Libertyblues

Oh dear, I should have known that this must have been discussed to death.. The main reason why I need to clear this up is regarding a discussion about immigrants coming to Europe, or the future waves from Africa, if they continue to reproduce so fast.

I never asked for anyone to judge the starving man, I'm asking if he can be judged..

I'm sorry to make you repeat yourself. For some reason I have a problem with solving the question with your analogical reasoning. Your attacking my premises that the starving man has (or had) indeed a choice. What I'm getting at is: if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil. Could you agree with this more precise premises? And can you agree with the conclusion?

Hello guys, Before delving more into the property rights problem I need help with. In the recent FDR radio show "Dusty P3n!s Syndrome" Stef said "with a gun to your head you don't have a moral choice, whe the you go left or right "(at 2:08:30). So in Stef's universal ethics the ability of choice is crucial for being able to act moral. This brings me back to my earlier argument. A starving person has no choice but to initiate force to pluck the apple, so it can't be immoral. Before talking about the implications of this and property rights outside the body, do you guys now agree with my argument?

Thanks for the last two replies. On a side note to David, I haven't used the word theft at all yet.. Which made me realize that I need to think more about property rights..I'll do more reading on that for now..

It helps, thanks I'm not saying you have to be charitable, what I'm trying to understand is: how is it not moral to try to steal, when you don't have a choice. Also see my new hypothetical I posted in reply to Dsayers.

Thank you for the insightful argument. I'm still learning the ropes so bare with me please. Also, I appreciate critique of constructing a challenging example to test the truth of my proposition. Following example. Situation arises in a long cold winter. The food stock was burnt down. The tribe migrate to find food to provide their offspring with. they negotiate with another tribe, but they can't share their stock because food is too scarce. The first tribe initiate force to survive. Rand: in order to survive you must take action. Any action that depends on survival then must be moral. So the initiation of force in the example is moral. A similar argumentation applies to rare medicine.. The problem I want to solve is the Randian premises of: ..action that is needed to survive is good.. Is this even a right formulation of Rand's logic?

As far as I understand people can't act morally if the don't have a choice of alternatives. When you're starving to death you don't have a choice, therfore the action to save yourself can't be evil. Sounds pretty damn principaled to me..

even a double blind study needs prior consent from the patient. I doubt that pacients are tricked into thinking that they really aren't part of the study anymore. that would be the only way to reverse the effect described above...from what I can tell right now.. I've read a couple of times that missing substances from the enzyme chain which produce serotonin can physically cause depression. for example if you miss the main building block for it which is the amino acid tryptophan..

Everyone has the positive right to be an arse I'd like the Randian argument for now though. She defines property only as the right to action, you can't just say you own that mountain over there, from what I understand.. Also, I'm not sure that putting the starving man in context makes the discussion more valid.. you won't know the truth of what happened anyway when he advances to your shed. Ayn Rand defines property as the right to action, action having to be moral, as action is needed in order to survive, does she not? So the argument must be, any action is moral in order to survive, or not? (btw, I couldn't figure out the starvation problem from the vid)

Thanks guys for the replies, it already gave me some insight. When I asked if the starving person has the right to initiate force I didn't mean for him to kill the other person, just enough force to get some food and shelter, as it is his right to take action to survive, or not? The other person, the one with some food, could argue that he needs it to get through the winter. So defensive force would be legit. What about impeding death? Doesn't it give the right to action? Can someone give me a philosophical answer? I need a Randtian counter argument for a discussion that's coming up for me.. Thanks for the support!

This is Ayn Rand's property argumemt according to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. [\quote end] The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them.. How does this apply to starvation in a far distance? Or illness, does a dying man have the right to initiate force? Please help me solve this! Lionblue

Then my concern is not valid? That app developers need not fear that their ideas would be stolen?

Especially in the apps field internet giants have a huge advantage in marketing new trends. Aren't they inhibiting innovation because an app developer knows he can't compete with a Google copy of his app? Doesn't this inhibit innovation?

What's wrong with Ayn Rand's property rights argument?

Terrorists hide their intend, so for me the criteria of intend is difficult to properly establish. If they say they are mining uranium only to use it as an energy source it's an issue of trust.. In my example they don't trust area B and they warned them several times and their fear is real. Isn't there some obligation from the people in area B to gain their trust and back off the uranium?

In my example the people of A are extremely scared for a reason, are they not? And I said there was intelligence of a missile project. I see a problem with intend also because it's not clear whether it's only (Isreal) bashing or if someone really would sacrifice casualties of a second strike..

I'd say the problem here is the subjectivity of "intend". In my example above the preemptive attack would be self defense..

Ok now I think I got where you're coming from, philosophy 101. A security firm A, contracted by 80% of an urban area A, doesn't trust the science program of firm B in urban area B, because of intell. Firm A can tell where firm B is trying to mine and refining uranium but can't tell where the missiles would be assembled and launched. Urban area A is extremely scared of near insane people in urban area B. Firm A warns the owner of the mine to not sell to Firm B but the owner continues relations with Firm B. After multiple warnings Firm A bombs the mines.

that's what I'm trying..thanks for helping me get there! What about the second part of my post?

that's what I'm trying..thanks for helping me get there! What about the second part of my post?

Thanks for the replies! The problem isn't so much whether to prove if it's my idea but getting a fair profit from it if it gets picked up. I believe many developers are intimidated by the dominant internet companies. If Google takes the developer's idea and just copies it and markets it over its platform the developer will have a lost investment..

For example Israel's covert attacks on Iranian scientists.. Or a security firm taking out people planning an attack but not showing when or if they would execute it.

My argument here is only in regard to the fallacy that a placebo is an effective way to test efficacy of a drug. The way I understand common placebo studies is that a patient receives a drug or a placebo, to which he consents in advance, thereby changing his expectation of efficacy. The placebo might work better than it should, the real drug less. The gap between the two could hide "true" efficacy.. Or is my logic wrong?

I would propose that he would own the marginal gain that his original addition to the existing theories contributed to all the physics which builds on that theory..