Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!petro!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!yamauchi
From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: RE Rights, Social Convention, and Objectivism
Message-ID: <1990Jan20.074637.5368@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 90 07:46:37 GMT
References: <48234cc4.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Reply-To: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department
Lines: 77

In article <48234cc4.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>DISCLAIMER:   This is Not Chris Conway, |   Philosophy is useless,
>>this is Lily-Rose using his login.      |   Theology is worse.
>>wombat@jupiter.nmt.edu                  |    -- Dire Straits                              
>  
> ...posts:
>                              
>
>>"Rights" are a SOCIAL CONVENTION.  They do not exist anywhere in the
>>so-called Real World.  There is no empirical, scientific evidence that 
>>any human has any rights or responsibilities w/r/t any other human.
>
>>              Rights and other social conventions are *always* in flux.
>
>>I am not exactly an O'ist because I disagree with Ayn Rand on several
>>points, and we've all heard how fatal that is! ;-)  However, I currently
>>believe that a lot of her definitions of "rights" are good starting points
>>for this kind of ongoing revision.
>
> There seem to be an awful lot of people of this persuasion 
> around here lately.

I'd have to add myself to this group.  I tend to share many of Rand's
values, but I completely disagree with the basic tenet of Objectivism
which is that these values are logically derivable from A=A.

> Anyway, given that there seem to be a lot of people who agree
> with me that rights and right and wrong are either social
> conventions or at least not accessible to formal proof, I 
> have new questions:
>
> This is alt.individualism.   I think we're mostly "individualists".
> We seem particularly interested in "man w.r.t. society" issues.
> Given that we can't seem to PROVE rights or right-and-wrong,
> what obligation does the individual have to buy into the 
> conventional social ideas on these things?  Should we feel 
> obligated to obey laws that we disagree with, if we think we
> can get away with disobeying?   Should we feel obligated to
> accept social convention on ethical matters?

Short answers: none, no, no.

>   What does 
> individualism *mean* in the context of socially-defined
> values?

Personally, I consider it a matter of integrity rather than ethics --
being true to yourself and honest with yourself, following your own
set of personal values regardless of the degree to which the conform
to the dominant societal values.

>    Should we be satisfied that the horror or re-
> vulsion that we might feel at violating certain values is
> sufficient reason for not doing them or should we consider 
> the possibility that we have merely *internalized* a set
> of values from society?

It's possible, but it doesn't seem relevant to me.  You have a set of
personal values which may have been influenced by your society, but
they are still your own values.

> If we have internalized social or
> cultural values then are we truly free individuals?

Well, everyone is an individual, but what do you mean by "free".  If
you mean "free from influence", no I can't see how anyone can grow up
in a culture and not be influenced in some way by it.  On the other
hand, if you mean "free from coercion", the answer is yes, unless you
were brainwashed at gunpoint (although, one has to admit, public
education is pretty close :-).

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________