22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, there can be no derivation of a logical contradiction from the following premises:
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 sh ...[text shortened]... ing a rational being does not hold. Thus, a rational being would not commit the shovel assault.
(1) I have a right to be free from shovel assaults.
(2) You have no right to be free from shovel assaults.
I may simply deny that your well-being matters. My well-being, on the other hand, matters by virtue of being my well-being. There is no contradiction here unless you can establish that I must take the private reasons of others seriously. But to establish that would commit you to endorsing all sorts of positive rights (e.g., the right to be saved when drowning if being saved does not place an unreasonable burden upon the savior). This would, of course, vitiate Rand's whole libertarian view.
Second, I may simply deny that I have any right to be free from shovel assaults. I may deny this because I deny that there are such things as rights. If so, then there is no contradiction in denying that you have a right to be free from shovel assaults. Hence, there is no irrationality involved in hitting you over the head with a shovel. Hence, I may proceed in my shovel assault of you with a clear conscience, as I am not violating any Randian imperative.
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHardly. Praytell, how does one derive a normative conclusion from merely descriptive premises?
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.
22 Sep 05
First, there can be no derivation of a logical contradiction from the following premises:
(1) I have a right to be free from shovel assaults.
(2) You have no right to be free from shovel assaults.
You're right. It requires acceptance of the axiom, as I said.
Second, I may simply deny that I have any right to be free from shovel assaults.
Then you deny the axiom and we have no dispute.
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrDid Rand wear a helmet?
First, there can be no derivation of a logical contradiction from the following premises:
(1) I have a right to be free from shovel assaults.
(2) You have no right to be free from shovel assaults.
I may simply deny that your well-being matters. My well-being, on the other hand, matters by virtue of being my well-being. There is no contradiction ...[text shortened]... my shovel assault of you with a clear conscience, as I am not violating any Randian imperative.
It's a pretty selfish POV, but ...
rec for this, I can't see through it, maybe the good Doctor can ...
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere you have it folks, dispute settled.
[b]First, there can be no derivation of a logical contradiction from the following premises:
(1) I have a right to be free from shovel assaults.
(2) You have no right to be free from shovel assaults.
You're right. It requires acceptance of the axiom, as I said.
Second, I may simply deny that I have any right to be free from shovel assaults.
Then you deny the axiom and we have no dispute.[/b]
Now back to General ...
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrOne doesn't. To treat Objectivist conclusions as normative would be an error in their application. But that doesn't mean they should be rejected. You don't reject the Pythagorean theorem, do you?
Hardly. Praytell, how does one derive a normative conclusion from merely descriptive premises?
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat part of "fundamental right" don't you understand? That one has a fundamental right to one's life (the axiom you mention above) is a normative premise. The mysterious derivation from this premise to the claim that we are obligated to respect the negative rights of others (also mentioned by you above) is the derivation of a normative conclusion. There is nothing "objective" about objectivism that doesn't also apply to virtue theory, utilitarianism, or normative cultural relativism, for that matter. Further, as I claimed above, and as you bizarrely denied given the mentioned axiom, since we are bound by the negative rights of others, we cannot go about pursuing our ends willy-nilly. Specifically, we cannot pursue our ends willy-nilly when those ends conflict with the negative rights of others.
One doesn't. To treat Objectivist conclusions as normative would be an error in their application. But that doesn't mean they should be rejected. You don't reject the Pythagorean theorem, do you?
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrIt needn't be considered one. You choose to view it as one because it addresses the questions in the field of morals. Do you deny that it can be considered purely abstractly, like the axioms of arithmetic?
That one has a fundamental right to one's life (the axiom you mention above) is a normative premise.
22 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you know what the term 'normative' means? There is no other way to construe the notion of a fundamental right to one's life other than as normative. To have a right entails that others have an obligation (as Rand herself notes). To have a right is to have a legitimate claim on another. Rights are irreducibly normative.
It needn't be considered one. You choose to view it as one because it addresses the questions in the field of morals. Do you deny that it can be considered purely abstractly, like the axioms of arithmetic?
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrDon't call it a "right" then. Substitute the symbol R.
Do you know what the term 'normative' means? There is no other way to construe the notion of a fundamental right to one's life other than as normative. To have a right entails that others have an obligation (as Rand herself notes). To have a right is to have a legitimate claim on another. Rights are irreducibly normative.
Start from scratch.
Define various entity pairs E and interactions I between them. Some (I,E) have the property R, some don't, according to some axiomatic rules.
Are we still in the normative realm?
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNope, if you abstract away from all normative predicates in your axiom, then you will never be able to reintroduce normative predicates (unless you stipulate further axioms). No normative predicates yields no prescriptive force or grounds for judgement. You'd be left with nothing at all.
Don't call it a "right" then. Substitute the symbol R.
Start from scratch.
Define various entity pairs E and interactions I between them. Some (I,E) have the property R, some don't, according to some axiomatic rules.
Are we still in the normative realm?
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOh Russ, why have you forsaken me?
If you are truly Forum Christ, you will make the Forum Issues forum appear before us once again.
If you cannot, then you are a fraud, and nothing you say should be believed.
Dr. S
P.S. I'm sure Ivanhoe will alert this ad hominem forthwith.
22 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou'd be left with a system similar to geometry. To the extent that it models reality, it is useful. If you draw a radius in the sand, you know about what the circle will look like, even though the system itself doesn't deal with sand. It's hardly nothing at all.
Nope, if you abstract away from all normative predicates in your axiom, then you will never be able to reintroduce normative predicates (unless you stipulate further axioms). No normative predicates yields no prescriptive force or grounds for judgement. You'd be left with nothing at all.
But this is all irrelevant, as the matter has been closed. Who's going to believe a fraud anyway. If you sit at Russ's right hand, give him a kick square in the nuts for me.
Dr. S
P.S. I'm off to watch some Ali G Season 2, new on DVD, bought and paid for from the fruits of my labor. If you come across any drowning kids, don't call me - I don't want to be interrupted.