trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/17/83)
Response to Paul Torek: {"Objectivist morality", "agreeing with Paul
Torek"
You say I am using "proof by definition" in regard to the nature and
definition of humans as rational, and imply that this is somehow a
flaw in my argument. In fact, I say that it is *obvious* that
humans have the rational capability - your being able to read and
(frequently) understand what I write is evidence of that. So, it
is perfectly valid to make up a name for the class of creatures that
is capable of that, and call them "human". The word "human" can be
used because the class of creatures my definition refers to is almost
exactly that which is commonly refered to as "human". Because it
is so obvious, I think that it will be rather difficult for either
you or Alan to prove that that which is normally called "human" does
not have the rational capability, (which I refer to as "rationality").
If it was rational (with full information of the risks involved) to
make an agreement at one time, it is still in one's self interest to
keep the agreement, even should some of the dangers involved become
concrete. The thing is, it is not rational to agree "Even if tigers
come running after me, I will do so-and-so". Rather, one should
agree "I will do so-and-so, and accept some normal risks. However,
it must be understood that if I am presented with abnormally dangerous
conditions, I will want out of this agreeent". (Maybe you begin to
see why legal contracts are so complex and important...) In short, one
should not make agreements that require one to do something, no matter
how impossible or dangerous. One might agree to take certain *limited*
risks (such as the possibility of loosing one's home) in order to
get the possibility of much greater benefits (EG one's own business).
And, if you want a more direct reason for it to still be rational, it is
reasonable to agree at the time of making a (then) rational agreement
to agree as well to give some third party (IE the government) the power
to ensure satisfaction of the agreement by *both* sides.
In regard to my "self-esteem" argument - I made it clear that one's
self-esteem would be hurt if one did not try to repair damages done
to the other party, lest one violate their rights. *That* is what
keeps it from being circular. It *is* wrong to harm other's rights,
and to "get away with it" does imply that one has "gotten away with"
harming the other.
Tom Craver
houti!trc