My horse has the right to an education...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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?

Yes, 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.

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.

Originally posted by bbarr

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.

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 bbarr
Yes, but what reason is there for thinking that being kidnapped is analogous to acting in accord with one's moral obligations?

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 DoctorScribbles
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.

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.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

Suppose it is amongst my ends to hit you over the head with a shovel. What would Rand say about that?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

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.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
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.

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?

Originally posted by bbarr
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.

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.

Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose it is amongst my ends to hit you over the head with a shovel. What would Rand say about that?

A 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.

Originally posted by bbarr
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?

lol
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?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

OK, 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?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

Ethical 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.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
OK, then rationally, doesn't it demand that one push another out of the way of a shovel assault?

Demand of whom? The person swinging the shovel? Yes. Why would you attempt to let him off the moral hook while putting somebody else on it?

Originally posted by bbarr
Ethical theory confirmation, like scientific theory confirmation, does not proceed by demonstration.

Objectivism 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.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Demand of whom? The person swinging the shovel? Yes. Why would you attempt to let him off the moral hook while putting somebody else on it?

No a third party; I assume the shovel-swinger is out of control for some reason.