From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 21:41:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec31.211808.15982@news.nd.edu>, fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
|> Claiming that objectivism arrives at its conclusions by logic
|> and reason leaves me wondering... what are the _premises_ from
|> which the conclusions are logically derived?  Clearly, we ask
|> more from a philosophy than that it be self-consistent.  We
|> also require that its _axioms_, i.e. the statements which are
|> accepted without proof are actually true.
|> 
|> So let it be with objectivism.  What are its fundamental
|> tenets of faith?  Furthermore, how might a skeptical, but
|> intelligent and informed person be convinced that these
|> tenets are correct?

	Well, you're right: every philosophy must be founded on some "tenet of
faith"; that is, something which we cannot prove and do not bother trying to
prove, but which we accept because it seems indisputable.  When searching for a
good axiom, we can, perhaps, find one or two which are beyond REASONABLE dispute;
but everything is subject to unreasonable dispute.  So, when discussing axioms,
we must ultimately appeal to the reader's reasonability.  If the reader is
determined from the beginning to reject everything, we can't get very far
(although we can, perhaps, demonstrate some of the absurd consequences that would
come from rejecting the axiom).
	I have read most of Rand's political nonfiction; even so, I am not an
expert on Objectivism.  But I believe it is a major tenet of her philosophy that
a) human beings are rational animals, that b) human beings need rationality in
order to survive, and that c) that necessity means that people have a right to
behave rationally.  My problem with this is that I do not see how necessity
confers a right.  If I needed to kill twelve people before tomorrow to continue
living, would I have a right to do so?  In my opinion, the answer must be no. 
And unless Rand can show that necessity DOES somehow confer a right, her whole
line of reasoning comes to nothing, and she is left with the mere assertion that
people have a right to act rationally -- maybe a sensible assertion, maybe a true
one, but hardly an assertion which has been rigorously proven.
	I think, perhaps, that the assertion could stand by itself by showing the
consequences of rejecting it.  If people do NOT have an inherent right to act
rationally, what are the consequences?  Can such a right be conferred at all?  By
who?  And how would we know that such a right has been conferred?  Some human
authority?  And what if no one were ALLOWED to act rationally?  Clearly that
would eventually result in death for everybody, would it not?  So SOME people
must be allowed to act rationally.  Etc, etc.
	Personally, I start my philosophy with the axiom that every person owns
his own body from the moment of his creation onward.  I do not try to prove the
axiom, but I indicate its reasonability by noting that an individual is given
intimate control over his body, and no outside power is given equivalent control.
 Moreover, if an individual is not created owning himself, only two possibilities
remain: either nobody owns his body, or somebody else owns his body.  If the
first case is true, then for all practical purposes he DOES own his body
precisely because he POSSESSES it more intimately than anyone else ever can, and
he USES it to a greater degree and with more intimacy than anyone else possibly
can.  It is rather like the difference between CLAIMING a desert island as one's
property and actually going there, occupying the place, building a fortress there
and defending it.  Who has the better claim to the island?  The one who is on the
scene, possessing and using the island.  The same is true of a person's body.
	The same argument is effective against those who claim that somebody else
may own your body at the moment of your creation, and that self-ownership is
conferred upon you later.  You are in more intimate possession and control of
yourself than anyone else; hence, you have the better claim to self-ownership. 
Moreover, if a parent really owns you, why can't that parent do anything he or
she wishes to do to you, like kill you or rape you?  And don't use the meager
argument "because it's against the law"; the same acts would be morally wrong and
should be forcibly prevented even if there were no government and no law.  Hence,
the parent cannot possibly really own the child in the sense we usually mean when
we speak of ownership.  My theory is that the parents hold the child's rights "in
trust," so to speak; the parent cannot VIOLATE the child's rights to life,
liberty and property, but he or she can USE those rights to the child's advantage
and ultimate benefit.  Hence, the parent can set a curfew for a child, apparently
violating the child's right to liberty; but that is not actually the case, since
the parent is holding the right to liberty IN TRUST and can limit the child's
freedom of movement if it is in the child's best interest to do so.
	Why is a parent entrusted with the child's rights?  Because the parent
brought the child into the world, in effect putting the child into a dangerous
position without the child's consent.  Because of that, the parent has certain
responsibilities and obligations to the child -- specifically, to return the
child to a position of relative safety, to establish the child in such a position
that the child can be self-sufficient and survive on his own.  When the child
reaches such a position, the "trust" status of the child's rights is no longer
applicable, since the reason for the creation of the trust has been eliminated.
	Anyway, if you accept that people own their own bodies, then the rights
of life, liberty and property naturally follow, for reasons I think you'll be
able to work out easily enough.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism