Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

Rate this topic


Zoso

Recommended Posts

Thank you, Inspector!  That is exactly what I was looking for.  I am glad to hear you say it.  Now I'll tell you why...

That makes sense, and I am glad we have it clear.

You kept defending it in one form or another.

Actually, if you look carefully at what I wrote after your inital post, I never once "defended" the statement itself. I only said that the context was misunderstood and called for people to re-read it carefully. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That makes sense, and I am glad we have it clear.

Actually, if you look carefully at what I wrote after your inital post, I never once "defended" the statement itself. I only said that the context was misunderstood and called for people to re-read it carefully.  :confused:

I'm glad too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello, I'm part of a group of students at the Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands. We've written this piece about international trade and investment and global and climate change, with regards to the recent tsunami disaster. We would really appreciate any comments or views that you may have. Thank you very much. Tope

In addition to giving Thailand financial support, foreign governments should look to the long-term situation of Thailand’s economy, specifically with regards to the tourism industry.

The results of the tsunami of December 26th have been varied, but mainly disastrous. For one, 146.000 people have died. The tsunami is not entirely to blame for these deaths: a proper warning system would have prevented many people from being caught by surprise and would have enabled the relevant authorities to prepare for the coming catastrophe; and, also the absence of a natural coastline caused the waves to strike faster and harder.

The Thai Tourism Board predicted that 1.2 million foreigners are likely to cancel their trips because they feel it is unsafe and they fear there will be health risks as well.

There has been an estimated cost to the tourism industry of US $770 million and this might go up to US $1 billion. Furthermore, there are roughly 200.000 people unemployed and unfortunately, 700 tourists have been reported dead.

The Commissioner of Development for the EU, Louis Michel, feels that the financial aid should not be a “…beauty contest…”, but should have some plan behind it and there should be promises that lead to efficient spending. The Foreign Minister of Australia, Alexander Downer, has pledged AUS $706 million. He feels that Australia has special responsibilities to its neighbouring countries.

Thailand’s tourism sector accounts for approximately six percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Moreover, it is estimated that the growth of the GDP will decrease by 1,5 percentage points, assuming that the tragedy subtracts 25 percent of business during the first quarter of this year. The case of the Singaporean airline, Tiger Air, illustrates this issue. The airline is currently reviewing its flight schedule following the tsunami calamity. Tiger Air is a fledgling low cost airline that has Phuket as one of its main destinations. The board of directors of the airline predicts that most of Asia-Pacific’s budget airlines will fail. This being due to the increase in prices for jet fuel and the current decline in demand for travel to Phuket.

The EU initially pledged €23 million, and now they have sent an estimated €1.5 billion. As aforementioned, Australia pledged AUS $760 million. The United States has promised US $350 million and there are rumors that they will even raise this to an amount of US $650 million. The prime minister of Thailand urges foreign countries not to dissuade tourists from visiting the country. In addition, he feels that aid for the disaster should come from local authorities as well. Following this, there will be a meeting of Thailand’s governing body, to be held on the 28th and 29th of January regarding the tsunami warning system.

It has become clear that a large amount of money has been made available by foreign governments and local authorities to rebuild and invest in the future. However, the most important issue, specifically for Thailand, is that not only money is invested by foreigners, but foreigners themselves should invest by supporting the tourism industry even more than before. This is why the financial aid that is given should not only fund the rebuilding of houses, hotels, and infrastructure, but there should be a detailed plan on how attract tourists. It is important for these foreigners to feel safe and be protected from such alarming ruin ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, I'm part of a group of students at the Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands. We've written this piece about international trade and investment and global and climate change, with regards to the recent tsunami disaster. We would really appreciate any comments or views that you may have. Thank you very much. Tope

I don't understand from your article: how do you think climate change is related in anyway to the tsunami disaster?

It has become clear that a large amount of money has been made available by foreign governments and local authorities to rebuild and invest in the future. However, the most important issue, specifically for Thailand, is that not only money is invested by foreigners, but foreigners themselves should invest by supporting the tourism industry even more than before. This is why the financial aid that is given should not only fund the rebuilding of houses, hotels, and infrastructure, but there should be a detailed plan on how attract tourists. It is important for these foreigners to feel safe and be protected from such alarming ruin ever again.

This has been one of my biggest problems with the U.S. government giving aid to other countries (besides the fact, of course, that they are using money extracted forcefully by their citizens): the money is seemingly given with no strings attached. I believe it was the Chineese who first said, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

The topic of global and climate change was an umbrella topic, and we were told to choose a more defined issue underneath that title.

We also felt that the aid provided isn't really the issue. They ought to provide more practical help.

Thanks for your comments.

Tope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Unfortunately this pivotal war requires rationally implemented mass death.  Civilisation has been challenged by a far more extensible virulence than nazism. Compromise means death.

The first sentence sounds like something that could have come from Hitler's mouth. I'm not meaning to insult you personally, but justifying mass death of people of another race for pragmatic reasons is disgusting. You can dress it up as morality all you like, as many such as Yaron Brook have tried to do, but it just doesn't wash. It goes against the doctrine of not initiating force and individualism all at the same time. You say, "They are at war with us, so it's ok to initiate force against the whole group of them," and lump a nation together as if they are all guilty of the same atrocities that a minority of them are. You are using a collectivist premise similar to blood guilt (is that what it's called?) where someone is guilty of a crime because of their race. If you want to be treated as an individual, then I would expect you to treat others as individuals as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first sentence sounds like something that could have come from Hitler's mouth.  I'm not meaning to insult you personally, but justifying mass death of people of another race for pragmatic reasons is disgusting.  You can dress it up as morality all you like, as many such as Yaron Brook have tried to do, but it just doesn't wash.  It goes against the doctrine of not initiating force and individualism all at the same time.  You say, "They are at war with us, so it's ok to initiate force against the whole group of them," and lump a nation together as if they are all guilty of the same atrocities that a minority of them are.  You are using a collectivist premise similar to blood guilt (is that what it's called?) where someone is guilty of a crime because of their race.  If you want to be treated as an individual, then I would expect you to treat others as individuals as well.

Are you saying that our right to self-defense is attenuated by the fact that our attackers hide among or behind civilians? That we may only use retaliatory force if we can guarantee no civilian casualties?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not exactly. First of all, retaliatory force requires that a person attacked you first, and in the case of Iraq or Indonesia, that is not the case. It can't be based on a whim that the person might attack you. Now, if we were to go to war with Saudi Arabia over 9/11, then at least we are in the correct geographical area.

Then, under that hypothetical situation that would never happen under the current Administration, we should do our best to reduce civilian casualties. Now I'm not saying that if one innocent person dies, we have failed completely and deserve to burn in Hell. But strategies like dropping a nuke on a country as the first attack cannot be remotely considered moral. You are lumping an entire country (or religious group) together, ignoring the fact that they are individuals. That is counter to the idea of individualism. You can't apply your moral standards differently, based on whether or not you fit into that collectivist grouping. I don't see it as rational to equate defense with a generalized offense against anyone with tenuous ties to the bad guys. That's what the bad guys do that makes them so bad, killing Americans regardless of whether they personally did anything to hurt them. If you twist the idea of "he hit me first" into "I think he was going to hit me first but I don't have any proof," then there's no way the rule "don't initate force" will work. Everyone would be attacking each other based on paranoid suspicions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum. YOUR first sentence is a guilt-by-association fallacy. Are you a pacifist?

Thanks. I am a pacifist except in the sense of self-defense. I don't believe in taking a beating to prevent hurting someone else. I don't believe this is a guilt by association fallacy, because I believe the statement I was referring to is inherently wrong. I just mentioned Hitler because Nazism was brought up in the next sentence. But "rationally implemented mass death" is exactly what made the Nazis so horrible. They coldly calculated the mass murder of millions. Now I'm not saying it was rational by my definition, but it was by theirs, the same as you are falsely rationalizing mass death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heizues, do you agree that a threat of force is an initiation of force?

It depends on how you define 'threat.' Let's go through a hypothetical situation:

Suppose you hear from a friend that some other guy wants to beat you up. If you go to his house in the middle of the night and rig a bomb up to it as a pre-emptive strike, then I believe you are the initiator of force. You didn't have proof that there was a threat, just a possibility that there is a threat of force. Not only that, but it's over-kill for the threat of just getting beat up, not even your life being threatened. This is equivalent to nuking a Muslim country simply for its religious persuasion. Even if there is one person who actually did threaten you directly, then it's immoral to kill everyone around them for such an arbitrary reason as racial or religious similarities. Often, it's not even necessary to kill mass numbers of people to get at the one guy. That's just being lazy and indifferent about human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on how you define 'threat.'  Let's go through a hypothetical situation:

Suppose you hear from a friend that some other guy wants to beat you up.  If you go to his house in the middle of the night and rig a bomb up to it as a pre-emptive strike, then I believe you are the initiator of force.  You didn't have proof that there was a threat, just a possibility that there is a threat of force.  Not only that, but it's over-kill for the threat of just getting beat up, not even your life being threatened.  This is equivalent to nuking a Muslim country simply for its religious persuasion.  Even if there is one person who actually did threaten you directly, then it's immoral to kill everyone around them for such an arbitrary reason as racial or religious similarities.  Often, it's not even necessary to kill mass numbers of people to get at the one guy.  That's just being lazy and indifferent about human life.

...so... yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "rationally implemented mass death" is exactly what made the Nazis so horrible.

You must be operating under a different definition of the word "rationally". Hitler's efforts in mass death were wholly irrational.

From another post:

Now I'm not saying that if one innocent person dies, we have failed completely and deserve to burn in Hell.

Do you believe in a place called Hell, or are you using that word in some symbolic sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be operating under a different definition of the word "rationally".  Hitler's efforts in mass death were wholly irrational.

From another post:

Do you believe in a place called Hell, or are you using that word in some symbolic sense?

Rationality can be abused, like I believe is happening when someone says that Objectivism claims that total war is moral. Hitler and the Nazis had a line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that they came to. Objective rationality is easier said than done with most people. Like a belief system, it can be twisted into any conclusion a person wants, especially if you start at the end and work backwards.

I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. Just using it symbolically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rationality can be abused, like I believe is happening when someone says that Objectivism claims that total war is moral.  Hitler and the Nazis had a line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that they came to.

No, actions or behavior are either rational or they aren't. They aren't one way or the other because we want them to be, or because they can be "twisted" as you say. What you are talking about is subjectivism. Yes, some people rationalize, but that doesn't make it rational thinking, nor does it condemn rational thinking. Having a line of reasoning that leads to a conclusion does not in and of itself make the conclusion or reasoning rational. Are you contending that Hitler's actions in exterminating Jews was in fact rational?

Objective rationality is easier said than done with most people. Like a belief system, it can be twisted into any conclusion a person wants, especially if you start at the end and work backwards.

What other method of thinking would you have people use, if not objective, rational thinking? What does "easier said than done" have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that logic and reason are tools that we use to come to conclusions. What conclusions we reach depend on our premises. Hitler and the Nazis started with flawed premises and came to horrible conclusions. As has been shown on this board, someone can come to the horrible conclusion that they believe justifies mass murder (when most rational people can see no justification for that). There is an element of subjectivity in the human ability to reason. Although we can agree that there is a capital 'T' Truth, I think it's silly to believe that the human brain, which evolved through pseudo-random processes, to be so perfect that we can always trust that we have found the rational conclusion in each situation. To believe in the perfection of the human mind doesn't seem like a logical conclusion unless you start with the premise that there is a God.

I think I'm rambling a little here. It's getting late. Let's see:

Was Hitler acting rationally? No, but neither is the person who says "Let's just nuke all the Muslims." That was my point. I can't imagine a situation where you could say "rational mass murder" without it being contradictory and immoral.

"Easier said than done" - Just because someone can use a logical argument to justify the morality of an action doesn't mean that he is starting with valid premises, i.e. the premise that civilians are guilty enough to be punished for the actions of a few individuals who live near them, or the premise that Jews were the cause of German financial woes.

Objective reason is a good thing to shoot for, but a rare skill because biases and other human flaws get in the way.

Alright, attack away. It will better help me collect my thoughts to respond to what you disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that logic and reason are tools that we use to come to conclusions.

On that we can agree.

There is an element of subjectivity in the human ability to reason.
Are you saying this is inherent or intrinsic in all human reasoning? If so, you are making an assertion and I will ask for your proof.

I think it's silly to believe that the human brain, which evolved through pseudo-random processes, to be so perfect that we can always trust that we have found the rational conclusion in each situation.

Define "pseudo-random". Something is either random or it isn't. Pseudorandom has a specific technical definition relating to the generation of random numbers on computers which has nothing to do with this conversation.

That you don't trust your on conclusions in any given situation is your problem but you can't factually place that burden on others. That said, it's difficult for me to take anything you say seriously because you admit that you don't trust your ability to come to conclusions, and you draw a number of conclusions in this conversation. That is unless you exclude yourself from having flawed premises or are tainted by subjectivity.

To believe in the perfection of the human mind doesn't seem like a logical conclusion unless you start with the premise that there is a God.
Ahh, that must be one of those flawed premises you were mentioning. What corelation makes the existence of a god necessary for the human mind to be able to be perfect?

Was Hitler acting rationally? No, but neither is the person who says "Let's just nuke all the Muslims." That was my point. I can't imagine a situation where you could say "rational mass murder" without it being contradictory and immoral.

What if your premise is flawed? Your premise appears to be that because you can't imagine it, it must not be possible. However, you changed the context by changing one word, "death" to "murder". Of course "rational mass murder" is immoral because murder has a specific meaning distinct from death or killing.

"Easier said than done" - Just because someone can use a logical argument to justify the morality of an action doesn't mean that he is starting with valid premises
Nor does it invalidate the premises. The logical argument and premises are seperate and distinct, and no one has claimed otherwise, so I still don't see how this has anything to do with this argument.

The entire tone of your posts seems to suggest that since some people are subjectivists and rationalize, that rational thinking cannot be trusted. What type of thinking alternative do you suggest?

Rational thinking is that thinking which is based on reason that conforms to the facts of reality. Rationalizing (in it's negative connotation) is when someone evades facts of reality to make something appear rational or logical. One type of thinking can be trusted, and the other cannot. However, you seem to doubt the human mind's ability to differentiate between those two thought processes. This would seem to make any meaningful discourse kind of pointless.

Objective reason is a good thing to shoot for, but a rare skill because biases and other human flaws get in the way.

Objective, rational reasoning is the ONLY thing to shoot for. When you say that it's a good thing to shoot for, that is suggestive that there is a viable alternative. Again I ask, what alternative do you see?

[Added one sentence - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that we can agree.

OK, that's a start. :thumbsup:

Are you saying this is inherent or intrinsic in all human reasoning?  If so, you are making an assertion and I will ask for your proof.

If you break down reasoning, eventually you reach a point where interpretation is involved in forming premises. This is because our brains are filters for sensory input because there is way too much input to be able to take it all in. When our brain is first being formed, a form of synaptic evolution occurs, where the pathways that are most useful and helpful for our environment are more heavily used and others sort of atrophy (not always completely).

Define "pseudo-random".  Something is either random or it isn't.  Pseudorandom has a specific technical definition relating to the generation of random numbers on computers which has nothing to do with this conversation.

I probably used the term "pseudo-random" because of my computer background. I didn't even catch that. The fact that I would use such a term shows a certain bias in my language based on the knowledge I've accumulated over the years. The same kind of bias causes me to interpret facts in a different way than you and make different premises from which I can draw logical conclusions. As for the definition, evolution is a combination of random mutation and selection of traits by what creatures live or die. I say it's pseudo, because the combination of randomness and a mechanism that chooses which are positive and which are negative that isn't really random. Therefore, it's somewhere in the middle. The result can be seen as a path of progress, but only after the fact (and with a certain amount of subjective interpretation), and it might turn out that some of the traits that helped us before now hinder us and will be selected against in the present era. This article makes a pretty good point in showing how biases affect perceptions: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/events/ad...Seminar2001.pdf

That you don't trust your on conclusions in any given situation is your problem but you can't factually place that burden on others.  That said, it's difficult for me to take anything you say seriously because you admit that you don't trust your ability to come to conclusions, and you draw a number of conclusions in this conversation.  That is unless you exclude yourself from having flawed premises or are tainted by subjectivity.

It's important to try to look for your own skewed perceptions and biases to avoid these pitfalls. Ignoring that you have any just makes it worse. I'm just trying to be intellectually honest here. I believe that there is an objective Truth, but there is a constant task of re-evaluation involved in finding it and seeing past your own tinted point of view.

Ahh, that must be one of those flawed premises you were mentioning.  What corelation makes the existence of a god necessary for the human mind to be able to be perfect?

Yes. Perfection is a human concept when something matches an ideal exactly. The ideal reasoning machine would more likely be a computer. The premises are still affected by the "perceptions" of the machine, since it will only "know" what input it is given or takes in. If it doesn't have a camera and isn't programmed to see, then it doesn't have that data. If the data it needs is in one part of the visual spectrum, but it can only "see" another part, the data is also lacking. But, and this is a big but, the computer is trustworthy to come to the same conclusion every time without previous biases getting in the way. Anyway, the belief (and that's what it is, a leap of faith) that our brain, which developed through a pseudo-random process, has reached a point of a perfect match with an ideal, would require a creator. I'm not making that leap, personally. It's a matter of subjective interpretation anyway.

What if your premise is flawed?

It may very well be.

Your premise appears to be that because you can't imagine it, it must not be possible.

I was leaving it open for an explanation for you. I can't see that point of view, but would love to hear it.

However, you changed the context by changing one word, "death" to "murder".  Of course "rational mass murder" is immoral because murder has a specific meaning distinct from death or killing.

If you are killing people who are innocent of the crime you are killing them for, that is murder. Or manslaughter at the least, if it is truly accidental and not just a matter of indifference.

The entire tone of your posts seems to suggest that since some people are subjectivists and rationalize, that rational thinking cannot be trusted.  What type of thinking alternative do you suggest?

Everyone has some subjective interference in their logical calculations. This is especially a problem when you don't recognize this. I suggest the kind of thinking where one questions everything, including logical arguments that seem rational. If Objective Truth were easy to come by, there would be no disagreement among Objectivists.

Objective, rational reasoning is the ONLY thing to shoot for.  When you say that it's a good thing to shoot for, that is suggestive that there is a viable alternative.  Again I ask, what alternative do you see?

I believe there is a flaw in the premise that morality is strictly equated with rationality. When watch Schindler's List, the shock I feel isn't from seeing a logical fallacy (although I see them), but a gut reaction to inhumanity. This stems from the opposite brain hemisphere, and since that also adapted from evolution, this should also be given some credence, since it somehow helped our ancestors survive. Now some of these emotions and intuitions could be vestigial, and we should analyze them and be open to that. But to discard emotions and intuition as useless and harmful out of hand seems irresponsible and rash to me.

By the way, I'd love to see why a mass killing of Iranians is rational and the Jewish Holocaust was not. My view is both are irrational, or at least immoral.

Whew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you break down reasoning, eventually you reach a point where interpretation is involved in forming premises.....

That's a good explanation of how the brain functions (which did not include the formation of new synaspe connections when we learn things), but it fails to prove that subjectivity is intrinsic in all human reasoning. It may be suggestive that it can be part of human reasoning sometimes if we are not careful.

I probably used the term "pseudo-random" because of my computer background.
So it would be more accurate to say some random elements, and other elements which are not random. Later you continue to use the term "pseudo-random" which I will not continue to challenge as you have defined what you mean by the term. However, it's still an inaccurate term.

It's important to try to look for your own skewed perceptions and biases to avoid these pitfalls. Ignoring that you have any just makes it worse.

What you are describing is the process of thinking rationally and objectively. However, I do not see that every observation that is made is skewed or bias. The human brain is very capable of making objective observations right from the start. I know this from making an observation, and then subjecting my premises / conclusions to the thought process you describe and deriving the same premises / conclusions.

I'm just trying to be intellectually honest here.
So am I.

I believe that there is an objective Truth, but there is a constant task of re-evaluation involved in finding it and seeing past your own tinted point of view.

But if you make the assertion that all point of views are tinted (or biased or skewed), you have the burden of proof. I haven't seen that you have proven that yet.

Perfection is a human concept when something matches an ideal exactly.
Actually, that is one such definition of the concept. Perfection can also be defined as a state of something being the best it can possibly be. In either case, you have not proven to me that the existence of a god or a creator is a prerequisite for perfection of the human mind. There is no corelation between the two concepts.

It may very well be.

So which parts of your argument can I trust?

I was leaving it open for an explanation for you. I can't see that point of view, but would love to hear it.
I'll leave those explanations to the persons who have presented that argument. I was merely pointing out what I saw to be flawed reasoning.

If you are killing people who are innocent of the crime you are killing them for, that is murder.

Again, I'll leave that for others to explain if they choose to. I will say that being innocent of the actual crime but aiding or abetting the crime are two different things. I would suggest their argument would be that these "innocent" people are actively or passively supporting their terrorist countrymen, thus removing them from the realm of "innocent".

Everyone has some subjective interference in their logical calculations.

You can make it bold, but it doesn't make it so. However, even if I were to give you that everyone has some subjective interferenece in some of their logical calculations, it doesn't prevent them from using the previously described objective thought process and coming to valid conclusions which adhere to facts of reality.

I believe there is a flaw in the premise that morality is strictly equated with rationality. When watch Schindler's List, the shock I feel isn't from seeing a logical fallacy (although I see them), but a gut reaction to inhumanity.
Now this is starting to walk right down subjectivist lane but I think there's a sign post ahead that can help you out.

Have you ever examined the basis for your emotions in the same manner that you examine your premises, conclusions, and thought processes? If you fail to do that, that is far more dangerous than not questioning your thinking. Ask yourself why you have a gut reaction to the "inhumanity" in Schindler's List. If you are honest with yourself, you will probably find rational, logical reaons for condemning the "inhumanity" thus enabling you to see that morality does remain strictly equated to rationality. That emotion (gut reaction) exists because you have already integrated those values so firmly that you no longer have to think about it before you recognize and react to the assault on your values.

Objectivist epistemology addresses the formation of emotions, and I'm open for the more knowledgeable to correct me if I'm wrong here. Emotions are automatized responses to events that affect our values. Emotions can have either a rational basis or an irrational basis. Emotions which are rationally based are healthy. Irrationally based emotions are not healthy. I would suggest that it is one's emotions that are more susceptible to whim than their rational thought process, if left unexamined. Reacting simply to your emotions without thinking about their origins circumvents the whole check and balance system you describe to make sure your premises and conclusions aren't tainted. Or in many cases, reacting on your emotions circumvents thinking altogether. If you are basing any part of your system of morality on that, you may well be in a field of moral landmines.

Does this help explain why morality should still be strictly based on rationality? Or do you have a different explanation on the origin of emotions?

But to discard emotions and intuition as useless and harmful out of hand seems irresponsible and rash to me.

Intuition. Now there's a concept that requires a leap of faith. I'm not even going to entertain that arbitrary notion. Rather, I will point out that emotions aren't useless, they just aren't useful for determining morality. Instead, emotions are the indicators which tell alert us to events which affect our values. As indicators, they don't normally give us enough information to come to conclusions, but merely tell us to "check the map" of our rational thought. What is potentially harmful about emotions is when you use them as something more than indicators or if you have not examined what basis they have in rational thought and reality.

[Edited to correct bold error - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Suppose dictatorship "a" threatens free nation "b." Free nation "b" has a moral obligation to remove the threat of dictatorship "a" in the way that is LEAST self-sacrificial.

2) The population of dictatorship "a" has a responsibility to resist the dictatorship, flee, etc. Their failure to do so is essentially them signing a waiver that says they might be caught in the crossfire when free nation "b" defends itself.

3) Casualties are the moral responsibility of nation "b" and are not the fault of nation "a."

4) "Mass death" is a logical consequence of war. "Rational mass death" is not immoral, by definition, since it is qualified with the word "rational." Dispute first the idea that it is rational, before you go any further. So far, you have not offered any arguments that "rationally implemented mass death" is NOT a requirement for the United States to defend itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To start off, I just want to express that I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, even though there are only 2 of us playing ping pong here.

That's a good explanation of how the brain functions (which did not include the formation of new synaspe connections when we learn things), but it fails to prove that subjectivity is intrinsic in all human reasoning.

The creation of new synapses is an important point, because the more you learn, the more well-rounded and rational your choices are. As for the idea of subjectivity, to paraphrase Rand, "To say 'I think' you must first say the 'I'." Not all reasoning is subjective, however, but it would have to be something like mathematics where the premises are absolute. Maybe I was stating it wrong before. We can be expected to reason very well, as humans, but our ability to come up with objective premises to start with is horribly flawed.

So it would be more accurate to say some random elements, and other elements which are not random. However, it's still an inaccurate term.

Taken as a whole, the process of evolution is semi-random, because it is made up of a combination of random and non-random elements. I withdraw pseudo-random from the table. I thought about it and it really doesn't mean "half random" but more like "almost random." I stand corrected.

But if you make the assertion that all point of views are tinted (or biased or skewed), you have the burden of proof.

Fair enough...I believe the article I gave a link to did a decent job of showing how sometimes perception is affected by bias. Also, it's been shown that eyewitness accounts are not always identical from one person to another and can even contradict each other. Maybe it's a bit strong to say that everything is affected by your biases, but the fact that most of your learning is done as a child, and therefore most of your point of view formed then, there's a certain mental framework that will never change in your life. That's the part of you that is identifiable as your personality.

Perfection can also be defined as a state of something being the best it can possibly be.

Out of the animal kingdom, the human brain is the closest to perfection when it comes to reasoning abilities. Could it evolve to be better? Yes. Will it? Probably. I don't see that as a definition of perfection, though. By that definition, if humans didn't exist, a monkey would have a perfect reasoning brain, since they would be at the top. As long as there's room for improvement within the realm of possibility, it isn't perfect.

In either case, you have not proven to me that the existence of a god or a creator is a prerequisite for perfection of the human mind.

Let's just say it would be an amazing coincidence that what we have is perfect by chance. More likely, we formed an ideal of perfection that flattered us because we happen to fit it. But I don't feel like pursuing the argument of God creating the perfect brain at the moment. I saw it at the beginning, but can't really form it anymore. I'll think on it and leave it at that for now.

So which parts of your argument can I trust?

Those which resonate with your reason and intuition. Discard any or all that doesn't.

Again, I'll leave that for others to explain if they choose to. I will say that being innocent of the actual crime but aiding or abetting the crime are two different things. I would suggest their argument would be that these "innocent" people are actively or passively supporting their terrorist countrymen, thus removing them from the realm of "innocent".

Although this isn't your claim, I'll take a stab at this anyway, since it sounds like what I've heard here already. The idea that a civilian hasn't done enough to get rid of terrorists in his neighborhood is a subjective assumption. You must assume as a premise that their innocence is negated by this lack of action. Without that, the house of cards falls. In addition, you have to make the stretch that such a transgression is a capital offense. Both subjective assumptions, especially the latter.

Have you ever examined the basis for your emotions in the same manner that you examine your premises, conclusions, and thought processes? If you fail to do that, that is far more dangerous than not questioning your thinking.

I'll agree with that, and add that I believe that is what is happening to those who make the claim that the way to fight terrorism is by total war on Muslim countries. Their anger and fear, along with some hatred, cause them to feel a certain way. Then they rationalize and justify these feelings with a logic argument built on a false set of premises.

That emotion (gut reaction) exists because you have already integrated those values so firmly that you no longer have to think about it before you recognize and react to the assault on your values.

I would argue that it's the opposite. When a young child witnesses something violent, or sees someone crying, they usually cry. The emotional reactions are older than the abililty to reason. As the child becomes more intelligent, he learns to use reasoning to explain those feelings. "I feel scared because I'm afraid I'll be hurt..." etc. It is also possible to learn to ignore these feelings and suppress them, as the Nazis often had to do. You can teach yourself to not feel much.

Irrationally based emotions are not healthy. I would suggest that it is one's emotions that are more susceptible to whim than their rational thought process, if left unexamined.

This is what I was trying to say previously, when I said "It's important to try to look for your own skewed perceptions and biases to avoid these pitfalls. Ignoring that you have any just makes it worse." It's a fallacy to believe that because you consider yourself a rational being, your emotions won't be a problem. Emotions are important and can't be avoided.

Reacting simply to your emotions without thinking about their origins circumvents the whole check and balance system you describe to make sure your premises and conclusions aren't tainted.

Checks and balances. Exactly! Bi-cameral thinking is what I'm advocated. Reacting simply to your emotions is as much of a pitfall as simply listening to logic. If you take the balanced approach, you know what your emotions are, analyze them for rationality. Then you get a feeling about your conclusions to make sure it doesn't make you feel sick.

Intuition. Now there's a concept that requires a leap of faith. I'm not even going to entertain that arbitrary notion. As indicators, they don't normally give us enough information to come to conclusions, but merely tell us to "check the map" of our rational thought. What is potentially harmful about emotions is when you use them as something more than indicators or if you have not examined what basis they have in rational thought and reality.

I don't know if we necessarily disagree on this. Just see it a little differently. I don't see intuition as the crazy pie-in-the-sky concept it is sometimes made out to be. There's a book called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. I've just read the introduction, but plan on buying it and reading it when I get a chance. Anyway, he tells a story in there where there was this ancient statue (Greek, I think) that a museum was planning on buying. They did all these tests to prove that it was old and authentic. Everything came back positive. Then, all these experts came and looked at it, at different times. All of them immediately called it a fake, from their first impressions. They would look at it and find all the little details that just didn't "feel right." Finally, the museum got a bunch of these people together and they decided together that it was a fake and were able to provide evidence as such. What's happening is these people have been around this art so long, and know it so thoroughly, part of them knows it's a fake before they know the reason why. It took a couple of days for the experts to show conclusively that it was a fake, but all of them knew on first glance that something wasn't right. What this is an example of is the right side of the brain, which sees things more holistically, can make that snap judgement based on it's thinking skills and the left hemisphere has to take a while to put all the pieces together. So it isn't a mystical thing, but a part of our psyches that we don't know as much about. I say that they are an indicator to stop and "check the map" as you've said and shouldn't be outright ignored. If you make a decision that seems perfectly rational, but something doesn't feel right, go back and look at your premises.

Checks and balances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Suppose dictatorship "a" threatens free nation "b." Free nation "b" has a moral obligation to remove the threat of dictatorship "a" in the way that is LEAST self-sacrificial.

The least self-sacrificial way a President could run this country is under martial law, where jay-walking is a capital offense. Is that moral? Is that rational?

2) The population of dictatorship "a" has a responsibility to resist the dictatorship, flee, etc. Their failure to do so is essentially them signing a waiver that says they might be caught in the crossfire when free nation "b" defends itself.

There's no treaty that says they have a responsiblity to resist the dictatorship. You are advocating that they should be altruists for population "b" and risk their own deaths to save us. As Objectivists, they have the moral responsibility to save their own lives. Your belief in this premise is subjective.

3) Casualties are the moral responsibility of nation "b" and are not the fault of nation "a."

Huh? Doesn't this contradict what you said in 2?

4) "Mass death" is a logical consequence of war. "Rational mass death" is not immoral, by definition, since it is qualified with the word "rational." Dispute first the idea that it is rational, before you go any further. So far, you have not offered any arguments that "rationally implemented mass death" is NOT a requirement for the United States to defend itself.

Mass death, by it's nature, means that many will die who are not directly or even indirectly responsible for the crimes that their neighbors or dictator has perpetrated. You assume they have the power and the responsibility to resist this dictator for our sake and then build a logical argument based on these subjective assumptions. Just because you say, "it isn't my fault, they should have moved," doesn't make it a fact or a valid moral premise. You also presume that they haven't tried to resist, and if they have, "oh well, sorry, but what I did was still moral." Therefore, it is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time right now to address all these point, but there are two I will address now.

Those which resonate with your reason and intuition.

You can use "intuition" all you want, but please don't attribute that to me as a tool of cognition. Reason I accept.

I would argue that it's the opposite. When a young child witnesses something violent, or sees someone crying, they usually cry. The emotional reactions are older than the abililty to reason. As the child becomes more intelligent, he learns to use reasoning to explain those feelings. "I feel scared because I'm afraid I'll be hurt..." etc. It is also possible to learn to ignore these feelings and suppress them, as the Nazis often had to do. You can teach yourself to not feel much.

That a child has to learn how to express themselves does not replace or dismiss the idea that reason is the tool we need to live a happy, rational life. The child you describe is responding to a perceived threat to it's life (arguably its most important core value). Whether that threat is real or not may be indistinguishable to the child due to it's inability to reason through the situation. And the decision the child makes to protect it's life at that point is going to be just about as whimsical as you can get if it's based on the emotion it is experiencing. Your argument here is NOT a good basis for why emotions should be used for deriving rational conclusions or as a tool of cognition. Children are notoriously bad at making consistently rational decisions. They are also ill-equipped if left to their own devices to live life as man qua man. It is only with the help and guidance of adults capable of reasoning to help teach them learn and to develop their reasoning that prepares them for life as man.

There are several entries you can read in the Ayn Rand Lexicon if you choose. They explain the purpose of emotions much better than I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...