Corporations should not be allowed to patent discoveries, but inventions should be allowed.
Why isn't it moral to patent medicine exactly?
Because that involves limiting who can create it and charging for it.
So what if there are two lives involved? What does that imply?
Are you saying that the woman does not get to decide how she lives her life? Arguing against abortion because "there are two lives involved" would be like arguing against the right to self-defense and self-defense laws because "there are two lives involved".
No, they’re not alike. You’re not defending yourself if you kill something that cannot kill you, something that is not trying
to kill you.
There is a popular notion of the "right to healthcare". The reason you don't have this right is that nature does not provide you with doctors as a condition of existence. And whaddya ya' know? It infringes on a real rights, such as the right to property.
This is a nice summation of why I think egoism (as I've come to understand it) is wrong. Everyone has the right to healthcare. This goes back to why corporations should not be able to patent medicine. If you can make medicine and deliberately withhold it from people, resulting in their deaths, that is morally wrong. This is a world of limited resources, as I said. It is irresponsible and damaging for us all to look out only for our own interests and hoard everything we have without sharing. We have a moral obligation to help each other out, because we are all in these situations together. The only way the egoist view of rights is not
damaging to the world and its populace is if people choose to help others out of the goodness of their own hearts in at least some capacity. Egoism relies on this possibility, and ironically this forbids everyone from following it. I know egoism doesn’t actually say any of these things, I see the implications as inescapable. Egoism in the way you’ve presented it is quite ironic in that it ultimately does exactly the opposite of what it’s supposed to do and ignores the basic value of the individual human being, assigning them a right to live based on whether or not they’re capable of earning money for themselves. That is what seems morally wrong to me.
A fetus is different from a baby, so nature forces us to treat them differently the same way nature forces us to treat an acorn differently than an oak tree.
And again, this comparison is unsound because an acorn is a potential oak tree that has not been planted. A fetus is a growing human being that has already implanted. If you want to compare the acorn to something, it would have to be the zygote.
A fetus does not take any course of action, so it does not need freedom; ergo, no rights. All a fetus does to survive is wait and feed off the nutrients provided by the host. Human beings survive by trade, which needs freedom of action. Do you see the difference here?
I see that once again your definition of rights is not only inaccurate, but also incomplete. If you can use that definition of rights to justify saying that something that cannot “trade” does not have the right to live, then it’s time to rethink your definition of the word. Furthermore, if a fetus does not take any course of action, you cannot respond to it in “self-defense” because there’s no action to defend against.
No one "dictates" what has rights and what doesn't; they're conditions of existence.
You’ve spent this entire thread dictating what has them. That seems pretty subjectivist to me. Yes, saying that rational human beings need to be rational in order to survive and therefore are the only ones who have rights is you dictating what has rights and what doesn’t. Every living thing has moral rights. As I’ve said, they simply extend in different lengths depending on the capacity of each living thing.
but it's a fact that in order to survive, humans need to think, and they need to own property. What we call "rights" are basically what nature demands of an individual.
So by your definition, babies don’t have the right to live. They can’t think and they can’t own property. They survive because others care for them. And that is necessary for every stage of life. Humans survive by thinking, by claiming land and property, but they also have to survive by looking out for each other, helping each other out, doing things for others when they can’t do them themselves. We are all connected, regardless of what motives or benefits we perceive in being connected. Those are inescapable
conditions of our survival, no matter how much you might not like to admit it.
Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument. Clever.
No, it’s the old “The point you just made applies greatly to the view of rights you’ve established in this thread” argument. And it’s not that clever, just the result of observation.
Care to elaborate?
That is a repetition of what I’ve been doing, but okay: Nature does not dictate that only humans have rights. To say that you have the right, for instance, to torture an animal for no reason is false. Yet according to your view of rights, the government has no right to prevent it, because that would be an initiation of force. Against a man torturing another living thing. Honestly I’m amazed I even have to explain why there’s something wrong with this line of reasoning. The view that only rational human beings have any rights at all is so contrary to the way the world is it’s almost funny. Your view of rights says that we actually do have a right to basically abuse the very things we depend on for our survival, or rather, none of those things have the right to be spared the abuse. You say the government shouldn’t dictate how corporations, for instance, should conduct themselves, yet corporations pollute on a regular basis, hurting everyone. Your view of rights requires an ability to prevent oneself from affecting the world around it that, quite frankly, humans do not possess.
Because you’ve spent this thread trying to say that rights only extend to rational human beings as if they are capable of sustaining themselves without the aid of other living things around them, as if they don’t impact the world around them, and as if they don’t consume finite resources from the world around them.
Because I do not have the right to forcibly take your money, I can not give permission to the government to do it for me. Just keep that in mind.
Sorry, but taxes are not morally wrong. As you said, the government is basically an extension of the people, for the people, and by the people. Ideally we establish it as a structure with the specific purpose not of profit, but of maintaining the safety and well being of the citizens who establish and work for it. Therefore it stands that we also need to fund such an organization via taxes that are established fairly and again, by the people. If one lives on American soil, then they pay taxes to the American government, and the benefits of doing so come back to the people who paid the taxes. Unless the government misuses the money in frighteningly stupid ways (which they do, but this is the fault of the individuals who set those policies, not a fault with the idea itself) If someone rented out a room in a building you owned, wouldn’t they owe you rent?
You can hate the fact that you need to be free to think in order to survive, but that doesn't change the fact that you need to do that.
And yet newborn babies survive without that ability, or any of the others you claim are necessary to survive. In fact, your version of what our basic survival needs are is only truly accurate if we make the conscious decision to only look out for ourselves and not help others. Again, I do not see how this is not a subjectivist view.
LOLWUT? The role of the government is to protect the well-being of people from people?
From people who use their money to exercise more power than they’re entitled to and screw over other people, you can’t forget that last part.
Are you somehow implying that corporations are not people and are not entitled to the same protection from the government?
Legally a corporation is a person, only without all those burdensome things like conscience and morality. They still pollute, they still mistreat overseas laborers, they still corrupt, yet many of them continue to thrive while doing so.
Creating jobs when there weren't any to begin with is hardly taking advantage.
Again, I’ve explained why this take on it is dead wrong like four other times, but this is an especially serious one so I’ll go ahead and repeat it. Creating jobs that underpay, place employees in substandard and unsafe conditions, force children to work long ours, and pay them squat for the work they put in is never morally right
, even if there wasn’t a job there before, it is still not morally right. It is still taking advantage of a desperate situation.
In that case, if a corporation doesn't pay what the market demands, they'll go out of business.
Even if the corporation is paying them what the market demands (which is arguable), they’re still harming them, for the reasons I explained earlier. Hence why the system we have now is kinda broken.
I defended a corporation's right to liberty and property and the freedom from the initiation of force? I defended their right to decide what trades they'll engage in and on what terms?
You also defended their right to exploit the desperate enough to make it seem as though they’re doing them some kind of favor by paying them insufficiently in a terrible work environment. The egoist view does not dictate this as wrong, which is why I say it is flawed, because there is nothing morally right about the situation I described.
If by "extremes", you mean "absolutes" then yes
No, I mean extremes. Calling the type of situation I’ve described with overseas laborers “mutually beneficial” when it is only truly beneficial for the corporation is simply false. Is something more than nothing? Yes, but factor in the effects it has on these people working in these environments barely making enough to survive. That is not beneficial. A slightly less-crap situation is still a crap situation, and it is well within the corporations’ power to not underpay, to make sure that their workers are taken care of, but in the situations I’m describing they don’t, because they know they can get away with it. I can see no justification for saying this is morally right.
Then why the hell would you do it? Sure, the person is happy, but what about you? Aren't your feelings important too?
Yes, the individual is important, and so are the individuals around that individual. It is morally right to help others, and no less right if you’re taking a personal hit by doing so. We can’t all only do things that benefit ourselves in some way or another, self-sacrifice is necessary for survival. It’s like Aristotle’s view about the mean, the idea that true morality falls between extremes of excess and deficiency. In this case, the two extremes being total selfishness, always only looking out for our own interests, and selflessness to the extreme that we lose our individuality and merely see ourselves as sacrificial pawns. We cannot deny ourselves or our individual value, nor can we deny others or their individual value that goes beyond how they can benefit us.
Selflessness in the literal sense of the word, is bad.
In the literal sense of the word, no it is not. In the most extreme cases it is damaging to the individual, but that’s just what it is, the extreme.
Surely you're not implying all life has the same value e.g. the life of an ant has the same value as the life of a human.
Otherwise, I don't understand what you mean.
You’re right, I’m not implying that all life has the same value. I’m saying that all life has value. It isn’t all the same, but it is there, nonetheless. To say that we are the only form of life that has rights denies the basic value that all living things have, both to us and to the world itself.
for this reason there's a huge metaphysical difference between a baby and a fetus. That's why it's insanity to treat them alike.
I keep seeing this mentioned, that a baby and a fetus shouldn’t be considered alike. I never said they should. I said they were both stages of the living, developing human being, and that their most basic right to live was the same, in spite of the multitude of metaphysical differences. There is nothing insane about that idea.
So to round this out, I agree with you that it would be morally wrong for the government or the individual to force us to look out for each other, to share, and to help each other out (though I do believe that a government should protect life, which I think we also agree on, though not on the definition of “life” itself). Where we seem to disagree, however (and please correct me if I'm wrong about us disagreeing here), is that I also think it is morally right and necessary that we do
look out for each other, share, and help, even on occasions where there is no direct benefit to us. And really, to say that an act of kindness or self-sacrifice will definitely have no benefit at any point in our lives requires a level of foresight that humans are not capable of.