trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/08/83)
Response to ssc-vax!sts - Stan: First, I am glad you read some of Rand's work, but unless you paid very careful attention to Galt's speech, and a few other speeches, I doubt you have more that a "foggy feel" of what Objectivism says. Sorry if this sounds harsh - I intend it as constructive criticism. It is true that humans can and do act irrationally. The point that Objectivism makes is that humans are *capable* of being rational. Objectivism explicitly declares that this is good - that is is the proper mode of living for humans. Do you seriously want to claim that irrationality is the ideal condition for humans? Do you want to base your ethics on what the irrational person will do? (Some would - I wont bother to argue with them, since anyone who rejects rationality rejects any means of convincing them.) A "right to something" is a right to action - the right to not have others interfere with one as one tries to achieve that thing. You have a right, (derived from the right to live) to seek a job - but not a right to the job you seek. You have a right to eat food you have, but not a right to anyone's food at all. A moral crime (as opposed to a legal crime - which may or may not be irrational, since it could be an immoral law) is always irrational. That includes stealing for food or drugs. As to starving, in general, I will assume that you are talking about starving in an environment where food is available. In this case, one must ask - why is the person starving, and why cant they find work - even if it is sweeping a sidewalk or some other menial task? As to solving "that problem in general" - I'm sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what the general problem *is* that you refer to. What would Rand's "choosing the wealthier", if indeed she would, have to do with it? Are you refering to some supposed conflict of rights? How, in the context of the above discussion of what rights are, would such a conflict arise? It is not so much that you have a right to hear the truth, as you have a right not to be deceived. Note that this is derived from fundamental human rights. You need to know the true nature of the reality surrounding you, in order to support your life via your rationality. Being lied to is an act of interference with that process, and so an interference with your right to life. The subliminal advertisements you refer to implicitly state "this product could not be sold (at least as well) if potential customers were allowed to consider it consciously". Thus, they are an attempt to subvert the customers rational processes, which are needed to support their lives. So, I would say that such should be illegal, as an attack on people's minds. Tom Craver houti!trc
sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/09/83)
*very* interesting. Some answers and some sidestepping. After sending off the original article, I realized that Objectivism only claims that humans can and should be rational, not that they actually are. I suppose it's a nice dream, but what evidence is there that *any* human *can* be rational according to the standards set by Objectivism? Ayn Rand's heroes appear to be completely rational, but they are also much larger than life. My question remains unanswered. "Are there any completely rational humans?" (I'm not going to quibble over definitions until I see some examples of real persons as models of rationality) I assume that the answer to the question "Do I have a right to eat?" is No (which is what I expected). I do like the answer to "Do I have a right to noninterference with rational thought?", which was Yes. I thought the "problem in general" was obvious, but no, so it here it is again: "Can rights conflict with one another, and if so, how are they resolved?" It appears to me that they can, the easiest example being a case where only one of two people can survive in some situation, and it is up to a third person to decide who will live (perhaps a robot, hence the reference to Asimov). Many abortions might also fall into that category, so it's not a purely theoretical problem. A trickier problem might be that of a ship's captain who is left with only enough food and water for half the crew, and might be able to reach a port if half the crew were killed immediately (I know, there's a lot of variables, but am looking for ideas). I sure we can all think of similar situations. What's the answer? stan the lep hacker ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)