The Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics by Stuart K. Hayashi
I am referring to a common tactic of sophists who try to undermine people's confidence in Objectivism. These sophists posit some "hypothetical moral dilemma" to "prove" that there are holes in Objectivism, when the entire "hypothetical dilemma" relies on arbitrary metaphysical assumptions.
David Friedman has used this tactic in The Machinery of Freedom to undermine his readers' convictions that there exist absolute property rights (without making a distinction between contextually absolute property rights and context-free, Categorically Absolute property rights). I will quote Ronald E. Merrill's paraphrasing of Dr. Friedman's argument in "The Ideas of Ayn Rand," since I find Dr. Merrill's paraphrasing more amusing and to-the-point:
*The earth is going to be destroyed tomorrow in an asteroid strike (!)
* This can be prevented by use of a piece of equipment costing $100 (!!)
* Of which there happens to be only one unit in existence (!!!)
* And the owner refuses to let go of it because he'd just as soon he and the rest of the human race were killed (!!!!)
So: should one or should one not steal it?
With this hypothetical scenario, Dr. Friedman thinks that he has gotten the natural-rights-believer in a corner. He assumes that an honest person would have to answer yes.
... Liberty magazine did a survey of its readers, and it asked questions that were along these lines: Suppose that you were hanging on a ledge of a tall building, and you would fall to your death unless your swung your body into the open window of somebody's apartment without getting anyone's permission first. Would you save your life this way?
Most of the survey's respondents answered yes, and so R. W. Bradford concluded that this showed that the majority of Libertarians had come to reject the notion "of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard" that private property rights are absolute. (As so often happens with Objectivism's critics, Mr. Bradford conflated Objectivism's contextual absolutes with the Rothbardian's notion that absolute moral principles must be Categorical Imperatives that must always apply regardless of context.)
Such a question does not deserve to be seriously entertained. Why am I hanging on this ledge to begin with? Am I Spider-Man? What is the frequency of something like this happening in the real world? How many people hanging on ledges saved their lives by swinging their bodies into somebody's open apartment window?
Mr. Merrill named the unspoken implication of all these hypothetical scenarios -- and practically every question that relies upon arbitrary metaphysics:
"But suppose reality weren't what it is? Then your rules would get you in a mess."
In every one of the "hypothetical scenarios" I named above, the questioner provides no evidence that the scenario he posits is realistic or plausible.
Originally written by Stuart K. Hayashi (November 23, 2007)
Read the full essay on "Rebirth of Reason" here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/General...
Or on "Objectivist Living" here:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/...
David Friedman has used this tactic in The Machinery of Freedom to undermine his readers' convictions that there exist absolute property rights (without making a distinction between contextually absolute property rights and context-free, Categorically Absolute property rights). I will quote Ronald E. Merrill's paraphrasing of Dr. Friedman's argument in "The Ideas of Ayn Rand," since I find Dr. Merrill's paraphrasing more amusing and to-the-point:
*The earth is going to be destroyed tomorrow in an asteroid strike (!)
* This can be prevented by use of a piece of equipment costing $100 (!!)
* Of which there happens to be only one unit in existence (!!!)
* And the owner refuses to let go of it because he'd just as soon he and the rest of the human race were killed (!!!!)
So: should one or should one not steal it?
With this hypothetical scenario, Dr. Friedman thinks that he has gotten the natural-rights-believer in a corner. He assumes that an honest person would have to answer yes.
... Liberty magazine did a survey of its readers, and it asked questions that were along these lines: Suppose that you were hanging on a ledge of a tall building, and you would fall to your death unless your swung your body into the open window of somebody's apartment without getting anyone's permission first. Would you save your life this way?
Most of the survey's respondents answered yes, and so R. W. Bradford concluded that this showed that the majority of Libertarians had come to reject the notion "of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard" that private property rights are absolute. (As so often happens with Objectivism's critics, Mr. Bradford conflated Objectivism's contextual absolutes with the Rothbardian's notion that absolute moral principles must be Categorical Imperatives that must always apply regardless of context.)
Such a question does not deserve to be seriously entertained. Why am I hanging on this ledge to begin with? Am I Spider-Man? What is the frequency of something like this happening in the real world? How many people hanging on ledges saved their lives by swinging their bodies into somebody's open apartment window?
Mr. Merrill named the unspoken implication of all these hypothetical scenarios -- and practically every question that relies upon arbitrary metaphysics:
"But suppose reality weren't what it is? Then your rules would get you in a mess."
In every one of the "hypothetical scenarios" I named above, the questioner provides no evidence that the scenario he posits is realistic or plausible.
Originally written by Stuart K. Hayashi (November 23, 2007)
Read the full essay on "Rebirth of Reason" here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/General...
Or on "Objectivist Living" here:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/...
