Ask An Objectivist

[Dinwar]

The dangers of asbestos have been known since antiquity, and for asbestos manufacturers hard to miss; if they didn't know, it was only because they looked away when their workers were dying.

I'm not in agreement with you here--for one thing, I know too much about asbestos. However, I will admit I chose a poor example. It doesn't negate the point: if someone is acting in good faith, on the best available data, they are not guilty of anything.

It is not always possible to determine who produced a particular plume of pollution -- there may be many people who contributed to it, even including the people who suffer from its consequences -- so which Objectivist criteria should a court use to determine whether anyone's rights have been violated?

If you contributed to the plume, you don't get to complain about its effects. That said, if a source CAN be determined the entity originating the contamination needs to clean it up. If it's a multi-source issue, each group may have to contribute a part of the funds/work necessary to clean it up. If none can be determined, I'd quesiton the validity of the study.

What are the criteria by which Objectivists determine which rights are fabrications and which are not?

Rights are those principles necessary for rational human interaction. If it doesn't involve that, it's not a right.

If something creates an obligation on the part of someone else, it's not a right--there can be no right to even partial enslavement. There can be contracts for such (I've met some folks in the BDSM community that have these, for example), but they are not rights, they are mutually agreed-upon contracts. BIG difference.

Rights must be universal. There can be no such thing as a right available to some, but not to others. Voting, under this premise, is not a right, but more akin to a maner; what I mean is, it's a generally agreed-upon way of doing things. Societies can work in other ways, though. (This relates to necessary vs. optional values, if you're familiar with that concept.)

Does that not also imply that a person has an inherent right to be able to maintain his/her body in a working condition?

They certainly have the right to try. But they do not have the right to the labor of others--meaning that it is not my obligation to maintain their bodies. They can trade for it, or others can voluntarily work towards it--but they cannot demand it as a right.

It's like property rights: you have the right to own property, and to keep your property. This does not mean that if you don't have property, it is my obligation to give you mine. Similarly, you have the right to your own body, but that in no way obliges me to help you keep it whole.

Pretty much everytime someone uses force, they will claim "it was only self-defense" and say "but he started it!".

That's why I'm not an anarchist. Courts--provided they have rational and set rules for how to proceed, rational and set rules for evidence, etc.--are pretty much the only way I've seen to work this out on a society-wide scale. Besides, just because someone says something doesn't mean they're right. This statement is akin to "Because people disagree on morality, objective morality is impossible."

What criteria does Objectivism use to determine what is and what is not an "initiation of force" ?

The violation of rights. Nine times out of ten in the real world, intentional violations of rights involve the initiation of force of some kind (note that Objectivism explicitely rejects the dichotomy between "force" and "violence"). Disproportional responses are not acceptable either--if you trespass it's a violation of my rights, but if I shoot you for stepping off a sidewalk I'm still guilty of murder. Again, if you act in good faith you may have to pay damages but it's irrational to accuse you of some crime (errors of knowledge vs. moral failings).

 

[Spindrift]

Rights are those principles necessary for rational human interaction. If it doesn't involve that, it's not a right.

If something creates an obligation on the part of someone else, it's not a right--there can be no right to even partial enslavement. There can be contracts for such (I've met some folks in the BDSM community that have these, for example), but they are not rights, they are mutually agreed-upon contracts. BIG difference.

Rights must be universal. There can be no such thing as a right available to some, but not to others. Voting, under this premise, is not a right, but more akin to a maner; what I mean is, it's a generally agreed-upon way of doing things. Societies can work in other ways, though. (This relates to necessary vs. optional values, if you're familiar with that concept.)

Principles necessary for rational human interaction? How is property ownership necessary?

If I own property with a river running through it, am I under obligation to not dam up the river and flood property owners upstream from me?

 

[Dinwar]

I was told by PixyMesa that rights were inherent. Is that wrong?

In a way, yes. Rights are principles of social interaction; thus, they can only exist in the context OF social interaction. Thus, they can be said to not be inherent.

That said, rights come into play the instant more than one human interacts. So in that way, they are inherent.

I don't think "inherent" vs "non-inherent" is a productive way to examine rights. It's a very Libertarian view.

Principles necessary for rational human interaction? How is property ownership necessary?

Someone mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons up-thread. There's that.

More fundamentally, as I said, use of property frequently degrades or destroys the property. When you eat, you destroy a portion of your property. If you didn't own it, I would have every right to take that as a violation of MY right to eat that food. Or, take housing--if we didn't have property rights, there'd be no reason for me to not live in your home.

Go see one of Gaetan's threads on economics to see where THAT leads you. Then come back and tell me that that's a rational way to live--or even a viable one!

Property rights are necessary for determining who gets to do what with what. If we didn't have them, anyone could do anything to anything--or, it'd be a case of might makes right, with the person willing to be the most violent and cruel dictating the use of the most property. Neither is a rational society; the first is anarchy, and therefore wouldn't last more than a few days, while the latter is enslavement.

If I own property with a river running through it, am I under obligation to not dam up the river and flood property owners upstream from me?

A bit of a special case situation, clearly not applicable to more general cases. But it's not impossible.

I recall it being discussed, but I don't recall what the answer was. I do think that if you were to dam up the river absent the consent of those downstream, you'd open yourself up to all sorts of problems, both social and legal. I do think that the concept of water rights has some validity, in as much as it's an attempt to ensure that the property rights of all are respected; its major failure is in the application, not the principles, and the reason for that is the politicization of the concept (I've worked on the Colorado River; I've seen that process in action).

 

[Spindrift]

In a way, yes. Rights are principles of social interaction; thus, they can only exist in the context OF social interaction. Thus, they can be said to not be inherent.

That said, rights come into play the instant more than one human interacts. So in that way, they are inherent.

I don't think "inherent" vs "non-inherent" is a productive way to examine rights. It's a very Libertarian view.

Someone mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons up-thread. There's that.

More fundamentally, as I said, use of property frequently degrades or destroys the property. When you eat, you destroy a portion of your property. If you didn't own it, I would have every right to take that as a violation of MY right to eat that food. Or, take housing--if we didn't have property rights, there'd be no reason for me to not live in your home.

Go see one of Gaetan's threads on economics to see where THAT leads you. Then come back and tell me that that's a rational way to live--or even a viable one!

Property rights are necessary for determining who gets to do what with what. If we didn't have them, anyone could do anything to anything--or, it'd be a case of might makes right, with the person willing to be the most violent and cruel dictating the use of the most property. Neither is a rational society; the first is anarchy, and therefore wouldn't last more than a few days, while the latter is enslavement.

A bit of a special case situation, clearly not applicable to more general cases. But it's not impossible.

I recall it being discussed, but I don't recall what the answer was. I do think that if you were to dam up the river absent the consent of those downstream, you'd open yourself up to all sorts of problems, both social and legal. I do think that the concept of water rights has some validity, in as much as it's an attempt to ensure that the property rights of all are respected; its major failure is in the application, not the principles, and the reason for that is the politicization of the concept (I've worked on the Colorado River; I've seen that process in action).

Are there ever any straightforward answers when it comes to objectivism?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Are there ever any straightforward answers when it comes to objectivism?

Money good! Socialism bad!

 

[Dinwar]

Are there ever any straightforward answers when it comes to objectivism?

If you'd ask a simple question, there would be. You're asking about some incredibly complex topics, though. This statement is akin to someone complaining "Aren't there any problems in physics that don't involve math?"

For peat's sake, we're talking abou the foundational rules of human interaction--it's BOUND to be complex! Add in the special-case scenarios that you keep tossing out, and we're talking about specific applications of those rules AT THE SAME TIME AS WE ARE DEFINING THEM. It makes the conversation a horrible muddle.

I did give you one straightforward test, though:

Go see one of Gaetan's threads on economics to see where THAT leads you. Then come back and tell me that that's a rational way to live--or even a viable one!

Gaetan is where the concept of no property rights leads you. His arguments (minus the bits about Utopia being real) are a consistent expression of that concept.

 

[Spindrift]

If you'd ask a simple question, there would be. You're asking about some incredibly complex topics, though. This statement is akin to someone complaining "Aren't there any problems in physics that don't involve math?"

For peat's sake, we're talking abou the foundational rules of human interaction--it's BOUND to be complex! Add in the special-case scenarios that you keep tossing out, and we're talking about specific applications of those rules AT THE SAME TIME AS WE ARE DEFINING THEM. It makes the conversation a horrible muddle.

I did give you one straightforward test, though:

Gaetan is where the concept of no property rights leads you. His arguments (minus the bits about Utopia being real) are a consistent expression of that concept.

You could have just said 'No'.

 

[Dinwar]

Money good! Socialism bad!

Money isn't necessarily good. It's a tool, nothing more.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Money isn't necessarily good. It's a tool, nothing more.

Okay, but Socialism still bad?

 

[Dinwar]

Okay, but Socialism still bad?

Yup. Collectivism of any kind--socialism, communism, what have you--is bad.

"There is only one evil thought, Mr. Rearden--the refual to think." ~Francisco

 

[Spindrift]

Yup. Collectivism of any kind--socialism, communism, what have you--is bad.

"There is only one evil thought, Mr. Rearden--the refual to think." ~Francisco

Misspellings are okay?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yup. Collectivism of any kind--socialism, communism, what have you--is bad.

"There is only one evil thought, Mr. Rearden--the refual to think." ~Francisco

Well there you go, straightforward answer: Socialism bad.

Just don't ask why, unless you've got time for a sermon.

 

[tsig]

I'm not in agreement with you here--for one thing, I know too much about asbestos. However, I will admit I chose a poor example. It doesn't negate the point: if someone is acting in good faith, on the best available data, they are not guilty of anything.

If you contributed to the plume, you don't get to complain about its effects. That said, if a source CAN be determined the entity originating the contamination needs to clean it up. If it's a multi-source issue, each group may have to contribute a part of the funds/work necessary to clean it up. If none can be determined, I'd quesiton the validity of the study.

Rights are those principles necessary for rational human interaction. If it doesn't involve that, it's not a right.

If something creates an obligation on the part of someone else, it's not a right--there can be no right to even partial enslavement. There can be contracts for such (I've met some folks in the BDSM community that have these, for example), but they are not rights, they are mutually agreed-upon contracts. BIG difference.

Rights must be universal. There can be no such thing as a right available to some, but not to others. Voting, under this premise, is not a right, but more akin to a maner; what I mean is, it's a generally agreed-upon way of doing things. Societies can work in other ways, though. (This relates to necessary vs. optional values, if you're familiar with that concept.)

They certainly have the right to try. But they do not have the right to the labor of others--meaning that it is not my obligation to maintain their bodies. They can trade for it, or others can voluntarily work towards it--but they cannot demand it as a right.
It's like property rights: you have the right to own property, and to keep your property. This does not mean that if you don't have property, it is my obligation to give you mine. Similarly, you have the right to your own body, but that in no way obliges me to help you keep it whole.

That's why I'm not an anarchist. Courts--provided they have rational and set rules for how to proceed, rational and set rules for evidence, etc.--are pretty much the only way I've seen to work this out on a society-wide scale. Besides, just because someone says something doesn't mean they're right. This statement is akin to "Because people disagree on morality, objective morality is impossible."

The violation of rights. Nine times out of ten in the real world, intentional violations of rights involve the initiation of force of some kind (note that Objectivism explicitely rejects the dichotomy between "force" and "violence"). Disproportional responses are not acceptable either--if you trespass it's a violation of my rights, but if I shoot you for stepping off a sidewalk I'm still guilty of murder. Again, if you act in good faith you may have to pay damages but it's irrational to accuse you of some crime (errors of knowledge vs. moral failings).

The hilited encapsulates Objectivism.

 

[Dinwar]

Misspellings are okay?

I have trouble spelling. This in no way should be taken as an excuse to reject the concepts.

Just don't ask why, unless you've got time for a sermon.

I haven't written two pages of text for this thread yet--to call what I've done a "sermon" is a pretty egregious mischaracterization.

And again, we're discussing the fundamental principles guiding human interaction. We should expect this to take a bit of time (or text, the literary equivalent).

I gave a simple answer: Property rights determine who gets to do what with what. Spindrift tossed that out the window, and demanded I explain why we need property rights. If you don't like the simple version, you don't get to complain when more complex versions are offered.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I haven't written two pages of text for this thread yet--to call what I've done a "sermon" is a pretty egregious mischaracterization.

I was referring to Rand's tendency to sermonize. I'm pretty sure at least one of the manifestos in Altas Shrugged was explicitly dedicated to enumerating the myriad reasons why Socialism bad.


I'm still hoping for an answer to my question, by the way.

 

[Spindrift]

I have trouble spelling. This in no way should be taken as an excuse to reject the concepts.

I haven't written two pages of text for this thread yet--to call what I've done a "sermon" is a pretty egregious mischaracterization.

And again, we're discussing the fundamental principles guiding human interaction. We should expect this to take a bit of time (or text, the literary equivalent).

I gave a simple answer: Property rights determine who gets to do what with what. Spindrift tossed that out the window, and demanded I explain why we need property rights. If you don't like the simple version, you don't get to complain when more complex versions are offered.

I didn't toss it out the window, I was trying to dig deeper. If X determines who gets to do Y, then asking why we need X is a logical question. That seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I didn't ask Dinwar - I asked Craig24.

Craig24 seems as perplexed by your scenario as I am. What has it to do with Objectivism? I'm not one myself, but I'm familiar enough with it not to misrepresent it. It has problems, but people getting to shoot babies in ditches without serious consequence isn't one of them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As long as it's not obviously abuse, there's really not much to be done.

Who decides what is and is not abuse? Seems you wouldn't consider smoking tobacco abuse, despite the fact that it creates a chemical dependency and causes physical harm. How about injecting heroin?

Again, I'm not being flippant.

The use of the term "criminal" implies that they did.

Do you agree with the previous poster, then, that all crime must be redefined to an act of force, whether the crime itself actually involves force in any way or not?

The police have the authority--derived from the deligated right to self-defense--to arrest those they have reasonable justification to consider guilty of a crime. If the police acted on reasonable evidence and were wrong, they may have to pay for damages and the like, but they were still justified in the use of force.

Again, this only makes sense if you define any and all crimes as an initiation of force, regardless of whether or not that's an accurate description. Seems to me like twisting the definition of "force" in order to fit the edict, but I'm open to an explanation of how it's not.

 

[Myriad]

Simple: we eliminate the commons. For areas where this is not possible (say, the atmosphere) we would rely on the courts to determine if someone has violated our rights. For example, [the owner of] a factory that discharges toxic materials into the groundwater would have a moral and legal obligation to clean those discharges up, and pay any damagess involved. Same with air polution.

(typo amended)

What if the damages include loss of life? How are damages from that determined?

What if the factory owner cannot afford the cleanup and/or damages (either because the owner is broke, or the damages are large, or both)? Should factory owners be required to carry liability insurance to assure that the victims can still recover their damages in such cases? If not, how are the damages made good?

 

[JaysonR]

Objectivism is an ideal; not an accounting.
It doesn't belong contrasted against Subjectivism, when Subjectivism is being applied as an account for the state of existence; but could contrast Subjectivism if Subjectivism is being held as a moral ideal (e.g. one praises Subjectivism as more ideal than Objectivism).

This is evident in the Objectivist method of accounting for egoist selfishness, and I am not weighing judgement here; keeping in mind that my only point is that of classification of Objectivism.

For example: in Objectivism, the con-artist is not considered an example of showing Objectivism's egoist selfishness because the con-artist violates the principle of rights (e.g. John Galt's oath) and thereby causes harm not only to their victim but also their own self (in the Objectivist perspective); often times this is considered harmful to the con-artist because it also violates the principle that every man is an end unto himself.

This is a set of aesthetic moral ideals, but it is not a philosophical interpretation for accounting for observable existence; there is a distinction between these two concepts.

The con-artist is a subjective reality, and one in which thrives and builds entire governments - for politics itself is exactly a long conning of people into each person's wants; even at their expenses.

Another simple example is that if I attempted to quantify battlefield tactics, purely logistically - ignoring all current modern laws regarding human rights and laws of war, then Objectivism would have strong issue with the violations and not consider them accurate representations of egoist selfishness, but those tactics would be very capable of delivering victory; yet, again, Objectivism would not consider the victories as such.

Objectivism regards the notions as inferior of masochism, sadism, submission and domination, or human sacrifice (willful or otherwise, for any reason - even saving another); yet these constructs exist within the world, and are often very successful adherences and wants - not always are they plagues or negative addictions.

The point here is that when a philosophy has a guideline for what does or does not qualify as being or not being a given quality by regard of logical moral weight, it is not a philosophy accounting for reality, but it is a philosophy proposing one construct for an ideal reality.

As such; it does not fare comparing Objectivism against Subjectivism, if by Subjectivism we are referring to the accounting of the state of reality and not a moral ideal we find in Subjectivism.