Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

2046 last won the day on October 2

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7895 profile views
  1. You might really appreciate the Irfan Khawaja chapter in the ARS volume I linked earlier, as well as Khawaja's 2008 PhD dissertation "Foundationalism and the Foundation of Ethics" which defends a thoroughly Randian ethical egoism and engages deeply with Korsgaard in chapters 7, 8, and Appendix B: https://www.academia.edu/1826457/Foundationalism_and_the_Foundations_of_Ethics Edit: Also you can probably just email him, or post a question on his blog or FB, he's pretty responsive to students and much more knowledgeable about Rand than keyboard philosophers on any forums you're going to find.
  2. I'm not sure about that. I think there's a lot to be said for Aristotle's approach, but his approach here as you've lifted from NE isn't addressing the foundation of values question that Rand is asking ("Does man need values at all and why?") Aristotle's NE (not without controversy) is likely lecture notes addressed to young men going into politics, who are supposed to be familiar with the general presuppositions of NE (through conversation and other works.) Asking what kind of thing happiness is and answering various questions about it, including engaging with the endoxa and aporia of the day, is not exactly what Rand is trying to do. She also criticized Aristotle's ethics (not very well if you ask me) as opposed to his overall philosophical approach which she liked. In any event, Rand's approach does not take goal-directed action for granted or presuppose anything about morality's form or content, and she's not trying to achieve some kind of reflective equilibrium about our beliefs about ultimate values, so at least one can say their discussions are just about different things. Criticizing one by adopting the framework of the other just isn't going to be very helpful.
  3. Just echoing Eiuol that this isn't Rand's argument. He asked what Rand's argument was. Also just in the face of it, this is a really bad argument for life because it begs all of the relevant questions to this discussion which is just about why life has this foundational status in ethics.
  4. It is not that you have to be alive to value, you're right that you can't deduce an ethics from that. There are two pieces of work it's supposed to be doing. One, the epistemic part, is establishing the arbitrariness of selecting values apart from the question of why they are needed. The second, the psychological part, the issue of selecting values could not even arise for us if we had nothing at stake in it, that is to say, if our value-selection had no value-significance for us.
  5. What Eioul said. Also I think it's an entirely reasonable task to want to reconstruct, logic book style, what exactly Rand's argument is because Rand's style is to make sweeping statements that require much more explanation that she didn't provide, and that it takes work for a philosopher interested in Rand to build the bridge from her intellectual context to contemporary philosophy. Just recognize that this is as much a metaphilosophical task that a bridge that has to be built, you're not going to read it off of Galt's speech. Rand's attitude sometimes at least comes off as, in effect, "I've written Atlas Shrugged what more could you need?" while in her letters to John Hospers are a little more circumspect. I think to get started with what her premises are one could begin with something like "the biological teleology thesis," "the fundamental alternative thesis," and the "choice to live thesis," combined with something like Aristotelian essentialism gets us close to what she's trying to do. But to what Dreamweaver was saying, each one the those itself can be broken down into three or four sets of related claims, and so you don't really end up with a neat little bullet point format anyway. But it's clear that what she's trying to do is very similar to the projects of Anscombe, Foot, Hursthouse, Annas, and others in virtue ethics. What may interest you is the ARS put out this book particularly Wright and Khawaja's chapters will probably give you better answers than anyone on this forums. Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue: Studies in Ayn Rand's Normative Theory https://g.co/kgs/uGFnJs Tara Smith at UT Austin also put out a book on Rand's metaethics that is designed to sketch through these claims too: Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality https://g.co/kgs/QSo7Ku And then there is the "Aristotelian Alternative" interpretation taken by Wheeler, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, and others explained also by Long and Badhwar in her Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry that the cogency of Rand's can only be made sense of as a version of teleological eudaimonism: The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand https://g.co/kgs/Le2Kei https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/#Ethi
  6. Except when she opposed Reagan? But that's not what she said, is it? But like, who cares? Your post is inventing reasons she never gave (her view was the assertion that Nixon stood for Western Civilization and McGovern did not.) That's not even an argument, it's an assertion. That's not objectivity, at least not in demonstrating reasons that would be able to convince someone. Secondly your post is a giant appeal to authority. The fact that Rand supported Nixon doesn't mean Rand supported the Republican party or that one always should, or that even if she said "always vote Republican because they're real patriotic!" why that would be a reason for anyone to do anything, especially if you were inclined to to believe that Rand was wrong about supprting Nixon in the first place?
  7. You understand you look silly because police do have to meet these thresholds and it does not in fact stop them from investigating and solving crimes? We've already argued for why there should be 4A. You're now arguing that whether or not what is in fact a reality could be a reality. As a handhold for you, to get back to reality, I might recommend calling your local police department and talking to a detective or patrolman and asking them how they do their work, or watch something like Homicide Hunter or The First 48 on TV. What you seem like right now is the former Soviet Union commissars that wondered how things can even operate in the west with all that freedom.
  8. Well let's just cut out "agreeing or disagreeing with Objectivism" because that isn't, or shouldn't be, even a question here. The thing is, there are a bunch of people that would move to the US, if they could. Should we restrict them or not? What political realities? Illegal immigrants can't vote. Legal immigrants have to wait 5 years before they can even apply for citizenship, and then they have to wait in line and pass an English and Civics exam. Then the data shows that foreign-born citizens vote less often than native-born citizens. The data also shows the foreign-born poor consume less entitlements than native-born poor. (The US entitlement system mostly is aimed at the elderly and corporations, not the poor anyway, but that's the side point.) So, really, what political reality are you talking about? You guys don't look at facts. There is no data that will convince you because you are convinced on other grounds.
  9. No, it's called thinking in terms of essentials and using what're called principles. For example: Observing people as they walk by versus stopping them. Typing a description into a computer versus opening someone's briefcase. Using binoculars to see across a field versus using an x-ray machine to see inside a bag. Using a dog to smell for explosives as people stand in line versus ordering someone to open up their trunk and getting the dog to track inside. Asking what do these various events have in common what is essential to them, and what differentiates them from each other, while disregarding every other particular detail. Using this method, you reach a single principle designated by the words I chose "passive versus active." Far from ad hoc, it is a conceptual statement that integrates a vast amount of information about all kinds of concrete cases. I have no doubt this eludes you. I have no doubt each of the above events seem disconnected and insular, and it seems totally arbitrary whether to endorse any one set of course of actions or policies from them. It seems unconnected to the principle of individual rights and you can't decide whether any of it meets that principle or not. Let's just have a hearing and we'll have to decide if it's "reasonable" and if we decide it's reasonable to stop every white male over six feet on the East End of London to determine whether they're Jack the Ripper on a Tuesday afternoon, then that's reasonable. That's because you're not thinking in terms of essentials or principles at all. And I'm afraid I have no desire to continue the discussion because I feel I've reached the point where we are just repeating ourselves and it has lost whatever usefulness it had.
  10. Yeah so like obviously no one expects him to wear a name tag. Of course they have to look for Gus. The question is, can the police do just any old thing, as long as it counts as "looking for Gus"? And of course the answer is no. And nobody believes they can, internally to the nation, either. You're either just plain rejecting 4A, or just making a double standard for immigrants. Of course that's not what evidentiary hearings are, silly, or there'd be not point to them.
  11. I wonder if the only way to proceed is by speaking in tribal terms like: "In my culture, people just agree to own things in common so that we can restrict access to people for not respecting our ideas" "In my culture, we have private property rights so that we tell busybodies like you to mind their own fucking business" "In my culture, you have nothing to hide it you're not guilty" "In my culture, we tell the cops to come back with a warrant"
  12. Exactly no one argued any of those things in here. You're right that you should not" agree with Objectivism or Objectivists" whatever that is supposed to mean.You shouldn't agree with anything. You should seek to understand the arguments. You don't even know what they are. Theres something called an ideological Turing test. This is a device designed to see if you actually understand your interlocutor's argument if you can actually reproduce their argument in your own words to such an extent that a third party couldn't tell the difference between your reproduction and their own way. Do you think "open borders even if that would destroy America" honestly would pass that test?
  13. Yeah, we already discussed the role that bias against immigrants plays, but also just cognitive biases in general play a role as well. Most people don't know the opposing arguments. And I don't mean they haven't seen them, like even if they've read this thread, I mean they read them and yet still don't know them because they aren't thinking. Most people that don't study the arguments specifically aren't thinking at all, they just engage in a random word association game in their minds. Like if you're a Red Sox fan, if you see a close pitch, you say of course it was a strike (if the pitcher was a Red Sox.) If you're a Yankee fan, you say of course it was a ball. You have no incentive to judge the pitch correctly, you just boo or cheer as depending on whether it helps your team. In the same way, they see a bunch of words on the screen. There's some words that get them the result they're already committed to (keeping foreigners they don't like out) and some that get to the result they don't want (scary brown people near me.) They don't see arguments.
  14. But like nobody is saying we should apply principles without a context. So, thanks for repeating standard Objectivist claptrap, but I mean no one is saying otherwise. Nobody is saying hey we should be rationalists. As far as 1-4, those have been refuted, and I mean decisively refuted, by a bunch of political philosophers and economists working on this issue. Some of those arguments have been repeated here in this thread and in other threads. None of 1-4 or the counter arguments you listed are new, bold font notwithstanding. Yes, we need to think long term. Yes we need to think about what would happen. Right now, economists estimate world GDP (GWP) would likely double, long term. Millions of people could be lifted out of poverty. That is a good thing. The welfare argument, the culture argument, the voting argument, all of these have been addressed numerous times.
  15. Indeed. This is probably the main reason for the misapplication. For us, property is not taken from a common stock. Property is produced. From the point of view of a production theory of property, there can be no metaphysically given forms of property. If an activity transforms some aspect of nature into property (production), there can be no forms of property, resources, wealth until such an action accomplishes the result. Picking an apple from a tree should not be judged in terms of apples taken from the community-of-owned-apples but in terms of the action which transformed the tree into property. We are already off to a wrong start, and begging the entire question at hand, if we ask whether property is taken from a metaphysically given stock that is already communistically owned. Property, wealth, resources, are not metaphysically given. Land, EM waves, air, water, space etc. as the technological unit are not beings given in rerum natura, ie., existing out there in the world independently and apart from human cognition and effort. All property, wealth, and resources are essentially related to intellectual and physical efforts of individual human beings.
×
×
  • Create New...