Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: What happened to the Objectivists?
Message-ID: <48215995.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 90 16:05:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 89


   keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) posts...


>On the off chance that you werent part of that "flame brigade" I will once
>more don my asbestos suit and post the O'ist basis for politics. I will make
>some assertions that I wont prove. Not everyone can prove them. But no honest
>person would question them.

  Well, I'm an honest person and I certainly question a number of them...

> 1) Human life is the fundamental root of ethics. 

 Not sure what this means.  Ethics is *about* humans, that is it is not
 clear that we have ethical obligations to rocks or rabbits (though some
 claim we do).   But when you say human 'life', are you making a claim
 about the ethical significance of the arbitrary, individual human
 life?   

>2) As a living creature, a human being's nature requires sustenance. It also
>   continually demands the answer to the question "to live?" Failure to 
>   answer "yes" means that the human will die (eventually); its sustenance
>   is not automatic or a "right". 

  Agreed.

>3) Each human has only one means of sustaining his life: his mind, and the use
>   thereof. 

  Again, I think this is a little vague.  I claim that physical traits,
  personality characteristics, and other human factors are also important 
  for sustaining life.  A stupid person with a good immune system
  may be able to sustain himself better during a plague better than
  an intelligent person with a poorer one.   A beautiful but dumb
  blonde may have better survival chances than a rational plain woman
  in some situations.   An idiot with confidence may do better sometimes 
  than a self-doubting Nobel laureate.   A socially popular person 
  may often survive in situations where the bright nerd won't.   
  I'm not splitting hairs here; I'm contesting the notion that 
  rationality is the be-all and end-all of man's survival capacity.
  It is also worth noting that a good-looking rational person has
  better chances than an ugly rational person, etc.  Rationality is one
  of a constellation of factors.   I'd rather be rational than not, but
  that's because I'm already popular and good-looking  8-)   .

>4) Thinking is an individual process; it cannot be done as a collective. 

  Again, I think this is vague.   Obviously groups of people don't 
  fuse their brains or meld their minds to think.   But intellectual
  creativity is a social and cultural phenomenon.  We use the ideas
  of others, "bounce ideas off of" others, etc.

>5) Therefore, it follows _directly from metaphysics_ that each human must
>   be free to use his mind. This means freedom of ideas, and of actions.

  "Must", in what sense?   What happens if they are not free in this way?
  If I have an adversary in some matter, might it not be to my advantage
   (rationally) to prevent him from using his mind?

>6) As a corollary, since some of these actions may lead to the CREATION of
>   material values (property), the right of property follows. This is merely
>   a right to own any property one produces (or trades from its producer). It
>   is NOT an arbitrary assertion, or a "consensus". T. Edison did not invent
>   a light bulb by consensus. Nor would he have if a consensus could take it
>   away from him once done. (Production does not "happen". It is made possioble
>   only by freedom)

  I agree that freedom to echange ideas and freedom to enjoy the fruits
  or benefits of one's creativity makes for a good climate to foster
  such creativity.   But this then becomes a pragmatic issue rather than
  a philosophical or theoretical one.  #6 does not show that taxing
  wealth derived from inventions (assuming the inventor is still allowed
  to become wealthy), or allowing patents to run out after so many
  years, significantly inhibits creativity.   Japan and the West are
  experiencing a veritable explosion of inventions, discoveries, and creativity 
  these days, despite taxes or the fact that the individual inventor
  may work for a large corporation and only receive modest returns on 
  his particular invention.   I think that the relationship between motivation
  and creativity in the Real World is more complex than objectivists suggest.
  

>This was not an exhaustive essay. There is much more to be said. But it
>leads in the right direction. Honest inquiries will be answered. Flamers will
>be met by: flames! :) 

   Well, I hope you don't think any of my comments were flames.   But I would
   appreciate a little more specificity from objectivists here.

                                                       ---Peter