[jerry3643]

Gerard,

I tried to put them into a categorical proposition as well and failed. I was just assuming it was my level of logic skills not being up to par at fault. It seems that each statement has more than one subject and predicate and that is why it can’t be done?

So I guess the lesson I take from this from a logical perspective is that not all arguments can be formulated into a syllogism. ( Or that you could at least form a categorical proposition out of one) Which kind of sucks. I was hoping that they could. : (

Anyways I know you’re a busy man don’t feel pressured to answer right away. Thank you.

[jerry3643]

Now that you mention it I do remember her saying the thing about man ceasing to be a man when he violates rights. I might take that to mean that when a man chooses to violate rights he is implicitly saying that rights are not valid thus implicitly negating his own rights which would open him up to being attacked validly by the one being violated.

It’s in mans nature to be a mammal but it wouldn’t make sense to say man has a right to be a mammal. So that would suggest that if something that would be considered a right must be something that is able to be chosen by man as well as being able to be violated by others. So rights only exist as a social abstract concept and not so much as a tangible concept.

Some would say that this makes rights subjective but I would disagree. I would say that they are objective but not in the Objectivist sense. For example we wouldn’t say that the scientific method is subjective just because it can not be chosen in favor of some other method of obtaining knowledge such as say praying for the gods to bestow knowledge upon us while we close our eyes and mumble incantations. Clearly there is a preferable method to gaining knowledge about reality that has produced tangible results when compared to alleged other means of knowledge acquisition.

I view ethics the same way. Man can choose a view of ethics that has more tangible results than other ethical theory’s. the reason for this would be that man has a nature in a social context. Such as the same reason the scientific method is the best method we have for leaning about reality is because nature, has a nature. Lol

Thing always get convoluted when discussing abstract concepts like rights, ethics or the economy etc. There’s just so much room for two people to talk past one another and not realize that they are doing it and they both end up getting frustrated with one another. That’s why I believe a clear defining of terms and highlighting of underlining concepts implicitly assumed in all statements must be discussed.

The main problem I had with Objectivist ethics is that it said the state is necessary. This glaring contradiction is what caused me to abandon it. It’s a violation of the nap. Maybe it’s because politicians cease to be man when they are elected?!? Lol! Hey maybe she was onto something here! Haha.

Also she said man is born tabula rasa which to me is just totally wrong.

But aside from Objectivist ethics Rand does have a rather robust view on epistemology that has shaped my world view. “Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology” is a book I highly recommend if you are interested in other aspects of philosophy.

[jerry3643]

John d , thanks for the clarification. I don’t know that I would consider retaliatory force to be the same as defensive force. Retaliation carries with it the assumption that the threat has left. Defensive carries with it that the threat is happening. In the former I would agree that that does not agree with our concept of justice.

Also I’d like to mention that I gave up objectivist ethics a long time ago so I may be rusty as to Rand’s specifics in certain regards so I’d like to hear what you have to say about what I mentioned above and if you think it does or doesn’t affect the points made in your original post. If you meant defensive action and not retaliatory then I would say I don’t know how to answer you.

Personally I take more of a consequentialist approach to ethics.
That is to say that if the nap is valid, ‘this’ follows and if its not, then ‘that’ follows. ‘This’ is preferable to ‘that’ and here’s why……….

Perhaps my methods of justifying the nap was coming through in my previous reply to you. But that would be my approach to the issue if its of any value to you.

Have you tried taking your question to an objectivist forum?

[jerry3643]

Let me make another example. When someone steals from you (or any other aggressive behavior for that matter) they are simultaneously affirming and denying property rights.

(eg) He says, “This property belongs to me and not you!”

What thief would allow you to take what is rightfully his in retaliation?

The thief is the one that is holding a contradiction in philosophy and not the person defending.

[jerry3643]

Hi John D let me see if I can shed some light on it for you, and this may or may not be a total refutation but I do think it’s valid in that it shows that if the critics reasoning is valid then it leads to ridiculous consequences.

Rand said that when force it initiated or threatened that ethics goes out the window (ethics ends where a gun begins I think is her quote) and that’s why it’s ok to defend yourself.

If ethics doesn’t end where a gun begins then we would hold bank tellers legally accountable when a bank robber puts a gun to her head and demands that she puts the money in the bag. Now who in their right mind would say the bank teller is aiding in the crime of bank robbery? ( barring evidence that she conspired of coarse) No one. So If it’s valid that one cannot defend themselves from an aggressor because they would be violating the other persons rights, then it should also be valid to throw the bank teller in jail for aiding in a bank robbery because she violated the rights of the owners of the money as a means of defending herself.

lastly I don’t remember Rand used the word inalienable in her writings when talking about rights. But I could be wrong about that.

[jerry3643]

Sorry correction..

H A S = All heat pumps are airconditioners
~S A~H = All non-airconditioners are non heat pumps
~S E H = No non airconditioners are heat pumps
H E ~S = No heat pumps are non airconditioners

LOl so aggravating ….

[Author]

Posts