Szalapski
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Szalapski
-
-
Ah then, so you agree that the donut scenario might be immoral. Now we're getting somewhere. If so, and if I were really in this situation, then we could take the next step and identify under what context--which particular scenarios might be immoral. Currently, I am content to leave that as details that could be argued in a different thread. For the rest of this, let us assume I "cross the threshold" and I make the decision to engage in donut-eating to the extent it is immoral, as it harms my life overall. This is, to a degree, an "irrational self-interest" decision on my part.
So back to my original question. It is immoral because I am choosing to act in accordance with a lower value over a higher one? This is how Rand defined "sacrifice" and labeled it evil. So, why is it immoral to choose a lower value over a higher one? I think I understand that one shouldn't, that it is unwise, that it is choosing to live with something of a contradiction--but that makes it an immoral act? Why?
-
11 minutes ago, New Buddha said:
And you don't think rational self-interest leads to people being all of the above?
Yes--It is because I think so that I also think message might need to be nuanced and moderated so that more might be willing to consider it, even if it means they fall short of Rand's explanation in the end.
-
Sure. I'm sure one with more interest could point to the factors that made Venezuela collapse but makes the U.K. or Sweden sustainable. I'm guessing it is because Venezuela tended to dictatorship and total socialism, even if via democracy.
-
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I would say that stagnation for a while leads to eventual destruction of a society in the long run. It would mean that on average, a society is mediocre and doesn't seek to be productive or virtuous. By nature of Rand's claims, she's suggesting that anything less than flourishing is decay - that goes for the individual level too. "Working" in a pathetic way isn't really working at all. Working for what?
I don't think any society in history has really stagnated. They either all died out (Alexander the Great's empire only lasted so long), or started to die out after a period of stagnation (Rome, Athens).
Did these societies (nations) fall, or just their governments? We still have Greeks and Italians today. Claiming that "all mixed economies will fail, and all fully socialist economies will too" seems a stretch to me in that we have many examples where it seems that many could credibly claim "so far, so good". A thoughtful lower-income person in Britain who has government assistance might be willing to give it up to save their economy, but there is no danger of that being necessary so they have no worry about their "mixed economy".
-
9 minutes ago, Craig24 said:
Why is not being compelling a flaw?
Because it strikes me that it is holding Objectivism back from being taken seriously among many.
-
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I know you made up the number, but you're suggesting to get rid of something for the sake of being palatable. What kind of things would make a "moderate Objectivism"?
That's a great question, and I think there could be many great answers. I would start by trying to think what might be a way to strip away bits of altruism as the apex of morality and instead get people to consider something other than the common Good [or the will of God] as the source of morality. I wonder if some kind of well-rounded, ethical individualism might have enough attraction among some to lead us into a better place. I don't suppose I would use the word "selfish" that Rand did, as it seems to me to have a misleading connotation, but I would like to push an ethical, others-respecting, kind, nice, generous, amiable individualism.
There could be other, better approaches too--the above is merely speculating through typing.
-
3 hours ago, Craig24 said:
Is it a flaw because Objectivism is factually incorrect 20% of the time -- or -- is it a flaw because these semi-altruists/looters/moochers will disagree with it 20% of the time?
Neither--I think it is a flaw in that a philosophy ought to be compelling in its content to some degree. (I'm not claiming this makes the philosophy itself objectively wrong.) I wonder if an 80% pure (or any other degree) Objectivism might be more acceptable to more people and thus improve on the 80% altruism we seem to have today.
-
2 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:
Which is better, chocolate or vanilla ice-cream? Within each category of values there is a high degree of optionality. When two choices are interchangeable, you need an objective criteria to pick a winner - and that criteria is precisely your personal taste.
Unlike most food preferences, some tastes stem from subconscious convictions or automatized emotional associations. As long as you identify their source, tastes play an important role in choosing values.
Right, that's why I chose a scenario that is beyond personal taste: a potentially unhealthy decision. At some point unhealthy actions harm my life and therefore immoral under Objectivism.
-
10 minutes ago, DonAthos said:
It is not that one of us believes that "donuts are good to eat" and one of us believes "donuts are bad," and we're somehow both right, and there's no truth; rather, "it is good for you to eat donuts and bad for me to eat them," in some hypothetical situation, because of the reality of that situation in that we are unique individuals, and should act accordingly.
There, I get that. I agree that seems to be Objectivism. But my problem comes up in that, in matters of morality that are more obvious such as stealing from the vulnerable, the above approach is not used. Now I know Objectivists would say that is because a thief violates the victim's rights (life, existence, identity) and therefore it is a violation of objective values--an irrational act of self-interest.
I just don't see a difference between the two scenarios: if I can rightly choose an unhealthy eating habit because my subjective (individual?) desire for enjoyment can override the small but significant health drawback, why can't I likewise choose to steal donuts so that my individual desire for free donuts can override the individual rights of another? Both are causing a degree of harm to a life in order to get enjoyment for myself. Can you help explain how these scenarios are different?
-
Just had a related thought. Rand is fully expecting that her ideas will not get a fair hearing--after all, none of Kira, Roark, and Dagny ever had any platform or audience that fairly considered their ideas. In the few occasions when they could explain their motives, they were dismissed, ridiculed, or admonished. Am I wrong to hope for more than that?
I don't know that I can accept never getting a hearing. I am more like Dagny in that I want to fight and struggle in the world, than I am like John Galt, picking up my ball and going home. Dagny eventually gave up and went to the Gulch--but I'd hate to resort to that now. I'm afraid it would be worse than continuing to build my railroad.
I do think it missing from her novels of characters that are principled yet moderate. Maybe she hated the idea of such figures? Not every moderate is a Toohey, nor two-faced like Wynand.
-
9 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
No. First, I want to know the truth about reality, i.e. to hold the correct philosophy. Secondarily, I would want others to also know the truth about reality and hold the correct philosophy (it would make life better for me). Merely having "an impact" of any kind as such has no value... it is only the particular kind of impact that might result which matters. If everyone already knew the truth and had the correct philosophy I would not be pining and wishing to have an impact on someone.
You imply by your OP and other posts that either A) the philosophy is incorrect/erroneous, or that B ) the philosophy is correct but people are inherently flawed and cannot accept it.
(A) If you are implying the philosophy is wrong, I take it you are proceeding in the attempt to show that.
If B ) is the case, then logic would dictate from your premises, that since it is futile, one should not try to convince others. Which is odd, because at the same time you state we should "want" to convince others. All I can think is that maybe B ) is that case, but not all people are impervious to the truth (after all there are people who have heard the evidence and accepted the philosophy) and hence attempting to convince others, although difficult, is not futile.
The point of your OP and your ensuing argument, if there is one, is elusive. Please be more succinct if you would like a direct answer.
even
I am not sure, but I as of right now I might say "the philosophy has much merit, but people cannot accept its core teachings", which is in between your A and B but I think closer to B. It is difficult even to get a fair hearing, much less convince others, and it strikes me that I would like Objectivism to have a voice in the crowd.
My point is really my honest questions in the OP and the "thinking by typing" that has occurred since and hopefully will continue.
-
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
I disagree, strongly.
A persuasive reply is one which is based on proper premises and viable values and proper standards of morality. It is an appeal to what is right and correct. That is what makes it objectively persuasive.
I don't think that is really right. Evidence, reason, science, and proof are terrible ways to persuade almost anyone. For popular explanations of this, see Pink's Drive and Heath's How to Change When Change Is Hard.
-
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:
What would the other 20% be, and why would that be better? I mean, I guess you think more people would be persuaded to something nice, but I don't know to what. To be mixed a capitalist economy by compromising on freedom of choice? Being aggressively authoritarian to force laissez-faire by compromising on non initiation of force?
Rand's response is pretty bad because the question is wondering what systems might exist in lieu of safety net programs. There are good responses to that. "Feel free to help" avoids the issue.
I don't have to determine the other 20%, and obviously the 80% is an arbitrary number picked for argument's sake. I would very much like to see others get a few steps more toward Objectivism, and I can't help but think that interested folks hear "nothing but rational self-interest" and "no altruism" and it disqualifies us from being part of the conversation altogether.
-
3 hours ago, Repairman said:
This rhetorical listing of random libertarian policies is coupled with an acceptable generalization that, 2) these policies are unpopular.
1) Objectivism is a philosophy, not a registered political party. If you wish to debate the pros and cons of taxation or Medicaid, there are other threads addressing specific policies.
Specific to your primary concern, 2) What difference does it make if an idea is popular or not, as long as it's right? Being popular is for politicians, not philosophy.
Speaking for myself, I'd much rather be right than be popular. It's even better when I have the strongest argument. If I needed to persuade (for the sake of my personal satisfaction), I might switch tactics to meet the understanding level of my interlocutor. Whether I persuade them or not, it's not my fault that some people are incurable altruists or some other reality-denier. So, go ahead and reject Objectivism, but you'll be struggling for a long time trying to prove that its flawed.
With regard to Medicare and Medicaid, I cite them as examples because Medicare was the exact example Rand gave in TVoS 10 that started this thread.
I think we will have a better world, with things better set up for the self-interest of all involved, if the people move a few steps closer to Rand's position. I'm concerned that absolutism and the stand on "being right" prevent that from happening.
It's really the same argument that some use against capital-L Libertarians: you want to legalize heroin, meth, and pimping, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously? I find this argument hard to refute.
-
6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
This is not a flaw. A flaw would be an indication that the philosophy is somehow incorrect. With reference to reality as evidence, what are the flaws in the philosophy (assuming you understand it)?
Hmm, I think it is a flaw. I guess you can call me a 1% pragmatist if you want. I'll save other flaws for other threads.
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
At worst, she was wrong and actually mixed economies are static and unchanging. This is still undesirable and hardly a flourishing society.
Yes, I think we have to argue that and not what Rand argued. (I wouldn't say they are static, but perhaps more or less stagnant). A mixed economy has been proven to "work" in a pathetic sort of way.
-
12 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:
When you're stealing, you're not sacrificing a lower value to a higher one; you're gaining a value at the price of bringing havoc into your life.
Figuring out a flourishing strategy requires that you take in consideration your entire hierarchy of values, your natural abilities, your circumstances and countless other factors. If you can grasp this principle, the answer to your donut question will become obvious.
So it seems like there is a high degree of subjectivity, taste, and opinions of various forms that play into that judgment. One person says that two donuts a day is excessively unhealthy for him, damaging to his life, and therefore immoral; another person identical in most ways but with different preferences and cravings enjoys the donuts, values them, and thus consciously decides to risk poorer health and eat two donuts a day. It sounds like we would not try to consider either judgment wrong--and that sounds to me like subjectivity.
-
16 hours ago, New Buddha said:
But is it in your rational self-interest?
A looter can claim it to be so, and it seems like this judgment is mostlly based on opinion and taste. So an Objectivist would argue the looter is wrong, as such a judgment is irrational as it contradicts the principle of life. So just as the looter can claim it is in his rational self-interest to steal (as his personal gain is a higher value than the rights of others), I can claim the frequent donut habit is in my rational self-interest. I am not seeing the rational objectivity that would allow the latter but not the former.
-
14 minutes ago, Craig24 said:
Do you think there's a flaw? What is it? What should we do about it?
Yes, I think one flaw is that the core ideas of Objectivism are extreme and beyond the pale for so many. Individuals would be better off if we could be 80% Objectivist, but since Objectivism teaches no compromise or moderate adoption, it perhaps will remain a freak sideshow in the market of ideas, and thus most remain altruists, looters, and moochers.
-
Agreed. Her predictions of doom and gloom for these mixed economies did not come true.
-
I think you may have missed my main point--that Rand predicted disaster for the U.K. which since has done well, in a mediocre yet sustainable manner. There are many in the U.K. who accept their "successful" mediocre economy with all their social programs as a good moderate compromise--a model that Rand thought was impossible.
-
50 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
If I am right, what does it matter if some one listens to me?
If no one listens to me, and yet I am right. are you not back to the previous statement here?
I want my righteousness to have an impact. Don't you?
-
5 minutes ago, New Buddha said:
Eating a donut may not be the most healthy thing in the world for you to do, but it will hardly result in your demise.
Stealing from a vulnerable victim will hardly result in my own demise.
-
17 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
Do you honestly think that benefiting your own life by stealing outweighs the value of upholding the victim's right to your stealing of the victim's right?
Do you honestly think that the enjoyment of eating frequent donuts outweighs the value of being healthier? My point is that both of these are absurd, yet there seems to be a consensus that the donuts are a permissible choice if one seriously and intentionally finds that it is "worth it" and is upholding the higher value. I am questioning that rubric as too easily able to be biased or cheated. It is not objective enough.
Does contradiction with my flourishing life really make a value immoral?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by Szalapski
So self-destructive actions are by definition immoral, not because of some other philosophical principle? I will ponder that; not sure if I can buy it.