wlinden@dasys1.UUCP (William Linden) (03/15/88)
No argument from _this_ libertarian. A libertarian would oppose
abortion if he considered the initiation of force against another
human being-- and that is precisely what the entire controversy is a
dispute over.
However, the anarchist wing, whatever their personal views on the
subject, might ask how a "law" forbidding something would be enforced
in their ideal libertarian society. It does not lend itself to a
"restitution" approach.
--
Will Linden {sun,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Compuserve 72737,2150 {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wlinden
MCI Mail WLINDEN {portal,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad/joel@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) (03/16/88)
It comes down to whether or when the fetus is considered a human being. I thinks that's the center of the controversy, libertarian philosophy probably doesn't enter into this determination.
joel@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) (03/16/88)
The whole controversy comes down to whether or when a fetus becomes a human being. Libertarian philosophy probably has nothign to do with this determination.
gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (03/17/88)
In article <2146@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> joel@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes: } The whole controversy comes down to whether or when a fetus becomes a } human being. Libertarian philosophy probably has nothign to do with } this determination. There is also the question of how much power the state should be given to control the bodies of its constituents. Preventing abortion by state power, that is, force, is equivalent to invading the body of the woman carrying the fetus. -- G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
carrier@maypo.berkeley.edu (Stephen Carrier) (03/17/88)
In article <2146@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> joel@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes: >The whole controversy comes down to whether or when a fetus becomes a >human being. Libertarian philosophy probably has nothign to do with >this determination. I am sympathetic to this position thought I don't entirely agree with it. I am tired of hearing the refrain: A fetus is a human being! No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't! Yes it is! We _know_ what a fetus is, more or less. Whether or not an n-week fetus is a human being is an entirely arbitrary matter, unless you care to define `human being' and if your definition is `human zygote past the age of x days' or `having an adult human's right-to-life' then you are either begging an answer or begging the question. The real question is: Does the mother (father, mother's mother, some judge, etc.) have the legitimate power of deciding life and death for a human fetus. (It is disingenuous to consider the fetus non-human. What else could it be? A fish?) At issue is what options should people be allowed in regulating the introduction of new humans to the community of human beings. (Here simply defined as beings whose life is legally protected.) There needs to be some convention because lo and behold there are new humans appearing all the time, and some line of demarcation is necessary. It is ridiculous to push this line to pre-zygote time, although it could be done, and in a sense this is the traditional Catholic interpretation of `be fruitful and multiply.' What I mean is don't waste your time doing other things when you could be raising a family. In a sense, not raising a family is `killing potential children' that would exist if you were raising a family. This seems absurd to me. On the other hand, killing your children after they have reached their majority and are no longer financially dependent on you seems wrong too. (I am being a little bit facetious, but am trying to make a real point.) I am only trying to clarify what the issue is in unemotional terms. Here is a continuum of answers to the basic question: 0. You have no right to be doing anything except maximizing the number of offspring born. 1. Be fruitful and multiply, but use some common sense. Maximize the number of offspring that live to their majority. 2. Abstinence. Children are the natural result of sex, so accept the child or give up sex. In other words, no contraception. 3. Contraception, but no Abortion. 4. Abortion, first tri-mester only. 5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own. Then it is the obligation of the medical profession to keep it alive after the mother has evicted it from her body. 6. Infanticide. 7. Killing your toddlers. (Perhaps you don't have enough food for toddler and the older children too. I claim that every practice on this list is morally defensible in some circumstances, and has been practiced with some frequency in the history of human experience.) 8. Killing your teenage son or daughter because they are ungrateful belligerant dangerous pains in the ass. (I need to provide rationales for these last two because they seem so obviously wrong to modern sensibilities. I think this was a not unusual occurence in medieval europe.) 9. Kill your adult child because you don't like his looks. (No defense forthcoming, at least from me.) This is a continuum, although (2) is a little moralistic, just because sex has historically been a great motivator for reproduction, so the advocates of (1) want to keep sex on their side. I include (0) and (9) for absurdity's sake. Reactions? Abortion is the type of social question that can't be resolved by appeal to axiomatics, (unless an answer is taken as axiomatic, in which case there is nothing to discuss.) That is my main point. There is no `libertarian' answer to this question. I think compromise is necessary. I think the way it is now in the United States if fine, because the opposition mostly is a bunch of reactionaries who are using abortion as a stalking horse for an anti-religious-and-other-freedoms agenda that _is_ clearly wrong on libertarian grounds. (I'm not making friends, am I?) Now I could cross-post this to talk.abortion, but then all those incoherent screamers would come down on alt.individualism, and I would never deserve to be forgiven. Also, I am more interested in the opinions of alt.individualism readers anyways. So: in responding, try to be calm and reasoning. I will also post this to talk.abortion but will conceal the fact that abortion is being discussed in alt.indy, which is brand-new and vulnerable to takeover by monomaniacs. Flames to talk.abortion. Stephen Carrier ucbvax!bosco!carrier
rsp@pbhyf.UUCP (Steve Price) (03/18/88)
In article <7751@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, carrier@maypo.berkeley.edu (Stephen Carrier) writes: > In article <2146@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> joel@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes: > > 8. Killing your teenage son or daughter because they are ungrateful > belligerant dangerous pains in the ass. (I need to provide rationales > for these last two because they seem so obviously wrong to modern > sensibilities. I think this was a not unusual occurence in medieval > europe.) > > 9. Kill your adult child because you don't like his looks. (No defense > forthcoming, at least from me.) > The medieval child-killers had some interesting "sacred" justification: Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear." I don't mean to turn this into talk.religion, but in pursuing Libertarian ideals, we need to be realistic about our cultural baggage. We live in a world where for generations untold male adults assumed an absolute life and death power over their dependents. This not only included fetuses, but as the text shows, "children" of quite advanced age. The Libertarian often feels that the rightness of fairly radical individual freedom should be "obvious" to all. But the larger culture's history is one of radical tribal and group control over individuals. In the Old Testament world view the rebellious son's right-to-life was of less weight than his parent's duty to enforce proper respect for the group and obedience to authority. In fact, in the Old Testament world-view, Libertarian individualism would probably be among the most serious conceivable assult upon all that is of value. The penalty for that is laid out above. Remember that when politicans and preachers call for a "return" to the "old values". Steve Price pacbell!pbhyf!rsp (415)823-1951 "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the mainhood of everyone of its members." -- R.W. Emerson
wlinden@dasys1.UUCP (William Linden) (03/18/88)
In article <7751@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> carrier@maypo.UUCP (Stephen Carrier) writes: >Here is a continuum of answers to the basic question: >5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own.... > >6. Infanticide. I honestly can't see this as a ground for distinction between 5) and 6). A newborn infant can not "live on its own" without life support provided by others. The "right of abortion" comes at least dangerously close to saying that one has a right to kill those who are completely dependant on one. And note that abandonment of unwanted infants was taken for granted by the classical cultures we consider civilized. >I think the way it is now in the United States if fine, >because the opposition mostly is a bunch of reactionaries who are... doing various evial things. Careful with the ad hominem. Even ignoring the egregrious generalization involved, is it reasonable or even safe to reject anything which might find us agreeing with The Bad Guys? Try substituting "The opposition to X is mainly a bunch of crypto-Communists who are, etc." >Now I could cross-post this to talk.abortion, but then all those >incoherent screamers would come down on alt.individualism, and I would >never deserve to be forgiven. Left on! -- Will Linden {sun,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Compuserve 72737,2150 {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wlinden MCI Mail WLINDEN {portal,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad/
dhawk@well.UUCP (David Hawkins) (03/19/88)
In the referenced article, rsp@pbhyf.UUCP (Steve Price) wrote: >> >The medieval child-killers had some interesting "sacred" justification: >[bible quotes deleted here] > >I don't mean to turn this into talk.religion, but in pursuing Libertarian >ideals, we need to be realistic about our cultural baggage. We live in a >world where for generations untold male adults assumed an absolute life >and death power over their dependents. This not only included fetuses, >but as the text shows, "children" of quite advanced age. > >The Libertarian often feels that the rightness of fairly radical individual >freedom should be "obvious" to all. But the larger culture's history is one >of radical tribal and group control over individuals. > Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism, replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot the guard because he refused to make a rational choice. (And that Dagny would have regretted shooting an animal, but felt no remorse over shooting this human.) The consistent structure of Objectivism allows the individual to be accusor, judge, and executor. If you say that human life is only different from other animal life by its power of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and decide if it gets to live. [Some argue that the guard was 'choosing' suicide (in contradiction to Rand's description of the event) in which case Dagny was shooting a reasoning being.] Anyway, if you're going to argue for extreme individualism then you need something more explicit than 'we value life' as a guideline. And still recognize that as a group you can't decide how an individual is going to interpret that or act it out. -- David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk Faith is never identical with piety. -- Karl Barth
rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) (03/19/88)
/ hpcuhb:alt.individualism / carrier@maypo.berkeley.edu (Stephen Carrier) / 7:35 pm Mar 16, 1988 / >5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own. Then it >is the obligation of the medical profession to keep it alive after the >mother has evicted it from her body. > >6. Infanticide. Whoa! This is supposed to be a continuum and you omitted abortion up to and including immediately prior to birth? In fact, this is my own position, since consciousness and volition are essential to personhood and both begin at birth. Consciousness (conceptual thought, in this context), is dependent upon sensory input and meaningful sensory input does not begin until birth. Prior to birth the fetus is totally dependent on the mother; afterward, the baby possesses some volition (eg. cries when hungry).
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (03/20/88)
In article <3463@dasys1.UUCP> wlinden@dasys1.UUCP (William Linden) writes: >In article <7751@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> carrier@maypo.UUCP (Stephen Carrier) writes: >>Here is a continuum of answers to the basic question: >>5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own.... >> >>6. Infanticide. >I honestly can't see this as a ground for distinction between 5) and >6). A newborn infant can not "live on its own" without life support >provided by others. The "right of abortion" comes at least dangerously >close to saying that one has a right to kill those who are completely >dependant on one. In case 5, the only person who can support the fetus is the mother, who may not have consented to the situation. In case 6, the infant could be put up for adoption by someone (anyone!) who *does* consent to support the child. How about this scheme: we allow abortion on demand during (say) the first trimester, or alternatively before the embryo develops the usual signs of life (brain activity, heartbeat...) A woman who allows the pregnancy to continue past this stage of development can be considered to have consented to support the now-human fetus, as long as the pregnancy proceeds without complications. (She knew (or *should* have known) she was pregnant, had the chance to abort the pregnancy earlier, before the embryo developed into a living being, but didn't.) At this point we would require some compelling reason (as opposed to "I changed my mind and don't want to have it anymore", but certainly allowing "the continuation of this pregnancy would endanger the mother's health") to allow an abortion. For example, one might consider allowing an abortion in a case where a massive birth defect went unnoticed until late in the pregnancy. This is akin to euthanasia; the abortion is not for the mother's convenience but to prevent what will probably be a short, painful, miserable life for the fetus. The complication is that the fetus/infant is incapable of rationally deciding to end its own life, as an adult might in a similar situation (a cancer patient, say.....) Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making: forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being would not consent to. This neatly solves the problem of allowing abortions, but not gratuitous infanticide. -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) (03/22/88)
>Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism, >replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the >individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist >as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot >the guard because he refused to make a rational choice. (And that >Dagny would have regretted shooting an animal, but felt no remorse >over shooting this human.) The consistent structure of Objectivism >allows the individual to be accusor, judge, and executor. If you say >that human life is only diGtrent from other animal life by its power >of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and >decide if it gets to live. ... >-- >David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism.
grgurich@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Grgurich) (03/23/88)
In article <23347@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >How about this scheme: we allow abortion on demand during (say) the first >trimester, or alternatively before the embryo develops the usual signs of life >(brain activity, heartbeat...) > >A woman who allows the pregnancy to continue past this stage of development >can be considered to have consented to support the now-human fetus, as Just a pointer here. Why the line drawn after conception? How about A COUPLE (it takes two) who have sex without a completely failsafe BCD can be considered to have consented to support the human fetus... To call a day old fetus something else and use that name in a definition which "proves" the fetus isn't human is false rationalization. A fertilized egg IS human. It is not something that will BECOME human. Matt Grgurich Throw me my asbestos suit! Quick!
rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) (03/23/88)
/ hpcuhb:alt.individualism / rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) / 9:27 pm Mar 21, 1988 / >Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism, >replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the >individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist >as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot >the guard because he refused to make a rational choice. (And that >Dagny would have regretted shooting an animal, but felt no remorse >over shooting this human.) The consistent structure of Objectivism >allows the individual to be accusor, judge, and executor. If you say >that human life is only diGtrent from other animal life by its power >of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and >decide if it gets to live. ... >-- >David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism. ----------
dhawk@well.UUCP (David Hawkins) (03/24/88)
In the referenced article, rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) wrote: >> (Hawkins): >>Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism, >>replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the >>individual. [material deleted] >>If you say >>that human life is only different from other animal life by its power >>of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and >>decide if it gets to live. >Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything >about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying >isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism. Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with: "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. Her final statement: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival _qua_ man." So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a reasoning being. This was the justification in Dagny's killing the guard while rescuing John Galt--"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness." _Atlas Shrugged_, p. 1066 in my paperback copy. That's the problem with Rand's system: you get to be accuser, judge, and executioner. Rand doesn't base this passage on force vrs. force, but on the man's not being human because he refused to make a choice. "The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: _Whose_ reason? The answer is _Yours_ . . . your mind is your only judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal." [Atlas Shrugged, page. 1017.] I don't see the difference between this and pure subjectivity. If reason is decided by the individual then it's subjective--it's related to the subject. If the individual decides to go around killing mystics with Rand's ethical system as her/his basis then who's to disagree? It's clearly in there as a part of the whole system of thought. This does tie in with Rand's views on abortion: "An embyro _has no rights._ Rights do not pertain to a _potential_, only to an _actual_ being." Ayn Rand, _The Objectivist_, October 1968, p. 6. You could argue that Rand intended for children to have some rights, but you'd have to find an example where she listed what they would be. But another arguement would be that they had no rights until they became reasoning beings. (That opens up another can of worms since Rand claimed that you had to choose to become a reasoning/conscious being--quite a task for an unreasoning being.) 8-) -- David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk Faith is never identical with piety. -- Karl Barth
carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) (03/25/88)
In article <23347@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: > The complication is that the fetus/infant is incapable of rationally deciding > to end its own life, as an adult might in a similar situation (a cancer > patient, say.....) Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion > for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making: > forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being > would not consent to. This neatly solves the problem of allowing abortions, > but not gratuitous infanticide. > > -- Jim Lewis > U.C. Berkeley Hmmm. Have you spent much time around children? As a libertarian and a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a rational human being. Two year olds must be kept virtually imprisoned with virtually no privacy in order to keep them alive. No matter how kind, loving, and in favor of freedom the parents are they must either keep their child imprisoned in a safe 'childproofed' environment or be with her constantly, constantly removing objects from her grasp and constantly preventing her from entering wonderful and interesting places like busy streets. They will not allow her to eat what she wants, to forgo painful medical procedures, to associate with people of her own choice, etc, etc, etc. What to do about children, particularly other people's children, is the single most morally difficult problem facing libertarians and it can't be solved with trivial logic. Carole Ashmore
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (03/26/88)
In article <5148@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes: >In article <23347@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >> Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion >> for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making: >> forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being >> would not consent to. > >As a libertarian and >a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old >alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a >rational human being. [because of the restrictions on the child's >behaviour necessary to keep him out of harm's way...] Why are such restrictive measures necessary? For the child's own good, right? If the child were a rational agent s/he would accept reasonable restrictions such as the ones you mentioned, since the child is ill-equipped to deal with an unfamiliar, hostile environment like a busy street. I think most people would agree that it is in the child's best interests for a parent to forbid playing in traffic, even if this involves physical restraint, or appropriate punishment for breaking the rule. Most people would probably *not* agree that locking a kid in a closet for a year is an appropriate punishment. This is what I meant by forbidding treatment which a rational agent would not consent to...perhaps I should have clarified my use of "rational", which I take to mean "acting in one's own best interests". A usually-rational person who suffers from intermittent psychotic episodes might, for example, decide to commit himself to a mental hospital for treatment, even though his freedom would be restricted in certain ways to protect him and the people around him. >What to do about children, particularly other people's children, is >the single most morally difficult problem facing libertarians and it >can't be solved with trivial logic. > Carole Ashmore Perhaps this is a gray area as far as morality (or perhaps a better term would be "ideological purity") is concerned....I believe the viewpoint I'm espousing has a lot of pragmatic advantages in its favor, and is ideologically sound (if perhaps not optimum) with respect to libertarian sensibilities. -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) (03/27/88)
David Hawkins: >Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with: >"An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers >its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." > >So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or >working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. Her >final statement: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the >standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: >that which is required for man's survival _qua_ man." >So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning >being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a >reasoning being. Care to give examples of the "substitutions" you think are invalid? Rand's argument makes a lot of sense to me. >This was the justification in Dagny's killing the guard >while rescuing John Galt--"Calmly and impersonally, she, who >would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger >and fired straight at the heart of a man who wanted to exist >without the responsibility of consciousness." _Atlas Shrugged_, p. 1066 >in my paperback copy. That's the problem with Rand's system: >you get to be accuser, judge, and executioner. Rand doesn't >base this passage on force vrs. force, but on the man's not being >human because he refused to make a choice. Thanks for the reference. Consider the context of the shooting. The state has taken John Galt hostage and he is being tortured in order to try to get him to support the corrupt system. "In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. ... The use of physical force--even its retaliatory use--cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment... the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another. ... If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an _objective_ code of rules. _This_ is the task of a government--of a _proper_ government--its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." -- from "The Nature of Government" in _The_Virtue_of_Selfishness_ Clearly, the situation here is not a civilized society, not a proper government. Rather, the state has abdicated its responsibility to protect individual rights, and has instead become the aggressor. Individuals are justified in using retaliatory force only in the absence of a government to do it. Dagny's lack of remorse in killing the agent of the corrupt state is not the justification for it, but merely her emotion in response to it. >-- >David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk >Faith is never identical with piety. -- Karl Barth >---------- -- Robert Brooks
dhawk@well.UUCP (David Hawkins) (03/28/88)
In the referenced article, rb@hpcuhb.HP.COM (Robert Brooks) wrote: >David Hawkins: > >>Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with: >>"An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers >>its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." >>So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or >>working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. Her >>final statement: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the >>standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: >>that which is required for man's survival _qua_ man." >>So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning >>being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a >>reasoning being. > >Care to give examples of the "substitutions" you think are invalid? >Rand's argument makes a lot of sense to me. > The main substitution is 'survival _qua_ man' for just survival. It's invalid as far a philosophical or ethical statement because Rand doesn't give a justification/proof for changing it. If you are starting with axioms and working upward (as Rand claims to do) then you can't make changes from one level to another without a reasoned explaination. This is especially critical here since we're dealing with what is man's right to survival. Rand starts off saying that surviving as a human being is enough and then changes it to 'as a reasoning being.' It may 'look' like a valid substitution, but it lacks a proof to back it up. If Objectivism is a system then you should be able to take its axioms and work outwards and get the same results that Rand did. This is important because Rand uses a lot of definitions that are practically identical to Marx's. Since they ended up with different results it would be nice to trace where they separated. It's hard to do because Rand isn't as systematic in thought and development as Marx. (I could put up a list of definitions about the nature of reality and the use of reason from both and you'd have a hard time knowing which was which.) By the way, Marx believed that establishing a libertarian state was essential. > > [Quotes omitted] >Clearly, the situation here is not a civilized society, not a proper >government. Rather, the state has abdicated its responsibility to >protect individual rights, and has instead become the aggressor. >Individuals are justified in using retaliatory force only in the >absence of a government to do it. Dagny's lack of remorse in killing >the agent of the corrupt state is not the justification for it, but >merely her emotion in response to it. > That could be said at any time. At present there aren't any proper governments, ones that protect individual rights. Plus, Rand didn't put any emphasis on the guard as agent of the government. The emphasis was on the guard as an unreasoning being. She could have justified it on different grounds but didn't. >-- >Robert Brooks -- David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk Faith is never identical with piety. -- Karl Barth