Ayn Rand ?

[IceBlaZe]

I define "good" as something complimenting mans rational survival, thus anything I do good will always benefit everyone else. Stealing is unethical because it does not fit my definition of good, and is also violating the inalienable rights of others.

If a poor person's only means of survival is theft of nutrition, the only rational thing to do would be theft of nutrition, considering that is the only thing that can help him survive - it is good according to your definition.

Because every other rational being would dispise the unethical person and probably lynch him. I offer my example as the current state of the world. Though it does have its problems, and there are some especially sneaky criminals, you will note that the vast majority of people that choose to be animals end up getting ass raped by Bubba in a State Pen.

So that would not mean that someone couldn't live happily being unethical, only that one needs to be prudent in his unethical actions, in order not to get caught. This rocks the entire foundation of Rand's philosophy, again.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


If a poor person's only means of survival is theft of nutrition, the only rational thing to do would be theft of nutrition, considering that is the only thing that can help him survive - it is good according to your definition.

No it isn't. Read the definition again. Complimenting man's survival.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

So that would not mean that someone couldn't live happily being unethical, only that one needs to be prudent in his unethical actions, in order not to get caught.

Again, man .

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by newfangle
Inalienable rights are the core of the ethics. You cannot rape, pillage and plunder without violating the rights of another man.

You haven't answered the question. I'm asking what/where, in Rand's ethics, make some actions immorals.
I'm asking where, in her ethics, she explain WHY these rights exist, HOW, and WHY they should not be infringed.
So far, you're only repeating the conclusion. I want the reasoning.

I'm going to ask for some definitions from you, so I may be best able to answer your question. "What's good for you is good universally." What does "good" mean?

I'm talking about randism, so I'm using randism definition of good, ie "what I consider good for me".

I define "good" as something complimenting mans rational survival, thus anything I do good will always benefit everyone else.

No.
As it was said plenty of time, I can do something that does me good (robbing, raping, murdering, plundering), and that won't benefit others.
It's like talking to a wall, really. You just discard what goes against your already-set opinions, even when it's plain reality.

Stealing is unethical because it does not fit my definition of good, and is also violating the inalienable rights of others.

Well, let's suppose I'm a thief and I consider theft ethical, then it makes it ethical according to randism.
And again you bring the rights of "others", but again there is nothing in randism that talk about "others".

You keep throwing around this word, "universal." I'm fairly sure this morality applies to man and man alone (or another conscious being that happens to drop us a line). For example, if a gorilla kills me in a jungle, my rights are not being violated no evil has been comitted.

You dodged the question, or you didn't understand it.

If others have inalienable rights, it means there is an ethical rule that concerns everything (or, at least, every other humans). It means that it's a rule that is ABOVE me.
It means that there is something higher which rules that there is things that could profit me, but that I should not do because they violate the rights of others.
So it means that there is an ethical rules, a definition of "good" and "evil", that supercede my own profit.
Which is in contradiction with the definition of Rand, where "good" and "evil" are only defined by my own self, which, by definition, doesn't include others.

It's a point of LOGIC, that every randist seems to be either unable to grasp, either not wanting to grasp.

Because every other rational being would dispise the unethical person and probably lynch him.

Only if I get caught. Which has been said about ten times. Do you even bother to read, or do you just repeat and repeat and repeat the same things without taking the reasonings and the proofs into account, thinking that you just need to repeat it enough to make it true ?

If I don't have remorses about doing it, and if I can be reasonnably sure I won't be caught, then it DOES profit me, and then it's considered ethical by Rand's own saying.

I offer my example as the current state of the world. Though it does have its problems, and there are some especially sneaky criminals, you will note that the vast majority of people that choose to be animals end up getting ass raped by Bubba in a State Pen.

Well, you just admitted there IS criminal that just get away with it. Which means there IS conflicting interests between rationnal humans.
Which means randism is false.

Thanks for (unvoluntarily) proving my point.

Oh, and you can't discard them as being "non rationnal" : they did something that profited themselves, which is perfectly rationnal.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by newfangle
No it isn't. Read the definition again. Complimenting man's survival.

Except saying it isn't, you haven't proved anything.

If you mean "man" as "a man", as a person, then it is obvious that it's good for the poor to steal to nourish himself.

If you mean "man" as "Humanity", then it's better for humanity's survival to manage at a larger scale, which means that violating the rights of plenty people is fine as long as humanity as a whole survive.

Logic is really your ennemy, eh ?

Again, man .

Again, see above.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by newfangle


The mind exists, and conscious is volitional. This means that man may perceive reality, and integrate its concepts, but he may not alter reality purely through consciousness. I apoligize for any ambiguity.

If the mind is part of reality (which is what "to exist" means in context), but cannot alter reality, the mind is merely a passive on-looker. And if it cannot even change its own state, "volitionality" seems to be out of the question - one could literally not make up one's mind.

Because you can't look at a wall and make it turn into an elephant. This is a metaphysically given.

This is a sensible position, but it's somewhat distrubing that you here take it as an axiom ("a given"), while on page one you seemed to be saying it follows from the independence of mind from reality, which you now seem to disown

Hopefully this part was cleared up above.

Well, no. You still seem to be saying that the mind cannot alter reality.

But if any uncertainty remains, assume that man doesn't use his mind to survive. What else would he use?

Skilled medical personel.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "something else intended."

Stating that what by definition is true is true seems unnecessary, so I'd like to think you wanted to say something someone could possibly disagree to.

No problems here unless I'm misinterpreting you.

Indeed not.

This is why we are defined has a rational animal . If we were to completely ditch our mind, like most socialists, we would be animals. Sure, our immune system and reflexes would allow to survive for perhaps 4 minutes, but without the active process of thinking, there is no hope that any man could survive for long. This is how we evolved. Turtles have shells, tigers have teeth, humans have a well developed cerebral cortex.

People have survived unconscious for months, even years, actually.

That's not the point, of course. The point is that in vaguely normal circumstances, a human cannot survive for any considerable length of time without both his powers of reason and his immune system, wherefore it seems pointless to say that one is more principal than the other.

That most socialists would want us to ditch our minds is so bizarre an allegation I won't further comment on it.

But, accepting reason as a function of the mind, and as an important survival tool for humans, leaves us with a stark choice - abandon logic or accept that the mind can alter reality. There is no way out of it.

Edit: Formating.

 

[Akka]

But, accepting reason as a function of the mind, and as an important survival tool for humans, leaves us with a stark choice - abandon logic or accept that the mind can alter reality. There is no way out of it.

Yes there is one : saying "mind cna't alter reality, and logic is the tool of survival", and consider that it answered the question.
Oh, and anyone pointing that it's not logical is a communist and an irrationnal person, which discard his opinions as worthless, so logically, as no-one rationnal can disagree, it ends up making it a rationnal statement.

Isn't randist's logic great ?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[IceBlaZe]

No it isn't. Read the definition again. Complimenting man's survival.

I'll repeat what Akka said, but only since you replied to me, I feel obligated to.
If you are talking about man as the specie - the poor men's theft adds another "1" to the total sum of survivors (the poor man) while not decreasing from the rich (a rich would bear no difference with or without that small portion of money (or nutrition, that equals that, no matter)).
If you are talking about man as a certain individual - the theft certainly helps his survival. Without it, he would die.

Again, man .

Yes, man!
Now if you would bother to answer thoroughly, we would all appreciate it.

For your own convinience, I'll show you how I reached my conclusion.

Because every other rational being would dispise the unethical person and probably lynch him.

Unless...
1. No other rational being would know about the unethical actions.
2. Those other rational beings would consider their own welfare, and would know that perhaps by helping him, they would be rewarded.

In order to acheive 1 or 2, one must be:
Prudent in his unethical actions.

I offer my example as the current state of the world. Though it does have its problems, and there are some especially sneaky criminals, you will note that the vast majority of people that choose to be animals end up getting ass raped by Bubba in a State Pen.

You aknowledge that there are some especially sneaky (for our matter, prudent) criminals. As long as one keeps his unethical actions balanced, and lives to benefit oneself, and not lives to sustain more unethical actions, he can achieve happiness using unethical actions. The conclusion is that as long as one is prudent concerning his unethical actions, and does not get caught or revealed, or gets revealed but makes sure the local police/society does not take action against him (Mobsters, Mafia, Corruption), he is all clear.

To summarize: So that would not mean that someone couldn't live happily being unethical, only that one needs to be prudent in his unethical actions, in order not to get caught. This rocks the entire foundation of Rand's philosophy, again.