Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, but what reason is there for thinking that being kidnapped is analogous to acting in accord with one's moral obligations? Saying that one has a moral obligation to help the child is to say that one ought to include the saving of the child amongst the set of one's ends. There is a difference between being prevented from pursuing one's ends and having an obligation to endorse some particular end.
If a man is kidnapped for a week and then set free, has he been deprived of his right to pursue life, or was the kidnapping a temporary detour? Isn't a man entitled to pursue his own life at all times during his own life?
No, a man is not entitled to pursue his own ends invariably. Even on Rand's view one's pursuit of one's ends must be tempered by respect for the negative rights of others.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThis is not so, according to Rand. See the essay The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests. Rational men don't have to curb their choices in order not to step on each others toes in the realm of rights. Theivery, for example, is irrational.
No, a man is not entitled to pursue his own ends invariably. Even on Rand's view one's pursuit of one's ends must be tempered by respect for the negative rights of others.
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou're putting the cart before the horse. You say that the man has that moral obligation. Rand doesn't agree. She says the man is fulfilling his moral obligations by leaning back and waiting for trout to bite.
Yes, but what reason is there for thinking that being kidnapped is analogous to acting in accord with one's moral obligations?
This is not to say that the man ought not save the child. If he values that as a worthy end, then Rand's ethics certainly allow him to act on that. Objectivism doesn't require one to be an asshole - it only allows it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOK
I'm explaining Rand's position, not mine.
If I'm ever drowning, I hope that you will extend me credit, or make a withdrawal from my standing balance, in the currency of good will, so that we may trade value for value. I wouldn't want to make you my slave.
I don't believe that if I save your life I am forever responsible for your actions, although there are some who do apparently, in which case saving a life might give one pause.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSuppose it is amongst my ends to hit you over the head with a shovel. What would Rand say about that?
This is not so, according to Rand. See the essay The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests. Rational men don't have to curb their choices in order not to step on each others toes in the realm of rights. Theivery, for example, is irrational.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRight, and this is a reductio of Rand's position. It doesn't meet the requirement of minimal conservatism regarding our first-order moral judgments.
You're putting the cart before the horse. You say that the man has that moral obligation. Rand doesn't agree. She says the man is fulfilling his moral obligations by leaning back and waiting for trout to bite.
This is not to say that the man ought not save the child. If he values that as a worthy end, then Rand's ethics certainly allow him to act on that. Objectivism doesn't require one to be an asshole - it only allows it.
Originally posted by KneverKnightJust remember to engange in the Randian cost-benefit analysis before you help any old ladies cross the street.
OK
I don't believe that if I save your life I am forever responsible for your actions, although there are some who do apparently, in which case saving a life might give one pause.
Dear prudence, won't you come out to play-ay-ay-aaaaay?
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrCan you objectively demonstrate the existence of that requirement? If you can't, then your citation of it hardly reduces her position to an absurdity.
Right, and this is a reductio of Rand's position. It doesn't meet the requirement of minimal conservatism regarding our first-order moral judgments.
Being an asshole is in the eyes of the beholder.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrA rational being who accepts the axiom stated above would believe that he himself has a right to be free from shovel assaults, and would also believe that the victim under consideration, by virtue of being the same sort of being as himself and thus possessing all such rights, has a right to be free from shovel assaults. To believe that the victim should not be free from shovel assaults while he himself is would be a logical contradiction, something a rational being does not hold. Thus, a rational being would not commit the shovel assault.
Suppose it is amongst my ends to hit you over the head with a shovel. What would Rand say about that?
Originally posted by bbarrlol
Just remember to engange in the Randian cost-benefit analysis before you help any old ladies cross the street.
Dear prudence, won't you come out to play-ay-ay-aaaaay?
If I save a drowning person, while taking due care that I don't get killed trying, and yet suffer some injury as a result, I consider the books to be balanced, because I would expect no less in return.
I wonder what Rand thinks of this?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOK, then rationally, doesn't it demand that one push another out of the way of a shovel assault? Or save another who is drowning, or we all alone according to Rand?
A rational being who accepts the axiom stated above would believe that he himself has right to be free from shovel assaults, and would also believe that the victim under consideration, by virtue of being the same sort of being as himself and thus possessing all such rights, has a right to be free from shovel assaults. To believe that the victim shou ...[text shortened]... ing a rational being does not hold. Thus, a rational being would not commit the shovel assault.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEthical theory confirmation, like scientific theory confirmation, does not proceed by demonstration. If an ethical theory entails that torture for fun is morally permissible, then that ethical theory is false. This is an analytic truth; it is just part of the meanings of terms like 'morally good' and 'morally bad' that torture for fun counts as morally bad.
Can you objectively demonstrate the existence of that requirement? If you can't, then your citation of it hardly reduces her position to an absurdity.
Being an asshole is in the eyes of the beholder.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrObjectivism attempts to do this very thing - hence the name. Perhaps that is why it is so misunderstood. Its conclusions are of a differnent nature than other ethical theories.
Ethical theory confirmation, like scientific theory confirmation, does not proceed by demonstration.