21 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672Ayn Rand's principal claim is that man should act rationally, for to do otherwise is to deny his nature, which is to accept a contradiction as true, which is self-destructive.
In that book, Vonnegut asserts that our only true duty, to oneself and to others, is to love and be loved - to be happy. Seem to recall (maybe someone else can help me out with this) that Ayn Rand made a similar claim in The Fountainhead.
In more circumstances than you might think, and in more circumstances than Rand critics would have you believe, the golden rule and Rand's Objectivist ethics yield similar solutions to moral problems.
Regarding duties toward others, Rand claims that one's only duty to his fellow man is to refrain from initiating the use of force against him.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I don't have anything to add to the discussion except that I absolutely love 'The Sirens of Titan'. It's one of my all-time favourite works of fiction.
See, I disagree with you here. Read a great book by Vonnegut called The Sirens Of Titan. In that book, Vonnegut asserts that our only true duty, to oneself and to others, is to love and be loved - to be happy.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes she assert this axiomatically or does she demonstrate it by
Regarding duties toward others, Rand claims that one's only duty to his fellow man is to refrain from initiating the use of force against him.
a rational proof? And by 'force' we mean............
Nemesio
21 Sep 05
5 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIt's basically a one-step deduction from the axiom that people, qua living beings, have a right to pursue life. (To deny them that right would be to accept a contradiction.)
Does she assert this axiomatically or does she demonstrate it by
a rational proof? And by 'force' we mean............
Nemesio
Axiom:
She says in the essay Man's Rights, "There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life." And, "The right to life is the source of all rights."
Conclusion: In the same essay, "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligation on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."
By force she means anything that deprives man of "the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."
The one-step argument should be clear. You cannot both accept the axiom, and accept that your neighbor doesn't have the right to be free of your forceful actions.
Dr. S
P.S. She might argue that the axiom isn't really an axiom, since its truth can be argued, maybe demonstrated wholly, from the law of non-contradiction.
P.P.S. In the context of this discussion, she would say that people do not have a right to an education, which is to say that people do not have a right to be given one. She would say that people have a right to pursue an education. A just government is not obligated to teach people to read; a just government is, however, obligated to refrain from criminalizing the act of learning to read.
21 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA just man has an obligation not to drown a child in a lake, but a just man has no obligation to save a drowning child? Ayn Rand is goddamn fool, as is anyone who admits only negative rights into their moral ontology.
It's basically a one-step deduction from the axiom that people, qua living beings, have a right to pursue life. (To deny them that right would be to accept a contradiction.)
Axiom:
She says in the essay Man's Rights, "There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life." And, "The right to life is the source of all righ ...[text shortened]... ust government is, however, obligated to refrain from criminalizing the act of learning to read.
21 Sep 05
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrTo compel the man to save the child is to deprive the man of his pursuit of his own life, should he choose to not save the child of his own volition. It arbitrarily assigns more value to the child's life.
A just man has an obligation not to drown a child in a lake, but a just man has no obligation to save a drowning child? Ayn Rand is goddamn fool, as is anyone who admits only negative rights into their moral ontology.
This is assuming the child is not the child of the man. The analysis would be different otherwise.
By the way, where is the father of the drowning child in your scenario? If the child has any sort of claim, it is against him, not some fisherman enjoying a Sunday afternoon in the sun, which he would have earned by working all week.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, nobody is talking about compelling the man to save the child. Having a moral obligation to X and being compelled to X are not equivalent.
To compel the man to save the child is to deprive the man of his pursuit of his own life, should he choose to not save the child of his own volition. It arbitrarily assigns more value to the child's life.
This is assuming the child is not the child of the man. The analysis would be different otherwise.
By the way, where is the father of the drowning child in your scenario?
Second, it is not the case that more value is being assigned to the child's life than the man's life, as the man's life is not at stake.
Third, there is no deprivation of the man's ability to pursue his own life, there is merely a temporary detour of the man's pursuit of his own ends.
Fourth, on what basis does Rand think that the man would have a special obligation to his child? If the man simply fails to care for his offspring, then her radical libertarianism seems to indicate that the father/son relationship is immaterial.
The child has no father.
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo. You have an obligation to render aid, unless you put yourself at undue risk.
To compel the man to save the child is to deprive the man of his pursuit of his own life, should he choose to not save the child of his own volition. It arbitrarily assigns more value to the child's life.
This is assuming the child is not the child of the man. The analysis would be different otherwise.
By the way, where is the father of the ...[text shortened]... isherman enjoying a Sunday afternoon in the sun, which he would have earned by working all week.
Why?
Because if you fail to act, when you could have easily done so, is to prove yourself unworthy as a human by virtue of being an unfeeling clod, therefore it is in your own self-interest to act.
Also, the next time you are drowning, don't bother calling for help.
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrLOL.
Fourth, on what basis does Rand think that the man would have a special obligation to his child? If the man simply fails to care for his offspring, then her radical libertarianism seems to indicate that the father/son relationship is immaterial.
The child has no father.
This is actually something that I wish her writings would address more explicitly. I don't think she'd go so far as to claim that the father/son relationship is immaterial. We've been through this before. I imagine she'd hypothesize that there exists an implicit contract between a parent and child, one of the terms of which obliges the parent to ensure the child's well-being, while in return the child exists as the parent's progeny and source of joy. [I'll now preempt your question of what happens if the child fails to hold up his end of the bargain, by saying that I'm not prepared to answer on Rand's behalf.]
22 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrIf 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?
Third, there is no deprivation of the man's ability to pursue his own life, there is merely a temporary detour of the man's pursuit of his own ends.
22 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightI'm explaining Rand's position, not mine.
No. You have an obligation to render aid, unless you put yourself at undue risk.
Why?
Because if you fail to act, when you could have easily done so, is to prove yourself unworthy as a human by virtue of being an unfeeling clod, therefore it is in your own self-interest to act.
Also, the next time you are drowning, don't bother calling for help.
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.