Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

human_murda

Regulars
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by human_murda

  1. I've already answered this several times. Any product of your choice is not a metaphysical fact. You are evading the choice involved. You are also equivocating between the two uses of the word "able", first as a capacity to prove that martians/saturnians are "able" to do something. Once you "proved" it, you swapped the meaning to introduce choice (survival advantage pertains to the real, the concrete. That concrete is the actual choice they made. The possibilities are your conceptions that you attributed to it. It doesn't exist in reality yet.) If you attributed to a martian the "possibility" of going to space or jumping into a volcano and if, in the future, you observed the martian jumping into a volcano, the other possibility of going into space isn't real. It is your conception. It doesn't exist. It can't affect anything in reality including survival advantage. What affects survival advantage is the actual choice: jumping into a volcano. The possibility of going to space doesn't exist now. It has no survival advantage. Just because you conceived of a possibility doesn't mean that it can affect reality. The finite choices X or X and Y are concrete bound. You aren't talking about volitional consciousness anymore. The possibilities of a volitional consciousness are potentially infinite (infinities don't exist in reality. These possibilities are potentials) and these possibilities can go either way (life or death). A saturnian may be better equipped to survive than a martian in the cold. These are metaphysically given. But in terms of their volitional consciousness, one is definitely not better than the other. Infinity has no nature and no survival advantage. The only metaphysical difference between the saturnian and the martian is the material on which they can act, the metaphysically given faculties they possess (and you swapped a faculty with a finite potential for a faculty for an infinite potential in your post when talking about X or X and Y).
  2. And these learned behaviors are called instincts. They are inherited in the sense that the things which cause them are inherited. They have no choice in what they learn. Even tribal behaviour in lions are probably learned, but these behaviors are still inherited by the nature of the faculties they have to use to survive. You (not me) are assuming a false dichotomy: either something is a mindless automata or it has volition. It is your assertion that animals are mindless automata if they don't have volition. Not mine. Animals can make decisions, but they have no volition. They couldn't have acted otherwise. Volition acknowledges the fact that you acted someway in the past but could have acted otherwise. No matter how complex animal learning is, everything from the signing of a chimpanzee to the "math" done by an African grey parrot is non-volitional. They couldn't have done otherwise. These behaviors don't exist in the wild but they are instinctual: they are automatic. They are learned, but they have no choice in that learning. They can make decisions but they have no choice in making that decision. Animal behaviours are learned, instinctual, and automatic. How they learn these behaviors is determined by their natures and hence is indirectly inherited. Behavior of domesticated animals is actually an example of instinct. Your assertion is that an instinct needs to be independent of the environment for it to be a true instinct. Basically, you've created a false dichotomy where if an action is contextual, it cannot be automatic and if it's automatic, it cannot depend on context. This is false: like pretty much anything in the world, instincts are contextual. You might be thinking of fixed pattern action but even that is contextual. Your argument is irrelevant to everything from human choice to human reflexes (and is irrelevant to animal reflexes, learning and instinct). Animal decision making is entirely perceptual. They aren't capable of error because they don't deal with anything that isn't the "given" in decision-making. Animals learn instinctually. They have no doubt about what they learn (because they couldn't have erred. Hey couldn't have done otherwise. There was nothing more they could do). The sign language, the math, the hunting are the "given". They are instinctual to animals because it is in their nature to do sign language and math (if sign language and math are introduced to them perceptually). They couldn't have done otherwise. This instinct is inherited: given their mental faculty, given the sign language in their "environment", given the reward system, they would invariably pick it up. This instinct is automatic and contextually invariable (the word contextually is unnecessary here. But you made this error before when talking about domesticated animals). In this context, sign language is an instinct: for an animal, it is an unerring, automatic action that results in rewards. It couldn't have done otherwise because that is its nature. For the chimpanzee, the sign language is the given. It doesn't know a universe without sign language. It is the perceptually evident and the animals grasps it unerringly: as a percept. A crucial question I want to ask you before further discussion: do you believe that decision making in animals involve volition (that is, do you think they could have acted otherwise)?
  3. It might as well be an "inherent disadvantage". Why are you disregarding the other possibility? Also, the advantage is not inherent (Rand: "...it was not inherent in the nature of existence...). The possibility was conceived by you. Of course, the nature of your mind allows you to carry it out, but it was still conceived by you. The possibility was not inherent in the nature of your mental faculty before you conceived of it (to say otherwise is to assume that the metaphysical facts of reality could have been otherwise. This is wrong. There are no different possibilities for metaphysical facts. They are what they had to be. The possibility is not inherent/metaphysical). It was a choice. Also, before further discussion: do you agree with the distinction Rand made between the metaphysical and the man-made? I already said this: "just so someone gets ideas: I'm not talking about the mutation that gave humans the faculty of reason. That was out of our control. I'm talking about what selected for this trait. That was a choice." How so? Which specific parts are you talking about?
  4. Volitional consciousness is necessary for all distinctly human achievements. But it isn't sufficient. It is impotent without actually making a choice. That is the only aspect needed for my argument. Your statistical statements are wrong though. Without choice, a volitional consciousness is absolutely impotent. Only because of the choices you make. You could have done otherwise. It has no inherent, automatic survival advantage. It does not function for your benefit automatically ("In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise."). The choices you have made to survive wasn't metaphysically necessary. This is why a volitional consciousness has no inherent evolutionary advantage. The existence of volitional consciousness is a metaphysical fact. Its survival advantage is a man-made fact. There is a difference. The man-made survival advantage makes the selection process of 'volitional consciousness' artificial/man-made. Your assertion seems to amount to: 'if it gives no advantage without choice, it is impotent'. This is untrue. Just because something requires choice doesn't make it impotent. Man-made things aren't impotent. Rand: "Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action." No. The actual evolution of quills involved concrete events. In the case of humans, the concrete event is 'choice'. The potential is 'volitional consciousness'. 'Volitional consciousness' is the heritable trait. The specific choice isn't.
  5. Killing yourself is also an option. So, no. You essentially cannot remove choice from the equation. Then it won't be reason. If choice is involved, death is also involved. Statistically/amorally, the faculty of reason has no survival advantage or disadvantage. It is a potential. It cannot affect anything in reality. You're equating a potential "option" with an actuality. It simply cannot be done. (A better term to use would have been "volitional consciousness", but the point remains the same: it can be used to act against your nature, it doesn't function automatically and it is only a potential until you use it to make a choice.)
  6. Also I earlier (3 years ago) argued that the faculty of reason was not an adaptation to the environment. I'm not making that argument now (although I still believe it). There's no point in following that line of thought (or a line of thought involving evolution of instincts) unless we can agree that human reason did not evolve by natural selection. So I won't pursue that line of thought now.
  7. I'm resurrecting in this thread because it's so obvious to me that human beings did not evolve by natural selection and I don't get how other people don't see it. To be precise, note the fundamental assumptions of natural selection: 1) It involves genetically heritable traits. 2) These heritable traits should statistically increase the organism's chance for reproductive success. Now consider two species surviving in the arctic region: a polar bear which has a thick layer of fur and has the capacity for hibernation. Then there are some human beings who have built a house and lit a fire to keep themselves warm. Both species have a high degree of reproductive success. Now consider the African Savannah: there is a lion which uses its claws during hunting. Then there are some humans who hunt using spears. Both have a high degree of reproductive success. Here is the problem: humans don't satisfy 1) and 2) simultaneously for the same trait. Here, the trait involved (for humans) is the usage of shelter and spears. Neither are heritable genetically. The next generation of humans could burn down the house in the name of living in harmony with nature. They would die within a few days. The other group could stab themselves with a spear. Essentially, a human being can act against its own nature. The capacity of reason, which allows you to do either (survive or commit suicide), has no statistical survival advantage. Now what trait do human beings inherit? The capacity of reason. Human beings inherit a potency, not an actuality. The capacity that allows us to be rational also allows us to be irrational. A human being can act against its own nature. There is no statistical survival advantage to the faculty of reason. There is only a potential for advantage. Then what allowed human beings to survive? The usage of the faculty of reason to the purpose of survival. This is the specific trait that improved the reproductive success of humans. To sum up: a.) The trait that humans inherit is a potency: the faculty of reason. It has no statistical survival advantage. You could create or burn down a house. You could hunt animals or stab yourself with a spear. This faculty gives us the possibility of an incredible survival advantage as well as the ability to act against your own nature. This trait satisfies 1) but not 2). b.) The trait that allowed humans to survive is rationality (the specific usage of the capacity of reason for your survival). This trait increased the reproductive success of humans. This trait isn't heritable. This trait satisfies 2) but not 1) What this means for evolution: human beings evolved the trait of reason solely because they chose to be rational. Human beings evolved because of a non-heritable trait (essentially, the identification of the right philosophy, in some rudimentary, perhaps preverbal, form). Humans evolved because they chose to. If they had chosen not to be rational, they wouldn't have existed. The physical capacity of reason was selected because early humans chose to use it rationally. The tribes, races and other human-like species which did not use that faculty rationally perished. Humans do not currently possess the heritable trait of reason by natural selection. (Of course, humans acquired the trait of immunity and certain other things by natural selection, but not the trait of reason). The trait of reason was artificially selected by a specific number of humans who chose to use it rationally. This does not ensure our future survival (the faculty of reason does not change our statistical, amoral chance of survival). By chance alone, we could potentially perish in the future (since reason does not statistically improve our chances of survival). Of course, this wasn't purposeful artificial selection. These early humans chose to be rational and nature did the rest. But the term (artificial) highlights the fact that a choice was involved. Human faculty of reason could not have evolutionarily survived without some human being making that choice in the past. This is a fact. An extremely simple fact (if it was automatic, it would not involve reason). And there's no way around this. Humans do not possess the faculty of reason by natural selection (just so someone gets ideas: I'm not talking about the mutation that gave humans the faculty of reason. That was out of our control. I'm talking about what selected for this trait. That was a choice. If it wasn't a choice, it did not involve reason). For those saying I'm twisting Rand's philosophy, just ignore Rand's philosophy here. Just examine the facts. I had this theory way before I heard of Rand (at around 8th or 9th grade, years before I read Rand). However, some Rand quotes are relevant here: Why is this important? Because adaptation to the environment is heritable. It is a fixed relation requiring no choice. On the other hand, "adjusting his background to himself" is a non-heritable trait (the inherited trait, reason makes it possible, but doesn't cause this. It is only a potential). Reason, since it enables rationality, is the faculty that survives or perishes with rationality or irrationality. The only way humans could use reason is by choice. Hence choice is the distinguishing element in human evolution. Reason cannot be used without volition. It cannot survive genetically if you don't use it rationally. The specific choice (rational/irrational) you make isn't genetically heritable (you or your progeny could have done otherwise) but it is this trait that gives you reproductive success. Human beings did not evolve by natural selection (the reproductive success wasn't given by a heritable trait) but by a primitive form of artificial selection. I don't know in how many permutations I can state the same thing. This assertion seems so obvious to me and the more I think about it, the more obvious it seems. In summary, the essential human trait, reason, did not evolve by natural selection. And this does not involve any complicated arguments. Reason was not selected by natural selection by the fact that it does not function automatically and is a faculty that can contribute to life or death (and its survival depended on a specific non-heritable human choice in the past). Pretty much every fact about the nature of reason points to this (by simple logic). Until you actually make a choice as a baby, what you have is only a potential. A potential cannot be involved in any kind of evolutionary selection. It has to be actualized by a choice. In order to evolve as a human being some of our early ancestor had to have made a choice (otherwise, your capacity would only exist as a potential and could play no role in evolution). The choice had to have been rational for the presence of the rational faculty to be of any survival advantage. This choice is not heritable. However, human beings still survived. Human evolution (of reason) was driven by this choice, not by any heritable element involved in natural selection. The faculty of reason was a trait riding on the choices our ancestors made. It was artificially selected in a primitive way. It was not subject to natural selection because every time it was exercised, it involved choice (which could have gone either way if you talk about the faculty of reason itself. It's survival required an additional, non-heritable trait, the actual choice of being rational. This trait was not subject to natural selection simply because it was not heritable). And in case you didn't know, I already got variants of "you're rationalizing", "you're trying to fit science into philosophy", blah, blah... as replies to my above arguments. I don't need more of it. I you suggest that I'm taking concepts to the extreme, I'll take that as a complement. If you say that I'm using these concepts out of context, I'll say that you're wrong. If you care to, reply to the essentials of my arguments (which I've stated in different forms).
  8. The question itself is wrong. Sexuality isn't decided at a single point. It involves your entire sense of life, all the decisions you made after birth, including your choice to have fantasies to develop and automatize your desires.
  9. @Nicky Why do I have to defend the claim that homosexuals are irrational? Why did you assume that was my position? I have little to no interest in the "morality" of gays/lesbians because of their sexual orientation.
  10. I'll just say that no causal relation between any human trait/tendency/desire and cellular properties at conception have ever been discovered (including alcoholism, addiction, sexuality: all correlations discovered are less that 99.99%). And as an additional note, if the only choice humans have is between repression and appeasement ("Whether or not you act on a desire is a choice"), then that directly disproves Objectivism (that man is an integrated being). Of course, you can escape this conclusion by saying no impulses should be repressed/appeased. But that is just whim-worship. Besides, I've never felt a desire I can't trace back to my values (i.e., my values and desires are always consistent, whether I feel a conscious sense of choice or not), so I think it's pointless for me to continue this discussion. Let the people who have phantom desires discuss this. Everybody keeps talking about inborn desires. I have no idea what it is. My desires and values are consistent, and my values are chosen (inasmuch as I chose to think). What is the only conclusion you can derive from this? Try introspecting your own psychology and try to see if there is any inconsistency. And as many times as gay people repeat that they would never choose to be gay in a homophobic society, is there any actual inconsistency between their values and their desires? Don't they love their partners? Or are they claiming that they value their partners so little that they would ditch their partners at the slightest touch of social pressure? I don't find any inconsistency between their values and their desires. As much as they say they have no choice in the matter, I've never heard anyone say they hate who they're attracted to. They might hate the attraction, but they still value who they're attracted to. I don't see any inconsistency. It takes a lot of introspection to see that there is no contradiction between your values and your desires, that your desires are just what you would expect given what you truly value (despite superficial protests).
  11. The classification of species depends on how distinguishable the different species are. Recently, giraffes have been claimed to be four species, not one. Now if you're talking about time scales, the question of which species an animal belongs to has a discreet answer. So you may say that from 0-4999yrs you have species 1 and from 5000-10000yrs you have species 2, leaving out a year inbetween for distinguishability. Of course, the real point is that species do not "turn into" another. This is merely an epistemological device used at the concrete level. At the level of molecules and mutations, entities retain their nature even when species "change" from one into the other.
  12. I agree with the essence of your argument. I think this fact leads to the hierarchical nature of knowledge.
  13. I made a mistake in these statements. It should start as: ""Homosexuality is not a choice. It...". These are fallacious arguments. I believe that all desires are a choice, that all desires are the psychological manifestations of your values and that your values are not genetic. Of course, you can't 'will' your sexual desire but that's just the law of identity in action and doesn't disprove the fact that your sexuality is ultimately a choice. The fact that you can't will it merely means that it's an entity of specific nature. You can't will yourself into loving mathematics or physics. That doesn't mean there is no choice involved. Values have to be discovered first (and values can't be willed). It ultimately comes down to your choice to think and find out.
  14. If you want to consider it in terms of psychology, which I'm sure everybody thinks about daily, consider a fundamental issue (fundamental because everybody either falls on one side or the other): appeasement. Appeasement is derived from a belief in the primacy of consciousness (and therefore rejects the law of identity). Fundamentally, because you are a living organism, you can either possess a virtue or try to appease the need for it. For example: With regards to the virtue of having a purpose: you can either have a genuine purpose in life or try to appease your own psychology (i.e., your need for a purpose) by wagering a belief in God, who would help in faking your purpose. The cause of this is the belief in your ability to appease your own psychology as though it has no identity, i.e., as though a genuine purpose is equivalent to a fake one as far as your need for a purpose is concerned. This proceeds from a belief in primacy of consciousness, of an infinite power over your own psychology. In self-esteem people try to appease that need by seeking an automatic claim to it (racial/familial/cultural). Then they act as though this pretension is equivalent to a real one, wondering why they need constant approval from others and defending irrational racial claims as though they need it like air. This is again an attempt to subvert reality by attempting to appease it. Sensing a need for reasons for their beliefs, they attempt to cheat it using rationalizations, as though reality can be cheated, i.e., as though the law of identity can be cheated. They ignore the fact that pretending won't change reality. Using the same reasons, other people cannot be, ultimately, appeased since they exist and follow the law of identity. Then there is the "scientific" claim by psychologists: that your unconscious manufactures a need for you (and these needs are determined by your genes). Since it is a manufactured need, most people believe that this unconscious monster can be appeased through sheer will. These manufactured needs of the unconscious directly gives "scientific" support to the necessity of the primacy of consciousness (you need to appease your pedophilic urges don't you, through porn or whatever means?). People think they actually need to appease some unconscious monster, which is further disregard for the law of identity. Appeasement, ultimately, is the belief that the law of identity can be bent to your will. (Of course, emotions are manufactured by your subconscious, but not by your genes. The constant use of emotions as a scapegoat makes their arguments seem semiplausible, but it isn't so). These manufactured genetic need also includes the supposed genetic need to merge with a collective (and you would be unhappy if you don't appease this need). Of course all talk of manufactured needs is destroyed by the fact that your needs are determined by the law of identity applied to your faculties and cannot be manufactured. All needs proceed from the relation of your existence to reality (and these needs can't be manufactured). Your brain can't manufacture a need that doesn't exist in reality (i.e., your brain can't create a need that doesn't proceed from the law of identity applied to a particular faculty. It cannot create any and all "needs" without a corresponding faculty for it). There is nothing in your brain that creates a need to merge with the collective (self, ego, sex have nothing to do with collectivism). Love for others is an emotion (and not an unconscious, manufactured need that needs to be appeased as many altruists want you to believe. It is a response to values). The need for reason, purpose and self-esteem proceed from the fact that you are a being of volitional consciousness. They can't be manufactured (by your brain without possessing volition) or appeased, by the law of identity.
  15. This was the argument I meant: "Homosexuality is a choice. It would be convenient if the above was true (politically, because you can't be held responsible for something you did not directly or indirectly choose). Therefore you must believe that homosexuality is a choice if you support gay rights." - this is an appeal to consequences. If it went like: "Homosexuality is a choice. It would be convenient if the above was true (politically, because you can't be held responsible for something you did not directly or indirectly choose). Anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is a choice is a bigot and must be prosecuted somehow." - this is an ad baculum fallacy.
  16. I would say self-esteem enters much earlier than this. How did he conclude that the highest "sheer joy" he can find involved driving a stolen car? He believes that life itself (his own life primarily) has nothing else to offer him. His standard is death. It is a problem of self-esteem (it is a compromise between life and death: he has chosen life [as in, to exist] but has never dared to live it). He seems to face no moral struggle in stealing someone else's car initially. The standard he has accepted is altruism (and hence, he finds no value in his own life). Self-esteem is too deep. It exists in every human (i.e., self-initiated) action, from combing your hair to eating your food. It's too bad that humanities has been reduced to social and cultural "studies", instead of man's nature and what it requires.
  17. Being 'Selfish' essentially means 'concerned with oneself'. This is the essential definition which Objectivism shares with the way most people use it. You need to consider its relation to other concepts to further analyze it: First consider the relationship between metaphysics and morality: In a Universe where God exists (and revelations and miracles exist), those who rally against God are immoral. Now, consider the premise that the Universe is incomprehensible (what Ayn Rand would call Malevolent Universe premise'). In such a Universe, no personal morality or philosophy is possible. For anybody who believes in it, the only reality that can be salvaged is their psycho-epistemology (which they believe to be the author of the plot of their lives). For them, everything is 'my emotions' vs 'your emotions'. "Real world" means the irrationlity of other people. According to them, reality is incomprehensible, but you're free to manipulate the emotions ("the only reality") of other people. For them, emotional manipulation is their only weapon of survival in an incomprehensible Universe. If they manipulate their employer, they get a job. People are rich or poor according to chance/fate. Either way, they are not the authors of their lives. Thus the rich should share their lucky fortunes with others... A special form of selfishness arises from this. They believe the malevolent universe premise but protect emotions only for themselves. They also self-righteously defend their hateful actions (because 'such is life'). These "selfish" people believe that they trampled over other people's emotions and lives to get where they are (I don't doubt it) and that anyone who refuses to do the same don't know how life works. If you're not willing to manipulate, you're not worthy of existence (of living in the "real world"). These are the manipulators or "wolves". The drama of their lives consists of their contempt for sheep who won't make it (anyone with an ounce of self-esteem will be sheep in this world view). These are also the fashionable nonconformists. An altruist's world view presents this as the only alternatives for living on Earth: sheep or wolf; victim or predator; sacrificial victim or moral cannibal. Anyone with some self-esteem will choose to be the victim and expect rewards in some other Universe (afterlife, respect from posterity). [AR: "No value is higher than self-esteem, but you’ve invested it in counterfeit securities—and now your morality has caught you in a trap where you are forced to protect your self-esteem by fighting for the creed of self-destruction."] Malevolent Universe premise must be "preserved" to justify the morality of altruism. Philosophers of altruism must destroy man's reason... This false dichotomy between wolf and sheep is the reason why anyone who hurts another's emotions is considered selfish. This is the reason why committing suicide out of spite is considered selfish (despite how stupid that sounds)... Both Objectivism and people who have never heard of Objectivism use the same essential meaning of selfishness: 'concerned with oneself'. They refer to the same aspect of reality (and therefore, the same concept). Where they differ in is its logical relation to other concepts (based on their metaphysical premises). Rational selfishness means selfishness that is consistent with its own world-view (comprehensible Universe). Rational means ‘consistent with reality’. P.S.:- This is also the reason why discussions involving imaginary scenarios (life boat situations) where egoism is not possible gives rise to altruistic solutions to the problem. Egoism is not possible in an incomprehensible/malevolent Universe (I don't want to discuss more about this. Precise discussion needs more rigorous concepts and logic).
  18. True. When I said compromise, I meant making compromises in your life (like the summary of the musical suggested: they were certainly not talking about Call of Duty when they said "play the game"). However, I think the question of which meaning I'm referring to (concrete or abstract) should be evident from the context. I also disagree that the way most people use the word "selfishness" does not convey its "primary meaning" (although I used to have a different opinion about this). Self-esteem is not a question of making mistakes. It's a question of irrationality (AR: "Self-esteem is reliance on one’s power to think."). You cannot have authentic self-confidence while being irrational. You're confusing self-esteem with self-confidence. Self-confidence doesn't "cause" anything. It is the result: estimate of your own abilities (and should not be built on irrationality). It was, apparently, an irrational estimate of your own ability that made your pursuit a failure. It was "reality" that failed you (much like the Peter Pan example). Self-esteem is the estimate of your worth: here is where "compromise" comes in and it is, psychologically, the root of all rationality or irrationality, depending on what standard you use to estimate it (self or other, i.e., self-interest or self-sacrifice; life or death) [AR: "No value is higher than self-esteem, but you’ve invested it in counterfeit securities—and now your morality has caught you in a trap where you are forced to protect your self-esteem by fighting for the creed of self-destruction."]. Yes The so-called "play the game" success may give someone a boost in their self-confidence (depending on their psychology). The thing that is destroyed, as also the central issue of this thread, is self-esteem.
  19. All instances of compromise are a matter of self-esteem. Self-esteem is the central issue in all cases where 'ends' appear to contradict the 'means'.. End does not justify the means: neither with regard to yourself (not making compromises to achieve "happiness" or money) nor with regard to others (not using force on others. This is the way self-esteem enters the realm of politics). They're both fundamentally the same issue. Morally, rights are an issue of self-esteem. Nobody who fundamentally believes in making compromises for themselves to become rich (or for any other ends) has any business in advocating capitalism (or happiness). You can't do good by using force (i.e., you can't make someone happy at the cost of their self-esteem). This is the meaning of "man is an end in himself". Both socially (as capitalism) and personally. The ends and means are, respectively, happiness and self-esteem (socially, non-initiation of force). Happiness cannot contradict self-esteem. Nobody "wins" in attempting such a contradiction. Man is an end in himself.
  20. It's too imprecise to say "it's really bad for one's happiness". Non-achievement of happiness can be said to be what is wrong with every moral failure (since happiness is the goal of everything), but it's too vague. The issue specific to the problem raised here is self-esteem.
  21. Now, if you want further elaboration or are going to say: "compromise is necessary", consider this: Capitalism is the only political system where compromise (on principles) is unnecessary. It is the only political system consistent with man's self esteem, i.e., man's nature. Whenever you see a "necessary" compromise, the action you need to pursue is the political establishment of capitalism... Also, consider this Rand quote: i.e., it is the only political system consistent with man's right to exist as man: without compromises and with self-esteem.
  22. If by win, you mean, at destroying your self-esteem, then yes...
  23. Because a human being possessing mental instruments capable of egoism (and capable of designing the world according to his values) is more valuable to you than any random snatches of property you might acquire. Human beings (and their possessions) shouldn't be viewed as "resources", like other aspects of reality. Personally, I think you should take into account retaliation as well (and not merely as a matter of consequentialism either). It's relevant because of the nature of Adam's mind. Hmm. What were you thinking of?
  24. To summarize, altruism isn't acting for another's good. Altruism is the belief that you exist for the sake of others, as a consequence of which you act for their sake. Bert's actions don't proceed from this belief. If a terrorist made you execute a 100 actions, your actions have no moral import (they are not a consequence of any of your beliefs). Even Objectivism may involve transfer of your possessions to another based on their virtue/struggle. However, this isn't altruism as it has a different moral base (the actions proceed from different beliefs and are under a different moral system). You don't see others as impotent idiots (need does not entitle anyone to a claim on another's life). However, similar actions may be involved. Observing similarity in practical action doesn't allow you to conclude that you are observing the same moral phenomenon. Additionally, just because Bert is not acting altruistically doesn't mean he is being egoist or neutral. His morality, like in any emergency situation, is mitigation. This morality has it's own standards, but has a significant problem in that most aspects of your actions under it are not moral (i.e., proceed from beliefs). Additionally, they require significant knowledge of your hierarchy of values. You may be forced to choose between the lives of your loved ones. The goal of this morality is to get you out of this situation while incurring the least damage. Also, forcing someone else to act itself proceeds from an unjustifiable moral code. No. It would be mitigation. It matters. If it was voluntary, it would be under a different moral system than mitigation, presumably altruism. You paying taxes to the government isn't altruism. It's done to mitigate bigger consequences if you don't pay your taxes. Your goal (under mitigation) is to eventually get rid of this system and move to voluntary taxation. Just because you pay your taxes doesn't mean you support it. You need more context than just your disembodied actions to determine what morality is involved.
×
×
  • Create New...