Sherlock

Betsy, You wrote: "All he "knows" is it feels GREAT, so he does it. It may be the last thing he ever does, but whatta way to go!" There is a great range in the capacity of various organisms to feel pain and certainly pleasure. When an amoeba divides, it is not clear that "pleasure", at least as we understand pleasure, is felt. Likewise with your arachnid. The apple tree that expends a great deal of its energy producing apples does not feel pleasure, as we know it, when an insect visits and spreads pollen.

Thanks, Hangnail, for the clarification. And you're right about the usefulness of humor.

Hangnail, A few comments on the responses: You wrote: "'magic sky daddy' - I love that. I'm going to be using that one for a long time." Why? Insulting people is easy, fun, and may make you feel good about yourself, but if you want to degrade your cedibility in an argument, there's no better way to diss yourself than to diss your opponents with phrases like that. Simply use reason, and you'll be better off. Fifi, you wrote: "Given that the mind-body is accepted by most, the people of religion are happy to control the mind and leave the body (economics included) alone." "Mind-body"---what? Are you missing a word? Otherwise I don't quite understand what is being said.

Thoyd, You wrote: "First off, that is not Peikoff's formulation, it is Ayn Rand's from Atlas Shrugged." I simply was using the quote that someone had already posted here in this thread, which was said to be from Peikoff. If it is only from Atlas Shrugged and not also from Peikoff's writing, then I stand corrected---sorry. You wrote: "Second, it does not require volition. A turtle has no volition as well, are you going to claim that it also does not apply to him? You would have to say that that statement can only apply to man. " Well, that's my point: I don't think it can be applied to ALL organisms, which is why I thought Peikoff was wrong: from a philosophical perspective, volition seems to me to be necessary if one is to use terms such as "standard of value", "good", and "evil". Burgess' formulation, "Every organism has as its ultimate value its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is. Life is self-generated and self-sustained action. If organism X's nature is such that it automatically (instinctually) takes an action which saves its offspring's life, but itself dies in the process, then organism X is acting on its own life as its ultimate value. If a male Z inevitably and always dies as a consequence of mating, then that is what male Z's are, and that is what it means for them to be alive" seems just too broad (philosophically speaking) to be usefully applied to non-volitional organisms, as "standard of value", "good" and "evil" are simply all contained within "life qua whatever kind of organism it is", and cannot then be distinguished. From a scientific perspective, "all organisms" is wrong because the perpetuation of an organism's genes is the ultimate end of non-humans. You wrote: "So, when we say that life is the standard of value directing an organisms actions we are talking about what nature has programmed it to do." Yes, I agree. And nature has programmed non-humans to perpetuate their genes. You wrote: "It is the identity of the organism that determines the values it has to pursue to remain alive-and that is the standard of value-life. " But if that were so, then many organisms would not reproduce, as it often puts them at serious risk. The other functions that an organism does (feeding, etc.) sustain life, not degrade it, while reproduction often comes at a heavy price. Anyone who lives on a farm or studies the natural world can tell you this from simple observation. You wrote (different post): "Note also that unlike humans, an animal parent isn't going to help the young of another mother (although, I am not sure how this works in some pack animals) let alone one from a different species. " That's true: the ultimate end for non-humans is the perpetuation of ITS genes, not necessarily the genes of another of its kind (a competitor). I've gotta run, but I'll try to answer the other aspects of your posts later in the day.

Thoyd, You wrote: "You are saying that the foundation of Objectivist ethics are on a mistaken premise. That one's life can't be the ultimate end as biologists have "proven" that humping is." Umm, no, I'm not saying that. I am saying that Peikoff's statement, "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" is problematic if he means ALL organisms: from a philosophical perspective, the statement is misplaced, as, for example, an amoeba has no volition, and so words like "standard of value", "good" and "evil" are meaningless. From a scientific perspective, his statement is in error as the perpetuation of an organism's genes is the ultimate end. Indeed life itself could not have evolved without this action (reproduction) being the ultimate end: think of the very first living organism to emerge from non-living material. If it did not have the ultimate end of reproduction built in from the very beginning, that organism would simply have lived and died and the whole process of life coming from non-living material would have had to start all over again. Even the division of something as simple as an amoeba involves some very sophisticated and precise movements: clearly reproduction is not in the same category as the other activities you mention. Those activities make possible and further an organism's life so that it can reproduce.

I'd have to agree with ex_banana-eater: Christians don't make good capitalists; they make good conservatives. I have a friend who deals with a lot of Russian firms in his business. He tells me that corruption is rampant, and he and his Russian partners believe it is the result of atheism: people don't feel any particular qualms about theft. So perhaps it's those basic Christian ethics that end up being capitalism-friendly, in spite of the Christian concern for the common good. Ex_banana-eater, You wrote: "I assume that Protestant groups believed being hard working and efficient was a means to be forgiven for one's sins." Actually, no. Speaking as an ex-Protestant, I can tell you that this flies in the face of "sola fide" (faith alone), which is a hallmark of most Protestant denominations. There is, however, something called the "prosperity Gospel", which is believed by some Protestant denominations. It's pretty pathetic: basically, it means that if you work real hard and give to charity, you will be given material rewards right here on earth, fer sure. I guess that means that all those folks starving in Third World countries just weren't good enough.

Good heavens, then you haven't looked. Have you read Aquinas? There is simply no equivalent of Aquinas in Protestantism. Take a look at the magazine "First Things", which is an intellectual magazine that features writers from different religious backgrounds on a variety of topics: the intellectuals featured largely tend to be Orthodox Jews and Catholics. Again, Protestantism is inherently relativistic. Because of its doctrine of personal interpretation, there are 30,000+ different versions of "truth" in its 30,000+ denominations. Say what you want about Catholicism, but at least it has a standard that is not circular: the Protestant will say that their "standard" is the Bible. When asked why, they will say "because it's the inspired word of God". If you then ask them how they know that, they will say "because the Bible says so". Circular thinking...it's "logic" like that that made me leave Protestantism forever. The Catholic argument for the "inspiration" of the Bible, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, is at least not a circular argument.

So, it really doesn't have anything to do with reason, but with feelings and upbringing. Personally, I wouldn't touch Protestantism with a ten-foot pole (having been one), as its inherent relativism is destructive to reason. Nor have I found much in Catholic history that hasn't been done in Protestant history, though Protestants have only been around for 500 years and so have some catching up to do. Personally, I think you've got bigger problems than an irrational girlfriend. How old are you, by the way?

Burgess, I understand the distinction you are making between a philosophical discussion and a scientific discussion. If I am to understand the Peikoff quote referenced earlier (" An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil"), as a purely philosophical statement, then it seems to me that Peikoff errs, then, in using the phrase "an organism", as it would seem to include, by implication, all organisms. But that would include nonvolitional, instinct-driven organisms, in which case, how could "its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is" be an ultimate value, since it has no ability to act otherwise? There is no "standard of value" to be discussed, as it would seem to me that anything the organism does is merely part of "its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is"---there are no "good" or "evil" actions to take or not take. I think, then, that terms like "standard", "value", "good", and "evil" are out of place. If Peikoff's statement was meant to refer to scientific realities, then I think he was mistaken, as science refutes the idea of "life" (meaning, in this case, physical life) being the ultimate "standard of value".

Szheesh, why would you prefer her to be a Protestant?! At least Thomistic Catholicism believes in the compatibility of faith and reason, and believes that the existence of God can be ascertained by reason alone. (The originator of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest, by the way) I'd rather someone be a follower and admirerer of the logic of Aquinas than swim in Protestantism, which is the home of relativism---30,000 + versions of "truth" and still counting.

Zoso, You wrote: "Yeah, my g/f isn't exactly what I'd call rational, but I wouldn't call her irrational either...but I love her either way." How rational is that? Are you saying that you would still love her if she believed that UFOs impregnated her, or that Elvis is still alive? To be perfectly frank, it doesn't sound as if your girlfriend has really matured. You said she was Catholic, but doesn't know much about it and hasn't bothered to find out. You have mentioned that you're going to be married: what happens when you're in your thirties and have kids, and suddenly she decides to look into her faith now that the children are born? Don't write that off---that happens to a LOT of couples: religion suddenly matters when kids come into the picture. I know you're looking for a different kind of advice, but I'll offer this anyway: she needs to know what she thinks and why. Perhaps you could encourage her to examine her ideas. Peter Kreeft is a very good apologist for Christianity---I would recommend him, because she should look at the best arguments for what she believes, and contrast those with the best arguments against, and make a decision. Then at least you know what you are dealing with. If she is encouraged to look at what she believes via the use of reason, that may "trickle down", so to speak, and help her emotional state in other areas.

Ryan, Thanks for the clarification: I should have been more specific and said "the perpetuation of genes" instead of "perpetuation of species". But, as you note, it still leaves one to conclude that Peikoff's statement is false. Since it seems a rather obvious mistake I wonder if he ever clarified it, or, if not, what he derives from this false assertion that would have then been built on a false premise.

This reminds me of something that has always troubled me, and so perhaps some of you better minds can enlighten my dull gray cells. The Peikoff quote given, " An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil", implies that ANY organism's life is its standard of value (though when we come to man, we are not speaking of mere physical existence). But this isn't the case: some insects (spiders, praying mantis) are killed when reproducing, and certainly reproduction in many animals involves risks that do not further the individual's life, but actually degrade it. So, is it safe to say that Peikoff meant to say that the standard of value id the perpetuation of the species? If so, why didn't he say this?

Bowzer, To be honest, I don't think that this topic is unrelated to Objectivism. A proper understanding of Objectivism involves a proper understanding of consciousness, so tangents exploring aspects of consciousness are not as far off topic as your comment seems to suggest. I am curious as to the evolution of consciousness: where, in history, does it first show itself? Did Rand speculate about this?

Betsy, What you say is true regarding land that already contains easements, but is not the case with land that has no pre-existing easements. Unless, of course, you are saying that someone might have a right to claim an easement on my property which doesn't currently have one, in which case my right to property is not an absolute one, but is subject to other considerations. Either there is an absolute right to my property, or there is not. In any case, this doesn't address the other concerns I have, such as the difficulty posed for small businesses to raise enough capital to secure their needed infrastructure. Nor am I sanguine about the likelihood of all parties acting rationally.

Redfarmer wrote: "However, what philosophy tells us about psychics and ghosts is that, epistemologically, they are arbitrary concepts. That is, there has been no evidence presented either for or against them (you can't present evidence against something which has no evidence for it in the first place). As arbitrary concepts, they are neither true nor false and there is no further need to contemplate them unless you are presented with evidence." I think this is the essence of Antony Flew's "Theology and Falsification", which I read eons ago. What suprised me was that the guy has just changed his mind: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

I voted for Bush---Kerry was too "French" for my liking, and I had no confidence he would take the Islamofascist threat seriously. Plus, I do think he acted disgracefully in accusing his fellow soldiers of "war crimes", which he did not substantiate with evidence. At the same time he was doing this, POWs were being tortured in order to get them to confess to "war crimes" so they could be held indefinitely in North Vietnamese jails. Kerry sickens me.

My problem with the scenarios given above is alluded to in GoodOrigamiMan's post: "I mean the stores are private property, the roads are private property, and this presents no problem because they like good capitalists want your business." As long as people are good capitalists, then no problem, and I don't think that it will be a problem with some commercial enterprises. But what is to keep environmentalist wack-jobs from buying large tracts of land with the express purpose of thwarting transportation, industry, etc.? I can just imagine a George Soros type buying up land around any company on his hit list and making access difficult if not impossible. I can see coalitions of people like George Soros combining their resources to wield even greater power to affect their particular agendas. Also, purely from the standpoint of capital, how is a company going to be able to afford enough land in order to ensure the swift distribution of products? This need to purchase land for infrastructure seems likely to kill small businesses.

This makes me curious: since no political party can be said to advance Objectivism, who did people on this forum vote for, and why?

Thanks, Gadfly.

I'm with Free Capitalist: give me eight hours. I may not get cranky, but I will feel dull both physically and mentally. When I was younger, though, I could---and did---get by on much less, and all-nighters when working to meet a deadline were not uncommon (though dreaded). Given the variety of responses here, it's simply an individual thing: I was tempted to say it was related to age, but then Burgess and Betsy blew that theory.

I just went to that site, having a little time to spare. Wow, that conversation just kept going and going. Inspector, let me very respectfully suggest that you refrain from personal attacks. It does great harm to your arguments, and it's not necessary. I don't feel qualified to respond myself, and I appreciate that you're taking a lot of time (!!) doing this, but I think it would be wise not to indulge in name-calling.

I posted here quite a while ago and did not revisit this thread, and so did not see the response my post elicited. The Durande, I think you are jumping to conclusions (and hostile conclusions at that) based on what was a simple and honest statement on my part. But to answer your sneering questions: 1)Yes, I have read Ayn Rand. 2) No, I am not here for the hell of it. I'm attempting to learn more about Objectivism, and hopefully sort out questions and problems that I have. 3) Pretty much covered by my responses to 1 and 2. I have a couple of question for you: are you always this quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions, and put the worst interpretation possible on a person's comments? Do you have any friends left, or are you capable of suspending this attack-mode long enough to maintain friendships? Do you claim to speak for Objectivism, or is this just your personality?

But I'm not crazy about either peanut brittle OR toffee! Now I'm lost....Objectivism is just too complex for my brain. But back to the main topic: in this area, then, would I be correct in saying (based on the responses here) that there is no difference, then, between one of my Christian friends giving to charity for what they say are rational reasons (the action reflects their values) and an Objectivist doing the same for the same stated reason? The difference, then, is not a Christian/Objectivist difference so much as a value-based vs. "duty"-based difference. Is that a reasonably correct summary of the responses stated so far? I appreciate the input.

Gadfly, You wrote: " I support certain charities because I enjoy it, and because I value helping others. What makes it selfish is that I value being kind, as opposed to doing it because it is my alleged duty." But this is exactly the position of many Christians and conservatives that I know: I have had friends say virtually word-for-word what you just said when we talk about charity, etc. How is Objectivism any different, then, in this area?