Man, rights and reason

[The Question]

(author's note: the following is a compiled essay of my own writing, and it includes some phrases and definitions common to objectivist writings.)




How does man apprehend individual rights through the agency of reason, and how do we describe and proscribe them?

Let's start with some primary definitions, including the recognition of some irreducible primaries.

Reality is that which exists. It is objective and absolute. It is the standard of measure for the true, the false, and the arbitrary. Things are what they are, independent of ours or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions. To be, is to be something: finite, limited, and non-contradictory.

Regardless of how they may have come to be there, human beings exist in an objectively real world. Reason (regardless of how it may have been acquired) is man's only means of discerning that reality. In fact, man's survival is contingent upon his recognition of reality in objective and absolute terms, and his willingness to act in accordance with the dictates of reality, by choice. Failure to recognize reality and failure to choose one's actions accordingly, will ultimately end in death. Hence all sane human beings evaluate their world, and form values upon which their choices are predicated.

Each individual rational human being is driven by his own values. Inasmuch as each man may know only the specific workings of his own mind, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone. No man may claim to accurately represent the mind or the values of another. Hence each man's values may only be advanced by evaluating the world, forming rational conclusions, and then acting for himself.

The free-will choice to act in accordance with one's own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is "the pursuit of happiness". Whether actions are seemingly motivated by traditional religious pursuits, or by the advancement of family, or friends, or charitable concerns, the pursuit of individual happiness (advancement of one's own values) is the true motivator. Men seek to please their Gods, or to protect their children, or to help others, because it pleases them to do so.

In order to pursue the rational advancement of their values, individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others is initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. Recognition of this truth provides the foundation of a moral code. Initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are immoral inasmuch as they act to infringe man's pursuit of his happiness as he defines it.

All initiated force, threat of initiated force, or fraud, are immoral, whether perpetrated by an individual or by a collection of individuals sometimes known as government.

A rational human society is one in which each man holds as an absolute: that every man is an autonomous end in himself, and that others are every bit as justified in seeking their own happiness as he is. Legitimate recognition of the philosophical construct of rights, identifies the rational human society as the political ideal. It recognizes no decision-making authority higher than the individual's judgment of the truth. It is not opposed to man living in society. It is opposed to man living in society as a slave to the will of another.

The only morally legitimate justification for the political organization of man, is the common recognition and defense of the rights of each of its individual participants. Any governmental action outside these bounds, must by definition represent an initiation of force against an individual. Participation in such a political construct, must be voluntary for each and every individual of sufficient age and rational capacity if moral legitimacy is to be maintained.


-SR

[Darth Wong]

(author's note: the following is a compiled essay, and it includes some phrases and definitions common to objectivist writings.)

Not Rand, is it?

How does man apprehend individual rights through the agency of reason, and how do we describe and proscribe them?

Let's start with some primary definitions, including the recognition of some irreducible primaries.

Reality is that which exists. It is objective and absolute. It is the standard of measure for the true, the false, and the arbitrary. Things are what they are, independent of ours or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions. To be, is to be something: finite, limited, and non-contradictory.

Some philosophers call the reality of the physical universe as "assumption", but we can disregard those fools for now

Regardless of how they may have come to be there, human beings exist in an objectively real world. Reason (regardless of how it may have been acquired) is man's only means of discerning that reality. In fact, man's survival is contingent upon his recognition of reality in objective and absolute terms, and his willingness to act in accordance with the dictates of reality, by choice. Failure to recognize reality and failure to choose one's actions accordingly, will ultimately end in death. Hence all sane human beings evaluate their world, and form values upon which their choices are predicated.

Mostly agreeable, although humans discern reality through observation, not reason. Reason is the method by which we synthesize consistent theories to explain our observations.

Each individual rational human being is driven by his own values. Inasmuch as each man may know only the specific workings of his own mind, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone. No man may claim to accurately represent the mind or the values of another. Hence each man's values may only be advanced by evaluating the world, forming rational conclusions, and then acting for himself.

The free-will choice to act in accordance with one's own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is "the pursuit of happiness". Whether actions are seemingly motivated by traditional religious pursuits, or by the advancement of family, or friends, or charitable concerns, the pursuit of individual happiness (advancement of one's own values) is the true motivator. Men seek to please their Gods, or to protect their children, or to help others, because it pleases them to do so.

OK.

In order to pursue the rational advancement of their values, individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.

In other words, you have the right to do whatever pleases you as long as it doesn't infringe upon the next guy's right to do the same. Unfortunately, this argument, while neatly sidestepping the question of which values are absolute (by allowing each person to define his own values) also means that your rights can be limited by lunatics. For example, let's say your neighbour is a fundie who believes that his pursuit of happiness requires that he "not be forced to see" things which offend him. In that case, your rights come into conflict with his almost immediately, and that is precisely the argument which dogs most of the historically intractable questions of so-called "public morality".

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others is initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. Recognition of this truth provides the foundation of a moral code. Initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are immoral inasmuch as they act to infringe man's pursuit of his happiness as he defines it.

All initiated force, threat of initiated force, or fraud, are immoral, whether perpetrated by an individual or by a collection of individuals sometimes known as government.

Assuming that by "initiated force", you refer to that which is unnecessary for survival (ie- excluding self-defense), that makes sense to me.

A rational human society is one in which each man holds as an absolute: that every man is an autonomous end in himself, and that others are every bit as justified in seeking their own happiness as he is. Legitimate recognition of the philosophical construct of rights, identifies the rational human society as the political ideal. It recognizes no decision-making authority higher than the individual's judgment of the truth. It is not opposed to man living in society. It is opposed to man living in society as a slave to the will of another.

At this point, while I agree that the objective of human equality is a noble one, I am constrained to point out that one can easily argue it does not spring from reason or observation, but is in fact an assumption based on subjective values. One could easily argue that (based on observation of metrics such as IQ test scores, physical attributes, etc) despite our humanist desire to the contrary, humans are NOT created equal, and then conclude that they do not deserve equal rights. I've always maintained that every system or concept of morality always must include some kind of subjective premise no matter how rational or complex the philosophical constructs on top of it are, and that is still true.

The only morally legitimate justification for the political organization of man, is the common recognition and defense of the rights of each of its individual participants. Any governmental action outside these bounds, must by definition represent an initiation of force against an individual. Participation in such a political construct, must be voluntary for each and every individual of sufficient age and rational capacity if moral legitimacy is to be maintained.

Rights-based ethics are very popular among Americans, because rights are the basis of their entire legal system and national founding documents. Indeed, American ethical questions are almost invariably characterized in an adversarial manner, as a clash of opposing rights.

However, it is by no means the only basis of morality, nor is there any reason to assume that it must be the best. Unitarian morality dispenses with the entire concept of rights and simply concerns itself with maximizing pleasure/freedom/life and minimizing suffering/enslavement/death, and there are other systems of morality too.

[The Question]

^^^

Yes, initiated force means for used in aggression. Force used in defense of rights falls under that aegis of self-defense.

When I said man apprehends reality through the agency of reason, I only specified that above and beyond the power of observation so that it would be clear that man apprehends reality only through observation tempered by reason i.e. he can only see what is there, not what he wishes to be there.

I understand what you mean by the unitarian morality, but I would argue that since each man is the sole decider on his values and happiness (and conversely that which is his anti-value and what makes him not happy), only each man can decide that for himself. Since individual is antecedent to society or group (individuals can exist without group, there's no such thing as a group without individuals), the group may not subsume the individual's values or happiness for its own.

Either man is a means to other's end, and thus morality becomes a cannibalistic daisy chain where each may enslave the other, or else man is his own end.

As to the fundie neighbor who doesn't want to see something on my property that offends - that falls under the tough shit rubrick.

He may think he has a right to only see flowers and beige brick on my property, but rights, by definition, do not impose a positive obligation on others. You have the right to speak - you do not have a right to make me listen. You have a right to own means of self-defense, you do not have the right to make me provide that for you, or an entitlement to the means of self-defense at the monetary expense of your neighbor. You have the right to buy property from a seller, I don't have to provide you with property - I only have the obligation not to trespass.

-SR

[The Question]

Re: Equality-


Equality of anything but equality before the law is a four-letter word for me.

No man is equal to another; we must only insist that all men are treated equally by government, and that each recognizes that each man has the same rights as inhere to all.

[The Question]

Re: Compiled essay:


No, I meant the essay is mine - I wrote it, but I'm hardly the first to using establishing axioms like "existence exists."

[Zoink]

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others is initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud.

How about public nudity? Or say, having sex while at a mall cafeteria? I don't see any force or fraud there.

Isn't this a case where the collective sensibilities of the society take precident over your individual desire for sex in a mall? Where, the space occupied by the mall is "public property" (as opposed to your private property), and as such the public can make certain social rules for its use. ie. You desire sex in a mall, they desire not seeing sex in the mall, both are frivolous desires so the majority rules...?

Is it really immoral to stop someone from making crazy monkey love while you're trying to eat a burger?

[The Question]

How about public nudity? Or say, having sex while at a mall cafeteria? I don't see any force or fraud there.

Now we get into the tragedy of the commons. Good question.

Ignoring for a moment the issue of whether there should be publicly held (ie. government owned) property, we have to break this down.

If the location in question is privately owned - be it a mall or whatever - then the owner has every right to set whatever standards for behavior while you are on that property that he so wishes. This is no different than if I invite you in my house - you will abide by my house rules, or I have the rightful option to eject you from the premises. Most malls and such are privately owned.

If the location in question is what we call "public property" - such as city sidewalks, public parks, etc. - the in that case the state is the defacto owner, and may likewise set standards of behavior.

This leaves us such arguments the issue of "the front yard" - i.e. you're in your own front yard, on your own property which is visible from the street, so what to do if you're up for a spot of nude gardening?

In that case, it is up to your neighbors to use persuasion - through such non-coercive means as conversation, shunning and shaming - to convince you to cover your willy when you're mowing.

Further, such voluntary organizations like neighborhood associations - which set standards of arhcitectural codes and such as part of your agreement to buy a house in a given neighborhood - can be used to set minimum standards in a way that does not violate individual rights. That is, if you want to parade about in your front yard naked or erect a 20-foot purple statute of a penis in your front yard, you are free to do so, but you can't buy property in the neighborhood in question, because it violates the property covenant. Agreeing not to do so is part of the conditions of your purchase of your home in the first place.

This places the issue of setting standards at the most local level, and in a way that does not use coercion, or in a way that violates individual/property rights.

[Zoink]

If the location in question is what we call "public property" - such as city sidewalks, public parks, etc. - the in that case the state is the defacto owner, and may likewise set standards of behavior.

I see that we are in agreement on the issue. But the point I was trying to make (in re-reading I admitt that I digressed a bit) is that by having sex in pubic you aren't using "force" on anyone. Aren't you infringing on the rights of others (ie. right of state to set social standards) without having used force?

[The Question]

Still great question and good jumping off point for the issue of the tragedy of the commons.

Well, the state doesn't have rights, per se, but as property owner it can set standards for behavior on entry to said property. Implied agreement to obey the "house rules," basically, is given when you enter the limits of that property.

So if you enter the state's property (the sidewalk, the park, public library) and then proceed to disobey the rules that you implicitly agreed to obey, you have initiated not force, but fraud. Which is, for the purposes of rights violation (though not a measure of degree or severity) the same as initiating force.

Either way, you have violated the rights of the property owner, and as such the property owner may then use defensive force to eject you from said premises, or force you to comply to the house rules. In that case, the owner of the property is using force in defense of his rights (as a property owner), not initiating it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I believe that nude gardening is now legal in the state of Pennsylvania. Front-yard gardening.

[Zoink]

you have initiated not force, but fraud.

Ok. I see where you are going with that. You posted a maxim, I'm just trying to punch holes in it. Its held up pretty good so far

[The Question]

^^^

By all mean, please do. My life's philosophy is always a work in progress. A stagnant philosophy that is untested will often fail against the crucible of reality.

I really appreciate your input.

[The Question]

I believe that nude gardening is now legal in the state of Pennsylvania. Front-yard gardening.

I never saw a Pennsylvianian I'd want to see naked. :p

[Darth Wong]

I understand what you mean by the unitarian morality, but I would argue that since each man is the sole decider on his values and happiness (and conversely that which is his anti-value and what makes him not happy), only each man can decide that for himself. Since individual is antecedent to society or group (individuals can exist without group, there's no such thing as a group without individuals), the group may not subsume the individual's values or happiness for its own.

This is a common liberterian attitude. However, a "group" does not have motives, values, or happiness. It is composed of individuals, and it is the motives, values, and happiness of the bulk of those individuals which constitutes the perceived motives, values, and happiness of the group. It is a common libertarian tactic to describe society as some kind of non-human parasite, conflicting with the desires of the people in it, but society as an aggregate whole does not desire something unless most of the people in it happen to desire that thing.

Having said that, it is possible for most of the people in a society to desire something which is clearly bad (see WW2 Germany), and I don't think that each person has an equal right to arbitrarily decide what is good and bad. We must try to discern what are truly universal values and work from there. Self-preservation, the ability to reproduce, and freedom from physical confinement or torture are universal values. Something more esoteric, like unrestricted freedom of expression, is arguably not.

Rights-based ethics have a critical flaw: they recognize rights, but not responsibilities. It is for this reason that a single-minded obsession with rights tends to produce self-centred people (or vice versa; self-centred people are obsessed with their own rights).

Take the scenario of the whistle-blower. You're an engineer working for a large company. You discover that there's a crucial design flaw which, if left uncorrected, will create a public safety hazard. You bring this up with your supervisor, who informs you that the cost of fixing the flaw is prohibitive, and your non-disclosure agreement prohibits discussion of this issue outside the company.

What do you do? Are your rights being violated? No. Are anyone's rights being violated? No (unless you define safe products as a "right"; an argument which is breathtaking in its scope because it would make the lawsuit-happy product-liability "safety Nazis" completely right). Yet something is clearly wrong, isn't it? With unitarian morality or duty ethics, you know what you have to do. You must report the problem to the authorities and take the hit for the greater good, which means you'll probably get fired and perhaps even blacklisted. But with exclusively rights-based ethics, you do nothing.

[Joe]

You keep referring to "unitarian ethics," Mike. Unitarianism is Christianity without the Trinity. Is "utilitarian" the word you're looking for here?

[The Question]

Rights-based ethics have a critical flaw: they recognize rights, but not responsibilities.

I disagree. Rights-based ethics recognize the negative obligation not to violate the rights of others. (I'll explain that further in a moment.)

Further, your statement is a fallacy known as petitio prinicipi.

Take the scenario of the whistle-blower. You're an engineer working for a large company. You discover that there's a crucial design flaw which, if left uncorrected, will create a public safety hazard. You bring this up with your supervisor, who informs you that the cost of fixing the flaw is prohibitive, and your non-disclosure agreement prohibits discussion of this issue outside the company.

What do you do? Are your rights being violated? No.

Yes. They are.

A consumer buys a product and it is implied and usually explicit that safe operation of the product will present no undisclosed risk.

That is, if I sell you even a hamburger it is understood I am selling you a hamburger that won't poison you. I need not put that on the menu "Our hamburgers will not poison you."

If a manufacturer creates a product with an inherent, dangerous flaw, and knowingly sells it without disclosing the truth that it's prescribed operation is dangerous, then the manufacturer has initiated fraud against the buyer.

Now, as to rights and society ---

Society is not a parasite, and saying that some libertarians state such is a meaningless point. I have not stated it.

Society” as such is a nebulous, ever-changing collection of individuals who choose to live in proximity and interact voluntarily for mutual gain. As such, this group called society does not have more rights than the constituent rights of those who form it. Rights, as such, are not additive – two people do not have more rights than one. Society is the sum total of all the voluntary, individual decisions and interactions people make each day. It is not something created by design – in fact every time people try to create and design a society it is a dismal failure.

You also presume a false dichotomy between rational self-interest and the "collective good."

I put in a street light along the front of my property where there is a walkway. I do so for my benefit. But everyone walking along the sidewalk in front of my property benefits from that light I put in. That doesn’t mean I can charge them for the benefit.

Or another way – Mr. A and Ms. B hire a security service that has a uniformed officer patrolling their neighboring business properties. Those guards walking about also deter criminals from attacking their neighbor’s businesses. That doesn’t mean the actions of Ms. B and Mr. A create a debt on the part of their neighbors.

That’s the whole point. People get together voluntarily, to interact voluntarily, and there are benefits beyond the interaction. That’s what society is.

An individual’s contribution to “society” is being there in the first place, interacting and existing without violating the rights of others.

That is the extent of your obligation to “society.” Show up, do your trading and your selling, mind your own business, have fun, don’t step on your neighbor’s lawn. And by doing so, the "collective good" is better served.

[Darth Wong]

I disagree. Rights-based ethics recognize the negative obligation not to violate the rights of others. (I'll explain that further in a moment.)

Incorrect. An obligation is a requirement to take a positive course of action. The limitation of your rights by those of others is not an obligation; it is a restriction. It requires inaction, not action.

Further, your statement is a fallacy known as petitio prinicipi.

Sorry to break the news to you, but the use of Latin accomplishes nothing apart from making you look pretentious. If I am engaging in circular logic, show how.

What do you do? Are your rights being violated? No.

Yes. They are.

A consumer buys a product and it is implied and usually explicit that safe operation of the product will present no undisclosed risk.

Black/white fallacy. You act as though products fall into "safe" and "unsafe" categories, rather than shades of grey. Many products are unsafe, yet are sold to the public anyway. The risk may even be public knowledge. For example, smokers know perfectly well that cigarettes are addictive and harmful to their health, yet a chemist working for a tobacco company still has an ethical responsibility to inform the public if a tobacco company has deliberately elevated the risk levels in order to increase addictivity and therefore profit (this is a real-life case).

That is, if I sell you even a hamburger it is understood I am selling you a hamburger that won't poison you. I need not put that on the menu "Our hamburgers will not poison you."

If a manufacturer creates a product with an inherent, dangerous flaw, and knowingly sells it without disclosing the truth that it's prescribed operation is dangerous, then the manufacturer has initiated fraud against the buyer.

How does the COMPANY'S conduct obligate the ENGINEER under your rights-based scheme, since he did not create the flaw in question, nor does he work in the company's public relations or advertising departments? He only happens to work for that company, and has DISCOVERED their behaviour. The crime was not his, but he was merely in a position where he had an opportunity to expose it. Should he sacrifice his own interests for the greater good? How do you work this into your contempt for collective ethics?

Now, as to rights and society ---

Society is not a parasite, and saying that some libertarians state such is a meaningless point. I have not stated it.

Society” as such is a nebulous, ever-changing collection of individuals who choose to live in proximity and interact voluntarily for mutual gain. As such, this group called society does not have more rights than the constituent rights of those who form it. Rights, as such, are not additive – two people do not have more rights than one. Society is the sum total of all the voluntary, individual decisions and interactions people make each day. It is not something created by design – in fact every time people try to create and design a society it is a dismal failure.

How does this refute my point about the fallacy of acting as though it is bad to work for the betterment of society rather than the the betterment of the people in it, when society is merely an aggregate collection of people? Aren't you supporting that point?

You also presume a false dichotomy between rational self-interest and the "collective good."

I put in a street light along the front of my property where there is a walkway. I do so for my benefit. But everyone walking along the sidewalk in front of my property benefits from that light I put in. That doesn’t mean I can charge them for the benefit.

Or another way – Mr. A and Ms. B hire a security service that has a uniformed officer patrolling their neighboring business properties. Those guards walking about also deter criminals from attacking their neighbor’s businesses. That doesn’t mean the actions of Ms. B and Mr. A create a debt on the part of their neighbors.

An example where someone can do something for his own interests which also benefits the public does not change the fact that self-interest and public good CAN and HAVE been in conflict in the past. Is it any man's self-interest to storm ashore at Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944? He does it because there is a greater good, not because it will benefit him directly or even indirectly (sorry, but being dead cannot be construed to be an individual benefit no matter what intellectual acrobatics you perform).

That’s the whole point. People get together voluntarily, to interact voluntarily, and there are benefits beyond the interaction. That’s what society is.

No, that's what a fantasy society is. In a real society, the majority of people are too goddamned stupid to think beyond one or perhaps two levels of interaction, so that they cannot perceive indirect benefits even if they are quite real. That is why society often compels people to participate in certain systems or programs, because there is a limit to the effectiveness of voluntarism. You can call me an elitist for saying that the sheep are too stupid to do what's good for them, but attacking the man will not affect the truth or falsehood of his claim.

An individual’s contribution to “society” is being there in the first place, interacting and existing without violating the rights of others.

What of the man who willingly does something which he hopes will improve society in some grandiose way, with little benefit to himself? Most scientists today and throughout history do not receive compensation for their services in anything remotely resembling a decent proportion to their contributions. Many benefit from the noble efforts of the few; do you consider them immoral?

That is the extent of your obligation to “society.” Show up, do your trading and your selling, mind your own business, have fun, don’t step on your neighbor’s lawn. And by doing so, the "collective good" is better served.

Bullshit. Your ethic would lead to the whistle-blower keeping his mouth shut, despite your audacious attempt to pretend that he is somehow directly obligated to take action in order to protect one third-party's rights from another (something you forgot to mention earlier; it must have slipped your mind).

I reiterate: rights-based ethics do not recognize moral obligations and responsibilities; they only recognize rights and limits to those rights.

[Patrick Degan]

Take the scenario of the whistle-blower. You're an engineer working for a large company. You discover that there's a crucial design flaw which, if left uncorrected, will create a public safety hazard. You bring this up with your supervisor, who informs you that the cost of fixing the flaw is prohibitive, and your non-disclosure agreement prohibits discussion of this issue outside the company.

What do you do? Are your rights being violated? No. Are anyone's rights being violated? No (unless you define safe products as a "right"; an argument which is breathtaking in its scope because it would make the lawsuit-happy product-liability "safety Nazis" completely right). Yet something is clearly wrong, isn't it? With unitarian morality or duty ethics, you know what you have to do. You must report the problem to the authorities and take the hit for the greater good, which means you'll probably get fired and perhaps even blacklisted. But with exclusively rights-based ethics, you do nothing.

Indeed. This was precisely the dilemma Roger Bojoloy found himself facing back in January, 1986. Just prior to the last flight of the Challenger.

[The Question]

Incorrect. An obligation is a requirement to take a positive course of action. The limitation of your rights by those of others is not an obligation; it is a restriction. It requires inaction, not action.

That's a nice definition of your own creation that doesn't advance your argument one iota. Red herring.

Sorry to break the news to you, but the use of Latin accomplishes nothing apart from making you look pretentious. If I am engaging in circular logic, show how.

You are presupposing your premise as an established fact, and then failing to back a single assertion.

Black/white fallacy. You act as though products fall into "safe" and "unsafe" categories, rather than shades of grey. Many products are unsafe, yet are sold to the public anyway. The risk may even be public knowledge. For example, smokers know perfectly well that cigarettes are addictive and harmful to their health, yet a chemist working for a tobacco company still has an ethical responsibility to inform the public if a tobacco company has deliberately elevated the risk levels in order to increase addictivity and therefore profit (this is a real-life case).

What a crock of shit. No one is saying that you can't sell a product with an inherent risk - that's why guns and motorcycles are legal.

But a seller has an obligation to disclose risks of product use regardless of whether the cig companies failed to do so in the past. Tobacco companies violated the rights of their consumers.

You're citing the example of the violation of rights by tobacco companies as a justification for your position. Nice job.

How does the COMPANY'S conduct obligate the ENGINEER under your rights-based scheme, since he did not create the flaw in question, nor does he work in the company's public relations or advertising departments?

Because he is the one who discovered it, and if he knows that a company he contractually works for (and hence the product he creates bears his responsibility in portion) puts out a product with a dangerous flaw, he is obligated first to tell the company, then to tell the press or government.

(edit: to amend in light of Zoink's catch)

If a crime (violation of rights) is being committed in which you had a hand, wittingly or unwittingly, once you discover it, you are obligated to take measures to either cease its continuance or assure that restitution is made.

If you work for a company, then through explicit contract or implied contract of accepting a salary from the company's income, you are in part responsible for what that company does.

Thus if you discover a company that you are working for is knowingly violating the rights of its customers, you are obligated by THAT to report it.

An uninvolved party (someone who is not an employee of that company) does not, in fact, have a moral, rights-based obligation to report the aforementioned violation of rights, although he may accept it as a self-chosen obligation to achieve his own value of "being a good person."

Likewise, if you see another person being held up at gunpoint, you do not have a moral obligation, per se, to intervene or report the crime. However, you may choose to volitionally take on the obligation to help in accordance with your own values.

How does this refute my point about the fallacy of acting as though it is bad to work for the betterment of society rather than the the betterment of the people in it, when society is merely an aggregate collection of people? Aren't you supporting that point?

Work on those reading skills, Wong.

An example where someone can do something for his own interests which also benefits the public does not change the fact that self-interest and public good CAN and HAVE been in conflict in the past. Is it any man's self-interest to storm ashore at Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944?

Sure. If he so judges it, and volunteers for the Army. When he is inducted he swears an oath to obey the commander-in-chief and defend the interests of his country. He has explicitly and of his own volition chosen to make the "collective" good part of his own self-interest.

Drafting him to do so is a violation of his rights, which is why conscription is immoral.

No, that's what a fantasy society is. In a real society, the majority of people are too goddamned stupid to think beyond one or perhaps two levels of interaction, so that they cannot perceive indirect benefits even if they are quite real.

False. It doesn't matter whether people think beyond their own interactions. The ancillary benefit to others of the positive interaction between individuals is not the justification for, but the result of, rational self-interest being conducted.

"It is not from the goodness of his heart that the baker gets us our bread."

What of the man who willingly does something which he hopes will improve society in some grandiose way, with little benefit to himself?

That's his own self-chosen obligation. Good on him. Nothing I've argued says he can't or shouldn't.

Most scientists today and throughout history do not receive compensation for their services in anything remotely resembling a decent proportion to their contributions.

You get paid what you're worth. If you don't have the foresight or desire to earn more for your work, that's your own problem.

Many benefit from the noble efforts of the few; do you consider them immoral?

Black/white fallacy. Saying rational self-interest is moral does not imply that altruism is immoral.

Are you even awake today?

Bullshit. Your ethic would lead to the whistle-blower keeping his mouth shut

False. See above.

I reiterate: rights-based ethics do not recognize moral obligations and responsibilities

Sure they do. And they recognize the right of people to adopt their own positive obligations based on their beliefs - be they communitarian, religious or whatever.

[Zoink]

If you see a crime being committed, you have the obligation to either stop it yourself or inform the duly constituted authorities, whose job it is to prevent rights violations.

I don't think anyone here is in disagreement with that fact. But how does your system obligate the person to act?

If people have a basic right to assistance, how does my action of not helping violate this right (by your definition) if there is neither force nor fraud? Now, you could say that I agreed to help people so I'm defrauding the society... but that's not true, I might never have agreed to that condition. When you are born, your life isn't granted on the condition that you agree to this rule, I could just be an uncaring asshole.

[The Question]

If you see a crime being committed, you have the obligation to either stop it yourself or inform the duly constituted authorities, whose job it is to prevent rights violations.

I don't think anyone here is in disagreement with that fact. But how does your system obligate the person to act?

If people have a basic right to assistance, how does my action of not helping violate this right (by your definition) if there is neither force nor fraud? Now, you could say that I agreed to help people so I'm defrauding the society... but that's not true, I might never have agreed to that condition. When you are born, your life isn't granted on the condition that you agree to this rule, I could just be an uncaring asshole.

You know, you are right. I spoke too quickly. Thank you for catching that.

Let me retract that as written as retstate what I meant.

If a crime (violation of rights) is being committed in which you had a hand, wittingly or unwittingly, once you discover it, you are obligated to take measures to either cease its continuance or assure that restitution is made.

If you work for a company, then through explicit contract or implied contract of accepting a salary from the company's income, you are in part responsible for what that company does.

Thus if you discover a company that you are working for is knowingly violating the rights of its customers, you are obligated by THAT to report it.

An uninvolved party (someone who is not an employee of that company) does not, in fact, have a moral, rights-based obligation to report the aforementioned violation of rights, although he may accept it as a self-chosen obligation to achieve his own value of "being a good person."

Likewise, if you see another person being held up at gunpoint, you do not have a moral obligation, per se, to intervene or report the crime. However, you may choose to volitionally take on the obligation to help in accordance with your own values.

Again, very good catch on your part. Thanks. (I'm going to edit the response above to reflect this.)

[Darth Wong]

That's a nice definition of your own creation that doesn't advance your argument one iota. Red herring.

Wrong. The dictionary defines "obligation" as something which compels you to a COURSE OF ACTION. A system of ethics based solely on rights never forces someone to take action on behalf of another.

You are presupposing your premise as an established fact, and then failing to back a single assertion.

Speak for yourself, asshole. Your entire first post in this thread was a string of statements which are completely unsupported in any way. By producing scenarios in which your assertions fail to produce moral results, I show that your system doesn't work. Your response is to simply redefine your "rights" to become intrusive, ie- compel a man to take action where it is of no advantage to him.

What a crock of shit. No one is saying that you can't sell a product with an inherent risk - that's why guns and motorcycles are legal.

But a seller has an obligation to disclose risks of product use regardless of whether the cig companies failed to do so in the past. Tobacco companies violated the rights of their consumers.

The rights of their consumers to what? Please explain which fundamental right was violated. The right to full and complete disclosure of all conceivable product safety risks? Where is that defined in your screed? I quote from your first post:

In order to pursue the rational advancement of their values, individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.

Funny; that definition of rights does not include "safe and well documented products". It is, in fact, precisely as I paraphrased it: you define rights solely as your ability to ACT in accordance with your own desires, until it conflicts with someone else's desire to do so. At no point do you have the right to compel someone else to take action on your behalf.

Of course, you conveniently deal with this by simply redefining your rights. As with all people who advocate purely rights-based ethics, you simply cram a round peg into a square hole whenever confronted with an uncomfortable ethics scenario, and pretend that the obviously moral outcome must be somehow supported by a right. So you manufacture a 'right" to make it appear as if this is the case: in this case, a "right" to safe and thoroughly documented products. Such "right" is a collectivist concept, forcing individuals to incur extra costs to themselves in order to protect the public. Whoops, so much for the triumph of individual rights as the sole arbiter of morality

If a crime (violation of rights) is being committed in which you had a hand, wittingly or unwittingly, once you discover it, you are obligated to take measures to either cease its continuance or assure that restitution is made.

In other words, you admit that your original post, which recognized NOTHING but individual rights (I quote: "The only morally legitimate justification for the political organization of man, is the common recognition and defense of the rights of each of its individual participants.") was clearly flawed by not recognizing societal responsibility.

After all, who is the victim? Until someone is actually injured by this flaw, there is no individual victim. There is only a nebulous collective full of individuals who may suffer harm, ie- SOCIETY. In other words, you just conceded that an individual does have an obligation to society, despite your earlier denial of this position.

Concession accepted. Thank you for playing.

[Darth Wong]

An uninvolved party (someone who is not an employee of that company) does not, in fact, have a moral, rights-based obligation to report the aforementioned violation of rights, although he may accept it as a self-chosen obligation to achieve his own value of "being a good person."

Fascinating. Your lack of ethics is truly disturbing. Since such a person would not suffer in any way from reporting the transgression, and since such reporting would clearly benefit others, it is absurd to say he has no moral responsibility to take action, unless you disagree that a good system of ethics should benefit people.

[The Question]

An uninvolved party (someone who is not an employee of that company) does not, in fact, have a moral, rights-based obligation to report the aforementioned violation of rights, although he may accept it as a self-chosen obligation to achieve his own value of "being a good person."

Fascinating. Your lack of ethics is truly disturbing. Since such a person would not suffer in any way from reporting the transgression, and since such reporting would clearly benefit others, it is absurd to say he has no moral responsibility to take action, unless you disagree that a good system of ethics should benefit people.

You're confusing self-chosen obligations with rights based obligations/negative obligations.

Typical of your style though - blur distinctions between words and concepts to suit your flawed premises and flase conclusions.

[Darth Wong]

You're confusing self-chosen obligations with rights based obligations/negative obligations.

And you're backpedaling, rewriting your original definition of rights (the freedom to act in accordance with your own desires until you run into someone else's equivalent freedom) in order to fix an obviously glaring flaw. Nowhere in your original definition were "obligations/negative obligations" mentioned, so you have effectively conceded your original argument.

Typical of your style though - blur distinctions between words and concepts to suit your flawed premises and flase conclusions.

And of course, you try to cover up your defeat by flinging insults. Wow, so impressive.