Human Dignity and Rights (long;-)
Irek Defee
>...each man has to respect each other man's rights. This is the only
>limit that comes with rights.
This opinion became gradually prevailing in the XIXth century. At
present, mankind is getting to higher level by recognizing the need
to respect each other's man dignity. The limits of rights are also
understood in different way, including the each other man's rights.
Let's compare this to environment
protection laws. XIX century capitalism made a philosophy of "man as
a ruler of nature" which led to devastation aand robbery. Present
approach to environment and laws which are protecting it, would be
treated by XIX century non-enlightened as "limits" of their rights.
Similar situation is with regard to human rights which barely
evolved to the 'non-kill and not-enslave' rights in the XIX century and
the increased tide of rights which have the goal of protecting
human dignity seen more recently. From this recent perspective,
the XIX century rights are obvious but for people living then
this perspective would be a revelation hard to grasp.
>Could you define your terms? What is man's "infinite dimension"?
Collect all human creative achievements made over the ages. Doesn't
it look as a potential for infinite development? Is human a clever
machine only? You made a statement that human is absolut. For me
absolut must have "infinite dimension" in its (creative)potential
since otherwise it is only a (complex)finite machine.What you
understand by absolut then?
>Nope, the need for rights does not stem "somehow from human dignity."
So the need for rights or something behind it is a universal
fundamental physical law ?
>Now, you forgot to say that rights are relevant in a social context :-).
I keep saying that what is obvious for us, was not so in the past.
Have Vikings been recognizing a universal right to life and/or
property rights? Or Vaasa kings? They were recognizing some kind
of this right for their tribes/nations and they felt free to
kill/enslave others, even more, they were proud of doing this.
>The right to life is the fundamental right.
This is an axiom, which you suggest to be omnipresent. But there
is clearly historical development before it was formulated and
got the status of universally accepted 'obvious' axiom. Perhaps
the abstract idea of a right to life is filling the Universe at
all times but then we are getting into beliefes.
>... Thus, it is necessary to ban the initiation of force
>in all social relationships. That is the proper role of rights.
This is getting the status of an 'obvious' ban at present. At times,
using force was considered as very natural in social relationships.
Do you understand by force only physical force and thus only the right
to bear a gun to defend yourself?
>Note that the science that deals with the method of choosing one's
>actions is called ethics. That is why man's rights is a *moral* concept,
>defining and sanctioning the freedom to some action in a social context.
The existence of science of ethics means that the view how humans
should interact with each other was and will be changing. The
consequences of actions with respect to human dignity is at present
a favorite research topic. This was made after recognition of uniqueness
and absolut character of each human being.
>From man's nature, it is evident that his self-interest is his highest
>standard of value: thus, selfishness is man's proper moral code.
Do you understand self-interest purely in terms of $$$?. There are
other humans around you, which have their own dignity. If
their dignity is violated as a result of your actions, it is
perhaps better for your deeply understood self-interest if you care
about this? I mean, that your dignity, your understanding of world,
and your mind may gain something, too. Actually, the other humans
around you are very peculiar objects - Absoluts, which makes them
infinitely more interesting from other known objects in the Universe,
e.g. $$$ :-).
>: [the owner of the Volvo Company closes it. The employees are
>: somehow "frustrated of their dignity"]
>Does he have a duty of providing others with work? No.
Obviously not. But if somebody starts to provide work to others,
starts a very peculiar relation. Should the human work be entirely the
same commodity as the work done by machines? If somebody recognizes
the absolut nature of each human being and its dignity, it will
object to treat humans themselves as things. In other words
words humans are not a "workforce" similar to "machineforce"
which you can scrap at your every will. Recognizing dignity
of human beings implies moral obligation that employing them or
providing with work, you make best efforts not to degrade them.
The biggest danger in this respect is treating and manipulating
humans like things, which, incidently, people started to oppose
strongly in the periods closests to your dreamed laissez-faire
capitalism.
>of them is responsible for his own life. They who work for him,
>should *thank* him for employing them, not curse him, not chant
*Thank* means the relation of subsidy which is below the human
dignity. Both sides of the work relation have equal rights and
obligations since one human being can not be subsided to the other.
Workers obligation is to make the best effort for good work, which
is in the interest of their own dignity and in regard of the dignity
of the provider of their work.If they cheat, the provider of work
is degraded to the status of a monitoring machine.
>that it is his duty to own the company and to provide them with
>work.
But the duty is not to degrade dignity of humans which in fact
make the company.
>: [more cars. Some lunatic buys a Saab and destroys it, willingly.
>: The people who built that car are somehow "frustrated of their
>: dignity"]
>Did he pay for the car, or not? If these "frustrated" workers want
>to decide what should be done with the car, then they don't sell it.
>They might rent it, for example. But, in the act of selling a product,
>a man transfers ownership to another man.
This is a narrow (I would call it XIX century) view of the
ownership. If we regard humans as absoluts then the product of
their work gets higher recognition from 'natural' things. It is
then immoral to misuse it. Thus, we are on the brink of the
recognition that 'total' ownership is sensless and 'conscious'
ownership is the right one. But somebody with your notions could
buy also all artworks of e.g. Rubens and destroy them because
"the full ownership was transferred".
>: [final fuzzy example of car. Somehow, poor Indians living in slums
>: are "frustrated of their dignity", because someone else produced,
>: by his own work, enough to buy a car]
Again, if one doesn't care about dignities of other humans, one can
do whatever, since in fact this is relation "me absolut" and "they
things" watching my overconsumption. In the same style, if you own
a horse to ride, you can also cut its legs ...( take into account
that each human is infinitely more complex than a horse and his/her
dignity can be harrased not only by a pure force).
>What "development" is possible, with "dignity" as the measure of
>all things? How many men will be ready to work, when any bum will
>be allowed to claim shared property with them, because his "dignity"
>tells him he is entitled to anything any man does?
Trusting dignity is a two-sided relation, so the claim like above
be clearly a violation of dignity of the owner. Democratic societies
respond for the call for greater recognition of human dignity by
adapting/introducing laws. The problem how to protect dignity of
each human in the presence of conflicting interests is clearly
very difficult. I see in your position, in which you signal injustice
you feel, because you feel your dignity is harrased by people which
live on the the product of your 'work' of slavery.
Democracy is the only invented sensible mechansim to solve such
conflicts.
Regarding the question "how the men will be ready to work..." it
should be in fact 'if humans are able at all to work if their
dignity is harrassed in the workplace ?'. The answer is that they
are able to work as a 'workforce', feeling to be forced to work
(reminiscence of slavery relation :-). Common results of this are
known, and the cure which is looked for is called 'humanization'
of work which in my terms is simply the recognition of human dignity
and higher-than-thing status of working humans. Actually, Sweden is
leading this development :-).
Compare Japanese companies offering life time employment and personal
development programs, German companies with their 'mitbestimmung', and
Swedish companies to the standard American ones like auto industry
where they have "commodity workfoce".(I exclude IBM, HP, etc. as "untypical"
American companies with huge humanization programs, e.g. struggling to
offer permanent employment and offering personal development programs).
No doubt that the humanized working relations work better, both
sides are more satisfied: owners profits, company stock, and
employees compensation are better and everybody is in a better mood.
>Please note that what you are proposing is the supremacy of the
>species over the individual: because each man belongs to "humanity",
>his "dignity" is the "dignity" of everybody else; his life depends
>upon the "dignity" of others. This argument will be seen to fail when
>one considers that man has free-will.
Free will yes, but actions since they are related to other humans,
are limited - by your right to life (which you understand narrowly).
I go much farther and in the recognition of the asolut character of
each human being, postulate to protect its dignity. In this sense,
the actions of a human depend on the dignity of other humans and
this is a reflexive relation. This much better regards and protect
of each human which is clearly complete, independent (but not in
your narrow sense of individual existing alone) entity.
>Where has the evil of Laissez-Faire Capitalism been recognized?
Your point is that there was not such a thing like pure LF capitalism
yet. But its XIX century models were strongly opposed by "workforce"
which was notoriusly being treated like (cheap) thing. Generally,
this tendency is a fundamental weak point in capitalism. On a pure
economic and macroscale, the system produced material progress.
Recognition of the human dignity weakness in the relation of work
was the driving force for the present system with government
intervention and work protection laws. This is clearly nonideal, and
but nothing better has been invented unitl present and the system is
in the constant transition. Will it return to the former level of
lesser recognition of each human dignity?. Looks very improbable.
Actually, the oppostie process looks to have much better chances
with accompanying change in valuating the world form the position
of "me a ruler of nature and workforce" to "me a part of nature and
a side in the relation of work". In fact, even from the position of
ownership, this is the key for insreasing the efficiency of work
since it enables to motivate and creatively engage people.
>As I pointed above, what *you* are proposing *is* collectivism.
Collectivism is manipulation of human beings, in essence not different
from the manipulation of a workforce in LF capitalism, although on
greater scale and much tougher in practice. The dignity of humans is
violated in much the same way and resulting alienation is very
similar. I don't propose my-simple-alternative to your LF capitalism
since the whole matter is not so simple as you may see.
In pracitce, I regard most the places where the constant effort to
protect each human dignity is pursued, at least by minimizing
the number of humans which feel their dignity is being violated.
Sweden is one of the highest positions on such a scale. Actually,
it was Olof Palme who said: " This is the most humane society
created yet". And actually, when I think about other places I am
ready to subscribe to this statement. But you will keep of course
to your 'tax robbery society' concepts. You may wish to study how
the majority of the human beings around you manage to overcome the
narrow selfishness which is indispensable feature of human nature
in your 'objectivism'.
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
My 'gedanken' examples were a test for your behavioral attitudes
resulting from your premises. Results are characteristic for LF
capitalism: people are divided into a workforce commodity, and owners
which have higher status. Generally people are things and some of
these "things" are very, very cheap. I smell an evil here ...
Irek Defee de...@tut.fi
Magnus Kempe
Irek Defee speaks [in a quite long message] about human dignity and
how it should affect the future evolution of rights. Irek considers
that historically, the nature of societies has evolved, and that,
therefore, man's nature has also evolved; further, he argues that
man's nature will *continue* to change ("because man's nature
has an infinite dimension") and that, consequently, society is
doomed to evolve -- towards more respect of man's dignity. Irek
claims that capitalism does *not* respect each man's dignity.
[please note that when I use the term "man," I mean both men and
women -- if that wasn't already self-evident]
What Irek has failed to define is "man's dignity". Let's have a shot
at this: human dignity is the concept that each man is an end in
himself [this definition is often attributed to Kant, *taken*
*out*of*context* -- Kant meant that each man builds his own reality,
and that, therefore, each such reality has nothing to do with any
other reality (as the context of his writings makes it clear).]
What is stated is that no man should be used as a means for another
man's ends (something on which any rational human being necessarily
agrees -- i.e. I won't answer any irrational claims to the contrary.)
It is clear that dignity is another *absolute* attribute of man, and
that it will *not* evolve.
The link between this problem and politics is that human dignity
(each man is an end in himself) leads the way to ethics, i.e. to
a definition of man's moral code, and that the science of politics
should define the society appropriate to man's appropriate moral
code -- i.e. politics extends man's ethics to his relationships
with other men. As human dignity is an absolute, the principles
of ethics and politics that are based on this absolute *are*
also absolutes, and are not subject to evolution, once they
have been properly defined.
So, how do we relate human dignity and ethics? How does man lead
a life such that he is an end in himself? His morality has to be
based on an absolute standard of value, which is his life: his
hierarchy of values is built such that *he* is the standard by
which he judges those values. Note that a man is *not* equivalent
to his values -- he is the *standard* that allows to organize
his values, in a *hierarchy*.
Now, we are able to consider an additional factor: values have
to be produced, by man's own work -- because he may not use any
other man as a means to his own ends -- and values may be traded,
provided that each trader receives a value *higher* in his *own*
hierarchy of values. Such a trade benefits *both* parts, because
each decides on his own values, with his own reason -- and each
may refuse to engage in trade, if he finds his own values to be
more important than anything anyone else may offer him. What one
has to remember here, is that a man is *not* equivalent to his
values, but is the *standard* of his hierarchy of values; thus,
a man may trade values, because these values are the means to his
own end: his enjoyment of life.
Where does the relationship employer-employee fit in this description?
Such a relationship *is* a trade of values, because the employee
produces goods -- i.e. values -- and the employer gives him money
in return -- money being a means to set the value of productive
work: remember that money is the equivalent of not-yet-consumed
goods, in a form that is easier to handle, and to evaluate, than
thousands of shoes, or tons of iron ore [all of these being values,
at least in some men's hierarchy of values.] The employer *could*
give shoes, or whatever, instead of money, but that would obviously
*not* be to the advantage of the employee, as he would have to engage
in further trade with these shoes [or food, if he works on a farm --
and *that* is clearly not an advantage, because that sets a time limit
to the possible trade of the values he produced.]
The employee is free to engage in such a trade, because he
may choose to do anything else if he doesn't want to trade values
with some particular employer -- and, reciprocally, the employer is
free to engage in such a trade, because he may choose *not* to produce
anything, if he doesn't want to have values to trade. In particular,
any man may prefer to die rather than to trade values in order to survive
(e.g. to trade his values for food, warm clothes, a housing, etc.)
[just to show that the above description *is* consistent with *all*
of man's relationships, here goes, about love]
And more, where does love fit in this same description? Love, romantic
love, is the most demanding form of trade, the trade that involves
the highest values one's hierarchy of values has defined: once more,
it is not a trade of men (ahem, I mean men and women :-) but a trade
of values, *because* each man is an end in himself.
It is now clear that the proper political system is laissez-faire
capitalism, which recognizes that the nature of man's relationships
with other men is to be a *trader*, exclusively of values -- because
laisse-faire capitalism is the only political system that recognizes
that each man is an end in himself. All other political systems, one
way or another, consider man, all men, or some men, to be the means to
one man, all other men, or some other men. That is the fundamental
distinction one has to make when one compares laissez-faire capitalism
with all other political systems.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Bruno Poterie
Yawwnnn, baiillllleeeeee, this guy has obviously founded a way to
make his senses' organs ignore inputs which does not fit the
pre-molded patterns... could be quite useful ;-)
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
[...]
man's ends (something on which any rational human being necessarily
agrees -- i.e. I won't answer any irrational claims to the contrary.)
so, if one does not agree totally with you, then he is irrational,
and will not be allowed into your monologue. Fine with me.
It is clear that dignity is another *absolute* attribute of man, and
that it will *not* evolve.
One more of those self-evident primaries we have been knocked with
since a few weeks....
The link between this problem and politics is that human dignity
(each man is an end in himself) leads the way to ethics, i.e. to
a definition of man's moral code, and that the science of politics
should define the society appropriate to man's appropriate moral
code -- i.e. politics extends man's ethics to his relationships
with other men. As human dignity is an absolute, the principles
of ethics and politics that are based on this absolute *are*
also absolutes, and are not subject to evolution, once they
have been properly defined.
Et allez donc, all systems and trials made by the human race since
thousands and thousands of years (at least) made useless, as *obviously*
they were subject to evolution, and were therefore not the absolute.
[...]
that each man is an end in himself. All other political systems, one
way or another, consider man, all men, or some men, to be the means to
one man, all other men, or some other men. That is the fundamental
distinction one has to make when one compares laissez-faire capitalism
with all other political systems.
Very strange, indeed. When one speaks with orthodox muslims, it
is evident that Islam is *the*only*perfect* system. It is given by
G*D, and is therefore *the* absolute. It considers all humans to be
the creatures of G*D, thus the means to His Will. It is perfect and
intangible by essence, and cannot be compared with any other political
or otherwise system.
Chronologicaly speaking, *the* absolute system exists since 610 AD,
so Laissez-faire capitalism is an imposture.
I use Islam as this is the archetype of the revelaed religions; any
other would actually do as well.
Now, both rely on several self-evidence, that none is able to prove:
Islam: G*D exists
He is the creator of the whole universum, and whatever else
He is omniscient and omnipotent
He spoke to Muhammad
Muhammad gave back the exact words of G*D, to the comma
The words of G*D have not been changed of a comma since,
and are valids for all times and all places
Randism: anything can be expressed in boolean logical terms
humans are able to determine absolutely their nature
Ann Rand absolutely determined human' nature
right of life is human nature' basis, and property right
is its fundamental consequence; everything else comes from it
all definitions and concepts have been fixed forever by her
Discussion with Randists is easily characterised:
a) i believe in Randism (but then there is nothing left to discuss)
b) i don't, therefore am irrational, and discussion is refused
So why don't you @#$##@%* move, as already suggested, to alt.religion,
or to talk.newage? Judging by the reactions on sci.philosophy.tech,
that's were you belongs, as even talk.philosophy.misc is dubbed as
inadequate. This is a discussion forum, not an Amen recording chamber.
=====================================================================
Let's go back to european politics. We have quite important events
on our East side (how's that for an understatement ?-). Poland is
the most dramatic, but the rapid evolution of relations between
the Hungarian authorities and the West-German ones is fascinating.
Especially since Bonn' declarations on helping Budapest to build relations
with the CEE in return for their political support towards DDR'
Fluechtlingen sounds very much like a first step towards a not-so-far
application to full -or at least, associated- membership. Now what
Moscow says about that? They clearly stated that the Warshaw Pact
was a non-negotiable issue, but what of the Commecom?
any comments?
Bruno Poterie
Vive le Tokaj 5 puntonos !
Jeff Dalton
It's not worth the time required to untangle the rest.
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>once they have been properly defined.
And when is that? How do you know?
>The employer *could* give shoes, or whatever, instead of money, but that
>would obviously *not* be to the advantage of the employee, as he would
>have to engage in further trade with these shoes.
So giving X would not be to the advantage of the employee if
the employee would have to engage inn further trade with X.
That imples that it would not be to the advantage of the employee
to be given gold or diamonds, just for exmaple.
>In particular, any man may prefer to die rather than to trade
And what if he'd prefer not to die but can't trade for enough
to live on? What freedom!
>[just to show that the above description *is* consistent with *all*
> of man's relationships, here goes, about love]
Now one example is supposed to show that the description is
consistent with *all* of man's relationships. With this plus
the previous one (employment) I count only two.
>And more, where does love fit in this same description? Love, romantic
>love, is the most demanding form of trade, the trade that involves
>the highest values one's hierarchy of values has defined: once more,
>it is not a trade of men (ahem, I mean men and women :-) but a trade
>of values, *because* each man is an end in himself.
That's about as clear as mud.
>It is now clear that the proper political system is laissez-faire
>capitalism
It's clear is it?
>laisse-faire capitalism is the only political system
How do you know it's the only one? Maybe you've just failed to see
one of the alternatives.
Magnus Kempe
: [his quote, in extenso, of my previous message]
: [...]
: man's ends (something on which any rational human being necessarily
: agrees -- i.e. I won't answer any irrational claims to the contrary.)
:
: so, if one does not agree totally with you, then he is irrational,
: and will not be allowed into your monologue. Fine with me.
*If* you were intellectually honest, you would have included enough of
the context to make it clear that what I had written was that "each man
is an end in himself" and that is what any rational human being necessarily
holds. But you are *not* intellectually honest, and what you tried to put
into my mouth was that "anyone who disagrees with Magnus [me] is irrational."
To do this, you *had* to quote me out of context, because I didn't write
such a statement. Now, if only you would use rational arguments instead of
Ad Hominem attacks, that would be a show of maturity [to avoid any mis-
understanding, let me state the following, explicitely: your attitude is
immature, and I will answer your future messages, if any, *only* if you
show some level of maturity -- i.e. only if you renounce the use of Ad
Hominem arguments.]
More of your Ad Hominem arguments:
: [I wrote]
: It is clear that dignity is another *absolute* attribute of man, and
: that it will *not* evolve.
:
: One more of those self-evident primaries we have been knocked with
: since a few weeks....
OK, from the definition that I gave for human dignity, please explain
how it is *not* an absolute, and how it *is* subject to evolution. But
don't arbitrarily dismiss my statement, just because you *feel* like it.
I am expecting a rational argument.
And more, this time with too much quoted (I cut it to the relevant part):
: [I wrote]
: [...] As human dignity is an absolute, the principles
: of ethics and politics that are based on this absolute *are*
: also absolutes, and are not subject to evolution, once they
: have been properly defined.
:
: Et allez donc, all systems and trials made by the human race since
: thousands and thousands of years (at least) made useless, as *obviously*
: they were subject to evolution, and were therefore not the absolute.
I wrote the *principles*, not the "implementation of the political
system." And yes, thousands of years of dictatorship and moral cannibalism
are just what they are: bloody sacrificial systems, i.e. a disgusting
tribute to irrationality.
: Very strange, indeed. When one speaks with orthodox muslims, it
: is evident that Islam is *the*only*perfect* system. It is given by
: G*D, and is therefore *the* absolute. It considers all humans to be
: the creatures of G*D, thus the means to His Will.
So, maybe you are not a muslim, and don't subscribe to their theories,
but the question is: is each man an end in himself, or not? If not,
as you seem to believe, please explain why. Oh, and remember that
mystic revelations do not count as arguments, and that Ad Hominem
arguments are uninteresting.
: Now, both [mysticism and capitalism] rely on several self-evidence,
: that none is able to prove:
That is your claim. Let's see.
: Islam: G*D exists
: He is the creator of the whole universum, and whatever else
: He is omniscient and omnipotent
: He spoke to Muhammad
: Muhammad gave back the exact words of G*D, to the comma
: The words of G*D have not been changed of a comma since,
: and are valids for all times and all places
Granted that not much can be proved in that, except probably that
Mohamet wrote something called the Coran.
: Randism: anything can be expressed in boolean logical terms
Objectivism, not "Randism." You almost got it: reality is an absolute
and truths identify facts of reality. Falsehoods contradict facts of
reality. These definitions are valid, and form the basis for our knwoledge.
: humans are able to determine absolutely their nature
Yes. If not, how do you know that we are unable to?
: Ann Rand absolutely determined human' nature
She did determine some parts of it, not *everything*, and she did not
claim to have identified everything. But she, and many others, did
identify enough to be able to speak about man's nature, among other
things.
: right of life is human nature' basis, and property right
: is its fundamental consequence;
Your wording is not correct, but the idea of man's inalienable rights
is there: man has rights, which make sure that society is subject to
the morality of man.
: everything else comes from it
: all definitions and concepts have been fixed forever by her
That is a falsehood. Definitions and concepts have *never* been claimed
to be fixed forever by her. Once more, that is an Ad Hominem argument,
and, as such, it has no value.
: So why don't you @#$##@%* move, as already suggested, to alt.religion,
: or to talk.newage?
First time that I see such a suggestion, probably not the last, but I
won't simply run away because you are irrational. Capitalism is a
political system, and I will continue to post to this newsgroup. Just
ignore my messages, if you don't want to know anything else than
collectivist slogans. You are not the voice of the group.
: Judging by the reactions on sci.philosophy.tech,
: that's were you belongs, as even talk.philosophy.misc is dubbed as
: inadequate.
I'm happy to see that you did have enough curiosity to read the messages
in sci.phil.tech. Did you notice that the answers all were either
filled with Ad Hominem arguments, or with mystic insights? Keep reading,
you might learn some things.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>I'm happy to see that you did have enough curiosity to read the messages
>in sci.phil.tech. Did you notice that the answers all were either
>filled with Ad Hominem arguments, or with mystic insights? Keep reading,
>you might learn some things.
You may be interested to know that other readers than yourself might
have noticed other things - about the objectivist postings.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Richard Tobin
>Such a relationship *is* a trade of values, because the employee
>produces goods -- i.e. values -- and the employer gives him money
Oh I see, the reason that a wealthy businessman is not willing to work
as a road-sweeper, but someone else is, is just that the businessman's
hierarchy of values is different? That seems unlikely...
A more plausible explanation is that the road-sweeper has no alternative
but to sell his labour at low cost, whereas the businessman doesn't
have to. The poor man *has* to spend his life in the service of the the
rich man - he doesn't get a choice.
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Jeff Dalton
another term that has a special Randian (ie, Objectivist) sense.
Ad hominum (literally "to the man") means attacking an opponent
instead of answering his (or her) argument. An hominum arguments
are invalid, because Hitler, for example, may have said some things
that are true even though he was, well, Hitler.
For some reason, Magnus is quite happy to use ad hominum arguments
himself. For example:
I wouldn't accept your sacrifice. But Mao, Hitler and Stalin would
have welcomed you.
The idea here is to attack the opponent by claiming that various
evil people would have agreed with him.
Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D
(quoting Bruno's article)
>: Very strange, indeed. When one speaks with orthodox muslims, it
>: is evident that Islam is *the*only*perfect* system. It is given by
>: G*D, and is therefore *the* absolute. It considers all humans to be
>: the creatures of G*D, thus the means to His Will.
>
>So, maybe you are not a muslim, and don't subscribe to their theories,
>but the question is: is each man an end in himself, or not? If not,
>as you seem to believe, please explain why. Oh, and remember that
>mystic revelations do not count as arguments, and that Ad Hominem
>arguments are uninteresting.
A good start to answer the question is to define the meaning of 'end' in
the term 'man is an end in himself' exactly. As I understand orthodox believers
of several religions, they won't subscribe to this. God is the only end,
man his creature, to them. But even if we agree that every man is an end in
himself this does not mean that the conclusions you draw from this are
more logical than islam.
>: Now, both [mysticism and capitalism] rely on several self-evidence,
>: that none is able to prove:
>
>That is your claim. Let's see.
>
1>: Islam: G*D exists
2>: He is the creator of the whole universum, and whatever else
3>: He is omniscient and omnipotent
4>: He spoke to Muhammad
5>: Muhammad gave back the exact words of G*D, to the comma
6>: The words of G*D have not been changed of a comma since,
>: and are valids for all times and all places
>
>Granted that not much can be proved in that, except probably that
>Mohamet wrote something called the Coran.
This is your opinion. A muslim fundamentalist will think different.
1-3 are premises to him, self-evident and absolutely true. 4-6 then follow
from 1-3 and a certain trust in the trade of historic facts.
>: Randism: anything can be expressed in boolean logical terms
>
>Objectivism, not "Randism." You almost got it: reality is an absolute
>and truths identify facts of reality. Falsehoods contradict facts of
>reality. These definitions are valid, and form the basis for our knwoledge.
This only means that there are things which can be expressed in boolean
logical terms.
>: humans are able to determine absolutely their nature
>
>Yes. If not, how do you know that we are unable to?
Unability of something does not necessarily mean knowledge of this unability.
If we are able to determine absolutely our nature, this doesn't mean we
have done this already. So we need not necessarily know this ability.
Conversely, if we are not able to determine absolutely our nature, this
doesn't imply that we can't be sure about this special point of our nature.
>: Ann Rand absolutely determined human' nature
>
>She did determine some parts of it, not *everything*, and she did not
>claim to have identified everything. But she, and many others, did
>identify enough to be able to speak about man's nature, among other
>things.
How could she know she identified enough? How could she know she
identified parts of *man's* nature, not only of *hers* or that of
only some people?
Maybe man's nature is like an IBM mainframe, where you have your virtual
machine running, say, CMS, emulating a whole machine for you, and you
explore it to its ends, and you think you know anything about the machine
you work at, but it is only your virtual machine. You know much about
the virtual machines of other people, too. But maybe some of them don't
run CMS but UNIX.
For a man who subjects his world to boolean logic, Magnus uses quite often
conclusions like:
not( for all A holds S(A) ) = (for all A holds (not(S(A))))
sometimes in less obvious forms, like
A can't be proved => A is false
A does not hold in general => A does never hold
etc., which are definitely false in general (but often used by various
religious fanatics :-) )
Oliver Bonten
F...@DACTH51.BITNET
Dave Kennard
>how it is *not* an absolute, and how it *is* subject to evolution. But
>don't arbitrarily dismiss my statement, just because you *feel* like it.
>I am expecting a rational argument.
I'm curious to know how the theory of evolution fits in with the
libertarian religion.
--
+-+ +-+ +- | | Regards, Dave Kennard.
| | | | | |/ Dept. 30820, STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Road South,
|-+ | | | |\ New Southgate, LONDON. N11 1LU, England, UK, (etc..)
| \ +-+ +- | |Voice (+44) 01-945-2195 <ro...@tcom.stc.co.uk>
Irek Defee
> how it should affect the future evolution of rights.
Yes. This was the subject of my posting.
>Irek considers
> that historically, the nature of societies has evolved, and that,
> therefore, man's nature has also evolved;
No. I was not saying anything about evoultion of the "nature"
of societies or (hu)man. "Nature" in this context is too vague a
concept for me. I stated only about the evoultion of the notion
of human rights.
>further, he argues that
> man's nature will *continue* to change ("because man's nature
> has an infinite dimension")
No. I said only that the concept of human rights will evolve.
>and that, consequently, society is
> doomed to evolve -- towards more respect of man's dignity.
Yes, but only if you put here that ' the notion of human rights
in the society'... is doomed to evolve.
> Irek
> claims that capitalism does *not* respect each man's dignity.
No. I said that the XIX century version of laissez-faire capitalism
clearly made many human dignities crying and that collectivism
has similar results in this area. I said also that I regard most
the places where the constant effort to protect each human dignity
is pursued e.g Sweden.
I did nottheorize if human dignity is an absolut. I said only that
presently human as a person is viewed as an absolut.
As seen above my point was distorted. However, human dignity as
a base for the concept of human rights could not be denied by
Magnus. So he is trying to modernize his theory by proving that
LF capitalism is the best for human dignity, too. But first he
elaborated a little about... love, from LF point of course.
>...
>And more, where does love fit in this same description? Love, romantic
>love, is the most demanding form of trade.....
This is distorted (laissez-faire :-) view of love. True love is based
on giving and devotion, without expecting anything and especially
without getting more ( in one's system of values) like in the trading
relation above. Is the term romantic here a substitute for 'egoistic'?.
Hmm... and if humans are absolutes (or in LF capitalism terminology,
their "price" is infinite :-), then love does not even depend if
particular person has something to trade... Conversely, it would be
just below Human Dignity to make an account of trade in the context
of Love. Oh... maybe at the level where our terms are written with
capital letters we are getting to a dimension which is totally
inaccessible for LF capitalists...
>
>It is now clear that the proper political system is laissez-faire
>capitalism, ...
It seems that Magnus has recognized now that the mere 'right to life'
on which his LF capitalism theory is based, is a projection of a
concept of human rights emerging in the late XVIII century. A version
of LF capitalism has been subsequently tried in the XIX century.
Since we are at the level of protecting human dignity at present,
the issues are much more complex. The LF capitalism advocated by
Magnus looks as an idealized construction promising (egoisitic)
paradise. After many bad experiences in this century it is better
not to believe in simple-solution for a social paradise.
>... laisse-faire capitalism is the only political system that recognizes
>that each man is an end in himself. All other political systems, one
>way or another, consider man, all men, or some men, to be the means to
>one man, all other men, or some other men.
The issue at stake at present is to protect human dignity which means taking
(at least some) responsibility in contrast to total egoism. It is recognized
now that most humans reject total individual egoism since their feel
their dignity is violated when the dignities of other humans are
violated. Humans are so irrational... (unfortunately for LF).
>That is the fundamental
>distinction one has to make when one compares laissez-faire capitalism
>with all other political systems.
We get here a promise for yet another social ideal. Who would take it
except total egoists which don't even bother to read history books
of the XIX and XX century?
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Irek de...@tut.fi