Our World

 

It’s rare or unknown today to encounter someone who is objectively and genuinely intelligent, educated, profound, wise, noble, and great. Someone who is healthy strong, powerful, awesome, confident, serene, light-hearted, fun-filled, thrilled, ecstatic, joyful, and happy.

This is because virtually everyone today is so illiberal. Our philosophy, culture, society, social milieus, circles of friends, and families are so petty, small-minded, spiritually low, weak, dark, corrupt, and depraved.

The current post-modernist, post-Enlightenment, Dark Age, irrational, illiberal, ignorant, foolish, addled, brainwashed, bizarre, demented, diseased, debauched world doesn’t much allow such virtuous, impressive, exalted, magnificent, and heroic people to emerge and thrive. Or even to humbly subsist and precariously survive.

Of course, every person, group, philosophy, culture, and society has some contact with and loyalty to reality and truth. Some rationality, understanding, knowledge, goodness, greatness, and nobility. But nowadays such persons and societies haven’t much. So geniuses, saints, and heroes are rare.

Reason

 

Reason is the faculty of human thought characterized by logical, rational, critical, and analytical processes. It involves the ability to think clearly and deeply, without undue influence from emotions, passions, drives, or instincts. While these four last are crucial to human life, and can shape initial thoughts, thinking while setting them aside better enables us to see, understand, evaluate, and analyze information objectively and accurately, providing justification and explanation for our beliefs and actions. Reason involves observing reality, weighing evidence, drawing rational and valid conclusions, and problem-solving in a rigorous and logical manner. The goal of reason is to think as clearly, deeply, objectively, and accurately as possible; and to best understand the nature of reality, life, society, and self; and to determine the ideal way to accomplish a lot, be great, experience pleasure, and live happily.

How did I come up with this definition of reason? With the help of ChapGPT 3.5 on May Day, 2024. At the risk of extreme boredom, here’s how I did it.

You:

What is the philosophical definition of reason?

ChatGPT:

The philosophical definition of reason encompasses several related but distinct concepts:

1. Logical Thinking: Reason involves the ability to think logically, to draw valid conclusions from premises, and to evaluate arguments for their validity and soundness. In this sense, reason is associated with rationality and critical thinking.

2. Intellectual Faculty: Reason is also considered an intellectual faculty or capacity inherent to human beings, allowing us to comprehend, analyze, and interpret the world around us. It involves the ability to perceive patterns, make connections, and understand cause-and-effect relationships.

3. Justification and Explanation: Reason involves providing justification and explanation for beliefs, actions, and assertions. It involves the ability to support one's claims with evidence, reasoning, and coherent arguments.

4. Problem-Solving: Reason includes the capacity for problem-solving and decision-making based on careful analysis and evaluation of available information.

5. Objective Inquiry: Reason is often associated with objectivity and the pursuit of truth. It involves setting aside personal biases and emotions to engage in impartial and systematic inquiry into the nature of reality.

Overall, the philosophical definition of reason encompasses the ability to think logically, critically, and systematically; to understand and interpret the world; to provide justification and explanation for beliefs and actions; and to engage in objective inquiry and problem-solving. It is a fundamental aspect of human cognition and plays a central role in philosophy, science, ethics, and many other areas of human endeavor.

You:

My own definition of reason is:

"Human thought without emotions, passions, hormonal drives, or inborn instincts. When humans think without them, they think much more clearly and powerfully."

Please critique this definition and tell me how to make it better.

ChatGPT:

Your definition of reason has some strengths but could benefit from refinement to capture the complexity of human thought and the interplay between reason and emotions.

Strengths of your definition:

1. Clarity: Your definition is clear and straightforward, making it easy to understand.

2. Emphasis on Clarity: You emphasize the clarity and power of thought when emotions, passions, hormonal drives, or instincts are absent, which is a valid point.

However, there are some aspects to consider for improvement:

1. Exclusion of Emotions, Passions, etc.: While it's true that reason often involves thinking without being unduly influenced by emotions, passions, or instincts, it's not entirely accurate to say that reason excludes them altogether. Emotions and instincts can play a role in shaping our initial thoughts, and they can also provide valuable information that can inform rational decision-making. Additionally, emotions can motivate us to pursue certain lines of inquiry or to take action, which can be a positive aspect of reasoning.

2. Complexity of Human Thought: Human thought is inherently complex, and reason interacts with emotions, passions, and instincts in various ways. Sometimes, emotions can enhance reasoning by providing insights or motivating action. Other times, they can cloud judgment. Therefore, it's essential to acknowledge the nuanced relationship between reason and these other aspects of human experience.

With that in mind, here's a revised version:

"Reason is the faculty of human thought characterized by logical, rational, and analytical processes. It involves the ability to think critically and clearly, often without undue influence from emotions, passions, or instincts. While emotions and instincts can shape our initial thoughts, reason enables us to evaluate and analyze information objectively, providing justification and explanation for our beliefs and actions. Reasoning involves considering evidence, drawing valid conclusions, and problem-solving in a systematic and logical manner. While emotions and instincts can sometimes enhance or detract from the clarity of reasoning, the ideal of reason is to think as clearly and objectively as possible, acknowledging and managing the influence of emotions and instincts."

This revision maintains clarity while also acknowledging the complex interaction between reason and other aspects of human experience.

You:

Please critique my new definition of reason and tell me how to make it better:

"Reason is the faculty of human thought characterized by logical, rational, critical, and analytical processes. It involves the ability to think clearly and deeply, without undue influence from emotions, passions, drives, or instincts. While these four last are crucial to human life, and can shape initial thoughts, thinking while setting them aside better enables us to see, understand, evaluate, and analyze information objectively and accurately, providing justification and explanation for our beliefs and actions. Reason involves observing reality, weighing evidence, drawing rational and valid conclusions, and problem-solving in a rigorous and logical manner. The goal of reason is to think as clearly, deeply, objectively, and accurately as possible; and to best understand the nature of reality, life, society, and self; and to determine the ideal way to accomplish a lot, be great, experience pleasure, and live happily."

ChatGPT:

Your new definition of reason is well-structured and comprehensive, capturing many essential aspects of the concept. Here are some strengths and suggestions for improvement:

Strengths of your definition:

1. Clarity and Structure: Your definition is clear and well-structured, making it easy to understand.

2. Inclusion of Key Aspects: You cover a broad range of aspects of reason, including logical, rational, critical, and analytical processes, as well as the ability to observe reality, weigh evidence, and draw valid conclusions.

3. Acknowledgment of the Role of Emotions, Passions, Drives, and Instincts: You recognize the importance of these factors in human life while emphasizing the importance of setting them aside for clear reasoning.

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Complexity of Human Thought: While your definition accurately highlights the importance of setting aside emotions, passions, drives, and instincts for clear reasoning, it may oversimplify the interaction between reason and these factors. Emotions, passions, etc., can sometimes enhance reasoning by providing valuable insights or motivation for action. Consider acknowledging this complexity by highlighting that emotions and instincts can have both positive and negative influences on reasoning.

2. Balance in Language: Some parts of your definition use complex language, which may make it less accessible to some readers. For example, the phrase "to accomplish a lot, be great, experience pleasure, and live happily" could be simplified for clarity.

3. Conciseness: Your definition is quite lengthy, which could make it challenging to remember or apply in practice. Consider trimming unnecessary words or phrases to make it more concise without losing its essence.

Here's a revised version that addresses these points:

"Reason is the faculty of human thought characterized by logical, rational, critical, and analytical processes. It involves the ability to think clearly and deeply, setting aside emotions, passions, drives, and instincts when necessary. While these factors are essential to human life, reason enables us to observe reality, weigh evidence, and draw valid conclusions objectively and accurately. Reasoning includes problem-solving in a rigorous and logical manner. The goal of reason is to understand the nature of reality, society, and self, and to determine the best way to achieve goals and live happily."

This revision maintains clarity and comprehensiveness while addressing conciseness and balancing the role of emotions and instincts in reasoning.


You: Thanks for the suggestion. But I think my definition isn't too long, is more full and exact, and is overall superior.

ChatGPT:

Certainly, if you feel that your definition is more complete and exact for your purposes, that's what matters most. It's important to have a definition that resonates with you and accurately reflects your understanding of the concept.

Your definition is indeed thorough and comprehensive, providing a detailed overview of reason and its importance. It emphasizes the need to set aside emotions, passions, drives, and instincts for clear and objective thinking, which is a significant aspect of rational thought.

If your aim is to provide a comprehensive and detailed definition, then your original version accomplishes that goal effectively. It offers a thorough exploration of reason and its role in human cognition and decision-making.

Remember, definitions can vary based on context, audience, and personal perspective. As long as your definition serves its intended purpose and accurately reflects your understanding, it's a valuable tool for communication and inquiry.

Skeptics and Nihilists

 

Almost everyone today who is bright and well-educated claims that Parmenides, Zeno, Protagoras, Gorgias, Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel are serious philosophers who should be studied respectfully, carefully, and lengthily. But in fact all are foolish and lowly skeptics of reason. They doubt or deny the power of rational thought to comprehend reality. These skeptics and nihilists are all irrational, ignorant, contemptible, wicked spouters of largely empty nonsense. They use their strong minds and educations to maliciously attack nature and reality, essentially in order to destroy all understanding, knowledge, and truth. Their claims and conclusions are generally worthless, meaningless, fatuous, and absurd. They wage war on relatively innocent and good mankind by turning philosophy and reason against themselves.

But almost every person today of quality and wisdom argues that these evil clowns are "worth studying". They all "have something important to say" as they "advance human knowledge". Many relatively impressive intellectuals will even claim that these thinkers are "fun" to read and think about. But, in fact, they're a pain and misery to slog and puzzle thru. They almost invariably make one hate philosophy, and give up on truth-seeking, and the use of reason, logic, and science.

So it isn't mindless dogmatism or knee-jerk reactionism to harshly reject or furiously loath them.

People frequently point out that every now and then these deviants state the truth or have a genuine insight. But so what? That doesn't make them tolerable, decent, personally respectable, or morally upright. That doesn't make them worth the time and effort to dully struggle thru and unbeneficially semi-comprehend. That doesn't make these poor and heinous philosophers anything but what they plainly are: ridiculous and poisonous.

The fact is: pure evil doesn't exist. It can't, by nature. If it did, it would instantly destroy itself. So no philosophy or philosopher in history is ever entirely ignorant or guilty of spewing nothing but lies. Thus what these twisted demons write and teach isn't a tissue of pure fatuity and utter depravity. But so what?

Parmenides, Zeno, Protagoras, Gorgias, Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel come close. They are the enemies of reason, understanding, truth, greatness, nobility, health, prosperity, and happiness. They need to be seen as the destroyers and monsters that they are.

Slaying the Dragons

 

The semi-liberal, semi-civilized, semi-free nations of the world need to overthrow or obliterate the illiberal, savage, slave nations. Especially the nuclear-armed ones. Such predators and fiends shouldn't be allowed to threaten and harm the semi-good peoples of the world. Evil of their type needs to be crushed.

As for who created the current mess and nightmare in the monster nations, either the political leaders and dictators are responsible for their current illiberal, savage, slave status; or else it's the nations' intellectuals and their persuaded masses; or it's some combination. If the dictators are the main or sole villains, then they should be targeted and executed, with the suffering populations liberated. If "the people" are the main or sole villains, then they should be conquered and reformed or else exterminated. It should be noted that all these "innocent civilians" – as virtually all current intellectuals label them – are guilty and evil as hell. They originally created, and currently sustain, their nation's monster nature and status. Therefore they're the problem, and they need to be eliminated.

However compromised, corrupt, incompetent, buffoonish, intellectually weak, and morally gray America and the West are today, they're still the best mankind has. They're still the heroes of the world. So they need to get to work and take necessary action. They're the semi-liberal, semi-civilized, semi-free saviors of the planet and so, faut de mieux, they need to rise up and do their duty.

If they don't, very likely no-one else will. It's true that Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union liberated themselves in 1989 and 1991. But not very well. And their behavior was rare. We can’t count on it ever happening again. And yet something needs to be done. Life today in America and the West is a kind of hell under the threat of the illiberal demon nations like China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the like.

These monster and devil nations need to be overthrown or obliterated. America and the West have a right not to live in terror from or be destroyed by them.

Social Justice

 

"Social justice" is unjust. It's bigotry against whites and males. It's minority supremacism. It privileges unworthy and inferior blacks, Hispanics, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, Moslems, foreigners, and others over high-achieving and meritorious whites and males. It's a system of power, oppression, and criminality which abuses and marginalizes suffering and defenseless white people and male persons. It's a political philosophy and socio-economic system of immorality and injustice which vilifies and demonizes whites and males in society, and which discriminates against and violates their rights. "Social justice" is systemic depravity and tyranny against innocent, good, worthy, noble, and superior whites and males.

The Sounds of Silence

 

This is a sissyboy-faggot world. Every adult on Earth is a pussy. It's been this way at least since reason came around. And almost certainly it’s been true since mankind fully developed, 30,000 to 40,000 years ago.

I tend to seek the truth ferociously. One result of this is I write radical things on important topics almost non-stop. Pretty much the only appropriate reactions to them are furious disagreement or thunderous applause. Yet virtually the only response I ever get in real life is...dead silence.

No-one dares to breathe a word. They don't agree with me. They don’t disagree with me. They don't say a single god-damned thing.

On the one hand, no matter how much they agree with me, they don't want to voice their assent to my new and radical ideas because then, seemingly, pretty much everyone on the globe will hate their fucking guts. On the other hand, no matter how much they disagree with me, they don't want to express their dissent because then, seemingly, I’ll skin them alive. People also don't care to utter a single negative word because they usually have little logic to back their conventional beliefs and my arguments generally seem powerful or unanswerable.

Of course, people may find my radical ideas so outlandish to publicly profess that they find me crazy as a person – and thus not worth arguing with. They could also consider me to be a dangerous lunatic – and thus unwise to provoke. Ultimately, I find this display, of intellectual and personal weakness and cowardice, contemptible and disgusting.

The way things generally happen is: I work on an important issue or problem, try to figure it out, publish my determinations, people read it, and then slimy, pathetic humanity says nothing. As already stated, the almost invariable reply to my reasoning and conclusions is...dead silence.

What a way for mankind to advance and me to improve my thinking!

In the end, whenever a howl and scream of agreement or disputement is demanded and inescapable, people find it safer and wiser to say nothing. It’s a complete evasion of the debate and controversy. People think: Best to have no reaction at all!

Thus the ideal response to my writing these days is pure sissyboy-faggotry. After all, this is a planet of weaklings, wimps, losers, failures, dirtbags, slimeballs, cowards, and pussies. Everyone except me.

The Nature of Man

 

95% of the progress in the world comes from men. About 95% of the ascent of man – of mankind's improvement in culture, civilization, quality of life, and personal happiness -- is the product of men, and not women. Virtually all the great creators, innovators, inventors, craftsmen, scientists, explorers, conquerors, artists, writers, philosophers, politicians, organizers, leaders, and businessmen are men, both today and always. Homer, Aeschylus, Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Cicero, Horace, Aurelius, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Erasmus, Grotius, Rabelais, Montaigne, Bayle, Galileo, Bacon, Locke, Smith, Voltaire, Diderot, Franklin, Jefferson, Edison, Einstein, Asimov, Jobs, Gates, and Musk have virtually no female equivalents. And what little women do contribute to the life of the planet is more than offset by their general conservatism and resistance to progress. And especially by their serious parasitism and predation upon men.

Women are practically worthless! And this is on their good day. Mostly they drive the world backwards and over the cliff. Altho they're good for sex, there's hardly a single foolish and depraved philosophical, cultural, and political organization or movement that they don't join with enthusiasm and then slavishly serve. And altho they're rarely the leaders, they're usually the glue that holds the evil organizations and movements together and that make them go. The ideals of religion, socialism, and self-sacrifice come to mind. In good organizations and movements, of course, women are largely absent.

Women have been especially evil and harmful to the planet since about 1965 and the New Left. And even worse since about 2015 and the Woke Left. So it's especially galling to hear the dominant egalitarian and feminist "thinkers" of today proclaim the inherent and inescapable rottenness and "toxicity" of men while promoting the natural and undeniable sweetness and "godliness" of women. What claims could be more absurd? What could be more false and wicked?

People need to learn the facts about men and women. They need to understand their actual natures and nurtures. Western society today would be far better off if we could get closer to the truth about the two genders.

Differentialism

 

Whites and blacks, men and women, heteros and homos all differ intellectually, morally, and psycho-spiritually. Also culturally and volitionally. Whites, men, male heterosexuals, and female homosexuals are all superior to their counterparts. Blacks, women, male homos, and female heteros are more like animals, relative to their rivals.

Everybody today can observe the differences in the various tribes of mankind. But virtually everyone in the West these days is partially or fully Woke. This includes virtually all neo-liberals. So people nowadays almost always attribute the observable superiority of whites, men, male heteros, and lesbians to societal bigotry. However, no-one can plausibly locate this in the culture; virtually all the evidence of the past 60 years points toward bigotry of the opposite kind. So people today attribute this mostly "minority" inferiority to secret, hidden, institutional, or systemic bigotry.

The philosophy of Wokism essentially denies nature and nurture. It generally rejects science and truth. Wokism says the natural differences in the various human groups in intellect, morality, and psycho-spirituality are all unreal. It claims the nurtural differences in culture/upbringing and volition/free-will are similarly non-existent. Wokism states minorities are not children of a lesser god. Indeed, just the opposite.

Generally speaking, Wokism claims the many races, genders, and sexualities are the same in ways they're clearly different. It says they're different in ways they're clearly the same. In philosophy, culture, sociology, and politics, Wokism denies the "universal man" standard and universal values. It rejects the historical Enlightenment and avant-garde liberalism.

A Visit to the Temple

 

Alternative Version

(This is an excerpt from the novel ‘The Fountainhead’ (1943) by Ayn Rand. It features the hero Howard Roark and the villain Ellsworth Toohey. Roark is an innovative and brilliant architect; Toohey is a critic of art and architecture who deliberately promotes the mundane and mediocre. Roark recently built a magnificent "temple to the human spirit" which Toohey helped dismember. Toohey has spent many years trying to ruin the career and life of Roark. The two have never met.)

He had never seen the reconstructed Stoddard Temple. On an evening in November he went to see it. He did not know whether it was surrender to pain or victory over the fear of seeing it.

It was late and the garden of the Stoddard Home was deserted. The building was dark, a single light showed in a back window upstairs. Roark stood looking at the building for a long time.

He contemplated the burning of the Temple of Athena by the Persians in 480 B.C. and the demolition of the Temple of Serapis by the Christians in 391 A.D. The thought occurred to Roark: "That’s enough."

The door under the Greek portico opened and a slight masculine figure came out. It hurried casually down the steps -- and then stopped.

"Hello, Mr. Roark," said Ellsworth Toohey quietly.

Roark looked at him without curiosity. "Hello," said Roark.

"Please don't run away." The voice was not mocking, but earnest.

"I wasn't going to."

"I think I knew that you’d come here some day and I think I wanted to be here when you came. I've kept inventing excuses for myself to hang about this place." There was no gloating in the voice; it sounded drained and simple.

"Well?"

"You shouldn't mind speaking to me. You see, I understand your work. What I do about it is another matter."

"You are free to do what you wish about it."

"I understand your work better than any living person -- with the possible exception of Dominique Francon. And, perhaps, better than she does. That's a great deal, isn't it, Mr. Roark? You haven't many people around you who can say that. It's a greater bond than if I were your devoted, but blind supporter."

"I knew you understood."

"Then you won't mind talking to me."

"About what?"

In the darkness it sounded almost as if Toohey had sighed. After a while he pointed to the building and asked:

"Do you understand this?"

Roark did not answer.

Toohey went on softly: "What does it look like to you? Like a senseless mess? Like a chance collection of driftwood? Like an imbecile chaos? But is it, Mr. Roark? Do you see no method? You who know the language of structure and the meaning of form. Do you see no purpose here?"

"I see none in discussing it."

"Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."

Roark paused. "If you insist."

Without warning, Roark hit his enemy with more power and fury than he knew he had. The destroyer flashed a look of surprise and fell to the ground awkwardly. His head smacked the concrete with unusual force.

Almost instantly Roark's rage subsided. But the pool of blood around the villain’s head grew. Toohey looked at his striker with understanding and even approval. Roark returned the gaze with contempt and indifference.

"I didn’t think you had it in you."

"Neither did I."

"Is this how you deal with your critics?"

"You’re more of a universal destroyer. That’s not a proper way to live."

Toohey's strength was fading. His eyes sought sympathy in Roark's face but found none.

"Maybe I should have chosen a different path."

"You should have. Raw evil isn't the way to go."

Toohey minutely bowed. He made a last ferocious effort. "I want to apol—" But his voice and heart failed him.

"Too late."

Roark looked at him coldly. After a moment, he lifted his head. He glanced around but saw and heard no-one. Roark spent a long moment looking at his mangled temple. Then he slowly walked away.

Toohey died without a sound and Roark never looked back.

The next morning the body was found by a passer-by. Word of Toohey's demise spread quickly. There was a tremendous criminal investigation.

But Roark and Toohey had virtually no connection, so Roark was never a suspect. A few days after Toohey's demise, a single police officer questioned Roark.

"I have nothing to add to your investigation. Mr. Toohey and I weren't acquaintances."

"But what were you doing the night he was killed?"

"I was out walking. I met no-one of any account."

Thus ended Roark’s interrogation. 

So too most of his persecution by the artistic and architectural community. Public opposition to, and outrage at, Roark’s particular approach to building subsided. Roark was allowed to work and live in relative peace.

Later on, Roark wondered what would have been the fate of the world if someone had struck down Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel in their intellectual prime. He figured someone cruder would have risen up to take their place – but perhaps not done as much damage. He speculated the good people of the Earth would have lost an opportunity to sharpen and strengthen their thinking and arguments in favor of intellectual liberalism.

But Roark didn't entirely know. He merely thought violence wasn't the answer. So what had roused him to fury in that special moment?

Roark didn't entirely know that either. But he thought it unwise for evil to directly confront and provoke good.

Still later, Roark was asked by Dominique: "What do you think really happened to Ellsworth Toohey? In many ways he was your worst enemy." 

Roark looked her directly in the eye: "I guess his mouth finally got him in trouble. He ran into the wrong guy at the wrong moment."

Dominique stared at Roark, her eyes becoming impossibly wide. Neither spoke for a minute.

"I guess he did."

"Funny how life works out, isn’t it?"

"Very."

The two never spoke of it again.

*  *  *

[first 71 words by Rand; next 36 by Zantonavitch; next 310 by Rand; next 525 by Zantonavitch; final 99 by Rand omitted; scene slightly expanded 2-27-24]

Nature-Given

 

Rights are Nature-given – not god-given. They come from the cosmos. Human freedom of behavior and action derives from reality and Nature.

Mother Nature has her own nature and iron-clad rules. All entities inside her must obey these universal and omnipotent rules.

Mother Nature also creates human nature. By their constitutions, humans must follow and adhere to the standards of Nature – or suffer. People must conform themselves to the inherent laws and various actions of the cosmos. Reality is rigid and unforgiving. Humans who live inside it need full freedom to best survive and thrive.

Nature consists of time and space, space and matter, matter and energy, energy and entropy, order and disorder, cause and effect, life and death, and the good-for-life and evil-for-life – among other things. Human nature consists of a need for air, water, food, warmth, meaning, purpose, achievement, satisfaction, morality, nobility, greatness, pleasure, and happiness – among other things. Nature and human nature make rich demands upon human beings, including regarding rights.

No person is born with the right to violate the rights of others. No-one possesses such metaphysical and existential superiority. The concept of a right to violate rights makes no sense. Individual rights and personal liberty are natural, universal, and absolute. It’s always legally and morally wrong to trespass them.

But if in some obscure sense there do exist such creatures and predators that possess the right to violate rights, trespass liberty, and enslave others, then mankind needs to escape them or wipe them out. Such powerful predators and parasites must be avoided or extincted. These monsters constitute an unacceptable danger to humanity.

Humans of the same species are naturally and inherently equal in freedom and rights. Even Neanderthals and Homo Erectoids would be if they still existed. Only low-order animals like wolves, dolphins, and chimpanzees are given inferior rights by Nature.

This equality and infinity of rights and freedoms is true for all the sub-species of man currently in existence. No matter how superior Mother Nature has made one race or ethnicity to another in intelligence, morality, merit, talent, creativity, versatility, adaptability, health, athleticism, pulchritude, etc. it still has no rights beyond that of its cousins. Even the really low human sub-species have the right to be free.

Only if a human being is a child, retard, or lunatic who can’t properly take care of himself is he given less than full and equal rights by Nature. When such an unusual situation obtains then other competent humans have a social duty to take care of them if they reasonably can – especially if they’re responsible for their creation, such as with kids.

But otherwise Nature and human nature demand that all human beings be fully free and self-responsible. This is necessary in order to most effectively deal with reality and have the best opportunity to be great and happy. The right of the Holy Individual to think, speak, and do as he wishes and chooses – provided he respect the equal and concomitant right of others to do the same – is natural, inherent, inalienable, and absolute. Mother Nature and human nature make it so.