"Argument" on another forum, any advice?

[DarkBlack]

I gave "objectivism in a nutshell" in a discussion on atheist morals on Ateist Nexus and this sparked an argument with another user: http://www.atheistne...page=3#comments

If any of you have anything you think I should add to my argument please tell me about it.

For clarity, the argument is betweem myself (DarkBlack) and Jedi Wanderer, directly following my objectivism in a nutshell post.

[Ninth Doctor]

I seriously don’t like your phrase “there is a reason we don't like charity”. I think Rand’s most relevant quote on charity is this:

“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime.”

Rand would often say one shouldn’t claim giving charity as a major virtue. The implication being that she did regard it as a virtue, simply a minor or lesser one roughly speaking. You’ve effectively given voice to a false stereotype.

I didn’t read beyond your first post.

[thenelli01]

Read this in your post:

"Getting back to charity, we don't agree with the idea because we do not see it as fair or good for one person to sacrifice what they have earned for someone who has not earned it or for someone to be rewarded for not being productive."

This is false. Objectivism does not say that it doesn't agree with charity, that doesn't make any sense. Charity doesn't necessarily mean sacrifice. Objectivism is against forced charity: through programs such as food stamps where money is stolen through taxation, and altruistic charity: for example, you have $10,000 and you want to put your kid through college but instead you donate it to a handicap charity. It would be altruistic because your child is a greater value to you than any of the people that you have helped with that money.

However, objectivism is all for benevolence. I like charity because it makes me feel good about myself and I like helping other people that need it. Donating an hour or two to a food shelter, donating money, whatever, is all perfectly acceptable and good as long as you do not sacrifice your values and are not forced to do so. Objectivism advocates private charity.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[thenelli01]

You also posted:

"An objectivist who sells water (or anything for that matter) for more than it is worth will be doing something immoral, i.e. not giving value equivalent to what is being recieved. If multiple objectivists control a resource they will not act for the greater good of objectivists by keeping prices high, they will compete, giving thier product a competitive price."

No. A) it would be impossible for one person to have a monopoly on water.

B ) There isn't anything immoral about selling something at a "higher price" than it is worth.

1st - worth is subjective to whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

2nd (more important)- how is it immoral for someone to ask for a "high" price? He isn't forcing you to buy it.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Hairnet]

There isn't any point in arguing with someone who starts their first post with "Objectivism Blows" and then goes on to argue (as though this objection has never been raised) that total self interest leads man to become a world devouring monster. As far as debate goes, you seem to have chosen poor words and arguements. You let him take control of the narrative pretty quickly. So these arguments are for you, not him.

He makes two charges

1) Objectivists are really just communitarians/humanists in different clothes. They really aren't selfish, if they were they wouldn't be looking for justifications for helping people.

This one is absurd. If you look at the lives of the people Objectivists venerate and the lives of many Objectivists you will see behavior that offends the common masses qutie a lot. Ayn Rand's affair being one of them. Then you get to how we think and talk; we are practically aliens. I myself have done things that shock people . Some examples of what makes an Objectivist different in behavior than other people (if they are really Objectivists).

A) You don't give to charity, you don't get guilted into taking other people's shifts, you don't take on other people's burdens without some objective benefit being there. An objective benefit does not mean "people will like me". They might, but they won't respect you. This does not mean "because it feels good to help others". It does feel good, but that is hedonism, you can't just do things because it feels good.

To be fair, our cultural programming is most strong here, so non-misanthropic Objectivists will have a hard time getting over this at first.

You are honest. You don't lie for others benefit, and rarely is there a situation in which dishonesty benefits you. When someone confronts you about something you either hold your tounge or give them the truth. Notice how dishonest everyone in our culture is. People lie all the time to one another, in order to avoid confrontation. It doesn't even achieve this goal by the way. People don't confront one another and they end up being passive-agressive and hateful.

One of my best friends, our friendship started when I told him that I thought he was a douchebag. It shocked him that I was so upfront about it. He apologized for it and we hung out the rest of the day. If I had said nothing about it we probably would never have been friends.

C) If you don't like someone, you don't talk to them. If your parents suck, you don't talk to them. "But he is your father" does not bring about alternative accoustic music and a sense of forgiveness. You don't forgive people unless they show change. Notice how most people can't hold their parents, siblings or close friends accountable for anything. They let shared expereince and sympathy override their reasoning faculty. It keeps them stuck with people who no longer benefit them objectively .

I don't talk to my father anymore. That really seems to upset people's conventional morals.

D) You are not malevolent or a misanthrope. You believe that humans can succeed and you don't bare an ill will torwards humans automatically. Notice how often people in our culture deep down hate everyone else. No wonder, everyone to them is just another set of demands they really don't want to meet but feel as though they have to either through whim or duty. Empathy is an important reasoning tool as is cooperating with others is a good thing.

2) Objectivism has no response to a man using resources in an unsustainable way.

He starts out an example by giving a man who caresabout nothing but himself (which means what?) and then he gives him infinite power. So we take a man whose values are not defined and make him a dictator of the planet. How is this an argument against Objectivism?

A man can not be said to "Care about nothing but himself". His identity is to specific for that to mean anything. The self in an ethical context means the mind. To only value your mind would be an absurdity. Think about it, have you ever read a book or saw a movie where someone only "cared about themselves". No. Howard Roark cared about buldings, then his friends. Lex Luthor is mad that he doesn't have superpowers and superman does. The Joker wants to watch the world burn, prove the absurdity of the human condition, and drive moral people insane. Their primary motivations involve valuing their minds to a certain extent, but they all want very different things.

Honestly an Objectivist as an absolute monarch wouldn't be bad at all. Even if he starts stealing people's money in order to fund his other values he would want that source of income to be sustainable so his own values were sustainable. This invovles making sure that everyone else has enough resources to remain productive so that he could continue doing whatever it was he wanted to do. So with good knowledge of economics we are talking about a 1% tax rate being more than enough to fund any real person's desires.

He may argue "Well sure, but what if his desires would consume the resources in his lifetime, and he didn't care about anything past his life time, leaving the next generations nothing".

But what goal could a man have that would use that much resources but not involve the next generation?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Hairnet

[DarkBlack]

That you Hairnet that is helpful.

You are right that I should not have engaged this guy to begin with, it appears that I have chosen my friends and field in such a way that I take rational and worthwhile argument for granted (could be worse).

[happiness]

I fucking hate arguing about Objectivism with adversaries. Nothing is a bigger waste of time.