Ayn Rand ?
- Thread starter aneeshm
- Start date
Archer 007
Rebirth
Ok. Give a particular post you want me to respond to.
About "screwing" your fellow man:
Lets say of example that your best friend is dating a girl you really fancy. The only ethical thing to do would be to wait for them to break up. Under Randism, you would complete ignore your friend and attempt to take her from him/
Akka
Moody old mage.
Still on your planet, he, Newfangle ?
That's what I call emotionnal thinking, throwing away all logic and rationnality and being bend on totally absurd and illogical reasoning, simply because you WANT it to be true, and then deluding yourself in that way
Life of fraud, violence and dishonesty, if it improve your life, IS CONSIDERED ETHICAL in randism.
It's constantly said, in the article, that "it is necessarily true that his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man". Talking about being "sold out", talking about being "a savage", isn't a value defended by randism.
The only thing, is that if YOU felt that a life of violence/dishonesty was unfulfilling, then resorting on violence/dishonesty would not be in your best interest. But that's just for YOU. For the next man, who actually do like to bully and steal, then the only ethical thing to do, according to the very words of the article, is to reveal in theft and violence.
Of course, you prefer to delude yourself by making a non-existant connection between "think of yourself and only yourself" and "respect the rights of others", which only prove how irrationnal you are
Are you completely blind to the real world ?
There is NO criminal, except for the most pathological ones, who are completely cut off every person on the planet.
The typical rapist, in fact, is a very normal father of family, with a happy wife and happy children. Hardly the savage ermit you describe.
There is plenty of criminals that are never found out. Or that moves to an area where nobody know them. Hardly cut from the rest of humanity, as nobody in the vicinity know about their crimes (or care).
Thiefs often work in numbers, and petty thiefs are usually group of FRIENDS.
I'm the one offering arguments and reasonings and example.
You're the one that just repeat "it works, it works", and is completely cut off from reality and logic.
Guess who's acting on emotions
But it works ONLY if you have the DESIRE to survive. If you've absolutely no emotions, what do you care about being hurt or dieing ?
Desiring something is already an emotion. Without emotion, you would just sit here, doing absolutely nothing, or doing completely irrationnal things. Because what motivate any action, is emotion. Canalised throug thinking, of course, but emotion at the basis.
That's what I call emotionnal thinking, throwing away all logic and rationnality and being bend on totally absurd and illogical reasoning, simply because you WANT it to be true, and then deluding yourself in that way
This has absolutely no relation with the randism ethics. There is nothing like being sold out as human being, or role of savage.
Life of fraud, violence and dishonesty, if it improve your life, IS CONSIDERED ETHICAL in randism.
It's constantly said, in the article, that "it is necessarily true that his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man". Talking about being "sold out", talking about being "a savage", isn't a value defended by randism.
The only thing, is that if YOU felt that a life of violence/dishonesty was unfulfilling, then resorting on violence/dishonesty would not be in your best interest. But that's just for YOU. For the next man, who actually do like to bully and steal, then the only ethical thing to do, according to the very words of the article, is to reveal in theft and violence.
Of course, you prefer to delude yourself by making a non-existant connection between "think of yourself and only yourself" and "respect the rights of others", which only prove how irrationnal you are
Why "every person on this planet" ? Are you unable to think outside a binary system ?
Are you completely blind to the real world ?
There is NO criminal, except for the most pathological ones, who are completely cut off every person on the planet.
The typical rapist, in fact, is a very normal father of family, with a happy wife and happy children. Hardly the savage ermit you describe.
There is plenty of criminals that are never found out. Or that moves to an area where nobody know them. Hardly cut from the rest of humanity, as nobody in the vicinity know about their crimes (or care).
Thiefs often work in numbers, and petty thiefs are usually group of FRIENDS.
I'm the one offering arguments and reasonings and example.
You're the one that just repeat "it works, it works", and is completely cut off from reality and logic.
Guess who's acting on emotions
Yes. You know, it's good and well to say "if I know this will hurt me, I won't do it".
But it works ONLY if you have the DESIRE to survive. If you've absolutely no emotions, what do you care about being hurt or dieing ?
Desiring something is already an emotion. Without emotion, you would just sit here, doing absolutely nothing, or doing completely irrationnal things. Because what motivate any action, is emotion. Canalised throug thinking, of course, but emotion at the basis.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
Make your choice.
1.a. Either what is good for me is good for everyone (provided I don't break those "absolute morals"), which means YOU are indebted to serve me, even to your detriment.
1.b. What is good for you is absolutely valid, so I should disreguard my self to your benefit (and sometimes my detriment).
2. There exists another, greater good which is beyond the individual, which means individuals are expendable.
The best wording to encompass Objectivism is "subjective objectivity".
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Defining the value of a life is far from objective.
If you think being rich is the highest value, and you steal, you're a great person.
Or can a person's value be objectively defined now?
newfangle
hates you.
Alrighty, I have some spare time, so I'll do some mass (and hopefulyl efficient) respondination.
The government's only role is to prevent the scenerio you just presented me with (whether its any invading nation or a robber).
But I'll ignore that and respond to the fundamental premise of your question. No, its not in your best interests to inflict force upon your neighbour, because by doing so you are choosing to reject your rational faculty. Of course, once this happens you have no rights whatsoever, and it would be the moral duty of every other conscious being around you to lynch you.
If no one is around to stand up to you, we get things like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Scandinavia. And of course, we all know how those places ended up. Any instance of human rights absuses will end in the destruction of the aggressor, one way or another. Not very selfish.
Responded to.
May I reccommend the Virtue of Selfishness.
No its not. Where does it say that?
You are correct, savagery and a blatant lack of moral integrity are not considered values in Objectivism.
You have a keen eye for misinterpretation. I'll guide you to an essay specifically devoted to morality. And quote key parts.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-ethics.asp
So you see, its our very nature that presents us with this morality. It is not in my best interests to ravage my neighbour, because it will always be in my best interest to live in accordance with my nature.
Repitition of what everyone else keeps on posting.
The government's only role is to prevent the scenerio you just presented me with (whether its any invading nation or a robber).
But I'll ignore that and respond to the fundamental premise of your question. No, its not in your best interests to inflict force upon your neighbour, because by doing so you are choosing to reject your rational faculty. Of course, once this happens you have no rights whatsoever, and it would be the moral duty of every other conscious being around you to lynch you.
If no one is around to stand up to you, we get things like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Scandinavia. And of course, we all know how those places ended up. Any instance of human rights absuses will end in the destruction of the aggressor, one way or another. Not very selfish.
Responded to.
May I reccommend the Virtue of Selfishness.
No its not. Where does it say that?
You are correct, savagery and a blatant lack of moral integrity are not considered values in Objectivism.
You have a keen eye for misinterpretation. I'll guide you to an essay specifically devoted to morality. And quote key parts.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-ethics.asp
So you see, its our very nature that presents us with this morality. It is not in my best interests to ravage my neighbour, because it will always be in my best interest to live in accordance with my nature.
Repitition of what everyone else keeps on posting.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Completely wrong.
It is absolutely RATIONNAL and LOGICAL to take profit of someone if you can get away with it.
It's despicable, it's immoral, BUT it's logical.
And as it benefit you, it's ETHICAL in randism.
You can refuse to see it and imagine there is a rationnal link between "think about yourself" and "don't do bad acts on others", but it just shows you're refusing the obvious, evidences and logic just because it displease you.
That's emotionnal thinking at it's highest.
There is nothing such as "human rights" in randism.
Recognizing "human right" means that there is things that are absolutely not concerned with yourself, which still has values higher.
It's not randism, as randism ONLY consider what's beneficial for the relative person. It's written again and again in the article.
You can, but it has nothing to do with this. You're just making up the concept that violence is never beneficial, which is false.
Violence is morally objectional, but, if you're the strongest, it's VERY beneficial, hence, in randism, ethical.
Refuse to see logical reasoning because it goes against your opinion, but then don't pretend you're being logic.
"A man must choose his own values, actions, and goals in order to achieve, fulfill, and enjoy the previously stated ultimate value -- his own life."
"it is necessarily true that his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man"
It was on the very same paragraph than the sentence you quoted. No one is blinder than the on who refuse to see. If you mentally discard any logical flaw of randism, then of course you won't find any
False.
"A man must choose his own values, actions, and goals in order to achieve, fulfill, and enjoy the previously stated ultimate value -- his own life."
If a man chose "savagery" as value (aka : something that he consider important/enjoyable) for him, then it's ethical than he reveal in it.
Wishfull thinking, totally unrelated to reality.
If it was really our NATURE, there would never be war and violence, as violence would be only the result of perverted humans (ones acting in contradiction of their nature).
Get back on earth. The nature of human is, like any other animal, survival (on this point, Rand and I agree).
The basic nature of human is to look after himself (again, common point with randism).
But MORALITY is what prevent human to abuse others for his benefit, by saying "others have the same rights as you", which is OPPOSED to randism, whose ethics is entirely self-centered.
But well, you wish to be blind to the logical and rationnal fact that any point of ethics which include the rights of others is necessarily beyond self-centered point of view, as a self-centered point of view DOESN'T, by definition, take others into account.
But that you still refuse you admit.
I noticed you completely skipped the point I made about rapists, tyrants and thiefs, who actually follow randism to the letter, by doing whatever benefit them.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
I'm not sure what brush you are trying to paint Objectivism with, Akka. It seems that all you are saying is that it's no better than socialism, where violence is necessary.
Rapists, tyrants, and theives do not follow "randism" to the letter, because they obtain what they want through force. You say that Rand would say that it's okay, because it's in their best interests. But she would not, because they use violence against other people, which is the thing objectivism shuns above all else. Rand says that violence IS the result of perverted minds, and that a person in a rational state of mind will not resort to it.
Essentially, she says that if you can't respect another individual's right to life, you forfeit your own.
Here are Rand's words on the topic of initiating violence -
Rapists, tyrants, and theives do not follow "randism" to the letter, because they obtain what they want through force. You say that Rand would say that it's okay, because it's in their best interests. But she would not, because they use violence against other people, which is the thing objectivism shuns above all else. Rand says that violence IS the result of perverted minds, and that a person in a rational state of mind will not resort to it.
Essentially, she says that if you can't respect another individual's right to life, you forfeit your own.
Here are Rand's words on the topic of initiating violence -
Akka
Moody old mage.
God, no !
I would never put randism on the same level as socialism. I still have decency. I would never insult socialism like that.
Ok, now that the sparring about one's own beliefs is done, let's get back to the questions.
I'm not trying to paint a picture of Objectivism with whatever brush. I'm just pointing the HUGE logical flaws in randism, that everyone but randists seems to understand right away.
Like : selfishness is the ONLY ethical principle defended in the article, which present "not infringing on the rights of others" as a CONSEQUENCE of selfishness. Which is totally absurd and contradictory, despite all the wishful thinking of Newfangle)
Well, that's the point : she's contradicting herself.
She says on one hand that the highest value is to think about oneself and whatever can improve your happiness and life.
And on the other hand, without any explanation, she arbitrarily says that you must not resort on violence.
Well, why and how so ?
The ONLY ethical value that she talk about is "what's good for me is good in absolute".
How does that make violence perverted ?
Hey, I love raping, I love to force a woman to submit to my strenght => this increase my happiness => it's good for me => it's good in absolute.
But then, at the same time, by using as ONLY ethical basis "self-interest", she try to tell me that using violence is bad.
Well, how so ? Because she decided arbitrarily that it was not good for me to be violent ?
She hides her own beliefs between the veil of rationnality.
Rationnality says that if I'm acutally LIKING violence, if I REVEAL into violence, then violence is good for me. Saying that it's irrationnal for me to reveal into violence while saying I should look after my own interest, and my own interest is violence, is ABSURD, ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONNAL.
If you wish to tell me that, ethically, I should not use violence, then you must tell me that there is something ABOVE my own self-interest (as my own self-interest is violence).
Which de facto rules out that looking after my own self-interest is the highest ethical principle (as it just has been toppled by the principle "you should not use violence against someone else".
She doesn't demonstrate it, and she can't, because it's in full contradiction with her own ethic principles.
Thanks, but i did read the article.
She says two things that aren't logically linked, and are even contradictory. Just like I've DEMONSTRATED it above.
Notice that it's not an opinion, as I did not peep a single word about what I do consider good or bad.
It's only pure rationnality and logic.
You can't both say "the ultimate principle is to look after you and nobody else", and say "you should not infringe on the right of somebody else".
It's CONTRADICTORY.
Ethical egoism is anachronistic and proven to be lacking in many cases, especially - as col pointed out - the prisoner's dilemma. It is simply incorrect to state we are all better off if every man acted based on purely self-interest calculations, as the following example shows.
Assume two prisoners are accused of a crime. If one confesses and the other one doesn't, the one who confesses will get released while the other one will be held for 20 years or so.
If none of them confesses, they will be both held for a few more months and then released. If both confess, both of them will be held for 15 years.
They can't communicate. If each of them acts purely on a self-interest calculation, he will have to confess. Even though it may seem paradoxial, two prisoners - each acting on his own interest - end up worse than if they were not ethical egoists (simply egoists, for that matter).
Analogous situations occur frequently on a larger scale.
For example, think about the commuter. Each commuter, acting purely on self-interest, will want to use his comfortable car to work. For him, "one more car" doesn't make any difference. However, such ethical egoism fails on the collective level. Traffic will be completely jammed - pollution will prevail, and the alternative of the commuter thinking collectively and taking a bus - leads to much more efficient results, both on a personal and on a collective level.
Assume two prisoners are accused of a crime. If one confesses and the other one doesn't, the one who confesses will get released while the other one will be held for 20 years or so.
If none of them confesses, they will be both held for a few more months and then released. If both confess, both of them will be held for 15 years.
They can't communicate. If each of them acts purely on a self-interest calculation, he will have to confess. Even though it may seem paradoxial, two prisoners - each acting on his own interest - end up worse than if they were not ethical egoists (simply egoists, for that matter).
Analogous situations occur frequently on a larger scale.
For example, think about the commuter. Each commuter, acting purely on self-interest, will want to use his comfortable car to work. For him, "one more car" doesn't make any difference. However, such ethical egoism fails on the collective level. Traffic will be completely jammed - pollution will prevail, and the alternative of the commuter thinking collectively and taking a bus - leads to much more efficient results, both on a personal and on a collective level.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
If you are mentally ill and initiating violence makes you happy, then yes, it is contradictory. Otherwise, it is not.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
That's a ridiculous scenario. If the one who did it confesses, why is he let free while the innocent one is imprisoned??
"Oh, well, since you confessed, I guess you learned your lesson. You can go home. We'll just hold this other guy for not confessing to something he didn't do." Great justice system.
Or are they both guilty partners in the same crime? If that is the case, why do they let the one who confessed go? It doesn't make any sense. He is still equally guilty. I've never heard of a logical justice system that lets people go simply for confessing.
So essentially, it's in the commuter's self-interest to take the bus, he just has to think ahead to realize it. I fail to see how that defeats egoism.
Akka
Moody old mage.
And here comes the denial phase, where you substitude emotionnal answer to rationnality, because logic and rationnality would force you to admit you're wrong ^^
Refer to my post about emotional thinking, with the part of refusing to see reality when it goes against what you want to believe.
I think that once again the prisoners dilemma has not been understood. There are any number of situations where people do better by cooperating together than either can by considering themselves separately. It is simply not enough to base ones decisions or ones ethics on oneself.
We ARE social creatures. To repeat an earlier statement of mine, most scientific advances have been made by teams of people - none of whom could have made the advance working alone. Collectively the sum is much greater than the parts
Any code of ethics based on individualism is flawed.
We ARE social creatures. To repeat an earlier statement of mine, most scientific advances have been made by teams of people - none of whom could have made the advance working alone. Collectively the sum is much greater than the parts
Any code of ethics based on individualism is flawed.
Quit playing games. If he thinks ahead again, he will persume everyone is taking the bus - and therefor taking the car will be in his best interest.
Taking the bus is the result of collective-based calculations. IF you care about the other commuters, you take the bus.
However, taking the car is the result of ethical egoism.
If the prosecutors know there is no chance to jail any of them unless one of them confesses, they propose this kind of a deal.
You can ridicule the scenario, but you can't ridicule the results of it, or the self evident conclusion.
Well, when you can't beat the logic, whine about the scenario.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
If the people do better by cooperating, is it not in their self-interests to do so?
A team is a group of individuals, not a single mind. Until we are mind-controlled by a central intelligence so that we all work in selfless tandem, society is nothing more than the result of the collaborative actions of individuals.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Still in denial, and still ignoring posts that prove it
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Quit playing games. If he thinks ahead again, he will persume everyone is taking the bus - and therefor taking the car will be in his best interest.
Taking the bus is the result of collective-based calculations. IF you care about the other commuters, you take the bus.
However, taking the car is the result of ethical egoism.
You say that taking the bus is a completely selfless act, yet you justify it by saying that it would benefit the individual in the long run.
Thinking selfishly does not require you to ignore the fact that other people exist! That would be a very stupid and short-sighted way of looking at things.
So the prisoners are aware of the deal? You didn't say that. Obviously, it presents them with quite a unique conundrum. A fact you do not acknowledge is that there is no way they can know what is best for them and what is not, so they can't rightly act in their best interests, can they?
The conclusion is that either prisoner can't possibly know what decision would be best for him. That's the nature of the conundrum.
Well, when you can't beat the logic, whine about the scenario.
Well, when you can't beat the logic, present a scenario that really has nothing to do with anything.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
So, you are saying that a healthy, moral, rational person can find happiness through violence?
Similar threads
