trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/12/83)
Response to Paul Torek on needs, and their forming a basis for rights: (First, let me say that you make a number of unwarranted statements of what Objectivism does or does not say. Let me suggest that you phrase such ideas as questions in the future, lest you be considered to be practicing a deception.) I disagree that needs are "imaginary" in an absolute sense - though it is true that needs are based upon acceptance of something that they are needed for. The reason to continue living is that nothing else can be valued, done, etc without life. Living can be fun, and pleasurable. Life is (normally) its own reward. Can you say the same for being "petty, oversensitive, and unobservant"? Also, pettiness, etc are not fundamental qualities of humans - it is possible to be human and not have those qualities. Is it possible to be human without being alive? Would a human body with a chimp's brain be human? The qualities that I have stated are fundamental to human beings are exactly that - those which one could not be called human without. (And again - acting irrational does not remove the capability to act rationally - though it does *effectively mean that one is not acting like a human being. It might be true that pettiness, etc are fundamental qualities of a jerk - but as I suggested above - is being a jerk its own reward? Is being a jerk more basic than being a human being? In response to the question "Why should I care about living?" an Objectivist would compare the relative value of continued life with the null value of not living. In most conditions, some pleasure or reasonable hope for future pleasure in life can exist. However, there really are extreme situations (cancer patient in extreme pain, etc) when continued life might be of negative value. If so, it is possible for death to be the proper *personal* choice. I would point out that, with the exception of circumstances outside of human control, such conditions rarely arise. Ayn Rand described one such in her book "We the Living" - about a man who had been an idealistic communist in Russia, and eventually came to realize the evil results of that system. If my interpretation is correct, he committed suicide rather than daily experience the torment of knowing that the evil conditions about him were the consequence of his actions (and others like him), and were not likely to be alleviated by any further actions he could take. Rather than live (biologically) a living death (psychologically), he chose actual death. The reason that we are not "free" to do anything we please, is that we, as humans, can only claim certain rights *because* we are human. To deny those same rights to any other human is to deny ourselves those rights. (Also it is impractical to attack other people - they tend to attack back. In other words - we could not have civilization without respecting others' rights.) Actually, we are "free" to do it - but not without accepting the consequences of loss of rights, and being treated like the monster we would be acting like. It is in one's best interest to take the risk of dying rather than violate someone else's right to life. Such an act in effect declares "I am not human", since that right and the obligation (not duty) to respect it arises from being human. To give up one's humanity is to give up human life, and to exist only as an animal. That would be a fate worse than death for a human. I agree that allowing killing to be considered moral (except in defense of human life) "leads down the slippery slope". It is interesting that a Utilitarian would probably say it is alright for one person to be murdered if 100 others who were going to die were saved - since that is a greater net benefit. (Sorry about that, Paul - but I think you will agree that that statement is no worse than your implication that Objectivism would allow such. And in fact, it is fairer, in that it arises from claims you have made, (summation benefit) whereas your implication about Objectivism is in direct disregard of points that your notes indicate you knew I had made (respect for right to life).) The right to have property means the right to create property, and to trade it for other property, or hold on to it. This right does not imply anything but a right to action, and a right to not be interfered with. It is not a right to demand property - only to create and keep it. You could not reasonably "appropriate" the whole world, since most of it is already owned. In order to "appropriate" something, you have to do more than stick a flag in it and yell "MINE!". You have to use it, prepare it for use, or otherwise *take* ownership "from" nature. I agree that merely building a fence might not be enough to claim ownership of a piece of land - but it is certainly an indication of intent to possess a piece of land. Perhaps if one built such a fence, and was not challenged for a period of years, one would own it. Certainly one could claim to have taken possession of the ground directly under the fence, since one is directly using that land to "store" a fence. The concept of money or other property as "stored up life" does indicate who owns that money or property. Where is it stored? In time saving appliances, in factories that produce life supporting goods, in life saving/ aiding research. In short, in all the things that one *invests* in, which enhance lives currently or could enhance lives in the future. Tom Craver houti!trc