| | Hi Moeller,
Alright, I'll rebut.
Yes, but don't you see how NIOF respects individual autonomy and the right to chose the direction of one's life, and how the "virtue jurist" is impinging upon that right with force. Yes. And the virtue jurist will respect autonomy to the extent that autonomy is the greater virtue, i.e., is the behavior (assuming for now that autonomy is a behavior) that best effectuates an individual's life/end. I liked what you quoted from Galt's speech:
"Virtue is not an end in itself." First, I'd like to point out that NIOF-abiding rights aren't ends in themselves either. They are instrumental. But instrumental to what? In Objectivism, the only ethical end is an individual's life/happiness. If there's a better instrument to achieve that end, it should be employed. According to Objectivism, virtues are those behaviors that best effectuate that end. They are (supposed to be) the better intruments, not rights. Second, accordingly, the virtue jurist wouldn't treat virtues as ends in themselves. If a behavior isn't effectuating the individual's life/happiness, the virtue jurist won't protect it.
Now, in regards to happiness, from the Objectivist point of view this is the successful achievement of one's values.
.....
Reason, purpose, and self-esteem are the products of one's volitional consciousness, they cannot be forced.
Can the cardinal values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem be forced? I think the answer is that if the virtues of rationality, productivity, and pride can be forced, then those cardinal values can be forced. That is, if we force behavior that effectuates those ends, then we'll obtain those ends. So the virtue jurist will argue that virtues can be forced. For example, laws today demand that corporate managers use a rational method in calculating assets in mergers and acquisitions, and to make business decisions. They force rationality. Some intellectual property and real property laws force productivity in "use it or lose it laws" by opening unproduced property up to advserse possession or public domain. They force productivity. And self-esteem? hmmm. maybe anti-teen-suicide laws and anti-drug laws force pride? Or maybe veterans' pensions and college loans? Surely they give (force on?) people a sense of self-worth. I imagine this self-esteem bit might be a sticking point for an Objectivist who wants to go virtue jurist.
You seem to be missing that the legal code is necessary because of the social context. If a man became shipwrecked on an island, there would be no need because nobody can infringe upon that man's *rights*. However, the man still must act ethically, he still must discover his values if he wants to live. Notice, here, there would be no paternalistic government here "protecting" him from vice. I see this; I just don't see its relevance. The virtue jurist is at least concerned with unvirtuous behavior that affects others. I probably shouldn't have muddled this point with appeals to seat belts and smoking laws. I should've instead confined my examples to racial discrimination and maybe (BIG maybe) animal torture.
So, if "practically" you see that the law would be concerned with "forbidding vices", it still does NOT promote virtue. Fair enough. I was thinking the virtue jurist would find forbidding vices as a weak way to promote virtue, even if it doesn't necessarily do so. The reason virtue jurists might go this route is because it's easier to objectively tell some of what's contrary to life/happiness -- murder, rape, theft -- than what's for it.
Jordan
|
|
