Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
EC

Visiting Leftists

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It seems that we have several new members that have ideas that are quite left-of-center. They seem to be here to ask questions and study us(Objectivists). Which is fine. But, I'd like to flip it around a bit. What do you guys think of us? It must be a bit baffling to you that we are both godless and rabid Capitalists at the same time, huh? :) Do you find it strange that most Objectivists are extreme moralists? Do you understand our morality? Do you understand why we know that self-sacrifice and altruism is evil? Do you understand why we claim that not only is knowledge possible, but we can verify it? Do you understand why we are in general proud of ourselves without possessing guilt of that fact? These questions are not rhetorical, I really am curious.

Edited by EC to fix spelling.

Edited by Rational_One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intersting question, I assume I will be allowed to give an honest opinion. If this is not the case, do not read on.

1. This forum is smart. Logical, knowledgeable, a great place to just learn.

2. This surprised me, neither the ARI nor the Wiki clearly state a definition of altruism or the main objections. I am currently on page 29 of Atlas Shrugged (rented earlier today) to get a better grip on this issue.

3. A basic foundation of Objectivism seems like a rendition of a naturalistic arguement for morality. To survive we need X, therefore X are rights. This type of arguement, to my knowledge, was defeated soundly centuries ago, by Hume, Nietzche, and many others.

4. This is a reaction to attitudes on this thread, I mean no offence to anyone. The issue of the Tsunami, several say that we should not help those afflicted because they are not capitalists. Okay - And you wonder why people think Objectivists are nothing more than racist eleitist heartless.....people. I am not saying this is the case, merely stating the perception myself and no doubt others had upon seeing this.

5. The forum has an attitude of extreme eurocentrism in some cases, from dismissing any criticism of the West's heroes as left wing, to saying the Black Death is a stamp of pride as only 'advanced' cultures can get it.

6. No one tells jokes! My Goodness, has no one a sense of humour? People have actually been attacked because a joke undermines Objectivism.

7. Okay, Objectivist movie and music threads, Ayn Rand action figures, a willingness to dismiss arguements because they contradict Ayn Rand......doesn't that sound just a little Heaven's Gate to anyone?*

8. I like Ayn Rand's belief in 'Man'. Really like it, its a sign of courage in the face of nihilism. Now, I am a relativist in some ways, so despite all that wonderfull logic Rand tries to use for her values, I see her as being and idealist. An Idealist with, from what I've seen, excellant values and inspiring faith, but an idealist nonetheless.

9. I'm not really surprised to see godless capitalists, but it is odd nonetheless. Most of the capitalists I meat are brainwashed, although nowadays you can say that about left wing people to.

10. I have yet to see any extreme moralisation about anything save egoism. I maintain my beleif that 'morality' is a term applying only to helping others, but that's just words.

11. this board talks alot about metaphysical knowledge, but I've seen little backing up on that.

*This was sarcasm, I am not calling this a cult.

Edited by GWDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On #4, anybody who believes Miss Rand was a rascist is just flat out wrong. She discusses this issue in The Voice of Reason. Racism is a subtle form of collectivism.

On #7, Rand disliked Beethoven. Many people here enjoy his music.

On #10, the moral is that which is life-affirming. Morality can apply to a person trapped alone on an island. See threads on this for more info.

On #11, start a new thread or read the first chapter in OPAR.

Zak

[Edit to add last point]

Edited by realitycheck44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intersting question, I assume I will be allowed to give an honest opinion. If this is not the case, do not read on.

1. This forum is smart. Logical, knowledgeable, a great place to just learn.

Indeed :)

2. This surprised me, neither the ARI nor the Wiki clearly state a definition of altruism or the main objections. I am currently on page 29 of Atlas Shrugged (rented earlier today) to get a better grip on this issue.
Altruism is a moral code of selflessness, placing others above one's self. It is the idea that man's purpose for existence is service to others.

3. A basic foundation of Objectivism seems like a rendition of a naturalistic arguement for morality. To survive we need X, therefore X are rights. This type of arguement, to my knowledge, was defeated soundly centuries ago, by Hume, Nietzche, and many others.

This is not the case. The basis for Objectivist ethics is Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Ethics is corollary branch of philosophy.

4. This is a reaction to attitudes on this thread, I mean no offence to anyone. The issue of the Tsunami, several say that we should not help those afflicted because they are not capitalists. Okay - And you wonder why people think Objectivists are nothing more than racist eleitist heartless.....people. I am not saying this is the case, merely stating the perception myself and no doubt others had upon seeing this.
If I had money to spare, I would be more than happy to donate some to a decent charity to aid the victims of the tsunami. My reasons for this are that I generally value human life, and the people that are affected by the tsunami are suffering through no fault of their own. The only way that it would be immoral to donate to the tsunami victims is if it involved a sacrifice (If you gave money you could not afford to give or if you gave money to a charity you did not support).

That being said, if the exact same tsunami hit the United States, the devastation would not be as catastrophic. Because we are generally a capitalist country, we have enough wealth to overcome natural disasters with minimal harm.

You can't take what people say on this forum to be the "official" Objectivist stance, for there can't really be such a thing in regard to current events. The people that post here have differing levels of knowledge of Objectivism and varying levels of integration of the philosophy into their everyday lives. People with the same general philosophical views can arrive at very different opinions regarding concrete issues. For evidence of this, look at the threads on the 2004 elections.

5. The forum has an attitude of extreme eurocentrism in some cases, from dismissing any criticism of the West's heroes as left wing, to saying the Black Death is a stamp of pride as only 'advanced' cultures can get it.

You are going to have to define eurocentrism and Black Death. I'm not sure what you mean.

6. No one tells jokes! My Goodness, has no one a sense of humour? People have actually been attacked because a joke undermines Objectivism.
This is a blanket statement, I consider myself to have an excellent sense of humor. A sense of humor is not defined by one's philosophy. What one finds amusing may be, but not one's capacity for humor.

7. Okay, Objectivist movie and music threads, Ayn Rand action figures, a willingness to dismiss arguements because they contradict Ayn Rand......doesn't that sound just a little Heaven's Gate to anyone?*

This is another blanket statement. Through this forum I discovered the music of Rachmaninoff. I don't like Rachmaninoff because Ayn Rand liked him or because others here like him, I like him because his music is superlative and a joy to listen to. It would be wrong to like a movie or piece of music just because somebody else likes it, but if you find people who share your same values, you’ll find that their tastes in movies and music are very similar.

8. I like Ayn Rand's belief in 'Man'. Really like it, its a sign of courage in the face of nihilism. Now, I am a relativist in some ways, so despite all that wonderfull logic Rand tries to use for her values, I see her as being and idealist. An Idealist with, from what I've seen, excellant values and inspiring faith, but an idealist nonetheless.
Are you implying that having ideals is wrong? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "idealist".

9. I'm not really surprised to see godless capitalists, but it is odd nonetheless. Most of the capitalists I meat are brainwashed, although nowadays you can say that about left wing people to.

The Objectivist definition of capitalism is simply a social/political system based of the recognition/protection of individual rights. Anyone who tries to add anything else into the equation that is not directly derived from individual rights is wrong.

10. I have yet to see any extreme moralisation about anything save egoism. I maintain my beleif that 'morality' is a term applying only to helping others, but that's just words.

You have an improper (yet very common) view of morality. Based on the definition of altruism given above, it seems that you code of morality is very altruistic.

11. this board talks alot about metaphysical knowledge, but I've seen little backing up on that.

Ayn Rand's defintion of metaphysical:

The Virtue of Selfishness- "The Objectivist Ethics", page 14

"I use the word "metaphysical" to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence."

Since all knowledge must come from reality, metaphysical knowledge is rather redundant.

You stated that you just started Atlas Shrugged. It is a truly amazing book and I guarantee you will have a much better understanding of Objectivism after reading it. There is no better introduction to the philosophy than reading that book. (But make sure you read The Fountainhead too, its my personal favorite :). )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5. The forum has an attitude of extreme eurocentrism in some cases

Europe is collapsing. I am trying to get out of here before it crashes onto my head.

The attitude we have is extreme Americanism.

No one tells jokes!

If you familiarize with and adopt our philosophy, I'm sure you'll change your mind about that. You probably don't see the fun in it yet, but we joke a lot about altruists! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivist movie and music threads, ...

With over 600 movie recommendations by Objectivists in the Objectivism Wiki Movie Recommendations page it would be a stretch to think that Objectivist tastes tend to be monolithic. On the other hand, if one values certain things, then emotions (negative and positive) will follow. So, it is not unsurprizing that tastes will cluster, not just among Objectivists, but among any set of people who share values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. A basic foundation of Objectivism seems like a rendition of a naturalistic arguement for morality. To survive we need X, therefore X are rights. This type of arguement, to my knowledge, was defeated soundly centuries ago, by Hume, Nietzche, and many others.
No, it really wasn't defeated soundly, or even effectively criticized. This argument has the definite scent of argumentum ad vericundiam. If you have a concrete objection to a concrete claim of Objectivism, you should present it. (Note that Hume and Nietzsche completely ignored the writings of Rand so we cannot see what their specific arguments are).
4. This is a reaction to attitudes on this thread, I mean no offence to anyone. The issue of the Tsunami, several say that we should not help those afflicted because they are not capitalists. Okay - And you wonder why people think Objectivists are nothing more than racist eleitist heartless.....people. I am not saying this is the case, merely stating the perception myself and no doubt others had upon seeing this.
Try to move past instant-judgement perceptions, and look at the issue at a higher conceptual level. What benefit is there to me in giving aid to a person who hates me and will kill me if he has a chance? Under what conditions should you give aid to a person? This isn't a matter of race, assuming that you don't really think that having an evil philosophy is a consequence of ones race (that would be racism).
5. The forum has an attitude of extreme eurocentrism in some cases, from dismissing any criticism of the West's heroes as left wing, to saying the Black Death is a stamp of pride as only 'advanced' cultures can get it.
Somebody has the be the best, and if it falls on European culture, so be it. In fact most people here would reject major aspects of European, especially EU culture. FC has summed it up very nicely. One fact, which you might not know, that is quite relevant to this board is that Objectivism is a philosophy, and all philosophy stems from either Greece or India (and whether those roots of philosophy are in turn based on something unique about Indo-European culture is really not possible to judge, so we'll leave it at a disjunction). If you compare Greek and Indian philosophy -- especially the Vedantic schools that prevailed, there is a very good reason to abjure the alternative. So of course if you are interested in philosophy (since it is the underpinning of culture), and the historical fountainhead (no literary reference intended :)) of the only decent approach to philosophy is Greek, it's natural that things will seem "eurocentric". BTW, the connection between The Plague and AIDS is fascinating. Why are most AIDS-resistant people of nothern Eurpean descent? In case you were wondering, though, The Plague also exists in Africa, and people there do get it.
10. I have yet to see any extreme moralisation about anything save egoism. I maintain my beleif that 'morality' is a term applying only to helping others, but that's just words.p
No, that is completely wrong. Morality is a concept applying to choice. I maintain that you are a mass murderer, but that's just words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Note that Hume and Nietzsche completely ignored the writings of Rand so we cannot see what their specific arguments are).

Hume and Nietzsche were Ayn Rand's contemporaries? Hume died in 1776 and Nietzsche in 1900. I'm not sure being dead constitutes "ignoring".

They couldn't very well have refuted her prior to her existence, either. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have both refuted pretty much every philosophical argument against Objectivism, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have limited time so I'll just say two things -

1. I call Rand an Idealist because, to my understanding at this point, she has an imaginary idea of man (man qua man) that is greater then the average person. In my eyes she can not back up her idea rationally, its like romantic art. Now having Ideals is not bad, as I said I like what I'm seeing in most respects, but there have been many others through history that used this kind of arguement. Heidegger, I beleive, had similar motives for supporting Hitler.

2. I understand the basic issue of altruism, but I think I'm missing something. From what Rand is saying, it seems to me, a single person can be faced with this choice, "Either you die or everyone in China dies" and the person must elect to kill all the chinese. After all, surely self-sacrifice for rather unproductive strangers is a compromise of your ultimate values?

Alot of people on this forum seem to counter these arguements by talking about 'ethics of emergencies'. Can anyone point to further resources on this matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I call Rand an Idealist because, to my understanding at this point, she has an imaginary idea of man (man qua man) that is greater then the average person. In my eyes she can not back up her idea rationally, its like romantic art. Now having Ideals is not bad, as I said I like what I'm seeing in most respects, but there have been many others through history that used this kind of arguement. Heidegger, I beleive, had similar motives for supporting Hitler.

By what standard do you call Miss Rand's ideal man "imaginary"? The Objectivist ideal is a man that uses his mind to understand the world and thus to improve his life and secure his own happiness. This is better than the average person? What a sad indictment of humanity.

Ayn Rand wished to portray the heroic in man as a demonstration of what fantastic achievements ARE possible to man when he uses his mind and follows a rational philosophy. Far from a mystic, untouchable ideal, this is and should be the NORM. The fact that it is neither easy nor automatic does not change this fact. It requires no slaughter, no purges or purification or self-denial or self-abnegation. It requires only that one critically examine one's premises and orient oneself to reality using reason.

It is something that can only be accomplished by each individual, alone, in his own sovereign mind. Objectivism is the antithesis of Hitlers and Stalins.

2.  I understand the basic issue of altruism, but I think I'm missing something. From what Rand is saying, it seems to me, a single person can be faced with this choice, "Either you die or everyone in China dies" and the person must elect to kill all the chinese. After all, surely self-sacrifice for rather unproductive strangers is a compromise of your ultimate values?

Alot of people on this forum seem to counter these arguements by talking about 'ethics of emergencies'. Can anyone point to further resources on this matter?

There is an essay called "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness. These bizarre "lifeboat" situations are not a guide to ethics. How DOES one get into the situation where madmen would go around randomly telling people that he's going to kill all the Chinese unless they kill themselves? Is this a regular feature of life? Or, if you accept these situations as the norm, how is life possible to men at all? (The answer is, that in such a world it would NOT be.)

Ethics exists to provide a broad, abstract guide for men on how they should choose their course of action in REAL LIFE, not bizarre fantasy situations cooked up in the imaginings of paranoids and maniacs. Ethics is not and should not be a series of iron-clad, concrete-bound rules such as "self-sacrifice bad!" that destroy man's mind by placing it at odds with reality. Rather, it rewards a man when he uses his mind to apply his principles to specific situations in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure being dead constitutes "ignoring".
Nah, I wasn't being literal there. I was objecting to the assumption that arguments trotted out by Hume or Nietzche had any bearing on the validity of Objectivism. If GWDS can present a valid argument against Objectivism, then he can present it (and of course give appropriate credit to Hume or Nietzche for having first constructed the same argument -- assuming that they did indeed originate that argument). The fact that some past philosopher is believed to have refuted a kind of argument does not mean that the refutation is valid when applied to unrelated cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what Rand is saying, it seems to me, a single person can be faced with this choice, "Either you die or everyone in China dies" and the person must elect to kill all the chinese.
First off, to semi-echo Jennifer's point, this is just to bizarre to be believed (and certainly too bizarre to be the basis for morality). Why not just shoot the bastard who's threatening to kill all of the Chinese? Or hide them in a safe place? Or why not pretend to kill yourself, wait for him to release his death grip on all of the Chinese, and then come back to life? I find my alternatives to be more reasonable than your 1 vs billions forced choice. In addition, you haven't presented us with any evidence that this mass-murderer demon is so trustworthy that we can be sure that he won't kill all the Chinese anyway. Rand never proposed an such ludicrous scenario, and I've never heard any description of such a scenario that wasn't outlandish, and didn't smell of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it really wasn't defeated soundly, or even effectively criticized. This argument has the definite scent of argumentum ad vericundiam. If you have a concrete objection to a concrete claim of Objectivism, you should present it. (Note that Hume and Nietzsche completely ignored the writings of Rand so we cannot see what their specific arguments are).

I'd like to point out that, while DavidOdden's reply is important, there is another aspect of GWDS's statement that should be addressed.

Ayn Rand never said "To survive we need X, therefore X are rights." In fact, she thoroughly opposed that idea. What she did say (paraphrased, of course) was this:

The primary right is the right to life. All other rights derive from this.

Just because a man has a right to his life, doesn't mean that he has a right to Y or Z (where Y might be food and Z might be shelter). The right to life does mean that a man has the right to act to gain (or earn) Y and Z, and that once he has earned Y and Z, no other man (or group) has the right to take it from him.

That's the basic formulation. There are, of course, stipulations. The man must act ethically to gain Y and Z--he must not steal or defraud. In other words, he must not violate another's rights. Further, if he attempts to act to gain Y or Z, but he is not successful, he does not get an A for effort. In other words, he might apply to a number of jobs, but his application does not make him entitled to the job--etc., etc.

Rights theory is a more extensive topic, but I wanted to point out that GWDS had misconstrued one of the basic tenets of Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have limited time so I'll just say two things -

1. I call Rand an Idealist because, to my understanding at this point, she has an imaginary idea of man (man qua man) that is greater then the average person. In my eyes she can not back up her idea rationally, its like romantic art. Now having Ideals is not bad, as I said I like what I'm seeing in most respects, but there have been many others through history that used this kind of arguement. Heidegger, I beleive, had similar motives for supporting Hitler.

Miss Rand has an idea of what man should aspire to be, this image is not imaginary. Obviously, the heroes in her novels are greater than the "average" person", how else could they be heroes? It is difficult to discuss this until you have read AS and FH, it would be much more clear to you then.

2.  I understand the basic issue of altruism, but I think I'm missing something. From what Rand is saying, it seems to me, a single person can be faced with this choice, "Either you die or everyone in China dies" and the person must elect to kill all the chinese. After all, surely self-sacrifice for rather unproductive strangers is a compromise of your ultimate values?

Alot of people on this forum seem to counter these arguements by talking about 'ethics of emergencies'. Can anyone point to further resources on this matter?

You illustrated the issue with an imaginary emergency, it's much more simple than that. The idea behind acting in your rational self-interest vs. acting selflessly, it to never, ever sacrifice. Always act in accordance to your values, never give up a value for something you value less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beleive I just may have killed this thread. Anything I post now will simply cause this to be a 'teach me objectivism' type of thread, a waste of time. Or not.....

1. Most moral systems come from extreme situations - stealing bread to survive, the auschwitz gaurd, abortion, that sort of thing. Issues like capitalism, egoism, seem to be secondary considerations. Objectivism however seems to look at normal economic life as a starting point (I imagine this is do to Aristotle?), that is what throws me off. Nowhere, that I could see, does the ARI or the Wiki address directly such common issues as helping the sick etc.

Aswell, I once hid all of Pakistan in my closet, think I could get China in the garage? :lol:

2. I apologise for not being more clear on the rights issue. Even with a better definition however, the basic idea is still there - We need 'X' to survive, must do 'Y' to attain 'X', therefore, within limits, 'Y' are rights. We are still taking something from nature and raising it to the discourse of morality. Some people are trying to explain this better in another thread, don't feel obliged to reply.

3. JMegan wrote,

By what standard do you call Miss Rand's ideal man "imaginary"? The Objectivist ideal is a man that uses his mind to understand the world and thus to improve his life and secure his own happiness. This is better than the average person? What a sad indictment of humanity.

Ayn Rand wished to portray the heroic in man as a demonstration of what fantastic achievements ARE possible to man when he uses his mind and follows a rational philosophy. Far from a mystic, untouchable ideal, this is and should be the NORM. The fact that it is neither easy nor automatic does not change this fact. It requires no slaughter, no purges or purification or self-denial or self-abnegation. It requires only that one critically examine one's premises and orient oneself to reality using reason.

I'm just starting to understand Rand's ideas, but I stick to my position it is more a romantic Ideal then anything else. For these reasons -

1. The only empiracle definition of 'human' is the scientific one, any further definition (man is rational, self interested, etc) is an imaginary image laid ontop of this. For example, if I have a 30 year old truck with 1 tire and bullet holes, it still fits the definition rooted in reality. Now someone else can have this image in their mind of a truck made of gold with a warp drive, this, while the ideal from the definition, it is a leap of imagination. Rand's 'Man' is closer to Michealngelo's David then anything flesh and blood.

This is the exact same sort of arguement the nazis used, only their 'ideal' was well, you know.

2. The fact that something is an imaginary ideal has nothing to do with it being 'untouchable'. The Golden Gate Bridge started out the same way, through human action it was created. Hitler, who was full of romanticism, wanted to create inhuman monsters, with some effort he made the SS. Cicero (at some point early on) no doubt wanted to be a great leader, through will he made it into a reality.

3. Reason and values are not linked, I think. You can say 'X' is the rational choice while 'Y' meets my immediate disires. If you value immediate gratification more than reason you will choose 'Y'.

4. Humans not rational being a sad statement is sad, but true. Look around, you will see what I mean - from the arab world to Jerry Springer, mob mentality has not left.

Edited for seeing a new post.

Edited by GWDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the exact same sort of arguement the nazis used, only their 'ideal' was well, you know.

That statement is in strikingly bad taste, and if you think we're dumb enough not to notice what it is, then you're fooling yourself.

Talk about equivocation by inessential attributes! That statement would be like me saying that you and Hitler are similar because you both used WORDS to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inspector - Are you saying that my post was meant to say Ayn Rand was a nazi? I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Look at the styles of mythology in the Third Reich. It emphasised heroism as an Ideal which is used to bring us above our base nature into the realm of the 'New Man'. Both Hitler and Rand use the same sort of language, but, as I previously said, so did the Great Men of the Rennaiscance, Roman Empire, and so on.

Further, I said that while Rand and these other figures used the same styles of language, they arrived at very different things. Rand wants, to my knowledge, heroism to result in a rational, non violent sort of being. Hitler wanted crazed murdering psychos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helping the sick, feeding the poor etc are all major elements in most moral systems, they tend to define themselves and the opposition on these sorts of issues. I merely found it odd that the ARI and Wiki would totally sidestep these issues and primarily talk about the moral issues others find secondary

Edited by GWDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inspector - Are you saying that my post was meant to say Ayn Rand was a nazi?

Rand wants, to my knowledge, heroism to result in a rational, non violent sort of being. Hitler wanted crazed murdering psychos.

Yes, that's basically what I was saying. You were saying that the two were "similar" in a specific regard. But that particular regard is totally inessentail to what Hitler was and what Rand was. You may as well say that they both had dark hair. The comparison is totally invalid and you should not have made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helping the sick, feeding the poor etc are all major elements in most moral systems, they tend to define themselves and the opposition on these sorts of issues. I merely found it odd that the ARI and Wiki would totally sidestep these issues and primarily talk about the moral issues others find secondary

The reason there is little to no mention of these things is because unlike "most moral systems," Objectivism doesn't consider this kind of action to be important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helping the sick, feeding the poor etc are all major elements in most moral systems, they tend to define themselves and the opposition on these sorts of issues. I merely found it odd that the ARI and Wiki would totally sidestep these issues and primarily talk about the moral issues others find secondary

Helping the sick, feeding the poor, etc. are major elements of altruistic moral systems. In an egoistic moral system, they are secondary concerns. A moral system is simply a set of principles of what is right and what is wrong. An altruistic moral system claims that is it always right to help the sick, feed the poor, etc. and that it is always wrong to put your own concerns above the concerns of others.

Altruism claims as a rule that others come first and your own interest come second. Objectivist ethics inverts this idea. I empathize with your misunderstanding, because, in our culture, altruism is shoved down our throats as the ONLY morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helping the sick, feeding the poor etc are all major elements in most moral systems, they tend to define themselves and the opposition on these sorts of issues. I merely found it odd that the ARI and Wiki would totally sidestep these issues and primarily talk about the moral issues others find secondary

The reason that these are essential to any altruist morality is that altruism seeks to replace the answer to "What are values?" with "Who is to be the beneficiary of values?". The beneficiary, though, is the SECONDARY, not PRIMARY question.

Extreme situations are not the source of morality, although (sometimes) they can be a good opportunity to demonstrate it in action. Miss Rand said, in Return of the Primitive, that (paraphrasing) the real test of one's dedication to the principle of rights is that one will defend the rights of those one finds unspeakably disgusting.

Morality is simply one's choice of action when faced with an alternative. Where no alternatives exist, there can be no morality. As such, it applies only to living beings, and specifically, only to one category of living beings; man, because man possesses volition.

How you get to "helping the sick" from here escapes me. You're starting in the middle, with no principles, no foundation, and ultimately, no guide of any kind whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helping the sick, feeding the poor etc are all major elements in most moral systems, they tend to define themselves and the opposition on these sorts of issues. I merely found it odd that the ARI and Wiki would totally sidestep these issues and primarily talk about the moral issues others find secondary

And you will never find this stuff so addressed. Objectivism explicitly rejects that anyone "deserves" a handout on the basis of need. This kind of inverted thinking is why every other "morality" is wrong. If you want to help the sick no ones stopping you but that's your choice, and it doesn't in any way indict other people if they don't make the same choices as you. And you have no right to force others to do so against their will via government or any other means. What you are suggesting here is explicitly altruism and it is what we are against, what we find to be evil. The difference between you and us is we understand your morality and philosophy perfectly, but reject it because it's wrong, you on the other hand do not understand ours and are trying to discredit and rejecting it without first understanding it. See the difference?

Edited by EC to remove extra that change a few words, etc.

Edited by Rational_One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RationalOne wrote -

The difference between you and us is we understand your morality and philosophy perfectly, but reject it because it's wrong, you on the other hand do not understand ours and are trying to discredit and rejecting it without first understanding it. See the difference?

RationalOne -

1. I have no philosophy, so don't assume things.

2. I'm trying to discredit and not question? Prove it or take it back.

More generally, is the point on Rand's Idealism conceded or is no one going to bother addressing it because it's percieved to be irrational?

-Edited for spacing issues.

Edited by GWDS

Share this post


Link to post
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...