Checking my premises
I was unsure as to whether I would title this, "Unlearning what I have learned" or "Checking my premises", because in it, I have done both. A couple of recent posts by AmericanGreatness and Eudaimonia, along with a couple of posts from 1-2 weeks ago are relevant.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
Life is change.
$
Over the past decade I have really been checking my premises. For me, it started with our response to 9/11. The American people were all behind a military response to attack our attackers. I turned on the tv one night to see our first military action...dropping food on Afghanistan. This confused me. Next, we invaded Iraq. Confused again. Look at what our actions have done to the world over the past 14 years. A million dead in Iraq, per some reports. A million.
Harvesting organs of 2nd trimester babies because you "want to buy a Lamborghini", in my opinion, exceeds what I would consider "rational self interest". Forcing medical treatment on people also is outside the bounds of rational self interest. These are just a couple recent examples.
Frankly, I think the American people are being duped. The other night when the media exploded over Trump's comments regarding Mexico I blurted out, "If we were really at war with terrorism, we'd control our borders." It, to me, is starting to feel like we're living in a big Truman Show. The general public is so easily distracted over stories like a trophy hunter killing a lion...it doesn't bode well. I've had people that I know to be very intelligent and educated regurgitate obvious falsehoods and it always makes me stop and say, "What's going on here?" Like I said...Truman Show...duped.
...Yeah, it's always good to check our premises. Sorry for my early-morning ramblings...
I couldn't agree more that the statists' sacrificing individuals to the collective to make Medicare work is the opposite of morality and rights. And I also agree that violating other people's rights in the short term would be a violation of the non-interference principle.
But my question still stands, "At what point does defending the moral foundation of a culture become something in my best self interest?" I think that doing so in America's case has been a lost cause for at least the last 15 years and perhaps the last 100 years, so at this point, the question is purely hypothetical.
Defending a proper moral foundation of a culture is always in your self interest. You live in it. It's never a hypothetical question.
Ayn Rand said: "An informed society is a free society."
The same goes for an individual.
"The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher. The intellectual carries the application of philosophical principles to every field of human endeavor. He sets a society's course by transmitting ideas from the "ivory tower" of the philosopher to the university professor—to the writer—to the artist—to the newspaperman—to the politician—to the movie maker—to the night-club singer—to the man in the street. The intellectual's specific professions are in the field of the sciences that study man, the so-called "humanities," but for that very reason his influence extends to all other professions. Those who deal with the sciences studying nature have to rely on the intellectual for philosophical guidance and information: for moral values, for social theories, for political premises, for psychological tenets and, above all, for the principles of epistemology, that crucial branch of philosophy which studies man's means of knowledge sad makes an other sciences possible, The intellectual is the eyes, ears and voice of a free society: it is his job to observe the events of the world, to evaluate their meaning and to inform the men in all the other fields. A free society has to be an informed society..." [italics in original, bold added].
Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, title essay.
From the Preface:
[This book] "contains the main philosophical passages from my novels and presents the outline of a new philosophical system. The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms and require a detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise. I am working on such a treatise at present; it will deal predominantly with the issue which is barely touched upon in Galt's speech: epistemology, and will present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts. This work will require several years; until then, I offer the present book as a lead or a summary for those who wish to acquire an integrated view of existence. They may regard it as a basic outline; it will give them the guidance they need, but only if they think through and understand the exact meaning and the full implications of these excerpts"
...
"For those who may be interested in the chronological development of my thinking, I have included excerpts from all four of my novels. They may observe the progression from a political theme in "We the Living to a metaphysical theme in Atlas Shrugged.
"These excerpts are necessarily condensed summaries, because the full statement of the subjects involved is presented, in each novel, by means of the events of the story. The events are the concretes and the particulars, of which the speeches are the abstract summations. When I say that these excerpts are merely an outline, I do not mean to imply that my full system is still to be defined or discovered; I had to define it before I could start writing Atlas Shrugged. Galt's speech is its briefest summary."
"Until I complete the presentation of my philosophy in a fully detailed form, this present book may serve as an outline or a program or a manifesto."
"For reasons which are made clear in the following pages, the name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.
AYN RAND
October, 1960
She never wrote the "presentation in a fully detailed form" for her philosophy in detailed, "systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise." But she did publish one part of the planned "detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise" she described above including "dealing with ... epistemology [to] present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts" in her Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology. IOE was almost exclusively on the nature of concepts. (including the nature of the axiomatic concepts). The 2nd edition includes two appendices, one with Leonard Peikoff's essay on propositions, "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy", and the other with about a third of the workshops on epistemology she conducted to answer serious, detailed questions from a small group.
Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture course on Objectivism from the 1970s systematically covers the whole scope of her philosophy in far more detail than had previously been presented, and Ayn Rand was present for some of the question periods. Leonard Peikoff's own detailed treatise Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is based on that lecture series. It begins with the metaphysical basis and the reasons for it, and the epistemology, but only summarizes the nature of concepts covered in detail in IOE.
For those interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy, this tells you the most serious, systematic accounts to read and listen to -- along with many other essays not as technical, but very important, like "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", "Causality Versus Duty", "Metaphysical Versus the Man Made", and many more. Also crucial is Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the History of Western Philosophy, which explains the historical development of the major philosophical positions, how they were connected and influenced one another, and how they differ from Objectivism.
Re-reading Galt's speech after going through this shows how much of the significance you missed in Galt's speech without it, and more fully what Ayn Rand meant when she wrote, "The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms".
Jim, I appreciate and salute you for asking questions and checking your premises too. Ive had to do the same many times. The common issue and theme I see is that (in the US at least) we've been raised and taught to assume many things are a certain way (e.g. The military is a proper function of government and defends our rights and country from foreign threats). But what if the government abuses it's power and authority with the military? Too many Objectivists (and Americans for that matter) have let their patriotism and defense of a military become separated from the reality of what is happening. It's very difficult to acknowledge the facts and trust your own judgment when so many voices and premises assume otherwise.
I would call this page, anatomy of a great blog. :)
Some excellent comments here. We must always check our premises as we acquire new input... lest we be nothing more than blind ideologues.
Regards,
O.A.
Two: As a veteran I can tell you each member swears an oath to defend the US against its enemies and to defend the US Constitution. After that we just take orders all issued directly by or in the name of the CIC commander in chief. So we are an arm of the policy of the POTUS subject to the Will of Congress as permitted by statute and th Constitution. We are not for freeing individuals from tyrants. That is the task of the oppressed if they can achieve that level of defense of their sovereignty. A strong military is to be used as Colin Powel expressed and as General Sherman made clear only when you are prepared to smash and grind the opposition to death. The reason is we soldiers do not like to be used casually by pragmatic presidents for political gains.
Finally let it be obvious that without a consistent strong moral code in the mind of POTUS the military and our lives and sacred oath will be misused. The solution is not in policy but in a morality of self interest far beyond pragmatism and altruism.
We who volunteer to defend you deserve that you clean up your pragmatic irrational lives and get a moral code of reason, we deserve nothing less for defending your right to be irrational.
Semper Fi
Freeing individuals from tyrants was a goal of several presidents in the recent past. That should not be an objective for the military, but unfortunately it has been. If I were in charge of the military, wars would be rare, but swift and extremely destructive to the opposition with no nation building in the aftermath. I know that creates a vacuum, and that is the biggest reason why (even moreso than Objectivist philosophy) that I think wars should be exceedingly rare. There definitely has not been a war since WW2 for which the "compelling national interest" has been sufficiently compelling.
I couldn't agree more with your last two paragraphs.
What I was referring to was when I picked up The Fountainhead, after finishing Atlas Shrugged, my newly-awakened enthusiasm and passion became tempered. It then quickly turned to despondency. For you see, while I professed to admire the character of Roark, I found myself emotionally identifying with Keating. Shortly after that realization, I began an, at times, an agonizing process of self-awareness and discovery, wherein I struggled to align my emotions to my professed values.
It has been quite a journey - one in which Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," was instrumental.
We then morphed into a few brief exchanges about NBI and related subjects. I was then motivated to comment to him as follows: Isn't it sad that Ayn never found anyone in life of sufficient capability to motivate her to question her premises, much as she incessantly admonished others to do? He gazed at me intently and asked "what do you mean?" I then asked; "surely, knowing what you now understand, you would have responded differently than you did when presented with her behavior in the early fifties? He then curtly responded, "did you read my book?! I indicated that I had read all of his books. His look and manner indicated that the conversation was now over! I thanked him again and returned to my business.
My life has been, tentatively at first, but over the years now automatic, one in which I am constantly checking my premises. I do so because of one of Rand's cardinal tenets in her epistemology. Specifically, Reason is man's only absolute. All others are contextual absolutes. When understanding such a perspective, all rational questions become relevant, all answers tentative - respectful of the only absolute, that of reason's remorseless status as such.
Always enjoy your posts.
Dave
$
Whether you, Jim, ewv, or I defend civilization publicly, or privately, in this country, or outside it, is up to us; and the amount of time we devote to it is our choice.
(...I need to take a break; I'm getting a little commatose. :) )
Specifically addressing your initial post: I find that you are not clearly delineating the difference between 'a tool' and 'the use to which the tool is put'. Like a knife, the military can be used properly or misused abysmally. I have a lot of respect for the military per se, but the threshold for disobeying commands is specific for ethics - it does not extend to policy.
Jan
which I disliked took effect -- universal DNA sampling
and the change to "Navy-type" uniforms. . the former was
a bait-and-switch of the first order (compulsory DNA sampling
was added to their side of the contract unilaterally),
and the second required that a full set of new uniforms
be purchased. . I got outta there. -- j
.
Jan
it was time to check out. . 10 years later, I turned 60 and
started to get retirement bucks. -- j
.
The more basic problem- your premises - is that a mixed economy is not an isolated structure, but a consequence of mixed philosophical premises. You cite the military. I could cite the police. We all could go on and on about the courts. But "army, police, and courts of law" remain the essential functions of a republic, based on the principles of Objectivism.
There is no easy answer. That is why Ayn Rand said that it is moral to take a job with the government if the government is doing something that would be proper in a purely capitalist system. I think she mentioned teaching the piano.
Just a note: Barbarian comes from "ba-ba" the sound of the foreign language to Greek ears. From that "barber" refers to their long beards and hair. The Romans went back and forth on cropping close and letting it grow. Contrast portraits of Hadrian with Septimus Severus with Gordian I. "The Barbary Coast" also referred to San Francisco's red light district: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary...
Regarding the mixed philosophical premises, you are not the first to say so about my premises. I have been moving more toward Objectivism, but am not totally there yet. I am not, and have never been, in favor of using the military to achieve any of the objectives associated with all wars since World War 2. For the US to survive, the military must be cut substantially, along with all federal spending, because the two greatest threats to US security are financial and from computer hacking (or both simultaneously).
The War of 1812 is one of my favorite historical subjects. Andrew Jackson proved his worth then, and when he took on Nicholas Biddle to eliminate a precursor to the Federal Reserve. Andrew Jackson is the only Democrat in the last 200 years I would have supported.
"And then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto, In God is Our Trust."
That is one step beyond defending your home from the war's desolation.
Jackson, too, is a mixed bag. We are supposed to hate central banks but the "pet banks" that Jackson chose were not a consistently moral solution. In fact, they were an example of his political strategy: to the victor go the spoils. That is no way to run a government. A government based on rational principles needs a permanent, independent bureaucracy.
Jackson defied the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall chose discretion over valor and let the injustice against the Cherokee Nation be carried out. What choice did he have? He could have called on the federal marshals. He could enlarged their force and over-powered the White House guards and arrested Jackson. Where would that have led? Perhaps he should have, but alternate histories are problematic.
Jackson, like all presidents, are not perfect. Your point is well taken.
The definition of life is a foundational principle for any philosophy. I agree with Ayn Rand's definitions for existence and for consciousness, and with the rights that follow from such definitions. I understand Ayn Rand's definition for life, and I can agree that it creates a philosophical contradiction when one assigns rights to beings without sentience, particularly when those rights would be in contradiction with the life and rights of someone without whom this whole argument would be moot.
Fetuses or tissue-engineered specimens can reasonably be said to not have rights. We are not in disagreement about that either, at least until they reach the point of consciousness.
You and I are at a fundamental disagreement, albeit politely, because you have chosen the definition of life based upon Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology rather than the completely objective definition based on direct observables that all biologists and most people who have studied biology accept. I am not saying that Rand's definition is wrong. It is perfectly fine for the assignment of rights, but just because a being is unconscious or not sentient does not mean that being is not alive. It exists. It simply is not conscious or not sentient.
We will continue to disagree because my philosophy is based upon direct observables whenever possible. I know I have had disagreements with you and others as to whether philosophy trumps science. When someone publishes a scientific paper, he/she makes observations. Those observations form the basis for interpretations and applications. When science can establish a directly observable fact, that can serve as a pillar upon which philosophy can be based. As for me, I will base everything on raw data as much as possible. If the philosophy (or the theory in the case of science) is consistent with the raw data, I will choose to accept the philosophy. You have argued that I should understand the philosophy first. If Ayn Rand is correct, then if I logically connect my direct observables together, then I should come to the same conclusion, and with what are, in my mind, minor exceptions, I have. This actually strengthens Rand's conclusions, rather than weakens them. If someone can come to the same conclusions with a somewhat different set of premises, that validates the conclusions even more because they can be achieved from the mathematicians would consider two different initial guesses. The answer would then be considered rigorous in the mathematical sense.
Rand herself said that we must all come to these conclusions for ourselves. The conclusions cannot come first. The raw data must come first.
There is always philosophy underlying science, and as 'ewv' mentions, it explains how we know, what we know.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Philosophy affects how we use that science. Philosophy is what leads us to ignore certain conclusions in favor of our own biases, or to use science in furtherance of our philosophy, as did the State Science Institute.
Science is the what/how, philosophy is the why.
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason—or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality—or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty—or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence—and of your success—will be different, according to which set of answers you accept."
The dichotomy in your last sentence is clarified with this quote from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
.... Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?
It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”
In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence." (bold emphasis added)
Engaging in any 'science' already presumes an epistemological consideration of "what".
"Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?"
I completely agree with this. My wording in the previous question was to emphasize that there is knowledge, and then there is what we do with it. I was not trying to argue epistemiology. My apologies if my wording was such that it implied a conflict.
"Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism)."
And I agree that this represents another false dichotomy because it denies a third option: that work and effort may also result in knowledge. The arguments as presented attempt to pit science against religion again based on the false presumption in the former paragraph. By removing the artificial confrontation, we also eliminate the perceived necessity for opposition.
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible..."
I hold that this realization is precisely the key. We are all subject to imperfections and mistakes in judgement, etc. It is a common affliction of man that stems mainly from a lack of perfect knowledge. It is precisely when we presume to know something that we get ourselves into trouble - especially when we can not substantiate those premises with proof. On the other hand, we should not simply ignore the proof we have either, nor should we reject the assertions of those who claim to have proof. Independent verification - preferably personal verification - is the best policy, wouldn't you agree?
From "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” in Philosophy: Who Needs It: "Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification."
The false premise is Blarman's own assertion: "Reason is a process by which information is taken and judged for its utility, observation is the process of obtaining that information in the first place."
"Taken" from where and how? "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." Perceptual information is provided through the physical senses as the source of perceptions about the world in contrast to claims to faith as a 'source'. Reliance on reason does not "limit observation unjustifiably"; the faculty of imagination is not a form of observation. Fantasy is not a tool of cognition.
The concept reason includes reliance on the senses as the only direct source of information about the world from which to form abstractions logically employed in thinking, it is not a way of "processing" anything anyone feels like with verbal manipulations undertaken without regard to source and meaning in reality -- which is the method of rationalism practiced constantly in academic and religious arguments and seen here frequently in opposing Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Assertions of "proof" require evidence within a rational observation of existence. A major premise to be checked is whether one is positing an idea as knowledge which presumes a leap of faith in its 'logic'.
I disagree with your concept of knowledge and how we can acquire it. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. It's a characteristic in the nature of our consciousness, and cause for the necessity of using reason to identify and integrate our perceptions.
As explained many times, philosophy -- specifically a rational epistemology -- is fundamental to the basis of scientific knowledge and all other intellectual activity. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... The role of philosophy in science is not just how we use it.
I base my findings exactly the same way he does - on my observations and experiences. When someone presents a theory which contradicts what I have personally experienced and observed, I have to immediately take that point of view as being on the opposing side of the evidence I have. What I continually see from you is an attempt to discount what I have seen and experienced as if somehow that personal evidence holds no value. To me, that is as anti-scientific and biased as one can get.
You are not at all required to accept what I have seen and experienced. But you are not permitted to claim that what I have experienced and detected with my own senses is somehow subject to your interpretation or philosophical leanings. Anyone with either decency or courtesy would not only engage in civil discourse on the matter to seek the truth, but would also not be duplicitous about simultaneously demanding evidence and then discounting it when it doesn't fit their preconceptions.
Your false personal attacks of "duplicity", "eugenics", "nazism", etc. are inappropriate and do not belong here, just as your repeated proselytizing of religion in antagonism to Ayn Rand's philosophy does not belong here.
Blarman has no evidence at all for his religious claims attacking abortion as immoral, let alone his latest bizarre round of accusations of "duplicity", "eugenics", "nazism", "black holocaust", etc., none of which belong here or in any civilized discussion at all.
I didn't reject out of hand that there can be psychological effects after abortion. That is not what I said. The claims made did not provide any scientific explanation of causes in relation to prior ethical beliefs. The anti-abortion crowd is never concerned with psychological effects of being forced to bear an unwanted child.
Scientists searching for new facts to determine in more detail the range of validity for scientific knowledge are not springing "anecdotal evidence". Blarman is no scientist and has nothing to offer in his attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy.
There is no issue of philosophy "trumping" the physical and biological sciences. They are different fields of subject matter.
There can be no science of "direct observables" of "raw data" without conceptualization and principles, which require an epistemology.
The origin of rights for a human derives from man's freedom and ability to act on his/her own judgment. It is not guaranteed that a sentient life form will have the ability to act on his/her own judgment, and in the case of human life, infants (let alone fetuses) lack a complete ability to act on their own judgment. If they did, parenting would be unnecessary. However, at the point of sentience, even a fetus is taking self-generated actions, albeit quite limited, to further its own life. Do some limited rights start at the point when a fetus is taking self-generated actions to further its own life? You would argue that those rights should be secondary to the rights of the mother, who is providing all that is necessary for the fetus to maintain its life. I do agree that the rights of the mother are primary. At what point does a young life form get rights? I am going to argue with you that the point of birth is a terrible time for assignment of all rights from an Objectivist standpoint, although some rights might reasonably be assigned then. An infant is completely incapable of taking enough self-generated actions to sustain its own life. If one uses the Objectivist definition for assignment of rights, then one only achieves that at some point in adulthood, if even then. Would you argue that killing of a child under one or two would be moral, because that child is still dependent on its mother? I think not. Consequently I will argue that the decision regarding the date at which abortion is moral but infanticide is immoral is not entirely objective.
I concede the point that an epistemology is required to converted direct observables of raw data into science.
The rights of the woman are not just "primary", they are absolute. The fetus is not a moral being and has no rights. It does not have conflicting rights secondary to someone else, which would be an impossible contradiction. There are no conflicting rights.
Rights for children are limited because of their lack of capacity. It doesn't mean they don't have rights. At the time of birth the child begins to directly perceive the external world and mentally process it with his faculty of reason, along with the complete break of biological parasitism. The newborn infant is still helpless to use its mind to live, but that is the beginning of the process. Identifying that fact is not subjective.
This is not a matter of rationalistically deducing principles somehow intrinsic to reality. Intrinsicism and subjectivism are a false alternative. The facts are in reality but not the abstract principles we live by. We can only objectively identify and conceptualize facts, then formulate abstract principles, then formulate a codification into law. At any stage of knowledge there are always options to a sensible formulation and there will always be borderline cases (like measuring the precise point of "birth"). At that point the objectivity of law means settling on some formulation so that everyone knows what it is.
I would also point out that the right to life is not a limited right. It can not be. It either is, or is not. Thus the criticality of determining when that binary condition is fulfilled and the right granted. To make the right to life into a "gradual" right is in and of itself a fallacy of reason. One is then arguing that life is not valuable because it is life, but because of some subjective quality of utility, which is by definition individual and highly subjective.
Rights are not based on "utility". This is an Ayn Rand forum.
Relgioun has no business telling anyone they have no choice after sex. The choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to have children. It may or may not be. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex. That is religious dogma. This is an Ayn Rand forum.
Women who have abortions are taking responsibility for the consequences for their action. They have to go out of their way to have an abortion. That is not "trying to undo what can not be undone". It is done all the time and is effective because we understand cause and effect and know what to do to prevent the effect you demand. There are no religious duties. This is an Ayn Rand forum.
What they didn't know was the extent of Roosevelt's behind the scenes maneuvering to get into it. But Roosevelt wasn't antagonizing Japan because he wanted a war. Japan was already antagonistic, as illustrated by its atrocities in China. Roosevelt expected war with Japan, but wasn't relishing it as war for its own sake in the manner of a Hitler. He could have avoided it by withdrawing from Asia but did not want to abandon legitimate interests there and at least correctly saw that the growing Japanese empire was the evil. Secretly anticipating war with Japan in that context, he was only careful to avoid being the initiator; he wanted it to be clear that Japan was the attacker against the US.
He knew that Japan would attack but did not know where and was expecting it to be somewhere in the far east, not Hawaii. The Japanese codes had been broken but encrypted messages revealing Pearl Harbor were languishing in the bureaucracy.
Roosevelt's everlasting legacy of irresponsibility was in not being prepared for a major war he knew was coming and did not try to avoid, setting us up for the travesty of the Pearl Harbor attack wiping out most of the fleet. If the Japanese had started farther in the east without Hawaii, Roosevelt would have been just as unprepared.
And with that my extended "month in Atlantis" is up. I need to get back to my shrug job.
The video basically said that all wars are bankers' wars. The joke was in using the Ferengi rule of acquisition in the first place. War is only good for those in the defense industry and the politicians they control through cronyism. Condemnation was probably too strong a word, but condescension isn't.
"The fact is that the average man’s is 9/10ths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice, and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he's uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority like knowledge, courage, and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty—and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." (Henry Louis Mencken)
And:
“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” —H. L. Mencken, On Politics, a posthumous collection of essays published in 1956
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, there were then and are now men ready to take, even aching to take and plotting to do so, but the true evil is those that, out of physical fear or fear for today, tell the others to go ahead and take from me, if you leave me a little, I won't complain. And the last quote:
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
That doesn't mean that ideas implement themselves. Some particular people have to act. That has included some Rockefellers (notably in the viro movement, but also other areas), but many many more, all following bad ideas while the public accepted them.
The incidents of deaths caused by or related to high speeds pursuits has decreased in the last thirty years.
the figures provided were one a day or 365. the population in 1985 was 240 million +/- Currently thirty years later the time framed provided it's approaching 320 million. 365 per year was provided as the current figure. If the 365 stated is true then as a percentage of population (and by the way a percentage of traffic related deaths) the number of deaths would have increased to keep pace
Someone must be doing something right to decrease those incidents. Either that or the information is invalid.
That does not decrease the importance of the problem but it does leave us with no valid figures to gauge the extent of the problem a problem shared with the government who for at least 20 years has ignored the problem. Not to put to fine a point on the problem.. But as some one said not a problem with google.
As for the Trump comment I live south of the border because i am far safer than living north of the border. Media hype to the contrary. The percentage of US citizens (about one million) who live south of the border being killed is less than the US national average and one fourth that of Houston Texas.)
Just one of the advantages.
ing, even if it wasn't one at conception. Besides, the proper function of government is to protect
man from force (including fraud) and violence,(and to punish same)
and how do government-provided abortions come under that category? So why should the
government subsidize it? (Unless it were to re-
move a fetus that was there as a result of rape,
which rape the government had failed in its duty
to prevent). Ayn Rand, who was in favor of the
right to have an abortion, in "The Age
of Envy" denounced the idea of a woman being
"liberated" from the consequences of her own
chosen sex life, "such consequences to be born
by others..." and mentioned government-fin-
anced abortions.
Subsidies for abortions are a side issue in the current hysteria over Planned Parenthood being spread by those who want to ban abortions no matter who pays for them.
There can be no question that these organizations should not be getting government funding, but the same is true of countless other subsidies taxpayers are forced to pay for regardless of their opposition to all kinds of subsidized activities. The current hysteria over PP is based entirely on the attack on abortion as such. They aren't showing inflammatory videos of money changing hands.
One: the definition of sentience or personhood. The policy of abortion necessitates that a point in time be designated as the point at which sentience is achieved by a human being. That no definitive point can be arrived at should trouble any policy maker. This is critical because if we assert the existence of "basic" or "fundamental" human rights, we must establish a criteria under which those rights may be exercised, recognized, and protected.
Two: the rights of the mother. The policy of abortion necessitates that the mother be given coercive control to the point of termination of life over another potential human being based on above.
Three: the subjective nature of One (above). If we only value life which has reached some arbitrary point, can we really say that life itself has value? This leads directly into the notion of eugenicism, racial cleansing, etc.
That is precisely the argument as it stands, yes. One can hold that sentience and self-will are present from the beginning, or sometime after. It is the nebulous nature of the "sometime after" that abortion proponents must objectify and substantiate.
The rest of your argument is an attempt to discredit an argument I have not made. What one should remember, however, is that it does nothing to substantiate your own view on the matter, and that is what is under the microscope at this point.
You posit that it is only "when the umbilical cord is cut". Do you have any scientific evidence to support this? Is a change in environment all that is necessary to endow sentience and human rights?
The development of limited rights over time concomitant with developing abilities beginning with the birth of a human being has nothing to do with abortion.
I think that you think that I am making religious-based arguments. I have not done so in this thread (or any other time in the last month or so at least), and neither has blarman made a religious argument in this thread.
The reason for the argument is that Objectivism has made the assignment of rights at birth based on that life form's ability to generate enough action on its own to sustain itself. An infant clearly cannot, and a fetus cannot either, of course. By that logic, then no rights should be assigned to that life form until MUCH later in life. You act as if I think that rights should be assigned in utero. In utero, at conception, cells exist, but they are "potential life", as ewv is quick to point out. At that point, the life form cannot have any rights. At some point in utero, the life form starts to generate some actions to sustain itself. Certainly by age four or so, humans generate enough actions to sustain themselves, other than earning cash for food, shelter, etc. At that point, it is probably reasonable to assign children some modest rights. In between, there is a gradient in the number of self-generated actions that the entity takes to sustain itself. One can reasonably argue that it is not until birth that a life form should have any rights. ewv stated multiple times that sentience cannot be used as the point for assignment of rights on the basis that it would create a contradiction. That is a reasonable statement, because prior to sentience, the life form is not capable of making conscious decisions to sustain its own life. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that the lower limit must be greater than the point of sentience.
Personally, as an engineer, I am trained to be conservative, and so I error on the side of caution and avoid the potential ethical dilemma by not participating in abortions. Thus I would not personally get involved in an abortion after the age of sentience, whatever that is. However, that says nothing regarding whether I (or blarman or any of the other Christians on this web site) regarding whether we would use force to impose those views on others. I certainly would not, and you have taken far too much offense to what has been a completely rational debate.
Is the choice of one's birth a reasonable time to start assigning rights to the new entity? Probably. It raises the least contradictions, but it certainly is not the only choice for which one can live a non-contradictory life. Living a non-contradictory life is paramount, regardless of what anyone else, including Ayn Rand, says.
Both of you have assigned a religious basis to my decision. I have not. I have rationally made decisions based on what I can live with and what I cannot live with, according to my moral code.
As to philosophercat's point regarding miscarriages, some "potential life" was not meant to be. My wife and I have gone through a couple miscarriages at 4 to 6 months of gestation. It was emotionally hard on my wife, but in the end, it was a "potential life".
We were also told by our OB doctor that we should abort our 2nd daughter because of a high probability that she would have birth defects using the same argument made by eugenicists. She is going to college next week, with no long term effects. The "pressure" exhibited by the "religious right" is far from the only such pressure. I am quite sure that our doctor's recommendation is far from an isolated incident.
I too have been through lost pregnancies and hope you never do again. .
The arbitrary attribution of "rights" as intrinsic in a fetus (or earlier) most certainly is a religious argument. Rationalistic verbal manipulation in the manner of Medieval Scholasticism also reeks of the religious tradition, whether or not it is dressed up in the garb of claimed science and "engineering". Reason and rationality do not mean "consistently" manipulating floating abstractions.
Doctors giving advice based on statistics to not have a child is not "eugenics". Rambling "conservatism" and its consequences of outrageous accusations is not "rational debate".
You do not even remotely understand Ayn Rand's philosophy and should stop the repeated misrepresentations and opposition to it along with personal attacks on those who defend it. You can believe what you want but it doesn't belong here.
The statement "I have rationally made decisions based on what I can live with and what I cannot live with, according to my moral code", really gave me fits over how I make decisions. It is through my own moral code I am guided in the decision-making process. I guess I just never thought about it in that way. The only part of the process which may be somewhat considered "religious" is the phrase "harm no others". But, it is part of my moral code and helps me make decisions everyday.
As to your last part of the post re: your 2nd daughter. Beautiful, man, just beautiful. Never know what the future has in store for any of us. Surprises are abundant and around every corner as we meander on.
In the "Wreckage of the Consensus" Ayn Rand wrote:
"'The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called 'conserve-tires,' who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?"
The same is true of the anti-abortionist attack on the rights of a woman not to have a child she does not want.
You don't tell someone who has been falsely smeared as "eugenics", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" to "lighten up".
He doesn't understand the concept of 'sentient', the meaning of human being, the difference between the potential and the actual, the source of moral principles, and much more. With that as a starting point it's no wonder that he sees "slipping" into "eugenicism", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" everywhere -- and demands a religious version of the Moratorium on Brains to stop all activity "interfering" with everything from conception on.
Opposition to religious social controls on abortion is pro individual freedom. On that we can agree.
However, the packaging with eugenics and racism came right out of the mouth of Margaret Sanger herself.
No one is exchanging anything with Sanger. She is dead.
The hysterical article you cited in another religious attack on abortion as "murder". You know very well that on this forum especially the right of abortion is defended as a woman's right to her own life not subject to religious duties to bear children. Rejection of individual freedom against religion is not a "slippery slope" and has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger nearly a century ago in the 1930s. Your religious anti-abortion arguments and smears are antithetical to the purpose of this forum and do not belong here -- or in any civilized discussion.
There is no evidence that the vast majority of those who support the right of abortion support Sanger's objectives. OK, I'll concede that point. However, if I exchange value for value with someone, and the person being exchanged with gets to further a stated value (for example, Sanger's) that is inconsistent with my values, then I will take my business elsewhere. I wouldn't support Sanger and Planned Parenthood by that logic, even if I would think abortion by another provider was OK. Certainly Sanger spoke at a KKK rally and was quite clear about her eugenics goals regarding African Americans. Just to be clear, I am not extrapolating that to Objectivists who support abortion.
Sanger had already gone down the slippery slope from abortion (which could be reasonably defended by Objectivists) toward devaluing life in other ways such as eugenics and racial cleansing.
The step toward withholding care from the elderly is not a large step from there. By the way, by 1952, Sanger was a board member for the Euthanasia Society of America (see letterhead about halfway down this link).
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/ju...
Just be sure who you are exchanging values with.
Planned Parenthood should not be getting government subsidies for anything, entirely independently of this latest hysteria.
It is not a "step" from abortion rights to killing the elderly through government rationing. The first is the right of the individual, the second a violation of rights.
You see the Socialists recognize what many of we Americans do not; viz. to destroy America it is not enough to control the schools, courts, borders, and Congress - they must also disarm us in the face of our enemies.
The problem is not with your premises, rather a failure to take a clear-eyed look at the nature of our common enemy and his plan for our future..
Revolutions are about ideas and not about numbers. They are won like football games on the field. We will never know how many minds we have brought over to Objectivism by these posts and comments. We must be as relentless as our enemies. Even more so.
An entirely different matter is that of individuals choosing where and how to live to try to minimize the worst of today's culture knowing that it is still always around you as a constant threat, especially if it dramatically continues to decline. That is a matter of individual survival, not seeking utopia societies in fictional isolation.
about the military conducting altruistic campaigns in countries
where we are not considered allies. . IMHO, we must consider
the political angles first, to understand Their Premises. -- j
.
.
But now by age 68, I do have regrets to look back upon.
The late great Baron von Richthofen (Snoopy's nemesis) once spoke of an "inner schweinehund" one must always overcome.
Even the Pragmatism of the progressives, while denying principles on principle, is a parasitic philosophy relying on implicit, often unadmitted ideology in choosing goals and the standard of what "works".
Cowardice can lead to poor choices in life.
An example would be fear of being belittled or disowned by one's peerage for being the reason to do something against one's conscience.
I think we can all agree that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines constitute what most people think of as our active military dealing with armed conflict. The others you mention, however, are more police roles, such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). That being said, ultimately ALL fall under the auspices of the President of the United States. If there are repeated failures of these institutions, one should rightly look to the Commander-in-Chief and upper echelons of authority for responsibility.
Should we use our military to engage in "peacekeeping" across the globe? I don't believe we should unless invited. In Desert Storm, we were invited by Kuwait to defend them and push back against the aggression of the neighboring Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein. We had an interest in protecting not only trade but our allies in the region, so we were not only defending against aggression, but strengthening trade ties. I believe this can be justified.
The more recent actions to overthrow regimes, however, I believe are not within a defensive role. Our recent actions to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Bashar Assad in Libya, and Mohammed Morsi in Egypt lie outside our role as invited defenders. Further, it is highly questionable that the outcomes further our interests.
Load more comments...