Reviewing the issue, I am thinking that the government has the power to control pregnancy before sentience (through eminent domain). Hence Roe v. Wade, which relies on privacy (an invented right), is superseded by eminent domain, a listed power. Therefore, Roe v. Wade, for the sake of consistency, should be repealed.
Wheylous:MonkEye in his ramblings (so they appear in many posts) may have struck on something fundamental: Self-ownership needs sentience. Sentience is not developed at conception. It is developed sometime later (I think it is mentioned in some of the above posts). The abortion question can only come into play after sentience. Before that, the fetus actually is simply matter within the woman that she has control over.
Self-ownership needs sentience. Sentience is not developed at conception. It is developed sometime later (I think it is mentioned in some of the above posts).
The abortion question can only come into play after sentience. Before that, the fetus actually is simply matter within the woman that she has control over.
Sorry, I missed your post in reply to him--probably because of his/Hashem's ramblings :P
Not sure how you wrangled that out of his confused scribblings, or I suppose I didn't find in the thread any previous comments on sentience of his, but let's deal with it.
First we must define sentience. It generally means the ability to perceive sensations, and is tied in with consciousness because the perception of sensations requires a thing to perceive them, and that thing is a conscious, living entity.
One must be conscious in order to perceive sensations. Thus we see that any suggestion that sentience be a requirement for self-ownership is really the statement that consciousness is necessary for self-ownership being smuggled in through the back-door :P
Once that link has been made, it's clear that this suggestion falls to the usual destruction of the consciousness-requirement for property-ownership: one does not cease to own things when one is asleep or in a coma, and thus one cannot cease to own onesself when not conscious. Nor is it ethical to kill someone who is not conscious. Thus, it cannot be ethical to kill a living human being who is not conscious known as the fetus.
What would need sentience / consciousness would be the assertion of self-ownership, however such assertion is not necessary for the fact of self-ownership to be recognized--which is what Hashem keeps failing to realize.
Wheylous:Reviewing the issue, I am thinking that the government has the power to control pregnancy before sentience (through eminent domain). Hence Roe v. Wade, which relies on privacy (an invented right), is superseded by eminent domain, a listed power. Therefore, Roe v. Wade, for the sake of consistency, should be repealed.
Personally I think ED is a tyrannical power. And to view ED as being able to do what you suggest, you'd have the state taking ownership of the fetus by force and fiat?
Privacy is certainly an invented right not listed in the constitution and a terrible rationale for the abortion law. However, the reason it should be repealed is because every person has a right to their own life, from which all other rights are corollaries. The same right that allows a mother to engage in sex freely allows her resulting child a right to their life and actions and consequences.
The game changes when you engage in an activity that produces a human being with rights of their own. You cannot cut another human being out of you like a tumor or parasite which has no rights.
But we're not talking about active use of consciousness, but of structure of the brain capable of supporting conscience.
Oh, I don't agree with ED, I am saying that within the Constitutional framework, ED allows the government to do essentially anything (if you think that a fetus is just property, which we are currently debating).
Wheylous:But we're not talking about active use of consciousness, but of structure of the brain capable of supporting conscience.
So what possible connection could that have to self-ownership?
Self-ownership is a fact of reality. Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness and by extension sentience because you must receive things outside yourself through trade or appropriation. But your body is given to you by your parents at the point of conception via two donor cells that combine into a single, uniqe, human being and form the foundational cell of your being upon which all future cells rely.
In fact, if you didn't own the materials that compose your body, you'd have no brain to produce consciousness in the first place.
"Authoritarian Hubris"
** Contradiction To Government Aggression **
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So do tell, "What is the just compensation and how does public use fit with self ownership?"
** Dismissing Antiquated Attempts **
Roe v. Wade relies upon the legalism that the state is wholly responsible to its citizens who are the principle beneficiaries of its protections as established by the social contract of the constitution, and as citizens must be born any, per son or otherwise, must also be born to receive equal protections else greater protections than that of a citizen would be afforded.
Fourteenth Amendment, - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. .
The premise for equal protection and teh basis of a requirement for birth for states interest was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."
** Privacy Clauses of Private Propety **
Roe v. Wade does not rely upon privacy for its foundation; privacy is a consequence of the Fourth Amendment - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"Made Up Rules"
Anenome:Once that link has been made, it's clear that this suggestion falls to the usual destruction of the consciousness-requirement for property-ownership: one does not cease to own things when one is asleep or in a coma, and thus one cannot cease to own onesself when not conscious. Nor is it ethical to kill someone who is not conscious. Thus, it cannot be ethical to kill a living human being who is not conscious known as the fetus.
There is no self reference without an inception of sentience, hence there is no impetus for self ownership,
Without an inception for sentience there is not a provocation for empathy through common understanding.
Without an inception for sentience there is not sapience and hence the criteria as a homo sapiens sapiens has not been met.
If there is not a criteria of sapience to be a homo sapiens sapiens then the argument against an inception for sentience becomes absurd because there are no protections afforded to any other creatures which are sentient and higher on the congnitive scale of sophistication and exploited.
Thus there is only a self resigned exception for self through anthropocentric arrogance and personified projections upon an inchoate entity.
None here is likley to conform with orthodox hinuism in its stand against all suffering?
Monk-Eye: Anenome:Once that link has been made, it's clear that this suggestion falls to the usual destruction of the consciousness-requirement for property-ownership: one does not cease to own things when one is asleep or in a coma, and thus one cannot cease to own onesself when not conscious. Nor is it ethical to kill someone who is not conscious. Thus, it cannot be ethical to kill a living human being who is not conscious known as the fetus. There is no self reference without an inception of sentience, hence there is no impetus for self ownership,
I don't agree, because the mind is produced by the body, and mind and body are inseparable. I agreed your reasoning was correct for ownership of things outside onesself, but it cannot be imported to remove self-ownership of the body, and I'll exlaborate.
The self is not merely a mind, that is not merely a consciousness, but also a body. The philosophy of mind views consciousness as a product of a physical arrangement, ie: life.
Perhaps we can help prove when self-ownership begins by looking at when it definitely ends. No one would disagree that all ownership rights end at death. Thus we can flip that around and see that self-ownership begins with life.
At the same time we can look at sentience/consciousness and see that ownership rights, especially self-ownership rights, do not end when one is not sentient or not conscious. The fallacy that one must be conscious to self-own, again, is easily destroyed by asking if one loses all right to life and property by going to sleep, and clearly we do not. Thus, if your rights do not end by losing consciousness or losing sentience then they cannot begin by gaining sentience / consciousness.
Even if you make a special exception for the fetus, saying it has not yet gained even a first consciousness, you would have to extend that reasoning to those who have permanently lost consciousness, such as the brain dead or coma-ridden. And it's clear that you cannot ethically kill the brain-dead or coma-ridden (certainly not at whim anyway, but the reasons one might take a brain dead person off life support do not necessarily extend to the fetus since the brain dead will certainly never recover; and should such a person regain consciousness it's clear they retain right to their property, meaning they never lost that right in the first place).
Monk-Eye:Without an inception for sentience there is not a provocation for empathy through common understanding.
This borders on incoherent obfuscation of meaning. Your rhetoric is geared towards makes you sound intelligent but I'm not sure you're making a coherent point. Care to be less opaque?
I'm not sure what empathy has to do with self-ownership at all, in fact I'm sure it has less than nothing to do with it. Similarly, neither does consciousness have anything to do with one's ability to own--it is trumped by life. Life is the one fact that you and no one else will be able to get away from. A human life has a human right to its own life that cannot be taken away from it by force morally or ethically.
Monk-Eye:Without an inception for sentience there is not sapience and hence the criteria as a homo sapiens sapiens has not been met.
So in other words, you're claiming that only that which can think is human and thus deserving of conferral of human rights. But you're going to run into the same existential problem that constituting rights on the basis of consciousness has: your reasoning will not stand when its corollaries are examined. Sapience is not an ever-present quality in a human but a product of the physical life and mind of a human being. Or, in simpler terms: you've just stated that a human being is no longer a human being when they aren't thinking (sapient) and thus not deserving of human rights when not thinking.
Again, this suggestion runs into easily destroyed territory when it's pointed out that those incapable of thinking, yet still alive, can still be murdered--such as those asleep or in a coma.
Monk-Eye:If there is not a criteria of sapience to be a homo sapiens sapiens then the argument against an inception for sentience becomes absurd because there are no protections afforded to any other creatures which are sentient and higher on the congnitive scale of sophistication and exploited.
Such as what, animals? Seems you're suggesting that we have human rights because we can reason and animals don't, and if we don't use reason as a criteria then animals should be given equal rights with human beings. But, the criteria for who, deserves human rights is in the name itself: "human" right. While certainly reason distinguishes Man from the animals, it is not necessary to think to be considered fully human, nor can an animal be promoted to human by merely showing some limited reasoning skills. Man is not merely what he thinks, but also what he is biologically and genetically, and those things cannot change, certainly not within the lifetime of a single organism.
Monk-Eye:Thus there is only a self resigned exception for self through anthropocentric arrogance and personified projections upon an inchoate entity. None here is likley to conform with orthodox hinuism in its stand against all suffering?
You really enjoy speaking in obtuse terms :P Save the high-sounding rhetoric for your professors, you're not being graded here except on ideas.
Animals quite clearly have self-ownership too. They're only incapable of ownership outside themselves, incapable of owning for instance a house, incapable of producing.
I think it's quite silly to liken a fetus to a rights-less animal merely on the basis of cognitive development. Much more silly to argue the fetus doesn't have human rights on the basis of its ability to think in the moment. Given time, its thinking ability potential is equal to yours or mine, which an animal never is.
The humanity of the fetus is without question a biological fact that cannot be changed. It's status as a living organism is also without question. A living human being has a right to its own life. Therefore the fetus has a right to live, a right to be born and not murdered in its youth, even by its own mother and accomplices to her.
Anenome:But seriously man, at this point you're just a troll.
Clearly you are. My views are backed up by Hoppe, Rothbard, and Kinsella, to name a few. And I can and have referenced them. Who are the authorities that have put years and generations of research and critique into the ideas you blab about?
Anenome:you've refused to support it rationally.
You've refused to support it at all, except by your own words. At least my views are backed up by the research and efforts of credible scholars.
Anenome:Here again you've simply assumed your argument and restated it without support. Why don't you explain your theory of ownership then.
Here, again, you've disingenuously pretended I haven't supported my case (as to distract from the fact that it is you who hasn't). Anyone reading this thread—even those who disagree with me—will admit that my posts above with citations from the likes of Kinsella and Hoppe and Rothbard exist.
The thing is, I did explain my theory of ownership, which you admittedly "skimmed" before dismissing—without, by the way, pulling so much as a quote to show why it's wrong. See, you're scared of actual argument, which is why you'll quote me constantly (although never follow up on my responses in context), but you won't attack my sources or provide any of your own. Your games are boring and amateurish.
Anenome:Previously you agree that it was in the nature of a human being to own themselves.
No, there were qualifications which you conveniently forgot. Our most recent exchange when like this:
You said: Again, a person owns themselves by nature.
I responded: Again, we're going in circles. I've agreed that human nature is to own one's self—once they are selves and once they are capable of owning. A fetus isn't and doesn't.
Anenome:Actually, I've borrowed much from Rand, especially her epistemology
I call bullshit. If you've borrowed so much, provide a single relevant quote and maybe we can see where that takes us.
Anenome:I skimmed. And quickly assertained they were ridiculous and required no further study.
Then pull a quote and attack it. Such is debating. Refusing to provide any citations makes you look bad enough, but refusing to actually address any of mine is killing your cause.
Anenome:We've provided you with numerous problems with your point of view and you've ignored them all. It's a stunning feat of intellectual evasion on your part, really.
What's it called when you accuse people of the problems you exhibit?
Anenome:As I said, you aren't arguing seriously.
I think it's called projecting. A dishonest debate tactic.
Anenome:One must be conscious in order to perceive sensations.
No. The subconscious reacts quite well to sensory input. But Wheylous is merely affirming what I've been saying, which is his second time agreeing in this thread so I don't know who you're refering to when you say "we", as at least the second or third most active participant in our conversation is tending to reach my conclusions.
As I said, one does not need to appeal to someone else when one has a proper epistemology. If your epistemology is purely "I only accept what X thinker wrote" then you fail as an intellectual, because all thinking and reason must be based on reality or it is worthless and irrational.
Here's Rand touching on epistemology:
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest. The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) Ayn Rand. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Kindle Locations 867-873). Penguin USA, Inc..
I do not need to cite anyone to say simply that a fetus is alive and human and an individual with a body separate from the mother. These are self-evident facts supported and originally discovered by science. Your only avenue of attack on them is what they mean, or by redefining murder.
If you cite anyone, you're taking a longer route to truth than I am, for I'm appealing to that which your sources themselves must appeal if they are rational, and that is reality itself. So I'll, consider your objection that I'm not quoting others to be what it is, both silly and unecessary.
You wrote:
I've agreed that human nature is to own one's self—once they are selves and once they are capable of owning. A fetus isn't and doesn't.
What then makes a fetus incapable of owning? Again, reality itself disproves you for a fetus already possesses its physical body the second it comes into existence! It possesses and inhabits the atomic materials organized in a cell and groups of cells which act in concert to produce life. It is given these atomic constituents by its parents in the form of gametes. It owns the cells that makeup its body! If it did not, it would not be alive at all. It would not even exist. Your objection amounts to asserting that the fetus does not even exist! Which is clearly irrational. Nor can a person exist by borrowing cells owned by another person. Only a person's own cells can produce life for that person, and a person's own cells are by them owned.
At the moment of conception, the only difference between you and a fetus is age, time to develop. There is no other difference. They are equally a human being in every way except developmentally.
However, age of a person makes no difference morally and ethically. Neither does consciousness. I've said over and over that a person who's unconscious does not suddenly lose all property rights for the duration of their unconsciousness. Nor are they incapable of being given property and becoming the owner of property while they are unconscious. You've never addressed the age issue.
Thus, you need to revise your argument or drop it.
Disregard/delete this post.
"Narrow or Wide Brush Strokes"
Anenome:The humanity of the fetus is without question a biological fact that cannot be changed. It's status as a living organism is also without question. A living human being has a right to its own life. Therefore the fetus has a right to live, a right to be born and not murdered in its youth, even by its own mother and accomplices to her.
The summative comedy of your arguments is that you pretend that wrights even exist.
A wright exists because there is an entity capable of prohibiting a violation or reprising a violation of some defined conditions.
As it goes, one exchanges natural freedoms for citizenship in a collective according to protected (reprised) wrights of a constitution which is founded upon nothing other than legal positivism.
Anenome:I think it's quite silly to liken a fetus to a rights-less animal merely on the basis of cognitive development.
Anenome:Even if you make a special exception for the fetus, saying it has not yet gained even a first consciousness, you would have to extend that reasoning to those who have permanently lost consciousness, such as the brain dead or coma-ridden.
Anenome: Monk-Eye:Without an inception for sentience there is not a provocation for empathy through common understanding. This borders on incoherent obfuscation of meaning. Your rhetoric is geared towards makes you sound intelligent but I'm not sure you're making a coherent point. Care to be less opaque?
A brain does not have pain receptors and one becomes self aware through sensory inputs that are physically impossible until the end of the second trimester at the onset of sentience, with the development of thalamocortial spindles, which also coincides with viability.
Until the onset of sentience, a foetus is without perception, thus there is nothing to invoke my common understanding for its expectations; indeed, my indifference for it equates with its inchoate perception and lack of expectations.
Verily, your premise is based upon a personally skewed notion of manifest destiny that the existence of any foetal form predicates a necessary uninterruption to a biological processes.
In addition, piled upon your predicate are personifications and projections of foetal expectations that do not exist at the time.
Verily, it is neither possible to share a common understanding with an inchoate foetus nor is it reasonably posslble to project personal expectations upon an inchoate foetus because it does not experience suffering and it does not have intrapersonal experiences.
Thus, I am not interested in entertaining baseless allusions to fabricated extra personal audacities.
Anenome:You really enjoy speaking in obtuse terms :P Save the high-sounding rhetoric for your professors, you're not being graded here except on ideas.
Now that we aren't messing with your arrogant words we can get to the meat of the argument by recognizing that more brilliant minds have already discussed this and reached my conclusion.
Anenome, quoting Ayn Rand:"The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study..."
Notice we're talking about rational, thinking, acting, argument-forming individuals. Fetuses can't study. Even Rothbard, who supported a mother's right to abort and who disagreed on major issues with Ayn Rand, agreed here that rights derive from the objective nature of humans, the undeniable "facts of reality" as you might call them; others would call them a priori truths or axioms. To quote Rothbard (italics his):
Rothbard on why the nature of man implies property rights:"For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor."
Rothbard on why the natuer of man implies property rights:"[H]is consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to "produce" by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms—all these are wrapped up in what man's nature is, and how man may survive and flourish."
Rothbard on why the nature of man implies property rights:"Man is the only species which can—and indeed must—carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act. The consciousness of animals [or fetuses] is narrowly perceptual and lacks the conceptual: the ability to frame concepts and to act upon them. Man, in the famous Aristotelian phrase, is uniquely the rational animal—the species that uses reason to adopt values and ethical principles, and that acts to attain these ends. Man acts; that is, he adopts values and purposes, and chooses the ways to achieve them."
To quote Hoppe on Rothbard
Hoppe, on Rothbard:"Animals [and fetuses] are incapable of engaging in propositional exchange with humans. Indeed, it is this inability which defines them as non-rational and distinguishes them categorically from men as rational animals. Unable to communicate, and without rationality, animals [and fetuses] are by their very nature incapable of recognizing or possessing any rights. Rothbard noted, "There is rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals [or fetuses] whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals [or fetuses] can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings."
To quote Kinsella on Ayn Rand:
Kinsella, on Ayn Rand:"As Ayn Rand said, "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others." In other words, libertarians maintain that the only way to violate rights is by initiating force—that is, by committing aggression. [And s]ince what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are...One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim...After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource."
And finally, Rothbard:
Rothbard, on rights:"Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings...A fundamental error, then, of the advocates of "[fetus] rights" is their failure to identify—or even to attempt to identify—the specific nature of the species man, and hence the differences between human beings and other [beings]"
So we see that rights are property rights in scarce resources, in order to respect the non-aggression principle, made necessary by our nature as rational social animals in an environment of scarce resources. None of this is relevant on any level to fetuses. Libertarian scholars don't even attempt to argue that fetuses have rights on these grounds. Even Ayn Rand wasn't talking about fetuses, but about humans as rational, argument-forming, acting individuals.
Fetuses fail to qualify for rights on ANY—no less all—libertarian criteria. Those who disagree are ignorant of why we have property rights. THE END.
Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness
Then people in a coma can't own things? Horray!
hashem: Anenome, quoting Ayn Rand:"The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study..." Notice we're talking about rational, thinking, acting, argument-forming individuals. Fetuses can't study.
Notice we're talking about rational, thinking, acting, argument-forming individuals. Fetuses can't study.
Rand's argument has nothing to do with whether one can study or not. You're taking half a sentence completely out of context. Shame on you. What's the point of citing someone if you're not going to deal with what they say in context. Rand says here that these things are primaries, that they are not irreducible conceptually, that one can study them, meaning study existence, identity and consciousness, but cannot prove them, but must take them as the given. This is because you must exist to attempt to prove existence, you have identity if you're acting to attempt such a proof, and you're conscious if you try to prove consciousness. Thus you must appeal to the very things you're attempting to prove as you try to prove or disprove and by that prove them to be axiomatic. It is the same with the laws of logic, such as the law of identity, A equals A. In fact, Rand's philosophy and epistemology are built on the law of identity. 'Existents/existance exists', is her mantra.
Existence is not conditional on cognition. The fetus exists as a living human being from the moment of conception, and therefore has all the rights given to living human beings. You're not going to be able to escape that.
hashem:Even Rothbard, who supported a mother's right to abort and who disagreed on major issues with Ayn Rand, agreed here that rights derive from the objective nature of humans, the undeniable "facts of reality" as you might call them; others would call them a priori truths or axioms. To quote Rothbard (italics his): Rothbard on why the nature of man implies property rights:"For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor."
Haha, that's what you've been getting at? Wow. Okay. Let's talk about that. Because it's clear you've read it without really understanding what it means and what Rothbard meant by it.
First of all, Rothbard here is speaking of rights in general, not specifically the right to life and its corrolaries such as the right not to be murdered. What you don't realize is that all of the rights and their justifications here rely on the right to life first of all, and the dependencies Rothbard lists here are mere corollaries of the right to a man's own life. I'll take them one by one:
Can one be an individual without life? No. Can one choice without life? No. Can one use their mind and energy to adopt goals and values or discover anything about the world, much less pursue their ends to survive and prosper, communicate or interact with others and participate in the division of labor without life? No, one cannot. The right to do all those things is predicated on the right to life. You've not seen the forest for the trees philosophically, and are unaware of what it means to build a philosophy systematically.
As I said, these are all corollaries to a man's right to life. Because you possess yourself you have free choice over all you do, and thereby if you choose to do work and learn about the world, you have a right to what you produce. Self-ownership is what a man's right to his own life actually means, there is no other way to understand it. And if you attack self-ownership then you are attacking all ownership. A man cannot survive, cannot flourish, with the right to his own life and the product of his actions.
Here Rothbard is speaking not about the conferral of rights, but about ethics. It's clear you chose this passage because it mentions fetuses, but it does not address our topic at all. Rothbard says here that a fetus cannot form concepts and thus cannot form an ethic nor act on them, not that being unable to form concepts makes a fetus nonhuman. Nice try tho.
Notice at the end, he says "the rights of human beings", thus he undercuts his own reasoning completely, as the fetus is demonstrably a human being. Clearly a bit of inconsistency on the part of Hoppe / Rothbard, and it's sad that you take them at face value. It's perfectly clear to me that fetuses and animals are incapable of communicating nor possessing rights outside themselves, but their right to self-ownership is undeniable, as it is a right given to every living human being regardless of any other consideration.
Kinsella, on Ayn Rand:" As Ayn Rand said , "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate — do you hear me? No man may start — the use of physical force against others." In other words, libertarians maintain that the only way to violate rights is by initiating force — that is, by committing aggression...One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim...After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource."
This rationale of the "scarce resource" applies primarily to property outside oneself. However, since your body is the only body you will ever have, it's easy to view it too as a scarce resource. The primary point of Kinsella here however is control, not the scarcity of that resource. One can equally maintain property over a non-scarce resource, say water, although the world is ultimately limited. But for all intents and purposes air and water are unlimited, and one can own them easily. You've placed emphasis on the wrong thing. Saying that a human body of the fetus is not a scarce resource and therefore they cannot own themselves is a ridiculous twisting of her statement beyond all rationality.
The beginning of the quote should be applied as well, that no man may initiate force on another. The fetus is undeniably a human being and falls under that rubric. The fetus has initiated force on no one, and no one may initiate force against it. That you fail to even attempt to address this is silly, Hashem.
hashem: Rothbard, on rights:"Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings...A fundamental error, then, of the advocates of "[fetus] rights" is their failure to identify—or even to attempt to identify—the specific nature of the species man, and hence the differences between human beings and other [beings]" So we see that rights are property rights in scarce resources, in order to respect the non-aggression principle, made necessary by our nature as rational social animals in an environment of scarce resources. None of this is relevant on any level to fetuses. Libertarian scholars don't even attempt to argue that fetuses have rights on these grounds. Even Ayn Rand wasn't talking about fetuses, but about humans as rational, argument-forming, acting individuals.
But again, you've failed to apply the beginning of the quote to the situation of the fetus, meaning that rights only apply to relationships and actions between human beings, and the initiation of force against a fetus on the part of a human being is exactly the situation where rights apply. You cannot murder a living human being, such as a fetus. Your only recourse is to attack the humanity of the fetus, and that's a losing proposition for you, so I can understand why you fail to address the topic at all :P
As for Rothbard's statement of a "fundamental error," I fail to see how his point follows, but then you've cut out the context with your ellipsis, so perhaps it's not surprising. The specific nature of man is clear, and self-evident; he is a self-owner, self-controller, and human by virtue of being the product of a human coupling. That alone separates man from the animals. No animal may give birth to a human being, nor vice versa. Human rights follow from humanness.
As for your statements below Rothbard's, you're taking these writer's statements out of context as if they're gospel, but they're not. Man's rights descend ultimately from facts about reality, not from the statement of any thinker. Man still self-owns whether any person says so or not and no statement to the contrary can change that. I see that your insistence on a quote war was just a game to you, as you're not applying the quoted concepts consistently.
hashem:Fetuses fail to qualify for rights on ANY—no less all—libertarian criteria. Those who disagree are ignorant of why we have property rights. THE END.
Again, you're taking statements about property rights outside the person and extending them to rights of self-ownership... when self-ownership is the basis for ownership outside ourselves, and you don't even realize you're dropping the context.
Wheylous: Anenome:Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness Then people in a coma can't own things? Horray!
Anenome:Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness
I meant that to acquire ownership of a thing outside yourself by your own efforts requires consciousness; ie: work, and I said as much if you quote the full sentence :P
Anenome:Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness and by extension sentience because you must receive things outside yourself through trade or appropriation.
My emphasis was on individual acquisition through trade, appropriation--these acts require consciousness. Actually holding on to what you own already clearly does not require you to be conscious, as we've seen through the sleeping and coma examples, and certainly self-ownership does not require consciousness or else murder of the the sleeper would be ethical and it is not.
Fetuses are thus the antithesis of a rights-having being. We have rights because we need them—when we need them (that is, when there's the potential for conflict over scarce resources).
Merely "being human" isn't why we have rights. A fetus doesn't meet the following universally-agreed-upon libertarian criteria, gathered from my post above with citations from Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Kinsella:
1. Is an individual (i.e. completely separate). 2. Is rational (implies reason, i.e. having ideas aka forming arguments). 3. Chooses ends and means consciously (i.e. intentionally and knowingly employs reason) 4. Needs to employ reason to adopt goals and values (i.e. preferences regarding scarce resources). 5. Needs to acquire knowledge in order to act on the bove (implies reason and action). 6. Needs to employ scarce resources to pursue ends. 7. Capacity and need to interact with other humans (i.e. an environment of multiple, inter-acting beings). 8. Capacity and need to communicate with other humans (implies reason, action, knowledge, scarcity, in addition to all the above). 9. Capacity and need to participate in the division of labor. 10. Is social. 11. Possesses the ability to reason. 12. Possesses the ability to make conscious choices. 13. Is able and needs to transform their environment in order to survive. 14. Is able to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor. 15. Is conscious. 16. Has free will (can act and choose voluntarily and intentionally). 17. Has free choice. 18. Can reason (can use logic to form arguments). 19. Needs to learn. 20. Needs to produce (else exchange for) consumable goods. 21. Can use reason to learn about ethics. 22. Must use reason to learn about ethics. 23. Is conscoius (can choose and act). 24. Has conceptual in addition to perceptual consciousness (can form arguments about abtract ideas). 25. The ability to form concepts and act upon them. 26. Uses reason to adopt values. 27. Uses reason to adopt ethical principles. 28. Acts to attain ends choses through reason. 29. Acts (adopts values and purposes and chooses the ways to achieve them). 30. Is capable of forming propositions. 31. Is capable of exchanging voluntarily. 32. Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange. 33. Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange with other humans (i.e. is rational). 34. Can communicate rationally.
Anenome:Rand's argument has nothing to do with whether one can study or not. You're taking half a sentence completely out of context.
You're lying outright. The context is studying and arguing. It's entirely inapplicable to fetuses—it would be ridiculous and pointless.
Anenome:First of all, Rothbard here is speaking of rights in general, not specifically the right to life and its corrolaries
You are absolutely off base, utterly off topic. Anyone is free to go back and see. He's talking about the nature of man and why rights are based on our capacity for conscious choice, our necessity to use our minds and energy to adopt goals and values, our necessity to use our minds and energy to learn, our necessity to use our minds and energy to pursue ends in order to survive, our capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings, our capacity and need to participate in the division of labor, that we are rational and social animals. Speicifically, he was pionting out that beings which don't posses the ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment, and to collaborate consciously in the division of labor and society wouldn't have rights.
Anenome:Rothbard says....that being unable to form concepts makes a fetus nonhuman. Nice try tho.
No, nice misrepresentation tho. Actually, what he did was to support the liberatarian tradition's opposition to your fallacies by agreeing that humans have rights for a plethora of reasons, all of which are entirely inapplicaple to fetuses. He stated that among these reason are our conceptual consciousness (the ability to form arguments and to choose and act), our rationality, our need and capacity to use reason to adopt values and achieve ends. Our need to act, adopt values and purposes, and choose means to achieve ends.
Anenome:Notice at the end, he says "the rights of human beings", thus he undercuts his own reasoning completely
That's because like every major libertarian thinker he is talking about thinking, acting individuals. You are the odd man out, the unresearched blemish in this debate. Your admitted skimming and dismissing has forsaken you.
Anenome:Your only recourse is to attack the humanity of the fetus
No, you desperately want to repeat that, but it's simply untrue. Allow me to repeat 34 generally-agreed-upon criteria:
Hashem:1. Is an individual (i.e. completely separate). 2. Is rational (implies reason, i.e. having ideas aka forming arguments). 3. Chooses ends and means consciously (i.e. intentionally and knowingly employs reason) 4. Needs to employ reason to adopt goals and values (i.e. preferences regarding scarce resources). 5. Needs to acquire knowledge in order to act on the bove (implies reason and action). 6. Needs to employ scarce resources to pursue ends. 7. Capacity and need to interact with other humans (i.e. an environment of multiple, inter-acting beings). 8. Capacity and need to communicate with other humans (implies reason, action, knowledge, scarcity, in addition to all the above). 9. Capacity and need to participate in the division of labor. 10. Is social. 11. Possesses the ability to reason. 12. Possesses the ability to make conscious choices. 13. Is able and needs to transform their environment in order to survive. 14. Is able to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor. 15. Is conscious. 16. Has free will (can act and choose voluntarily and intentionally). 17. Has free choice. 18. Can reason (can use logic to form arguments). 19. Needs to learn. 20. Needs to produce (else exchange for) consumable goods. 21. Can use reason to learn about ethics. 22. Must use reason to learn about ethics. 23. Is conscoius (can choose and act). 24. Has conceptual in addition to perceptual consciousness (can form arguments about abtract ideas). 25. The ability to form concepts and act upon them. 26. Uses reason to adopt values. 27. Uses reason to adopt ethical principles. 28. Acts to attain ends choses through reason. 29. Acts (adopts values and purposes and chooses the ways to achieve them). 30. Is capable of forming propositions. 31. Is capable of exchanging voluntarily. 32. Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange. 33. Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange with other humans (i.e. is rational). 34. Can communicate rationally.
Hashem:That alone separates man from the animals.
No, here are 34 other things which most libertarians agree upon:
Anenome:That you fail to even attempt to address this is silly
"My how the turn tables..." —The Office
hashem: Fetuses are thus the antithesis of a rights-having being. We have rights because we need them—when we need them (that is, when there's the potential for conflict over scarce resources).
When you're threatened with murder, you need your right to life.
hashem: Merely "being human" isn't why we have rights.
Merely "being human" isn't why we have rights.
All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process.
hashem:universally-agreed-upon libertarian criteria
Lol, universally agreed upon? You're funny.
hashem: A fetus doesn't meet the following universally-agreed-upon libertarian criteria, gathered from my post above with citations from Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Kinsella: 1. Is an individual (i.e. completely separate).
A fetus doesn't meet the following universally-agreed-upon libertarian criteria, gathered from my post above with citations from Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Kinsella:
1. Is an individual (i.e. completely separate).
A fetus is a completely independent individual. It requires only a suitable environment and nourishment to survive. You too require a suitable environment and nourishment to survive. No difference. The body the fetus possesses and inhabits is what makes it an individual.
hashem: 2. Is rational (implies reason, i.e. having ideas aka forming arguments).
Man is a rational animal. We say this categorically even though some are more or less rational, and man is still a rational animal when they're sleeping or in a comma, that is they do not become less human when not thinking. That is, man is rational in the sense that he retains the ability to reason. A fetus does not lose its status as a rational being simply because it's too young yet to reason. It's obvious that a newborn cannot yet reason either, and that has no bearing on whether a newborn can be murdered or not, it is clear they can be murdered. So too can a fetus.
hashem: 3. Chooses ends and means consciously (i.e. intentionally and knowingly employs reason)
False. A newborn cannot choose ends and means consciously and can still be murdered. But newborns and fetuses will become full adults capable or choosing equal to all other human beings is simply left alone and not murdered. Once again, you're failing to list criteria which would apply to a fetus and not to a newborn, thus being inconsistent and not fully thinking out the implications of your position. All of these criteria would have to pass the newborn test to be valid.
And again, ther's a clear difference between self-owning and owning things outside yourself. You continue to list criteria needed for exterior ownership and back-date them to self-ownership.
hashem: 4. Needs to employ reason to adopt goals and values (i.e. preferences regarding scarce resources).
A newborn cannot.
hashem: 5. Needs to acquire knowledge in order to act on the bove (implies reason and action).
hashem: 6. Needs to employ scarce resources to pursue ends.
hashem: 7. Capacity and need to interact with other humans (i.e. an environment of multiple, inter-acting beings).
A newborn cannot. However, both a fetus and a newborn possess the CAPACITY to do all of these things, because they are living human beings, and you will not be able to change that fact. They will only not be able to do these things if they are first killed.
hashem: 8. Capacity and need to communicate with other humans (implies reason, action, knowledge, scarcity, in addition to all the above).
hashem: 9. Capacity and need to participate in the division of labor.
9. Capacity and need to participate in the division of labor.
A new born and a fetus cannot. Both retain the capacity however.
hashem: 10. Is social.
Both retain capacity.
hashem: 11. Possesses the ability to reason.
Both retain capcity.
hashem: 12. Possesses the ability to make conscious choices.
A new born cannot, both nowborn and fetus retain capacity, if left alone to develop.
hashem: 13. Is able and needs to transform their environment in order to survive.
A newborn cannot. However both newborn and fetus can do so on an unconscious level in the sense that their bodies are capable of integrating nutrients and food into life.
hashem: 14. Is able to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
A newborn and a fetus cannot, however both retain capacity to do so if left alone.
hashem: 15. Is conscious.
This is not required to self-own, as it is obvious that unconscious people cannot be lawfully murdered.
hashem: 16. Has free will (can act and choose voluntarily and intentionally).
All living people have free will, including fetuses.
hashem: 17. Has free choice.
Same as above.
hashem: 18. Can reason (can use logic to form arguments).
This is a foolish criteria, as it would mean those incapable of reason don't have rights. However, it's clear that those with reduced capacity, including the brain dead, can still be murdered and this criteria has nothing to do therefore with self-ownership.
hashem: 19. Needs to learn.
hashem: 20. Needs to produce (else exchange for) consumable goods.
hashem: 21. Can use reason to learn about ethics. 22. Must use reason to learn about ethics. 23. Is conscoius (can choose and act). 24. Has conceptual in addition to perceptual consciousness (can form arguments about abtract ideas). 25. The ability to form concepts and act upon them. 26. Uses reason to adopt values. 27. Uses reason to adopt ethical principles. 28. Acts to attain ends choses through reason. 29. Acts (adopts values and purposes and chooses the ways to achieve them). 30. Is capable of forming propositions. 31. Is capable of exchanging voluntarily. 32. Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange. 33. Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange with other humans (i.e. is rational). 34. Can communicate rationally.
A newborn cannot do anything of these things. Are you suggesting that it should be legal to murder newborns?
hashem: Anenome:Rand's argument has nothing to do with whether one can study or not. You're taking half a sentence completely out of context. You're lying outright. The context is studying and arguing. It's entirely inapplicable to fetuses—it would be ridiculous and pointless.
Lol. Anyone can check for themselves.
hashem:He's [Rothbard] talking about the nature of man and why rights are based on our capacity for conscious choice,
Again, you fail to realize that one cannot choose if one is not alive. The basis of all rights is the right to life, all other rights are corrolaries to this primary, because without it none of them could exist. If you do not own your body, do not possess it and control it, you won't be alive, much less conscious.
hashem:Speicifically, he was pionting out that beings which don't posses the ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment, and to collaborate consciously in the division of labor and society wouldn't have rights.
If true, then he's wrong, because the brain dead can still be murdered, the sleeping can still be murdered, those physically disabled or paralyze and unable to transform their environment can still be murdered, and those unable to speak or work can still be murdered--all of these people you're saying should not have rights, and it's obvious that that cannot be true.
hashem:Actually, what he did was to support the liberatarian tradition's opposition to your fallacies by agreeing that humans have rights for a plethora of reasons, all of which are entirely inapplicaple to fetuses.
Again, he was listing rights that are corollaries to the basic right to life. You cannot list rights that are corollaries and deny the right from which they are corollaries. Unless you're, you know, completely inconsistent.
hashem:That's because like every major libertarian thinker he is talking about thinking, acting individuals. You are the odd man out, the unresearched blemish in this debate. Your admitted skimming and dismissing has forsaken you.
Your hero-worship and quote worship is a bit silly. What's important is reason, not who's reasoning.
hashem: Anenome:Your only recourse is to attack the humanity of the fetus No, you desperately want to repeat that, but it's simply untrue.
No, you desperately want to repeat that, but it's simply untrue.
How about actually addressing that point for once.
"Pretentious Allusions to Wrights According to Nature"
** Convolution **
Anenome:All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process.
Are you citing the ridiculous hubris of inealienable wrights that are better defined as utopian conjectures or stochastic optimizations?
Or are you citing the legal positivism of a constitution that represents a state's interest in protecting those who qualify as citizens upon the completion of birth or in equal protection for those who must also be born?
** Wish Full Thinking Within Nature **
When a lion is killing a gazelle, there is an event, however each has a different subjective realism of the event, hence the assertion of inalienable wrights has gone the way of extinct dinosaurs.
The following quotation is a nice summation of perspectivism, "In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectivism.” — Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. Walter Kaufmann , The Will to Power, §481 (1883-1888).
Monk-Eye: Anenome:All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process. Are you citing the ridiculous hubris of inealienable wrights that are better defined as utopian conjectures or stochastic optimizations?
I'm talking about the source of rights, that is man's nature and observations thereof.
Because rights, as such, as legal concepts, you can attack them as "words, words" but you cannot attack the reality from which they are drawn. I say that, for instance, a man's right to life is inalienable, you call that hubris, but it's true because it is a fact of reality that a person is alive. And if anyone in society expects to have their life respected they must apply that equally to others, creating mutual respect for life. Thus, to murder, is to deprive of life unlawfully.
Even if someone wrote a law that murder was okay, that would not make it okay, as it denies that ethics have a basis in reality. It should be obvious that murder can never be right, no matter what law is made accepting it, which shows that there is a fundamental objective reality behind what murder is, and it is that which we need to look at when drawing rights.
The best ethical system codified into a system of legally protected rights will seek to align themselves with reality, that is to protect in society that which nature determined in Man.
Thus, we observe that man is living, and create an ethic that policy should respect life, and create a right to life. We observe that man cannot live without obtaining food and other goods, and create a right to own and dispose of lawfully obtained property. We observe that man is free by nature, and conclude that freedom is a right, and build society on the assumption of personal freedom and all of its corollaries (this one's a big one, including such things as free speech, free association, freedom of the press, etc.). We observe that man is rational, a decision-making animal, and conclude that he is responsible for his decisions, which is what makes legal-prosecution at all cogent, that for any action taken only the person who did it is responsible, barring circumstance, etc.
To say that rights are alienable is akin to saying that mankind can live without eating--as your right to property ensures your ability to eat, that is your ability to take a piece of food (property) and dispose of it for your and purely your use (to eat it).
To say that rights are alienable is akin to saying that the consciousness inside a person does not control everything that person does, that is to deny freedom, and freedom of choice and its consequent responsibility. But that's ridiculous. Only the consciousness inside can control the actions on the outside.
Rights are not alienable, in the same way that murder will always be murder. A just and true, an objective, legal system is one that codifies into law in accord with the facts of reality. It must observe that man is alive, free, rational, and protect those attributes. If it does so, it allows men to operate in their greatest capacity as men, and the result is the modern world we see around us.
If law does not accord with reality, the result is that men are less effective in their dealings with themselves and others, a situation embodied by countless cultures the world over with no tradition of freedom, reason, and property.
Monk-Eye:Or are you citing the legal positivism of a constitution that represents a state's interest in protecting those who qualify as citizens upon the completion of birth or in equal protection for those who must also be born?
Birth is a stupid rubric for qualifying one for rights. What exactly is it about birth itself that should confer rights on someone? That's a much more important question. And the simply fact is that for every thing about birth you could cite, I will quickly and easily destroy each point you list.
Ethically, there's no difference between a baby 5 minutes before birth and one 5 minutes after birth. Yet legally there is. This oversight, this injustice, must be changed for the law to remain consistent. Abortion is quite simply murder.
Monk-Eye:When a lion is killing a gazelle, there is an event, however each has a different subjective realism of the event, hence the assertion of inalienable wrights has gone the way of extinct dinosaurs.
Care to expand. Your point seems to be that a lion and a gazelle both experience the event from different viewpoints, therefore inalienable rights are irrelevant. Come again?
Monk-Eye:The following quotation is a nice summation of perspectivism, "In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectivism.” — Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. Walter Kaufmann , The Will to Power, §481 (1883-1888).
Just because you accept perspectivism does not force me to :P It is little more than relativism, and based on a fundamental error in epistemology. There -is- an epistemological absolute and it is reality and the method of obtaining knowledge is science.
Existence exists. Man's route for knowing the world, that is for knowing truth, is through perception, the senses. From the senses man abstracts concepts into knowledge.
The gazelle, no matter how much it may want to reinterprate the event of being eaten by a lion (ie: perspectivism), is still going to die. If Nietzsche were correct, science would not work.
As for abortion, certain facts are not in dispute and cannot be reinterpreted to suit your ethical whim:
1. The fetus is alive.
2. The fetus is human.
3. The fetus is separate from the mother bodily.
Since it is both human and alive, anyone consistently applying the non-aggression principle must aggre that to kill it would be an aggression and unethical. Any argument otherwise must show an aggression on the part of the fetus which could be responded to with lethal force (note: I support all abortions done on the basis of the mother's life imminently in danger, so don't try that one).
Anemone:And if anyone in society expects to have their life respected they must apply that equally to others, creating mutual respect for life.
We observe man is alive but we also observe that man routinely kills man.
Charles Anthony:We observe man is alive but we also observe that man routinely kills man.
And more than half the people that have ever lived have never died... What's your point? We observe that my shoes are blue...so?
Thus, we observe that your shoes are blue, and create an ethic that policy should be that all shoes must be blue, and create a right to blue.
Anemone,
I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here deliberately with the hopes that people -- even Hashem -- will see the light, that rights are arbitrary preferences.
Charles Anthony: Anemone:And if anyone in society expects to have their life respected they must apply that equally to others, creating mutual respect for life. Wrong. I can have the biggest club, the most deadly firearm and the track record of having used both of them to demolish anybody who does not follow my orders. Thusly, I have a viable strategy to expect everybody around me to respect my life. We observe man is alive but we also observe that man routinely kills man.
What I said there was how one can maintain their moral position in regards to themselves and others, by living by an ethic of respecting life and applying it consistently. If you're out killing people, you may have a "viable strategy to expect everybody around me to respect my life" but you're also aggressing against people and thus not deserving of respect of life via the disrespect of other's lives you've shown, which is why everyone would consider it a just act to kill you to prevent you from killing imminently again, or at least subjecting you to incarceration.
Charles Anthony:Thus, we observe that your shoes are blue, and create an ethic that policy should be that all shoes must be blue, and create a right to blue.
Nonsensical. Rights enshrine freedom of action independent of other people. They impose no obligations on others. They are the bridge between ethics and law, subjecting society in toto and government itself to ethical consideration.
Charles Anthony: Anemone, I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here deliberately with the hopes that people -- even Hashem -- will see the light, that rights are arbitrary preferences.
Anemone, I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here deliberately with the hopes that people -- even Hashem -- will see the light, that rights are arbitrary preferences.
Did you not see where I explicitly rejected the premise that rights were arbitrary?
Rights cannot be arbitrary, anymore than whether murder is wrong or not is arbitrary. Murder will always be wrong whether the law enshrines that principle in law or not, and so too will a person have inalienable rights whether or not the law recognizes and protects those rights. The most basic, objective, right is the right to your own life. All rights are property rights, as Hashem is so fond of reminding us, and the ownership of your own body is the most basic, fundamental right. All other rights are corollaries to the right to life. For instance, without the right to property and the product of your own labor, you could neither produce anything, nor eat that which you produce--meaning you would not be able to sustain your life, meaning to deny the right to property is to deny your right to life.
He attacks the ability of the fetus to own, without realizing that without self-ownership the fetus could not ever gain consciousness or own anything ever. He attacks its individuality, without realizing that without being an individual it could not live biologically. He attacks its youth, without any reference to why age or developmental stage should be an ethical consideration whatsoever--especially when age is not a factor in any other ethical consideration. He attacks its unconsciousness, without realizing that consistency would demand he apply the same standard to other unconscious adults, without realizing the logic crumbles instantly under a consistent application of his standard.
It's laughable, really.
You said that murder will always be wrong. What do you mean by wrong?
more than half the people that have ever lived have never died
Actually false:
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Number_of_humans_who_have_ever_lived
Just saying.
Charles Anthony: You said that murder will always be wrong. What do you mean by wrong?
It will always be an initiation of aggression. That's a fact you cannot get around. I use that example because everyone would likely agree that murder is wrong whether the law says it is wrong or not. This is because they do not want to be murdered, peple value their own life by nature, and to be consistent should apply the same respect to others. That feeling that murder is wrong regardless of what the law says points to the fact that murder is an abrogation of something that is not a mere human concept but a reality beyond human concepts, having a basis in reality, or at least in unchangeable human nature.
That is, murder is not wrong because we discovered murder and then banned it. Murder was wrong before we discovered it as a concept and created the terminology to discuss it intelligently. Just as gravity existed before we had a word for it or understood the mathematical relationship behind it.
I can see what you're driving at, you're likely to quote the definition of ethics as mere "social standards." You may even list some societies where murder has come to be regarded as legal and natural, where they don't regard it as wrong but as a fact of life. But such societies are living contradictions, like one who says that poison is good to eat.
To think murder wrong is to make a value judgment about an act. This is true. So my claim is that there are valid and invalid value judgments.
The consistency and broad-application test can help us evaluate a moral standard such as murder. We can ask, if murder is okay, then what if we murdered everyone. Well, clearly, in that case, no one in society would be left alive, and it's clear that murder is harmful to society.
The irony, and the truth is, that in order to make a value judgment one must first be alive. So, to value murder, that is to value death, is a contradiction while one is alive. You must be alive to value anything--to then value death is ridiculous. For by doing so you must approve that your own murder is fine if you are consistent. In the same way that the rules of logic cannot be disproved becuase you must appeal to them in any argument you might make, to say that murder is fine is to appeal to life while attempting that argument, and thus self-refuting. Similarly, to say man has no free will or is not self-directed one must self-direct to make that statement, thus refuting the premise by the very act of attempting to prove it.
I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that many people are Capitalists and think that we have a right to property. I realize that I don't have a right to life. I only have a right to my thoughts which I can invest into this world. I personally would avoid abortion of a fetus because I don't think we have given that fetus a chance. That fetus could be a great thinker. But I would have less of a problem killing a 13 year old kid that has proven their incompetance as a respectful human being. I would prefer the non-violent approach of enslaving the 13 year old child so they might learn respect - at which time they could gain their freedom. We might also use the insane 13 year old child to learn the environmental causes of mental retardation among developing minds.
Well, I probably meant in recorded history, Wheylous. But shame on your sources for being heavy with guesswork and assumption.
"Saving Private Ryan"
Anenome: Monk-Eye: Anenome:All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process.Are you citing the ridiculous hubris of inealienable wrights that are better defined as utopian conjectures or stochastic optimizations? I'm talking about the source of rights, that is man's nature and observations thereof. .... I say that, for instance, a man's right to life is inalienable, you call that hubris, but it's true because it is a fact of reality that a person is alive. And if anyone in society expects to have their life respected they must apply that equally to others, creating mutual respect for life. Thus, to murder, is to deprive of life unlawfully.
Monk-Eye: Anenome:All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process.Are you citing the ridiculous hubris of inealienable wrights that are better defined as utopian conjectures or stochastic optimizations?
....
I say that, for instance, a man's right to life is inalienable, you call that hubris, but it's true because it is a fact of reality that a person is alive. And if anyone in society expects to have their life respected they must apply that equally to others, creating mutual respect for life. Thus, to murder, is to deprive of life unlawfully.
At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated".
Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"?
One may infer from statements that your answer is "because one wants to be alive", from which you apparently extrapolate "a biological processes" as being consistent with want.
And, yet, one does not continue to be alive per design of nature; therefore wanting to continue to be alive cannot represent a law that one must continue to be alive.
Anenome:Care to expand. Your point seems to be that a lion and a gazelle both experience the event from different viewpoints, therefore inalienable rights are irrelevant. Come again?
Again, it is straight forward to deduce that the gazelle has a will to be alive that can be alienated.
** Churn More **
Verily, it is difficult to discern the meaning that many attach to the term right.
Firstly, dexterous and sinisterism are antonyms of handedness, levorotatory and dextrorotator are antonyms of enantiomers, however neither of the pairs are likely to objectively represent moral or ethical opposites.
The terms right and left are antonyms for direction and one should use the terms correct or incorrect to describe conditions or outcomes.
Also, the use of the term right is an abbreviation from upright, which has an attached connotation of "standing up".
As such, an assertion that mammon is not an animal because it stands upright is arrogant nonsense.
Extrapolation of the mind body paradigm to a deity which is extrinsic to nature is a misgiving that naturalism rejects.
** Here Say **
Anenome:Just because you accept perspectivism does not force me to :P It is little more than relativism, and based on a fundamental error in epistemology. There -is- an epistemological absolute and it is reality and the method of obtaining knowledge is science. ... If Nietzsche were correct, science would not work.
Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"
For example, given certain physical conditions in a chemical reaction, where specific byproducts are created, perspectivism would challenge that the purpose of the byproducts is subjective and wholly dependent upon personal need. while the stochastic processes which form a byproduct are ethically indifferent to the consequence.
"This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.
** Reflexive Emanation **
Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?
Certainly, one may suppose that there is reciprocity in nature - a karma.
The extent to which reciprocity occurs in nature for abortion of an inchoate foetus is a subjective perception.
Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.
** Tiny Article **
Emphatically, a wright exists because there is an entity which is capable of reprising a violation of its conditions.
Therefore, a premise for inalienable wrights is mandated upon an allusion to theological reprisals.
Now a "chance at eternal life" and "final judgment" are metaphors for perpetuation of one's introspection and genetic identity through one's children, and a soul is a metaphor for a sole.
A strong anthropic principle states that "one exists because one is present to attest that they exist"; it is a tautology which does not attempt to compromise beyond concrete reality.
"I realize that I don't have a right to life. "
Just one word: ridiculous
GavinPalmer1984: I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that many people are Capitalists and think that we have a right to property.
I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that many people are Capitalists and think that we have a right to property.
If you had no ability to own and dispose of property, you could not live. You must eat. Yet, food cannot be eaten corporately. It can be eaten by only one person, and is disposed of utterly and consumed utterly. It is a property. If you did not have a right to the product of your efforts you could not eat that which you produced, nor own the tools to produce food. If you had no property you would not even have a body, and thus could not be alive, as you own the physical constituents that make up your physical form and produce consciousness within you.
GavinPalmer1984:I realize that I don't have a right to life.
If you have no right to life then you have no right to the things that sustain your life, including work, production, and food. Are you honestly suggesting that it is ethical to deprive you of these things unto your death?
GavinPalmer1984:I only have a right to my thoughts which I can invest into this world.
Thoughts alone cannot keep you alive. You must eat, drink, interact. One chained in darkness can think, but they will not live very long without the material necessities of life.
GavinPalmer1984: I personally would avoid abortion of a fetus because I don't think we have given that fetus a chance. That fetus could be a great thinker. But I would have less of a problem killing a 13 year old kid that has proven their incompetance as a respectful human being.
Then you are evil. Lacking respect hardly rises to the level of deserving death. You have a twisted value system.
GavinPalmer1984:I would prefer the non-violent approach of enslaving the 13 year old child so they might learn respect - at which time they could gain their freedom.
Non-violent? Suppose she tries to escape as you are enslaving her, will you use force to restrain her? Is it still non-violent? Enslaving anyone is an aggression, an abrogation of their free will and reprehensible.
That said, the fetus does not enslave the mother, it cannot. It did not cause its coming into existence. It cannot aggress.
Monk-Eye: At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated". Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"?
No man can deprive another of life or liberty and maintain their moral position. Those who do not respect life are a threat to society, and justice demands the harshest treatment, and their separation from society. These are things that men felt intuitively before we had concepts to delineate them intellectually.
Monk-Eye:One may infer from statements that your answer is "because one wants to be alive", from which you apparently extrapolate "a biological processes" as being consistent with want.
First of all, why are you putting that phrase in quotes as if I wrote it, since it's a phrase you originated, not I.
Secondly, what's important is what people will do willingly versus what others force on them. To force death on someone makes it ethical to force death on the aggressor, makes it just and commensurate. Most people do want to remain alive, both on an unconscious level and a conscious level. It cannot be denied that the body is a continuing process of life whose aim is to remain alive. It continues this process until it is unable. Even those who commit suicide cannot convince their body to stop creating and sustaining life within them.
Biological life is a given.
Monk-Eye:And, yet, one does not continue to be alive per design of nature; therefore wanting to continue to be alive cannot represent a law that one must continue to be alive.
Not quite as you formulate it. Rather, if one wants to continue to be alive they must do certain things. They must feed themselves and provide water and suitable living conditions. Thus, to deny one's right to the product of their labor is to deny them food and water and shelter which is to deny them life. To deny the life of someone attempting to maintain their life is to aggress against them and unethical. Rights enshrine the nature of man, that being exactly what you said, that while nature doesn't make us a live as a matter of course, nature requires certain actions of us and it is these we must fulfill to remain alive. Anyone blocking such activites is not valuing life but valuing death. You cannot abstain from valuing, you must choose either or.
Monk-Eye: Again, it is straight forward to deduce that the gazelle has a will to be alive that can be alienated.
Again, a person's life can be alienated or taken from them, but only by force, and this does not allow the killer to maintain their moral position in regard to other men.
Monk-Eye: Verily
Verily
"Verily"? Seriously?
Monk-Eye:Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"
Seems more like it's denying the possibility of truth whatsoever. Do you agree that perspectivism is antithetical to epistemological-absolutism? If so, you deny the ability to discover truth whatsoever, you in fact would thereby deny that reality exists, for that is my epistemological foundation, and would thereby expose yourself as little more than a neo-mystic.
Monk-Eye:For example, given certain physical conditions in a chemical reaction, where specific byproducts are created, perspectivism would challenge that the purpose of the byproducts is subjective and wholly dependent upon personal need. while the stochastic processes which form a byproduct are ethically indifferent to the consequence.
Rights deal only with the actions and relationships of men to other man. Of course chemistry has no ethical component, but rather what one does with the chemicals.
Monk-Eye: "This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made.
"This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made.
But not all of them valid.
You might say to me "man must eat to live" and I would say that you are correct, except that you are not wholly correct. Man must eat good food, for one can also eat poison and die. Thus, while you are free to value whatever you like--values after all are a product of thinking--you are not free to prosper equally on any value system. A system which values poison cannot ignore the reality that poison will kill you.
So to, a political order must recognize the facts about man's nature and inculcate a value system that respects man's right to life and the corollaries if that society is to proper.
Monk-Eye:This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.
This is a limited view that amounts to such sayings as "there's no best flavor of ice cream." Such a statement cannot be imported into the realm of factual data to which value has not been applied. There may be no one best flavor of ice-cream, but there certainly is ice-cream. Ice-cream exists, that much we can say with 100% certainty. To deny the validity of a value judgment and apply that rubric to factual questions is the fallacy of the frozen abstraction, of concept importation out of context.
Monk-Eye:Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?
Yes, but that is outside the scope of the discussion. The question is not whether nature is ethically indifferent, but whether society should be.
Monk-Eye:Certainly, one may suppose that there is reciprocity in nature - a karma.
Do you believe in karma? I do not. Once again, should you say you do, mysticism.
Monk-Eye:The extent to which reciprocity occurs in nature for abortion of an inchoate foetus is a subjective perception.
I have seen no one suggest such a thing; certainly I have not.
Monk-Eye:Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.
Then, would you agree to allow others to decide for themselves whether a sleeping, unconscious person can be lawfully kiled because they are not currently sentient? In either case you're allowing the murder of a living human being. Again, you will not escape that fact.
Monk-Eye:right exists because there is an entity which is capable of reprising a violation of its conditions.
Correct, inasmuch as rights are the legal enshrinement of ethical principles. However, those ethical principles cannot be changed by changing a law. An ethical violation is still unethical even if there is no law to condemn or reprise its violations.
Monk-Eye:Therefore, a premise for inalienable wrights is mandated upon an allusion to theological reprisals.
Hardly. One needs only a state to coerce aggressors, not a theological entity of any kind. This is a specious line of argumentation.
"Curve Ball"
** Coarse Course ** Anenome: Anenome:At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated". Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"? No man can deprive another of life or liberty and maintain their moral position.Male lions kill the cubs of former prides so that their genetics may be passed into the future, the strong anthropic principle does not compromise, one is genetically present or one is not genetically present.
Anenome: Anenome:At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated". Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"? No man can deprive another of life or liberty and maintain their moral position.
Anenome:At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated". Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"?
Recall the history of military campaigns by mammon clads in search for territories and resources to supply its survival; although one may subjectively disagree with the methods, one must objectively accept the incidences of both success and failure according to the strong anthropic principle.
Hence, any moral valuation of what ought to be is simply a matter of perspective.
** Systematic Formalities ** Anenome: Those who do not respect life are a threat to society, and justice demands the harshest treatment, and their separation from society. These are things that men felt intuitively before we had concepts to delineate them intellectually.Now, one may engage in mutualism with a purpose of improving the likelihood of their own survival or for fostering a fruitious environment and herding animals do it all the time.
Anenome: Those who do not respect life are a threat to society, and justice demands the harshest treatment, and their separation from society. These are things that men felt intuitively before we had concepts to delineate them intellectually.
In that respect, an individual exchanges natural freedoms for citizenship in a collective, with protected (reprisable) wrights according to a constitution, which acts as a greater individual in order to improve one's own survival or to foster a fruitious environment.
Note, however, that such a construct is provisional, a fabrication without a moral necessity by nature.
** Free Will ** Anenome: Monk-Eye:Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"Seems more like it's denying the possibility of truth whatsoever. Do you agree that perspectivism is antithetical to epistemological-absolutism? If so, you deny the ability to discover truth whatsoever, you in fact would thereby deny that reality exists, for that is my epistemological foundation, and would thereby expose yourself as little more than a neo-mystic.My objectivity does not allow me to throw the logical term truth about indiscriminately.
Anenome: Monk-Eye:Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"Seems more like it's denying the possibility of truth whatsoever. Do you agree that perspectivism is antithetical to epistemological-absolutism? If so, you deny the ability to discover truth whatsoever, you in fact would thereby deny that reality exists, for that is my epistemological foundation, and would thereby expose yourself as little more than a neo-mystic.
There are expected values from events, goals from procedures, and consequence from conditions, which may be true or false depending upon a defintion of the problem.
My objective is to optimize advantages without pretences for grandiose allusion to moral absolutes.
** Nature of Society ** Anenome: Monk-Eye:Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?Yes, but that is outside the scope of the discussion. The question is not whether nature is ethically indifferent, but whether society should be.It is not outside the scope of the discussion, it is the discussion!
Anenome: Monk-Eye:Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?Yes, but that is outside the scope of the discussion. The question is not whether nature is ethically indifferent, but whether society should be.
One cannot allude to law and excise nature from its foundation!
Objectively, a subjective argument should not deny that it is subjective!
An absolute assertion for necessary wrights is entirely based within subjective reasoning!
Even though, conditions of society can be established to objectively improve subjective preferences.
** Specious Species ** Anenome: Monk-Eye:Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.Then, would you agree to allow others to decide for themselves whether a sleeping, unconscious person can be lawfully kiled because they are not currently sentient? In either case you're allowing the murder of a living human being. Again, you will not escape that fact.Stop mixing legalism with natural freedoms.
Anenome: Monk-Eye:Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.Then, would you agree to allow others to decide for themselves whether a sleeping, unconscious person can be lawfully kiled because they are not currently sentient? In either case you're allowing the murder of a living human being. Again, you will not escape that fact.
Murder is a legal term meaning to kill in violation of a written law (w.right).
Again, an unconscious person, whom has been born, receives constitutional protections!
If one cannot accept that a wright exists because there is an entity capable of reprising a violation of given conditions, whence all killing is murder, then see theological reprisal.
Verily, an esoteric interpretation of newton's third law of motion does not imply anything about the ethical or moral consequences of an action; no good deed goes unpunished and what comes around goes around.
To both the responders of my post - your thoughts stem from the delusion that you have some "right to life". Everybody dies.
There are numerous situations where the life of a person depends upon the death of another person. By accepting some notion of "right to life" - you are faced with inevitable contradictions to that notion. The closest thing I can think of to a "natural right" - is the right to think. We can absorb information and use that information to influence the world. Your body is also part of that world - even though it is likely your thoughts can't exist without your body. But if you are going to get down to the fundamental factor - it has to be thought.
Once you are possessed by the hypocritical and selfish belief that everyone has a "right to life" - you begin acquiring all kinds of false "rights". But I am merely saying that your maxim is not practical... else there would be no arguments like the one in this thread. I submit that we have the right to perform thought activations in defense of our life. But I do not submit that we have a right to life. These are very different maxims.
GavinPalmer1984:There are numerous situations where the life of a person depends upon the death of another person.
Let's have them.
GavinPalmer1984: By accepting some notion of "right to life" - you are faced with inevitable contradictions to that notion.
GavinPalmer1984: The closest thing I can think of to a "natural right" - is the right to think.
You cannot think without a right to your own life. Thus, the right to think pre-supposes your right to life, for by depriving you of life you are also deprived of thinking. You don't realize that the right to life is the fundamental right to which all others are corollaries.
GavinPalmer1984:Once you are possessed by the hypocritical and selfish belief that everyone has a "right to life" - you begin acquiring all kinds of false "rights".
Such as?
GavinPalmer1984: But I am merely saying that your maxim is not practical... else there would be no arguments like the one in this thread. I submit that we have the right to perform thought activations in defense of our life. But I do not submit that we have a right to life. These are very different maxims.
Again, your "right to thought" presupposed a right to life and therefore is inconsistent and self-refuting.
The law of conservation of mass is the ultimate reason why we can be faced with situations where there can not be life without death. Consider "Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571". The environment has very little life-giving fuel. And the companions that surround you are really the only source of life-giving fuel. Given the right conditions - it would be inevitable that someone die so that you may continue living.
In the sense of "natural rights" which many of you uphold - I say we have none. But I do think that thought is one of the most fundamental and powerful prime movers an individual can access... and is therefore deserving of the highest regard.