness is an important social value, one which optimizes inter-personal relations and benefits the lives of everyone involved.
There is more wrong with translating these into moral rules. A moral rule demands you act in a particular way. Yes, you might make exceptions to them when your life is on the line, but in all other cases you have to obey them. This removes your ability to make an optimal choice based on your clearest idea of the costs and benefits involved.
You see, this is where your thinking goes awry. The costs and benefits are already considered in advance of formulating the principle. The principle reflects an assessment of these costs and benefits. It tells you which actions are beneficial and which are not. The principle is qualified to exclude those cases in which following it is not beneficial.
Moral rules act as intrinsic values. Intrinsic values aren't integrated in with the rest of your values. Because they're valued for their own sake, and not in relation to your life, there's no rational way to compare them to your other values.
Not true. This is not the Objectivist view of moral rules or principles. For Objectivism, moral principles are based their value to your life and happiness. You are refuting a straw man.
A moral rule tells you that you should act in a particular way in all cases.
Yes, in all cases falling under the rule -- in all cases subsumed by the principle. That's what a principle is. It applies without exception to every single case falling under it. Otherwise, it's not a principle. For example, it makes no sense to say that you have a right to your property, but that the state may take it when it deems it in the public interest. Your property rights are inviolable on principle.
You may create exceptions, but every situation where it applies, it applies with equal strength. If you follow the moral rule that you must always be honest except in emergency situations, then in every other situation your choices are artificially restricted.
Not artificially restricted, assuming that the principle is valid; restricted by the facts justifying the principle. However, I would not say that you are obligated to be scrupulously honest in every situation except life-threatening emergencies. You don't have to volunteer information to people who are not entitled to it. If you are asked a question which your refusal to answer would by implication convey the information that you don't want revealed and to which the questioner is not entitled, then you have every right to lie as a way of protecting your privacy. This is not an emergency situation, but it is nevertheless one that allows for a less than honest answer. If however, you've been cheating on your wife, and she questions you about it, you owe her the truth. The principle is, if a person is entitled to the truth, you owe it to him or her.
You can't make a rational judgment about whether any particular lie may be beneficial or not, or to what degree is it harmful. Because it's expressed as a rule, you blind yourself to the possibilities.
You don't blind yourself to the possibilities. The possibilities are assessed in advance and are incorporated into the principle. In your approach, principles become irrelevant, because all you're doing is assessing the costs and benefits on an ad hoc basis. So why have a moral principle to begin with? Why have a principle of rights? Since you're not obligated to respect it, there's no need for the principle. It serves no useful purpose.

- Bill

P.S. I'm cross-posting part of this reply to the discussion section of Joe's article, "Rough draft: Functions of morality"
(Edited by William Dwyer on 6/12, 5:45pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 274

Monday, June 16, 2008 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Have you also considered that in "emergency" situations, the most effective way to survive is to retain your cooperation with other people?  If everyone works together to survive you are more likely to live than if everyone is trying to kill the other person or steal from them.  That is another reason I reject the reality of constructed life boat situations - they never match actual reality.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 13Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.