Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chien

Regulars
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified

Chien's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Volition is axiomatic according to objectivism and can be discovered via introspection. Via introspection, we can discover the experience of choice. But the real question is, is the experience of choice - the feeling that things could have gone either way - really choice? What are our choices and actions based on? If external physical influences determine our actions, obviously, we are not free; we can argue we have free "will" in these instances eventhough we do not have free "action." If external circumstances influence our mental states or the development of our personality, then we do not have free action and free will. So what determine our choices internally? Knowledge of the given situation and preferences. Preferences are based on values, beliefs, expectations and attitudes; in other words, a person's personality. So a person's personality determines his/her decisions in a meaningful sense. From observation, we know both animals and humans have inherited inclinations, instincts, intelligence. To say we are born with a blank slate is only true in the sense that we are born with no a priori knowledge about the world. But we ARE born with certain instincts, inclinations inherited from our parents. If our choices are based on our inherited inclinations and intelligence, we are only free in that our choices are not influence or obstructed by external factors. We do not have innate knowledge but we do have innate inclinations, instincts, intelligence. It is true human beings develop their personality and mental faculty over time; we do re-make ourselves and evolve. However, these developments, the decision to kick a bad habit or develop a new personality trait, are made by the old self. Any changes in personality can be traced back to the infant with his/her bundle of innate inclinations, instincts and intelligence. In short, as Ms. Rand said, a man is a man and he must act according to the nature of man. We did not choose our nature, we were born with our nature; we are not free in this sense.
  2. Objectivists assert causation is rooted in the law of identity and that there is no force or action, only entities or actors. An actor must act in accordance with its nature. The material world behaves in accordance with the immutable laws of its nature. This subject-predicate view of causation is very tempting. I had the self same thought when I studied physics and economics in high school and college; all the variables are couched in mathematical equations and their causal relationships are necessitated and guaranteed by the equality sign, by the law of identity. Man, Objectivists argue, possess free will and choice because free will is part of man's nature. The question I have is how do objectivists know that the nature of the material world is bound by hard determinism while the nature of man entails more than one possible way to acting. Maybe man's nature is completely deterministic or that the nature of the material world is open to more than one possible future state. How do you discover and distinguish the nature of man and material world except through observations and induction? If your views are derived from induction, then you do not possess the certitude afforded by deductive reasoning and the law of identity. If the laws of physics are altered tomorrow, that could just be a result of the nature of the material world. Perhaps your thoughts and actions are completely pre-determined, including the delusional thought of self determination and free will. To claim that an entity must act in accordance with its nature is a tautological statement that says nothing unless the nature of the entity is known. But we can only investigate the nature of the material world or of man inductively, through observation. Rand's theory on causation and free will leave us none the wiser.
  3. I will read the essay; thank you for referring me to relavent texts. If objectivists care for strangers and/or the disadvantaged, then objectivist ethics is much much more palatable. You have modified Ms. Rand's claim: she claimed life is the ultimate value, i.e. life qua man. Here is one of the logical flaws commited by Ms Rand. Life is a precondition for all values: Values --> life. And the contrapositive: ~life --> ~values. This is undisputed. However, saying that life is a precondition for all values does not warrant the illogical jump to the conclusion that life, as an end in itself, is the ultimate, highest of all values. If you modify Ms. Rand's position and say life is simply a value among many, then yes, I agree. Another point, objectivsts use the word "rational" sparingly for all positions they hold and the word "irrational" to all claim contrary to their views. Rational means using reason or logic for decision making. Can reason or logic make decisions for human beings? NO. We have to make the decisions by setting up the criteria for judgment, values and objectives. Otherwise, we can rely on computers to make decisions for us. Logic can help us to more effectively achieve our goals (objectives that embody our values) but it cannot set the goals/values for us. Here Ms. Rand's fallacious claim raises its ugly head. Ms. Rand has not proven to the satisfaction of REASON that life is the most important value of all. Please refer to above. The everyday definition of the word sacrifice is acts commited under certain conditions that benefit others while the actor's interest is harmed. The certain condition I am speaking of is that the actor must believe his/her actions can acheive an agent-neutral value (values that are not related to the actor's self-interests, for example, valuing your mother's life) that is greater than the actor's agent-relative values. The CHOICE of valuing one's own life above all other values, agent-relative or agent-neutral, is nothing but a choice. Here you are saying objectivsts can value someone else's life over one's own life, which is inconsistent with the claim one's life is categorically the ultimate value. Now which is it? Either or. One's own life cannot be the ultimate highest value while at the same time, someone else's life/interests is valued more. You cannot have it both ways; as Ms. Rand said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Pls explain what you mean by solidarity. There are a myriad of different schools of thoughts out there; objectivsts tend to group everybody else under the term "collective altruists" without learning what they are really about.
  4. I have made a clear analysis of altruistic vs selfish behavior, their respective beneficiaries and the normal English definition of atruism / selfishness vs. Randian redefinition of these two terms. Did you not read what I have written? You guys have been ignoring my rational arguments from the get go, attacking me personally throwing around catchy slogans without addressing the substance of my arguments. Stop being pseudo-intellectuals simply regurgitating Ayn Rand's prepackaged propaganda and start doing some independent thinking. I recommend it.
  5. I do not think you are pathologically illogical; if I do, I wouldn't be replying to you. I am sorry if you feel I have insulted you. My aim is to engage in substantive serious philosophical discussion and hope that in the process, the truth will emerge. Okay, so let's reverse the terms of your statement: IF life THEN inferior values. The inferior values you refer to are the virtue of Randian selfishness (Acts that benefit the actor but has no effect on others; Acts that benefit the actor and also benefit others.) and the evil of altruism (Acts commited under certain conditions that harm the actor but benefit others). I concede Randian "selfishness" or in everyday language being self-interested, is a necessary value for life. If a human being refrains from doing anything to ameleorate his/her conditions, such as nourishment intake, he/she would surely die. However, the complete erasure of altruistic behavior is not a necessary conditon for an individual's life. For example, would you die if you give a quarter to a homeless on your way home everyday?? Moreover, if you are talking about the life or survival of a specie, theories of eusociality and kin selection from the field of evolutionary biology provide possible explanation and justifications for altruistic human behavior. Here is a grossly simplistic example: let's say an old woman and her cousin, a little boy, are the only surviving members of their extended family. The two of them carry common family genes. The little boy finds himself in a life threatening situation. The old woman sacrifices her life in saving the little boy's life. Eventhough she loses her life, she gets to pass on her genes through her cousin. The "inferior value" of anti-altruism is not a NECESSARY condition for life (either individually or collectively). So if objectivists ethics is not absolute/universal, then it is relativistic, relative to each individual value judge and his or her context of judgment. Then where is the objectivity of objectivist ethics?? Judgments are made by judges or subjects, and therefore automatically subjective metaphysically speaking. Epistemically speaking, the possibility of objective judgments is open. There are two construals for the epistemic notion of objectivity. If the judgment or claim is about a physical phenomena, then the judgment is epistemically objective if and only if it corresponds or mirrors with states of affairs in the external physical reality. However, even the correspondence theory of truth, which epistemic objectivity depends on, is only another theory of truth among many. If the judgment or claim is about a social phenomena, then the judgment is epistemically objective if and only if it has wide spread agreement or unanimous consensus. Morality is not a physical phenomena but exists both dependent on context and as a relationship between the value-judge and that which is judged; morality is a social phenomena. The objectivity of the Randian value-judgment that altruism (acts commited under certain conditions that harm the actor but benefit others; for example, mother Teresa's selfless giving of her time, money, energy and life to the poor of Calcutta) is evil has not achieved wide-spread agreement nor unanimous consensus. Therefore, the Randian value-judgment that altruism is evil is subjective. If you contend that morality is not a social phenomena but rather depends only upon a single individual (subject) and the context of his/her judgment, then it is a relativistic, subjective judgment. To one person, altruism is the ultimate good while to another it is the ultimate evil. Any judgment that neither corresponds to mind independent physical reality nor has a wide spread consensus is subjective. Either way you slice it, there is no objectivity in objectivist ethics. Yes, and my contention stands. Even if children have comparative advantage at working in steel mills, nowadays we don't send kids to mills to work as child labor. When we send kids to school, they have zero monetary/material value to offer in exchange for the value of the education they receive. My point is that not every person suffering from poverty or living in deplorable conditions are blood sucking leaches. Some of them are loafers who are lazy eventhough they are fully capable of entering the job market. What you are overlooking is there are human beings who do not have the capacity to be productive members of our society; for example, the old and lame, infants and kids. Productive work is a virtue, no question about it. People suffering from poverty or otherwise living in deplorable conditions are not virtuous by virtue of their misfortune. Absolutely. I am not saying they are virtuous. I am saying SOME of them deserve our help. I am glad you said this. If objectivists concede love is the highest of rewards, then even to an objectivist, altruistic behavior such as giving to one's children, taking care of elders who cannot take care of themselves, or risking/sacrificing one's live to save complete strangers can be justified by love.
  6. According to Ms. Rand, the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). Every single human being is self-interested. Being self interested is not immoral in almost all ethical system. The normal everyday definition of the word selfishness does not have the philosophical implications that Ms. Rand feared. Here is the breakdown of selfish vs. altruistic behaviors and their respective beneficiaries. (1) Acts that benefit the actor but has no effect on others. Almost all ethical systems sanction this. (2) Acts that benefit the actor and also benefit others. Almost all ethical systems sanction this. (3) Acts that benefit the actor but harm others. Almost all ethical systems prohibit this. THIS IS THE EVERYDAY MEANING OF THE WORD SELFISHNESS. (4) Acts that harm the actor but has no effect on others. Almost all ethical systems prohibit this. (5) Acts that harm the actor but benefit others. This is where objectist ethics diverge with most ethical systems. Most ethical systems say sacrificing time, money, energy to help others is a virtue, under certain conditions. THIS IS THE EVERYDAY MEANING OF THE WORD ALTRUISM. Objectivists believe if there is nothing in it for them, they have no ethical obligation to help others. (6) Acts that harm the actor and also harm others. This is a no brainer; all ethical systems prohibit this. Objectivists diverge on (5) with most ethical systems which promote altruism, the behavior of (5). My example of caring for infants, elders, lame and people otherwise debilitated, people who cannot offer value greater than the cost for you to give them what they need, is the test of whether you are an objectivist or an altruist. Objectivists distort the meaning of the word "selfishness" to mean (1) and (2) instead of the everyday meaning of the word, which is (3). No ethical system that I know of object to (1) and (2); All ethical system that I am aware of are in agreement with Ms. Rand's "selfishness" as a virtue, ie (1) and (2). Striped of the specialized lingo, there's nothing provacative about Ms. Rand's selfishness.
  7. Why don't you guys just use the phrase "enlightened self-interest" or any number of other terms? Redefining words prevents communication with people outside of your circle. what do you mean by "non-essential concern for oneself"? Why is the definition of "selfishness" a anti-concept/contradiction? Selfish = excessive concern with one self. Where is the contradiction? The specific sound and spelling of English words are arbitrary, just like codes. If I call the color "white" "blue" and that every single person agrees and understands with my definition, then I would have no problem communication with others. For some hieroglyphic languages, such as Chinese, the shape of the charcters do represent the objects represented. What you are talking about is the correspondence theory of truth. We are talking about definition of words.
  8. First of all, I want to say I am not a believer or follower of any philosophical system; I am a student of all schools of thoughts but at the end of the day, I make my own independent judgment. My only allegiance is to truth, wherever it leads me; Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth, as a wise man once said. When I learn something new and find myself mistaken, I gladly change my mind. For me, it's not a matter of who is right, but what is the truth. IF B=inferior value THEN A=life. In this example of yours, life is the necssary condition, value is the sufficient condition. In your example, "inferior value" is not the necessary conditon for life. Maybe you need to brush up on logic 101 if you have ever taken the course. Then the value you speak of is relative to each person's judgment, not absolute and universal. What is your argument for saying my example is silly, contextless, my assumption wrong? Do you know the difference between an argument and mud slinging?? I could be wrong and I'd appreciate substantive counter arguments. The theory of comparative advantage IS about the net increase in output of the whole economy and nothing more. This is the theory. You labeled me as a "collectivist altruist" from reading what..two posts from me. I said you relied on Objectivism because the term "collectivist altruist" is an objectivist lingo and that your conceptual scheme, your frame of reference, your gestalt if you will, is confined within objectivism; that's why you pigeonholed me into objectivist ideology. This is false dichotomy; I could be of any number of other schools of thought. You gave a slew of fictional characters as examples of moral/immoral strong/weak personalities. Life is not fiction. My downtrodden homeless are all around us. Open you eyes. My rational point is there are people suffering from poverty and stravation who are not blood sucking leaches. I believe they deserve our help, even when they do not have any value to offer at the moment. Why? Becaus I don't want to see human suffering and helping them makes me feel good. Answer this: do infants, the old and lame have any value to offer? What about kids? They have comparative advantage at working in steel mills. Would you send your kids to steel mills to work instead of going to school? That's what happened during the industrial revolution. If they go to school, they are not exchanging any value for the value of their education, except perhaps the warm and fuzzy feeling called "love" that the parents feel. But objectivists wouldn't consider touchy feely things like "love" as a legitimate value right? Giving to people who have nothing to offer except the joy of the giving does not square with objectivism, am I correct?
  9. Theories of eusociality and kin selection from the field of evolutionary biology provide possible explanation and justifications for altruistic human behavior. Selfishness is not an absolute necessity for life as a whole. Please explain what you are saying. This is another rhetorical ploy. Well, the "good" in your difinition is still judged by the value-judge. People's judgments vary; value-judgments are not universally the same. I know you would want to say those who judge differently from you are not "objective" or "rational." You could be right, hypothetically, but where is the justification? Name calling is hardly a proof. where is the beef?? I Beg to differ. Comparative advantage produces net increase in production for the parties taken together as a whole. But this does not take into consideration of the implications for future developments. If person X has comparative advantage at mopping floor and peson Y has comparative advantage at writing computer programs, I wouldn't advice person X to be happy and content with his dead end job; it has no growth potential. Comparative advantage only looks at the net output of the whole economy at any given time without looking at the opportunity costs for individuals. So by following comparative advantage, it is not true every person can produce and trade to his/her best advantage. Moreover, what about those people who don't even have comparative advantage? The lame, sick, elders, and infants etc? What do they have to trade for? I am a free independent thinker; your name calling and quick identification of others in objectivist terminology shows your lack of independent judgment and reliance on objectivism as a substitute for independent thought. Well, I agree that someone who loafs around does nothing shouldn't be given free elms. Loafers have no right to claim on those who work hard and produce. That I agree. However, by following the objectivist creed, one would walk pass a lame, sick, old person/infant lying on the street without blinking an eye because these downtrodden homeless have no value to trade for food and assistance. Isn't this true? Or do you really believe all people suffering in poverty/starvation deserve their fate because it was all their own doing?
  10. The epistemic conception of objectivity only applies to judgments, beliefs, etc., that corresponds to mind independent external reality OR inter subjective agreements. In other words, if a claim is a physical claim about physical reality, then the claim is objectively true if and only if the claim corresponds, mirrors the physical reality. If a claim is about a value-jdgment shared by a population, an agreement or consencus among the population in question is sufficient to justify the objectivity of the claim. Neither of these epistemic notion of objectivity applies to the value of selfishness.
  11. I am not saying logic has nothing to do people, emotions or ethics; I am saying the foundation of any ethical system cannot be justified by logic. This is a completely unfounded assertion, not an argument. Whoever thinks logic is incapable of serving as the foundation of ethics are believers of emotionalism? THIS is a false dichotomy. Another assertion that lacks justification. What does this mean??? if values do not reside within the individual and neither do they reside within the object, then where are they??SHOW ME. Saying something is OBJECTIVE does not explain anything; this is nominal fallacy: using facy nice sounding term as substitute for valid explanations. What is this "pre-moral" choice? At any rate, holding one's own life and interests as the ultimate value and goal is a "choice," is it not? You say it is a necessary "choice"; now that's an oxymoron. Please open your dictionary: "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" Main Entry: self·ish Pronunciation: 'sel-fish Function: adjective 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> This is the definition of the word "selfish." Advancing an argument for the virtue of "selfishness" while redefining the term to mean "enlightened self-interest" (which has a much more expanded meaning and open to more interpretations) is commiting the logical flaw of unfairly redefining a key term. Ok, let's play along with your definition of "enlightened self-interest". If you are a "trader of value" expecting others to be the same, does that mean if the other party has nothing to offer, then you would never give him/her what he/she wants or needs? If that were true, then the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, the youth and elders who have no value to render will be disregarded and left to die. The strong should not help the weak is what Ms. Rand was saying. Eventhough Ms. Rand despised Nietzche, she had the same sentiment of indignation that the weak are leaches holding the strong back. Enough of assertions and rhetorics; how about some real thought and arguments?
  12. How can ethics be couched in an objective context?? Ethics, the practical branch of philosophy, is concerned with human conduct. Ethics serves as a guide to human action. So it deals with subjects - individual human beings. Objects as opposed to subjects are devoid of emotional content, consciousness and meaning. A purely objective view of individuals and the world is a quantitative worldview. Therefore, a purely objective worldview cannot render normative moral judgments. Logic or reason is concerned with the quantitative/objective etc. An ethical system can be logically consistent or inconsistent but it can never be justified by logic. Ms. Rand's assertion about man's nature and the paramount importance of self-interest, to the exclusion of other ppl's welling being, is a choice, not a necessary conclusion driven by the sheer force of logic.
×
×
  • Create New...