From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:04:57 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BuMCDu.68x@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:08:18 GMT

>In article <exukjb.157.716510077@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>In article <BuKn5B.1qq@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>>>Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
>>>Date: 14 Sep 92 14:05:35 GMT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>    More Randian gobbledygook.  What does "if life is
>>>    justifiable" even mean?   What does it mean for 
>>>    life to be "justifiable"?   
>>
>>>   
>>
>>Pete, Why "operational" definitions?

>  In the interest of objectivity.  Operational definitions allow us to 
>  all agree when we are seeing an instance of e.g., "rational behavior".


>>       Those who hold that life is valuable,  hold, *by implication*,
>>       that no man ought to be prevented from carrying on life-sustaining
>>       activities. If life is justifiable, there must be a justification
>>       for performance of those acts essential to its preservation; and
>>       therefore a justification for those liberties and claims which
>>       make such acts possible.
>>
>>Now, I wouldn't for a moment think of resting my views in political 
>>philosophy on authority, but I thought it best to clear myself of any charge 
>>of randiodism.

>  But you still haven't addressed my criticisms.  And Spencer's comments
>  above are open to the same criticism as Rand's.  What do we mean by
>  "valuable"?.  "Valuable" is a relative term.  And who's life are we
>  referring to?   It does not follow that if I value my own life I'm
>  logically required to value that of others, although that may be the
>  deal I have to strike with other members of my community.


>---peter



I see the force now of the operational requirement on "rational behavior" ,
and I'm not going to try to defend myself on that point.  Let me just 
register my agreement with you that, yes, a deal is striken, but that deal 
can be justified in terms of what is of value to all rational beings, and so 
isn't arbitrary. Perhaps it's the arbitrariness which the transcendatalist 
really seeks to avoid.  If so, we may well suspect that his view leads to 
a wanton multiplication of entities.  My point is that the reasons for 
striking the deal are nonarbitrary and objective, since they depend on 
objective features of life and the nature of human beings in it. But perhaps
now I am no longer speaking to your points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory