Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hound!rwsh
From: rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Brief Notes on Reason, Force, and Rights
Message-ID: <1637@hound.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Feb-86 23:41:17 EST
Article-I.D.: hound.1637
Posted: Sun Feb  2 23:41:17 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 22:02:11 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 37


		Reason, Force, and Rights--Brief Points

I agree with Tim Sevener that one's view of the nature of reason
affects "the whole of one's later conclusions."  My view of reason as
an attribute of the individual is consistent with my ethics of rational
self-interest and a political system to protect individual rights.  His
view of reason as a process of a collective is consistent with an ethics
where the parts must sacrifice for the whole and a political system to
force such sacrifice.  Tim's view is, of course, distorted:  in principle,
his view is that he has no view--only society does.

Since Tim is wrong on the nature of reason and since force and
reason are opposites in social interaction, it is no surprise that
his thoughts on rights (which can only be violated by force) are
confused.  A right is not a philosophical primary but a "moral
principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in
a social context."  [p. 93, "Man's Rights," by Ayn Rand in *The
Virtue of Selfishness*.]

Tim's example (claiming that property rights justify the owner of
an island forcing shipwrecked survivors back into the sea) and all
similar examples attack those whose *starting point* is the
"non-coercion principle."  Both sides of that argument are guilty of
flagrant context dropping.  One side tries to uphold non-coercion
as a principle in a context where it is irrelevant and the other
argues that since it cannot hold in that context it does not apply
anywhere.  In a deep sense both sides are subjective.  But showing
this depends on, among other things, my demonstrating an objective
moral code.  And if the progress I've made explaining reason and
force is any indication, that's a long way off.  (If you can't wait,
read Ayn Rand's "Objectivist Ethics" essay.  If you have already read it,
I suggest rereading it more slowly and marking the points you disagree
with.  When you are done, take your most fundamental disagreement
and post a note identifying the facts of reality that support
your view.)
-- 
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846