Before I begin, I'd like to point out the irony of an Objectivist actually acknowledging the natural obligation that a parent has to the well being of their children that they have brought into the world. For a primer on why the development of a human life is not a viable criteria for determining whether or not someone is a human being or not, go here.
Provenzo's also tries to say that this isn't eugenics, but doesn't really offer a concrete explanation for why that is. Fair enough, it's not literally eugenics, as it is not a formal scientific campaign to weed out those deemed weak and inferior from the gene pool. It's just a coincidence that the purposes and end result are almost completely indistinguishable, since the parents are motivated by a desire to keep genetically inferior children from being born into their family.
This issue just serves to bring to light how little value the right to life gets from objectivists and many libertarians. Indeed, the right to life only extends in their eyes to those whose mothers are sufficiently magnanimous to not kill them in utero. In principle, this attitude is a complete negation of human rights, as it gives another person an arbitrary veto over the liberty of another. The distinction here between normal modes of authority, such as a parent reasonably infringing on a child's liberty to enforce rules upon them, and this is that the parent is given a right to simply wholesale, without cause, abolish the child's right to life altogether. The right of a woman to control her womb without medical cause in order to achieve abortion on demand, essentially turns the child within her into a non-human, even to such a point as the child is no longer strictly dependent on her womb for life support.
The pro-choice libertarians and objectivists have largely missed the bigger picture here. There can be no doubt, just from casual observation of the last 100 years, that the attitudes toward the value of human life and individuals has gone down tremendously around the world. It would behoove libertarians and objectivists to reject the minor "liberty" of abortion on demand, and instead embrace a comprehensive, genetics-based view of the individual. The result of that view is a comprehensive rejection of the idea that anyone, anywhere, for any reason, has a right to preemptively take an innocent human life. Such a cultural value would, ironically, serve as a bolster against statism by expanding the scope of protection and respect for individual lives and fundamental rights. Too often, libertarians and objectivists forget that violent collectivism first gets its foothold on society by suggesting that it is morally permissible to deny fundamental rights, including the right to life, to other groups because while they may be genetically human, "they're not people."
Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)-a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.A similar argument could be made for the poor, especially the very poor. It's no secret that the poor are the primary reason we have government in the first place, as they are the ones who use most of the public services and are the majority of people who run afoul of the law. Furthermore, it's not clear as to how one can really distinguish most unskilled laborers from someone with Down Syndrome, as they are only modestly more productive, but certainly not so much more so that the distinction is really worth making. The average person who works minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs, without having someone else to help support them (as in the case of a typical student), almost invariably is as reliant on government aid as those that have Down Syndrome.
A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.
Provenzo's also tries to say that this isn't eugenics, but doesn't really offer a concrete explanation for why that is. Fair enough, it's not literally eugenics, as it is not a formal scientific campaign to weed out those deemed weak and inferior from the gene pool. It's just a coincidence that the purposes and end result are almost completely indistinguishable, since the parents are motivated by a desire to keep genetically inferior children from being born into their family.
This issue just serves to bring to light how little value the right to life gets from objectivists and many libertarians. Indeed, the right to life only extends in their eyes to those whose mothers are sufficiently magnanimous to not kill them in utero. In principle, this attitude is a complete negation of human rights, as it gives another person an arbitrary veto over the liberty of another. The distinction here between normal modes of authority, such as a parent reasonably infringing on a child's liberty to enforce rules upon them, and this is that the parent is given a right to simply wholesale, without cause, abolish the child's right to life altogether. The right of a woman to control her womb without medical cause in order to achieve abortion on demand, essentially turns the child within her into a non-human, even to such a point as the child is no longer strictly dependent on her womb for life support.
The pro-choice libertarians and objectivists have largely missed the bigger picture here. There can be no doubt, just from casual observation of the last 100 years, that the attitudes toward the value of human life and individuals has gone down tremendously around the world. It would behoove libertarians and objectivists to reject the minor "liberty" of abortion on demand, and instead embrace a comprehensive, genetics-based view of the individual. The result of that view is a comprehensive rejection of the idea that anyone, anywhere, for any reason, has a right to preemptively take an innocent human life. Such a cultural value would, ironically, serve as a bolster against statism by expanding the scope of protection and respect for individual lives and fundamental rights. Too often, libertarians and objectivists forget that violent collectivism first gets its foothold on society by suggesting that it is morally permissible to deny fundamental rights, including the right to life, to other groups because while they may be genetically human, "they're not people."
H/T to Rachel Lucas for bringing up Provenzo's post.
Mike, I read what Provenzo wrote and couldn't help but to conclude that secular humanism is a dead-end--literally--without the moderating influence of Christianity.
I mean, if you subject the value of human life to a political evaluation of 'burden on society' or 'able to live independently' or other such nonesense, you have no firm basis for anyone to justify why they should live.
Yet the secular humanist wants to live, so they adopt some Christian precepts like murder when their moral system doesn't consider that to be a rational position. Just so that someone doesn't get the wild idea to whack them
I must admit it is entertaining to watch abortion advocates pretzel themselves when their rationalist worldview is challenged.
Objectivists are not of a single mind on this issue. The question is: what kind of life is possible with Down Syndrome? A small percentage of those with the condition may in fact experience a decent quality of life, even with some degree of independence, while others, statistically most, will never achieve anything like what could be described as a fully "human experience."
Let me start by addressing two points with which all Objectivists would agree:
1. An unborn child is a *potential* human individual; a pregnant woman is an *actual* human individual. We have no science to indicate otherwise. It would therefore be wrong to effectively make every pregnant woman a slave to the organism growing inside of her. This shouldn't be interpreted to mean that Objectivists *like* abortion. The idea that any woman would have an abortion thoughtlessly is repulsive. The principle is that *because* we value life, and because freedom is essential to the life of actual, already-in-the-world human individuals, a woman's right to choose in matters of procreation must be upheld.
2. I do not agree with your post (linked above) that being in possession of human genetic code qualifies one as an individual. What does genetic code tell us about an individual's consciousness? Human beings are more than the flesh and blood of genetics. Remember, rights are granted to *individuals*, not to any group of cells containing human DNA. Now, I'm not saying that someone born with Down Syndrome isn't human. I'm saying that (a) an unborn fetus is a potential human and not yet an individual, and (b) that statistically, most of those born with Down Syndrome will never experience what can by any measure be considered the kind of life proper to human beings.
A human being is a certain kind of thing. The kind of life that is appropriate to a dog or a horse is not appropriate to a human being. So to knowingly bring an organism into the world that will never experience life as a human--form concepts, apply reason, be productive, communicate, love, enjoy, value--could be seen as an act of cruelty.
OK, so let's look at a couple of your points. Your comparison of Down Syndrome with the very poor is completely inappropriate. There is obviously a major difference--the poor are fully conscious, functioning individuals. They have the ability to reason, to produce, and (if they are sufficiently productive), to become rich. BTW, it's important to note that Objectivism isn't about becoming rich. The point is to be productive; such that you are not asking others to work for your benefit (and that you are not working for theirs).
Next, the poor are not the "primary reason we have government." The reason we have government is to secure the basic rights of citizens (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Unfortunately government has gotten increasingly in the business of providing for the poor (and doing lots of other things it shouldn't be doing). This is the influence of socialism, which makes me a slave to those who produce less or refuse to produce. The unskilled laborer you mentioned, so long as he is productive and using his rational mind, is a valuable member of society. He does not require anyone to make his lunch or tie his shoes. Life may be very challenging for him at times, but he always has the capacity to *become* skilled, to improve himself, to make a better life. That is not possible for most born with Down Syndrome.
You mentioned eugenics. This is not about eugenics. The reason an Objectivist parent would choose to abort a fetus identified with Down Syndrome would not be to "weed out" the gene pool, or reject the "genetically inferior." It would be because, as human beings and lovers of human life, we understand that the Down Syndrome child will never participate in the things that make human life *human*. Why would someone bring a being into the world knowing that it will never experience the things we all hope to experience; that there is no possibility of it ever knowing the rewards of standing on your own two feet, making your own choices, finding your own path through life?
I started this post by saying that not all Objectivists agree on this issue. Let's suppose that an Objectivist woman becomes pregnant, and the fetus is identified with Down Syndrome at the earliest possible moment. Should the woman go through with the pregnancy or terminate it? The most important and overriding principle here is that the woman *must have the right to make that choice*. Now, what should she choose? Given what we know about Down Syndrome, and given the statistics regarding the quality of life of those born with Down Syndrome, she would certainly be justified in terminating the pregnancy. I doubt you will find many Objectivists who would disagree on that point.
But what if, with full knowledge of the implications, she wants to have the child? My personal view is that this would be wrong; that to bring a child into the world with such a condition is a bad choice. But I'm aware of cases where a person with Down Syndrome can have a decent life with the loving support of parents and friends. Such cases are the minority; nevertheless, if the parent is willing to make that commitment, I don't think anyone has the right to prevent them from doing so. But we should be very clear about one thing: Sarah Palin's choice was made not in the best interest of her child, but in the interest of her religious beliefs. There was no choice in Palin's case. Her Down Syndrome child is in the world because God tells Mrs. Palin that anything that comes out of her is one of His children--even if he can't do any of the things that constitute being human. In short, I believe, as Aristotle recognized, it's not just about form (DNA), it's about function as well.
I'm fully aware that none of what I've written is likely to convince you, Mike. But I hope that others who may read this will recognize that many of the attitudes you've associated with Objectivism are wrong, and i hope people will do their own research and thinking before reaching a conclusion on such a difficult topic.
I beg to differ. The moment that an egg and sperm come together into a zygote, they form the foundation of a genetically unique (or sufficiently unique for argument, in the case of twins, etc.) life form to count as a new individual. In the natural course of life, the zygote will become a full human being.
Furthermore, it's not clear from your potential-actual distinction that there is a solid basis in that frame of reference to argue that someone who is very genetically damaged is an "actual human being." They certainly could not enjoy the normal range of human experiences.
Surely you don't want to open up the can of worms that comes from arguing that consciousness is a requisite of individual rights. God help anyone who goes into a coma for a long period of time. You're right that an abstract clump of cells is not a human life, but then a zygote or embyro is not an ordinary cluster of cells. It represents the first stage of an individual's existence; a cluster of skin or stem cells does not.
Perhaps, from the perspective of someone who is genetically superior, but it is not your place to make that call. Society has no right to ever terminate the life of someone who has committed no crime. The right to life is the most fundamental right there is, and it is not something that can denied without paying a rather bitter price.
Because I recognize the moral bankrupcy of placing myself as arbiter of whose life is worth living. It is not my place to make this judgment, nor is it society's. Your logic here is bidirectional; in my opinion, people with subpar intelligences, such as 80-90 IQs are to me, someone with an IQ between 131 and 141, what a Down Syndrome sufferer is to the normal person. People with high genius IQs could say the same thing about me, as I lack the requisite brain power to achieve in certain very sophisticated fields.
Now, there is a practical difference, but it's one that is likely to be lost on the average dullard, and most of society is closer to idiocy than genius. That is part of the reason why I vehemently, almost violently, reject your thinking. It simply serves no purpose that protects liberty to think that anyone has a right to judge the worthiness of another to live.
And this is where you and I differ. I reject the idea that a parent has the authority to ever deny their child's right to live. As a matter of principle, the only cases that I believe the right to life can be terminated is with the reasonable permission of the individual for medical reasons, such as if a child is mortally wounded and could not be saved through medical operations (thus life support would just prolong the process of dying) or in the case of capital crimes. I think if you look at this position, you'll realize that it is a more radical take on the notion of no one initiating force against others than even most objectivists are willing to take.
Chuck, I think what you're seeing here is the practical difference between our world views at play. You see your philosophy as harmless, even good. I see a great deal of potential harm coming from it that completely undermines any theoretical good that may come from the liberty that you advocate.
Furthermore, I would classify the objectivist attitude that certain individuals shouldn't have to "suffer" by being born with conditions like Down Syndrome to be a form of "eugenics through kindness." To me the false distinction here between traditional eugenics motivations and the Objectivist desire to not see someone deal with a debilitating genetic condition is like the difference between bona fide Fascism and modern nannystatism. It's a distinction without a substantial difference; it relies on style over substance.
There is much that is commendable about Objectivism, but its typical views on human life don't fall into that category.
Mr. Butler,
Thanks for a calm, collected, well-written comment. While I do not agree with your positions, as a fellow reader, I do appreciate the time you took to craft it. I have a more accurate picture of what Objectivists believe as a result, and I thank you for that.
I am curious about your position on matters of 'choice'. You mention (and I paraphrase) that it would be wrong to enslave a woman to the being developing inside of her, and because of that a 'woman's right to choose' must be upheld.
What would you say to a man's assertion of his right to choose freedom for himself, and divesting himself of any responsibility for said child developing inside another person before it arrives in the world?
Note that I'm speaking from my perspective, not of Mr. Butler's or Provenzo's.
Individuals are separated from one another (among other things), a requirement which a zygote (embryo, etc.) does not meet.
The potential-actual distinction only applies to birth. After-birth, we never again enter a phase in which we become a bunch of undifferentiated cells that reside within another organism's body and utilize its resources to live (grow, etc.). An actual human being who suffers sufficient genetic damage (as in your example) is still an actual human being. After becoming "actual," there is no way of us becoming "potential" again.
That's why we should avoid unwarranted deductions. Being an actual human has risks, and comas are just one of many such risks. Having a coma, however, doesn't give title to any given gangster to now destroy you, just as he would lack that title if you were merely asleep (which is, consciously speaking, no different).
Yes, and this is why Objectivists defend the right to life of the mother, who has the right to decide how (or if) her body functions, emphatically including other life-forms inside of her which sustain themselves through her. Granting rights to a zygote, embryo, etc. amounts to violating the rights of the mother, because some individuals (i.e. the government) may now use force to ensure that the pregnancy comes to term; which means that the government dictates the functions of the woman's body, not herself.
The whole purpose of rights was to morally demarcate what relationships were capable among individuals and what they free to do in regards to others; the result was supposed to be harmony, where no person's rights conflicted with another's, meaning that people could peacefully co-exist together. Those who oppose the right to an abortion do not understand and/or appreciate the fact that this harmony is completely tossed aside once an unborn child is granted rights, because it logically entails the violation of the mother's rights.
If a woman is morally impotent to decide what goes on in her own body, then what possibly can she be morally competent enough to decide?
No one has the right to impose involuntary servitude on a person--the principle remains whether we are discussing actual people, the zygote or embryo growing within a woman, or the specific government officials hell-bent on ensuring that that zygote/embryo reaches birth. The fact is, regardless of the conditions you may find acceptable for abortions to occur, they are going to happen under a number of circumstances, including the ones you find morally impermissible. The question is: should women be lawfully punished for violating the conditions a pro-lifer has deemed necessary and sufficient for an abortion?
Or does a woman have a right to her own life, including the functions of her body?
This implies that Objectivist suffer from a split between the theoretical and the practical. As should be clear from what I've said above, I think MikeT's position (a modified pro-life one) is theoretically mistaken, and will necessarily lead to suffering and immorality in practice. Suffering, because some women who wish to abort will not meet MikeT's explicit conditions necessary for proper abortion; Immorality, because some women will effectively become slaves to other people and to their unborn child (in effect).
Elusive Wapiti asks, "What would you say to a man's assertion of his right to choose freedom for himself, and divesting himself of any responsibility for said child developing inside another person before it arrives in the world?"
Answer: I would question the man's values and rationality.
Let me start by quoting Ayn Rand's view on procreation:
"The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials--and it is his *mind* that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values."
Procreation is a choice, and with that choice comes responsibility. I suspect you will agree with me that individuals who choose to procreate have a moral responsibility to care for the children they produce, although we may come to that conclusion for different reasons.
If I may be allowed to reframe your question, I believe what you're asking is: why should a woman have the option to abdicate her responsibility as a parent by terminating her pregnancy while a man has no such option? My answer is: the man had any number of opportunities to "terminate" the pregnancy. He chose to become involved with the woman. He chose to pursue a sexual relationship with her. He chose not to avail himself of any one of a number of contraceptive methods. So the time for a man to consider his "freedom" in this regard is prior to his engaging in an act that may result in pregnancy.
Under normal circumstances, the woman faces the same series of choices outlined above. So why should abortion provide her with an additional "out?" Because it is the *woman* who will carry the child inside her body, and regardless of how or why she became pregnant, as a conscious, rational adult her freedom to choose what happens with her own body must take precedence. So yes, ultimately she does have the final word on whether or not the pregnancy will continue, but that is appropriate since she is the one whose body will be directly impacted. Pro-lifers (if they are consistent) demand that all women relinquish their freedom of choice at the moment of conception. That, in my view, is really cruel. The last thing we need in this world are parents who don't want to be parents, or can't afford to care for their children, or are forced to raise disabled or retarded children against their will--not to mention children conceived as a result of rape or incest.
I want *wanted* children coming into the world, and I want couples to make rational, informed, responsible choices about whether or not to bring children into the world (which very definitely includes their having the means and desire to care for those children). I think it's possible reach a point where abortions are relatively rare, but this will only be possible when we move beyond outdated religious morality and embrace a reality-based, this-worldly philosophy that recognizes the nature of a human being: that he survives by reason; that in order to exercise reason he must have the freedom to choose; that in making choices he must identify values; that his ultimate value is his own life; and that because he lives over a period of many years, he must make choices that support his ultimate value long-range. These are some of the central features of Objectivist Ethics, and if you'd like more detail (until my book comes out) I'd recommend "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics" by Dr. Tara Smith.
I think it's one of the great flaws of modern thinking that many believe man is rational, rather than rationalizing. A casual observation of the world will show you that reason is not the mechanism by which most people have survived, do survive or will survive in any sort of society that has ever existed.
This is not to say that reason is bad, barely useful, etc. It's simply a matter of reason not being the guiding force in the average person's life. This is why your code of morality will never be embraced. While you may have consciously chosen to embrace this mode of thought, most people not only never will see a reason to do that, but would never be capable of forcing themselves to limit themselves to something reasonably approximating pure reason.
One could also make the case that religious morality often possesses a deeper understanding of human nature than most secular philosophies. In many respects, the Bible's teachings on how human behavior tends toward corruption and harming others ring true where secular teachings on the "essential goodness of man" come off as though they were written in a vacuum by someone who has not interacted with a diverse number of people, let alone cracked open a history book.
Lastly, I would like to point out in response to your statements about a man's role above, that there are many ways that a man may avoid a pregnancy, but find one happening anyway. The most obvious example of this is if he is deceived by his partner. In such situations, if his partner has control over her body, then surely he should have control over his wallet. It is, after all, ludicrous to recognize a natural obligation between father and child, but fail to recognize the natural obligation between mother and father when it comes to being honest about the possibility of making a child.
Mike, as I predicted in my earlier post, I'm not going to convince you. I am amused that you would write "reason is not the mechanism by which most people have survived, do survive or will survive"--as you sit typing on a computer, presumably in a lighted room, with food to eat in your fridge, medicine in your cabinet, and indoor plumbing a few steps away.
I also disagree that religion offers any understanding of anything, let alone a "deeper understanding." But there's no way for me to argue that point with you, since my views are based on reality, and yours on revelation.
As to your last point, yes, there are all kinds of bizarre situations one could imagine, and I'm sorry that I don't have time to answer every one you might dream up. I think I've made my position clear in my previous two posts, and I'm content at this point to let other readers draw their own conclusions. I would add that any errors in my representation of Objectivism are my own. I encourage anyone interested in Objectivism to study it directly and draw their own conclusions.
Reason was simply used as another tool in order to bring these things into the world and market. You are greatly overstating the importance that reason plays, transforming it from a mental tool, into the underlying glue of everything around you.
A false dichotomy. I would have no faith were it not often backed up by observation. Despite your "reality-based view," you actually believe that man is generally fundamentally rational, rather than rationalizing.
You're quite wrong that there is a way to argue successfully about these things. Objectivism and Christianity each make a claim about a facet of human behavior. Then one looks at the claims, and sees which one tends to be more accurate about human nature.
Here's an example. Objectivism embraces greed as a potential good; Christianity recognizes greed as an inherent flaw that often carries with it disastrous consequences. This is not simple ambition, but greed we're talking about here. When you look at history, you'll generally find that people who succumb to greed, rather than being merely ambitious, tend to be willing to do anything, and screw anyone to get what they want. How many times has liberty been squelched to sate someone's greed? Too often to count. One can realistically say that the Christian understanding of greed as an essentially negative thing is more accurate than the tendency of Objectivists to regard it as a potential good because the outcome of greed is generally negative, and often profoundly so.
Since when is lying about birth control and such a bizarre situation? It's a rather common situation that gets brought up in these discussions.
Ugh. I am continuing this against my better judgment, and only in the interest of others who may read through this thread.
Mike writes, "reason was simply used as another tool in order to bring these things [computers, medicine, etc.] into the world." Please name another "tool" that could create a computer. If I pray very hard, will a computer simply appear, or assemble itself? I don't think the importance of reason in human beings can be overstated, but I do understand that some don't care to put too much stock in it, since it does tend to get in the way of faith.
Mike suggests that his faith is backed up by "observation." I wonder what he has observed to back up his faith? I submit that he has chosen to have faith, and now looks for things in the world which appear to support his belief. It's amazing what you can find when you're looking for it. The irony is that this is exactly the opposite of what faith is. Faith is belief without evidence; without reason. Read Kierkegaard's view on this subject.
The approach Mike's suggesting undermines reason and all of human knowledge. He decides to form (or accept) a concept based only on personal feelings or revelation, and then looks for anything in the world that in some way seems to validate his Idea. This is a metaphysical approach Objectivists refer to as Primacy of Consciousness. My approach is to start by observing the world, carefully identifying what I find and building concepts that are verifiably consistent with observed existents. This metaphysical approach is called Primacy of Existence. This is the fundamental difference between Mike's view of the world and mine.
As to what I "believe," I know that man fundamentally has the capacity to reason, and that his ability to survive, and the quality of his survival depend on the degree to which he exercises that capacity. If his "reasoning" is based on false concepts (like the supernatural), or if his reasoning becomes rationalizing, his conclusions will be flawed.
Next, Mike's analysis of "greed" represents a common misunderstanding of Objectivism. When "greed" means: an irrational and excessive desire to pursue and accumulate some object of desire, that would not be consistent with Objectivism. On the other hand, if by "greed" we mean the pursuit of values consistent with rational self-interest and based on an objective standard of value, then yes, to quote Gordon Gekko, "greed is good." (BTW, I would cite Gekko as an example of the former definition of greed.) But there is an enormous difference between the two. This is a particularly difficult distinction for those who have been raised to believe in the altruistic ethics recommended by Christianity.
Regarding Mike's last point, perhaps "bizarre" was a poor choice of words on my part. What I'm trying to convey is that there are innumerable possible circumstances that might arise--some of which may be common, others of which may be exceedingly rare--many of which are sufficiently complex that they would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. The overriding principle in all cases is: to uphold the right of a living, individual, already-in-the-world woman to choose what happens with her body. Faced with such a decision, some women may make irrational or immoral choices, but that is not sufficient reason to deny the right of choice to the vast majority who would exercise it responsibly. And so long as the fetus is inside the woman; so long as it depends on her body for its survival; it is not an individual and has no rights. Once it is existing outside of the womb (including with the support of technology) it is an individual and has rights. That's my position.
An interesting dichotomy; one must be either a faith-blinded zealot or a machine that runs on pure logic. Sadly, this does not explain the existence of the early contributors to the sciences who were as devout in their Judao-Christian, pagan and Islamic religious views as they were men of science.
A simple explanation is that I have found the Bible to be correct in its estimation of human nature and behavior. That gives me a willingness to give it credence in other areas. Part of the reason that I am no longer a secular humanist is that I have abandoned the idea that humanity can ever advance itself toward anything resembling "moral evolution." When one looks at history, and sees how little has changed in the way the world actually works, one begins to realize that truly, there is nothing new under the sun viz-a-vis the fundamental nature of the human animal.
I can't blame you for thinking like this because this is how I used to be as well. Despite what you may think, for the majority of my life, I wasn't a Christian; it was a path chosen as an adult. I wasn't even raised one, and was raised in an environment that was more accurately described as secular humanist.
There are things in this world that you cannot experience, Chuck. You would not understand them. I didn't understand them until I came under the Spirit's guidance in that respect. There are aspects of reality hidden from you, that you literally cannot experience apart from that. Having been on both sides of the fence, I know what you're going to do now. You're going to call me irrational, even psychotic. Fine. I would not expect someone born into a world of the blind to believe that sight is possible. I didn't either, when I was an agnostic.
You are correct to some extent here. Man's ability to survive, and do so well, depends on his ability to reason. It also depends, sometimes, on his ability to be more than a cold, calculating implement of pure reason, and let's face it, man is not rational by default. Most people who commit themselves to reason frequently fail. You have failed several times in your own comments here. For example, you draw false dichotomies all over the place with the assumption that faith and reason cannot coexist, when most of the founders of modern science were men of faith.
The fatal flaw to mainstream libertarianism and objectivism is that they assume that most people are capable of acting in rational self-interest, when most people are highly irrational, and prone to acting accordingly. Virtually every market bubble in modern times can be explained on these grounds.
And in your detailed distinction, there is no difference between Christianity and Objectivism, as Christian doctrine fully expects people to maximize the talents that God has given them. However, Christianity puts a safety check on this by requiring a broader sense of community and obligation in order to prevent ambition from becoming something malevolent. By focusing on the individual self above everything else in these matters, Objectivism often invites greed because a systematic, long-term pattern of self-focus tends to create a worldview that is conducive to greed.
There are two major problems with this argument:
1) There is a point in a fetus' development where it no longer needs the woman for survival at all; a foster mother could easily take over. How do you justify taking the life of a fetus that can survive with minimal or no life support, simply because the woman's body has not decided to give birth to it? In the last few months of a pregnancy, there isn't that much of a physiological difference between an in-the-world infant, and the baby inside the woman's womb. The one in the womb is capable of functioning and existing outside the womb like the infant.
2) As technology progresses, there will be a decrease in the time where a fetus can be said to not be able to survive without its mother's womb. What do you do when science negates the need for a woman at all, and you have religious groups lining up, offering to pay for the artificial womb time to bring even a would-be aborted zygote into the world? Should a woman have the right to just terminate the life, or should she have to take reasonable measures to give them the opportunity to do a "pregnancy transplant?"
The obvious answer, in my opinion, is that you require the latter in order to promote more of a culture of life--a prerequisite for a culture of liberty.
OK, then. I obviously disagree, but I've enjoyed the discussion.
Same here. Despite the harshness of the title, I don't consider Objectivists to be "evil with a capital E." There is "evil" in the sense of having morally flawed arguments, some that negate the morality of the other positions (which I believe the stances on abortion cause) and "Evil" in the sense of an ideology that causes systematic pain, suffering and immorality such as Socialism.
I am an anti abortion objectivist. I believe Ayn Rand is incorrect to thing that abortion is not a use of force against an innocent human. She would say that an embryo is only a potential human...but it already has the genetic code within in it that we all have...so at what point does it become an "actual human" well she may define that as when the baby is viable outside of the womb...but even at that time the baby is not capable of rational thought which a human needs to survive so in a sense it is still less than human...she would argue that at that point the mother must take care of it because the mother made the child...but why at that point and not as an embryo? it is still only a potential rational human at that point...also she acts like no decision went into the baby being produced in the womb...that it just appears without any decision making by the rational thinking mother...she says anti-abortionist leave people as nothing more than slavish breading animals, but it is her who discounts the human's natural ability to decide whether or not to create that human embryo...therefore a rational human being could never become "a slave to embryos" as she so wrongly accuses...it would be as silly as saying rational man is slave to any other object he is capable of producing
Much of what you said is why I came to the conclusion that any development-based definition of human life would lead to denial of fundamental rights. By their very nature they provide a foundation for wouldbe tyrrants to abolish the humanity of the weakest among us.