RoR: Forum

I've been saying that for years. I know it comes from pure frustration.

Post 61

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 6:23pm

We don't gift rights - they adhere automatically when a child is born.

That's the same as gifting if you set it up as a truth table.

But that isn't a precondition of having rights.

I can agree to that only with the proviso that if one does not have a 'guardian' [judges could be considered guardians as well and etc] to act on behalf of the child, then the rights don't in themselves exist as an option to act upon for the child itself. In this regard, the guardian, as I stated, is required to act as the conduit, otherwise it's just wishful thinking that some how rights are equivalent to physical laws or other inherent properties of matter.

Rights are inherent (exist) from the get go (birth).

Point to the body part that contains them. You're violating the metaphysical fact that we're tabula rasa, and since rights are concepts they do not pre-exist the human or rational creature that composes them.

And they are absolute and unconditional.

Again, this contradicts the point of tabula rasa. Sorry, I don't buy your story.

To have individual rights you only have to be a human being that has made it past birth, are still alive and have not violated the rights of others.

Bingo, it's the later part that makes this most important, because a child is born tabula rasa, they don't have any guilt or debt accrued by default, so rights come as a consequence of that in regards to our epistemology when considering them. If you start at 0 in life, you can't be held liable for any crime, or really be a victim of any crime in regards to that it is unjust to act upon an innocent.

-- Brede

Post 62

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 6:47pm

I've posted elsewhere on this kind of topic, but I'll just summarize here.

When thinking about the issue of the child's rights, the easy thing to do is suggest that the mother (and some would say the father!) has an obligation to raise the child. I think Hong called it a contract, although that is at best a metaphor. This approach blurs the topic a little, though.

When we talk about adults having rights, it means they should be left alone. It's the idea of "negative" rights. But when a child's rights are discussed, suddenly the opposite is assumed. The child suddenly seems to have positive rights. So their "right to life" is a right to healthy food, safe environment, good education, etc. It's not hard to see why an Objectivist looking to integrate this idea with the rest of the philosophy might find it difficult. If an adult is starving, we have no obligation to feed it. Similarly if there is a starving child in Africa, we also have no obligation to feed it. If they die by omission, it's not murder. So why does a baby dying in front of us suddenly have these positive rights? Certainly if you're going to discuss rights or obligations, you have to do a lot better than simply making assertions.

I came up with one possible justification for asserting that this kind of scenario is actually murder. I start with the example of the starving adult. Certainly I don't need to feed him. Right? Well, under some circumstances, I would be guilty. For instance, if I convinced him to go up to the mountains for a camping trip, and then abandoned him there to starve, it would be murder. Or if other people wanted to feed him and I prevented them, it would also be murder. I can go into more detail there, but I don't see those two views as too controversial.

So what about the baby? My view is that without going down that slippery slope of arguing for positive rights, we can firmly stay on the solid ground of negative rights by pointing out that other people are willing to take care of the baby. If anyone else is willing to do it, then preventing them (by, for instance, throwing the baby in a dumpster) is actually murdering the baby.

And this is the justification for the "Safe Haven" laws. It says we have an abundance of people who are willing to take care of the baby, and its made as easy as possible to allow these people the ability to help the baby. If you let the baby die even under these circumstances, you are effectively murdering it. One can argue whether the government should be the driving force of this, since it's ultimately tax-payer money paying for the baby, but I consider that a tangential issue.

Another reason I like this approach is that it deals with other problems. If we go with the "mother is obligated" approach, what happens when the mother dies at childbirth? Is it then perfectly acceptable to throw the baby in the dumpster? Only if you try to justify positive rights through parental choice.

So I clearly disagree with Dean here. But I'm not in agreement with many of the other posts. For instance, I'm unhappy with Steve's assertion that a baby just has individual rights because it's born. If the concept of individual rights is formulated in a context of adults being able to deal with one another without the threat of violence, then you need to make some kind of argument for why they apply to babies. Maybe Steve had something in mind, but I didn't see the argument.

I also disagree with Hong's post 34 where she refers to "common sense". My problem with that is when common sense is applied to morality, it always means conventional altruistic morality. If you go what seems obvious in morality, you're going to go with the ethical system you were raised in and most commonly exposed to. Personally, I prefer to have Dean shrug off that kind of common sense if he's searching for real answers. It's an approach that can lead to major errors, but it's the only approach that can lead to the truth.

Post 63

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 6:59pm

Joe, I agree to that conclusion, I just don't want to go down the path of some logical absurdity where rights now become physical properties, and our thoughts are some reducible 'atoms' as it were. What you posit works fine, in fact it follows in concert with my idea of rights, maybe I should have considered the scenario more clearly, but in the end, the baby being left with no ability to choose on its own is automatically protected, not as an obligation, but as a consequence of its existence.

When it grows up to be a snot nosed little punk, then you can kick it out. ;)

-- Brede

Post 64

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 7:25pm

Brede,

I didn't mention it, but my explanation hinges on the idea that there are other people who are willing to take care of the baby. This is why we can argue that the unsavory days of exposure made sense. There was no surplus of adults wanting to take care of unwanted babies. If you couldn't afford your baby, and trying to keep it alive could doom your entire family to starvation, exposure was a rational and moral option.

An argument for positive rights would damn the whole family and require them to produce the impossible. It can't make sense. And an argument from negative rights could only be made if exposure effectively prevented other willing people from caring for the baby.

So I wouldn't phrase my argument as saying the baby's protection is "a consequence of its existence". It would only be the case in a context where there are people willing to care for the baby. And with current laws (in some states) the default assumption is that there are people willing to care for the baby, and acting against this assumption is murder.

Post 65

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 8:04pm

�This is why we can argue that the unsavory days of exposure made sense. There was no surplus of adults wanting to take care[�]�

This should read, �There was no lack of adults��

Post 66

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 8:47pm

Joe's summary of negative rights was excellent and fit in well with several of the other poster�s views in regards to the immorality of infanticide.

"I also disagree with Hong's post 34 where she refers to "common sense". My problem with that is when common sense is applied to morality, it always means conventional altruistic morality. If you go what seems obvious in morality, you're going to go with the ethical system you were raised in and most commonly exposed to. Personally, I prefer to have Dean shrug off that kind of common sense if he's searching for real answers. It's an approach that can lead to major errors, but it's the only approach that can lead to the truth."

This paragraph I thought was puzzling. Joe writes about common sense that "...it always means conventional altruistic morality." Bartering, caveat emptor (buyer beware), not killing your children, etc. are all common sensical and have nothing to do with altruism. And the context in which Hong used it was not altruistic either. Joe also implies that Dean was "searching for real answers" which flies in the face of what was presented. Dean proposed infanticide as a good thing, [Dean thought I went over the top with the use of the word "good" here. But he supplied the context that mother's unwanted infant, without productive skills, is better off dead for everyone concerned] a proposal which clearly is divorced from an awareness of reality (my view of common sense).
Joe ends with "...it�s the only approach that can lead to the truth." I am afraid that you are talking about Dean�s approach...

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/10, 11:12pm)

Post 67

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 9:03pm

Steven Drukenmiller,

"When does a human gain the right to live his/her own life, based solely on the fact that he/she is human?"

At the moment of birth a human has the same rights as other humans, the right to be left alone. To kill a newborn is murder. A newborn has no MORE rights than another human. That is to say, no POSITIVE rights. No one OWES the newborn anything. A infant human, however, is not completely helpless. The simple appearance of an infant and their plaintive cries elicits sympathy and immediate action from most persons in the vicinity. Even the IDEA of an uncared for infant can incite a lynch mob. Therefore, to hide an infant away from people who would come to it's aid (if you have no intention of caring for it) thereby thwarting it's attempt to save it's own life (by crying) should also be considered a crime.

I would like to thank Dean, the budding scientist, inventor, engineer and thinker, who's commitment to thinking things through lead him to start this thread, for helping me to clarify my own thoughts on this issue. I sincerely hope Dean continues to participate on RoR and the unfortunate reaction to his comments in this thread do not discourage him from doing so.

Post 68

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 9:08pm

Joe,
I would think that it is obvious that your relationship with another starving adult or starving African child is not the same as that between parents and their children. So naturally you don't have any obligation to any of those starving people.

> My problem with that is when common sense is applied to morality, it always means conventional altruistic morality.

Perhaps it is so to you. But to me, morality and common sense should always be consistent with human behaviors that would enable them to achieve ultimate happiness and prosperity. Yes, infanticide by parents is not uncommon throughout history, just think about those new born girls in rural China whom nobody wants. Compared to those circumstances, the case in this news appears even more senseless.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/10, 9:12pm)

Post 69

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 9:26pm

�No one OWES the newborn anything.� [Mike]

Ayn Rand disagreed. She held responsible for the newborn�s needs those responsible for creating him/her. Quotes available upon request.

Post 70

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 9:42pm

"Ayn Rand disagreed".

"Thinking things through" doesn't include picking quotes from anyone, Ayn Rand included, and tossing them like mud at another persons ideas. If you can't come up with your own arguments or insights just go ahead and live your rote life by whoever your chosen guru happens to be and leave the thinking to others.

Post 71

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 9:46pm

Frankly, I am blown away at both Joe and Mike.

Joe says, �If anyone else is willing to do it [take care of the baby], then preventing them (by, for instance, throwing the baby in a dumpster) is actually murdering the baby.�

And Mike says, �To kill a newborn is murder.�

Well, HELLO! Dean brushed that off!

And they follow that up with pats on the back for shrugging off common sense, searching for real answers, employing the only approach that can lead to the truth, congrats for a �commitment to thinking things through� and �helping me to clarify my own thoughts on this issue.�

If Dean is your friend, you owe him something stronger.

Post 72

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:10pm

Jon, I think I had it right the first time. There was no surplus. If you want to make a historic argument that there were in fact plenty of people who would have been happy to raise the abandoned children, go for it. From my understanding, life was harsh and most people couldn't afford to take on added burdens. Since it was practiced for so long, it's possible that the context changed over time and in some cases the opposite may have been true. My point was that when there isn't a ready supply of people willing to take the baby, exposure was a legitimate option.

Guy and Hong, Objectivists have a very different morality than what is conventionally accepted. Instead of being a set of rules, it's a body of knowledge starting with certain basic philosophical premises. For instance that a person's life should be the source of their moral code. To understand the morality, you have to be willing to explore the reasons behind your moral declarations. If you think babies shouldn't be thrown in dumpsters, you have to be willing to look for arguments. It's an approach to ethics aimed at moral growth and objective understanding.

The alternative is to say "well, it seems obvious to me!". I consider references to "common sense" to be in the same category. Instead of pointing to actual reasons, you end up pointing to moral conclusions that you have adopted (probably from the mainstream altruistic culture). You don't bother with reasons, and instead defend your position based on your strong feeling that it must be true. This is a strategy that aims for stagnation and rationalization.

I also don't think it matters at all whether the particular "common sense" views happen to be right or wrong. Sometimes you'll end up with the right conclusion, but the means is still aimed at stagnation. If you think just because you're sure it's right that you don't need to have rational arguments for it, and that saying "it's common sense" is a justification, where would you draw the line? If the most obvious beliefs don't need to have reasons supporting them (when those should be the easiest to support!), then why would you ever need to find reasons?

"Common sense" is not an argument. Ever.

Hong, aside from asserting some kind of obligation of the parent to support the child, you haven't made an actual argument. Certainly not one based on Objectivism. Your arguments so far have been simply stating your conclusions. The closest you came to an actual argument is saying the baby is "100% dependent on its parent", as if that fact alone proves anything. And if your "common sense" is to be consistent with the happiness of the parent, then how do you justify an unwanted obligation? I'm sure you think your view of morality and common sense are consistent with human happiness, but which human's? You've shown that it is in the self-interest of the child for the mother to care for it. You haven't even hinted at self-interested motivation, for instance. In other words, so far your use of common sense is no different from how any conventional altruist would use it.

Post 73

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:25pm

Jon, I am often blown away by your behavior.

But if you're wondering why I don't blow up on Dean, it's simply because I think his position is tentative and mistaken. Most of the arguments made against him were vague and unconvincing. I think mine was clearer. We'll see how it goes. Since this topic has come up before, I'm aware that many of the "arguments" made in favor of the babies life are unconvincing and come off as emotionally driven and an appeal to altruism. It's not surprising at all that someone will come off thinking there is no actual reason for these beliefs. And Dean is far from the first person on this forum to be lead to that conclusion.

If I thought Dean understood the arguments, and still supported the life of the baby, I would argue more forcefully and probably get upset. But at this point, he seems to be genuinely trying to find reasons. Since the ones offered were insufficient, he may work under the premise that it isn't a valid belief. I have the patience to work at convincing him and bettering his understanding. If I attacked him and tried to brow-beat him into submission, which seems more of your approach, I'd be pretty sure the only outcome is to make him more convinced that we have no arguments for our positions and need to resorts to bullying tactics.

If at the end of the day I see that he refuses to think and is being irrational (and not just mistaken), I'm sure I'll make that clear. But from my perspective the irrational people are those who stand by the status quo without being able to give a real reason for believing any of it. For them, it just feels right and they don't feel the need to follow reason wherever it leads them. These people, even if they're right on this one issue, are right for the wrong reasons. And more importantly, they're immune to rational debate.

In other words, I think the methodology here is more important over the long term than the immediate results. If Mike and I understand Dean, then Dean will have grown and learned more at the end of this debate, hopefully even coming to the right conclusions. And for those who simply state their opinions as if that were an argument, they will learn nothing.

I once heard a question that went something like: "Is it better to be right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons?". In other words, is it better to arrive at a false conclusion through a rational approach that you made a mistake in applying, or be right through the product of an irrational approach. I think the first will at least have the opportunity to correct his views. The latter will apply his faulty methodology throughout the rest of his life.

Post 74

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:25pm

Bridget,

I'm comfortable Rand's definition: "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."

Rights are not physical entities. They aren't made of atoms. For example, you can apply the concept of "justice" to what happens to an infant and it doesn't exist in any part of the body. Relationships can exist between real entities yet the relationships are not made of atoms either.

Fr�d�ric Bastiat and Locke both held that 'property' was, in effect, a bundle of rights and was separate from the object that was owned. So there is my car and then there is this bundle of rights that are just a part of the relationship between me, the car and anyone else. I can parcel out the rights - like renting the car to someone. Or, someone can steal the car, but I still have the rights to use that car even if I can't exercise them. And the rights are also separate from the object.  They specify the actions that others cannot use force to intefer with - actions like driving the car.

Is it morally right for a baby to continue breathing such that it would be immoral to strangle it?    If a baby doesn't have any rights, then it is property and child abuse needs to be legalized. If a baby doesn't have rights then we need to modify the logic that explains adult rights because Rand specifically denied that rights were arbitrary, social conventions. She saw them as absolute and objectively derived from man's nature. ("derived" doesn't mean "intrinsic")

The baby is performing the actions appropriate to its life - learning to think, to control movement, to understand his world. The range of actions available at that age are far fewer than the range that adults have and the actions aren't as informed by intellectual development, but those aren't relevant facts. A baby is constantly making choices - on a very low level, but choices none-the-less - and the choices are contributing to what the baby needs to do to live.

These are the rights that a baby is born "with." They expand to include what ever is appropriate to an age range. ("with" doesn't mean "intrinsic" it is a timing issue - it addresses when the entity becomes rights bearing)

The issue of how we define parental obligations is a separate issue from the individual rights the baby acquired at birth. I wasn't addressing that issue.

Being born tabula rasa has nothing to do with this. And there is nothing in my formulation that presupposes a primacy of consciousness. Bridget said,

...since rights are concepts they do not pre-exist the human or rational creature that composes them.

Bridget's formulation would stop anyone from having any concepts about any concepts. Bye, bye epistemology. And they are not so much concepts as relationship attributes - whatever you want to call those. And if that wasn't enough, the right can be seen as coming into existence when any social context in which it applied arises - which would be much after the birth - but that capacity exists at birth.

Post 75

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 11:46pm

Joe,

I'm unhappy with Steve's assertion that a baby just has individual rights because it's born.

Steve wasn't incorrect, only insufficiently clear. What you're born with is rights (which have to do with the kind of being that you are), what you gain in your life -- if you agree to live humanly -- is the free exercise of the rights with which you were born.

Nobody, private citizen or government, gives or takes away rights -- but merely the exercise of them. You aren't "granted" human rights when you serve your term and get out of jail -- you're granted a freer exercise of them.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/10, 11:46pm)

Post 76

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 3:27am

As repulsive as I find the actions of the mother, I'm not sure if I disagree with Mike and Dean (although I've had to skim the thread... haven't had much time, but I wanted to throw a couple things out there...)

Although we can all agree (I assume) that assisted suicide should be legal, most (all?) states frown upon it. However, as I understand it, disconnecting life support is allowed under the argument that it is not murde per se, but rather letting nature take its course. It would seem that, as I believe Erica pointed out, the mother did not murder her child by bashing its head in or other nefarious means; to put it crudely, she simply let nature take its course. What are the fundamental differences between these two situations? Is a newborns mental capacity akin to a comatose adult? Does it matter?

On the Nastonia thread (or maybe it was the Iraq thread) John Armaos used the hypothetical situation where a serial killer is slaughtering your next door neighbors, and you cower in your house with a gun and do not rush to your neighbor's aid. I maintain this was a non-sequitur to the issue at hand in that thread, but it could prove relevant here. Is it immoral to stand by idly? What if you come across a stranger being mugged in the street, should you be obligated to rush to their aid? I am not asking what you personally would do in such a situation, but rather, what should be morally required. If objectivism teaches that it is immoral to compel people to help others, is there a line where this stops? Obviously, there are different levels of risk involved in confronting an armed attacker, and caring for a newborn, but does it matter? Can you say in certain situations that it is immoral not to help others? What differentiates between the two?

Post 77

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 3:45am

Joe,

I was thinking somewhere along the lines of squashing chances. In the face of clear rational alternatives, which do in fact exist, did that woman have the right to squash all chances for her infant? I think not, but you've given a much better argument for that than I could.
Many thanks.

Morally, the alternatives can and should lead to life. Squashing those alternatives is murder.

Post 78

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 6:05am

For those willing to invest some time in reading, perhaps a look at Kathleen Touchstone's Then Athena Said would help clarify some of the issues being touched on here.... it deals with the question of unilateral transfers and the transformation of Objectivist ethics, and holds that - in opposition to the usual claims - other persons are a fundamental part of reality... this is to say that the central social tenet, the Trader principle, which dictates the bilateral exchange of value for value between two independent equals, elevates 'reproductivity' to be on par with productivity, Objectivism's central virtue, and derives a 'heuristic' for charitable giving... the deal here is to avoid 'self-sacrificing' even tho unilateral transfers imply such and can, objectively, only be accepted if it is life sustaining or remunerative to the individual getting said transfer - one of the issues being raised in this thread...

Post 79

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 7:16am