Easy Truth

The word Benevolence has been hijacked. The current definitions do not emphasize voluntary. Dictionary.com has these definitions. 1.desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures. 2.an act of kindness; a charitable gift. 3.English History. a forced contribution to the sovereign. Now, this is new, I have to think about how to incorporate this. Here you are saying the natural economic trade is a type of benevolence. This will bubble up to mean that capitalism is the freedom and opportunity to be benevolent. The key is to make the case that "every free trade" results in an agreement that will improve both parties. How would you characterize a "forced smile"? There's no such thing? Your tax money buys you exactly what you want? The point I am making is that with the common usage of the term, it denotes an ugly reality. The only way for me to show it to people is to concretize their own definition and let them see the absurdity it results in. By twisting the definition of benevolence by their omitting "voluntary", "forced benevolence" ends up denoting something, "fake benevolence". People don't distinguish between "fake benevolence" and "benevolence". They are considered interchangeable. The absurdity of "useless benevolence" allows them to start distinguishing.

So can one define altruism as being "useless benevolence"? It works for me. But I don't know if it includes the idea of "not worth my while benevolence". I was trying to put something together below to get my head around it: Benevolence satisfactory benevolence gifts to loved ones helping the team you are rooting for unsatisfactory benevolence forced benevolence Christmas Gifts Taxes useless benevolence giving money to an active drug addict investing in a bad investment to look ok ??

To be successful at building, what does one focus on, the virtue or the destination? There are times when we are just putting out fires, one will sort things out later. In this case, focusing on the action/virtue rather than what will happen later makes sense. When building a building, "just building", "simply being productive in that endeavor" creates so much opportunity. Creating an opportunity in that sense requires a lack of focus on "the building" and instead, being vigilant for opportunities. What is the actual effort in being rational? Is it putting time aside to check one's premises? Is it focusing and "frowning" to clarity details? Is it making sure it is discussed with peers? Is it writing it out and checking for anomalies?

Objectively speaking, I don't recall being the center of the universe. I used to have that misunderstanding as a child. As the center of the universe, I absolve you of all the guilt appropriate for someone shying away from discussing ethics. Go recharge.

Notice, when you say "no emotions allowed", it is an ethical rule being enforced. That is what is puzzling. When she says that emotions are not a tool of cognition is it solely epistemological? as in isn't it an ethical directive: "don't use your emotions as a tool of cognition"? When one feels afraid of a train coming at him, the fear is an evaluation, on some level, it is a result of cognition. (isn't it?) To take her sentence literally, I would take it to mean, don't depend on your emotions to determine the truth for you, you have to use your reason. I agree that it becomes complicated when you have NO facts at all, only emotions. But even then, is one to assume that the emotions are totally useless? To live a life proper to man, for Rand to omit to explore this aspect of ethics is a serious issue, to say some separate ethics is necessary opens the door for major misunderstanding.

I have now changed my mind, I think that Objectivist Ethics, in fact, is a type of "Virtue Ethics", not Consequentialism. It pertains to "how to do life", regardless of actual consequences. A key component of consequentialist ethics is to considered mistakes as being immoral. Yet that isn't the case in Objectivistic Ethics. "Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice". Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand Playboy, March 1964 I remember in the Fountainhead, Roark befriends the construction worker, a person highly competent but not having achieved great wealth or fame. I also remember Rearden offering Fransisco a relatively low-rank job. It was all about "how you do it" or judging methodology rather than accumulated wealth or position.

What about the issue of the "trained mind", the Pavlovian response. You eat something, it gives you a painful allergic response. Next time you see it, it is bad, evil. Not intrinsically, perhaps subjectively. But I don't like these words to describe it because of the fact that it will give you an allergic response is an objective fact, it is real, it will happen. Yet it is not a value judgment that a person without an allergy would make. In terms of a standard of what is good for bad for you, it is bad. How does one separate the two perspectives?

It is hard for me to understand because I have done many stupid things, many things I regret, but I don't recall any time that I actually chose to do what I would regret. It has always been due to some mistake. But it is only when I knew that it was wrong, that I changed my behavior. To separate the actions that I did by mistake as not being wrong, does not work as a survival mechanism. This is where actual consequence, (consequentialism) is necessary for survival.

In that context, it seems to mean "the unexamined life". So are you saying that there is a context where subjectivity is, in fact, an aspect of anything perceived? That anything felt, sensed, concluded has an element that is subjective? Almost like saying that everything I know has an imprint of myself in it.

Then using one's emotional evaluation can be a reasoned approach. Or is that considered a whim? If one can or should use one's emotions at times, it would contradict Objectivist Ethics because one would be using emotions a means of cognition. How does one reconcile this?

I apologize, it was not meant as a reply but as research material that is relevant. I am not saying these things to oppose what you say and I appreciate all the work you put into your concepts and arguments. I am not trying to disagree with you nor am I trying to upset you. I have not been able to fully integrate these items into my own mind either. The problem is that they can't be ignored and they are a problem. They seem to be at the core of Objectivism. (aren't they?) Internal evasion also happens with repression. But the biggest problem is when one is talking to someone and they won't admit that 2 plus 2 is 4. That is the most damaging of evasions. Branden wrote a great deal about the process and symptoms. Anyway, I am bowing out of this discussion and I genuinely wish you good luck with it.

"Morally, it is the essence of evil. According to Objectivism, evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices. In the present era, it is leading to the collapse of the world." Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) (p. 62). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

"The man who drifts in an out-of-focus state avoids mental purpose and effort. He does not work to see, to connect, to understand, a policy that pertains to all of his mental contents at the time. Evasion, by contrast, is an active process aimed at a specific content. The evader does expend effort; he purposefully directs his attention away from a given fact. He works not to see it; if he cannot banish it fully, he works not to let it become completely real to him. The drifter does not integrate his mental contents; the evader disintegrates them, by struggling to disconnect a given item from everything that would give it clarity or significance in his own mind. In the one case, the individual is immersed in fog by default; he chooses not to raise his level of awareness. In the other case, he expends energy to create a fog; he lowers his level of awareness. Despite their differences, these two states of consciousness are closely related. If a drifter in a given situation apprehends (dimly or clearly) the need to initiate a thought process, yet refuses to do so, the refusal involves an evasion (he is evading the fact that thought is necessary)." Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) (p. 61). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I agree with you on that but there is an inconsistency using that type of definition. From what I have seen, Objectivism considers evasion to be immoral. If something is prevented from reaching conscious awareness, then actions based it are in fact amoral, not immoral. If this type of evasion, is amoral, it could mean that this type of evasion, in fact, is NOT what she is talking about. It hinges on questions like "Do you know when you are procrastinating?" or "Were you conscious of the importance of not eating the chips?". Is a subconscious based act a sub-volitional act?

There is a paradox about (internal) evasion that makes the process of dealing with it very hard. It is at the core of the philosophical question "How can a person lie to themselves?". How does a consciousness prevent consciousness of what it is conscious of?

I get the logic, another Objectivist friend reminded me that a gun is not evil either. Then the standard definition below is not enough. If you have a complete definition of evil, can you provide it? Based on the current definition of evil I have: The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. The Virtue of Selfishness “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 23 A banana could be improper to life, it can oppose and destroy. I am not saying it is evil but an aspect of it is evil. I am simply going by the definition. That is true for water, a knife, gasoline, and the sun. It depends on the particular interaction with it and it seems to require knowledge that the interaction will damage one's own life (perhaps, indirectly through some causal chain, it will cause something that will cause something that will cause me harm). In a sense, being evil is doing something stupid, when you are NOT stupid.

Monday morning quarterbacking: criticizing the actions or decisions of others after the fact, using hindsight not considering the lack of knowledge that existed at the time. And subconscious convenient forgetfulness (not dementia). "I did not say that" and when you see the video, you see that you had said it.

Was this put to rest? My understanding was that initiation of aggression was immoral. I can see the logic, that a moral code is like a playbook in order to play football to win. When you are never going to play football again, the plays have no relevance. So morality only applies only when you want to play the game of life. But what about the issue of leaving a legacy, as in living the future in the now? "Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today." (Romantic Manifesto) Is forfeiting one's life for a better society in the future, enjoying it now? If so, the decision to be remembered and honored for taking the hemlock instead of committing the slaughter of innocents is a moral act, to live the "pride" now. It has some reasoned moral significance.

Got it, now what about evil, is poison evil? It is bad for any human, is bad different that evil? Poison is anti-life, my understanding is that is evil.

Yes, a specific purpose, the one that fits best is the protection of one's self-worth. An attack on self-worth is a trigger for evasion. In general, the more attacks on self-worth in a discussion, the more evasion there is. Old world cultures know this fact so their public deal making takes (the other's side's) "saving face" into consideration. As far as I can remember Branden did make a reference to that. The other purpose of (internal) evasion is to prevent the possibility of one's worldview to fall apart. Just imagine, if one day, you found out that socialism in fact worked. It would feel like you are being tricked, "it can't be true" etc. Suspicion can be overwhelming. Leftists also go through that too, they think "what my parents told me, what my tribe believes, all the people I admire told me that socialism works and that capitalism is a virus that needs to be stamped out". If one piece of the fabric of knowledge goes in doubt then, what else did these "admired people" say that was wrong. Now I can't count on anything. I am suddenly nothing if I believe that Capitalism works. I have to start all over, all the respect I have accumulated is gone. No, No, it is easier to push the thought away and push the people that bring the thought away too. Which means that it is to an Objectivist's self-interest to be gentle/understanding in these types of discussions otherwise the opponent is cornered/encouraged to evade.

If one's priorities, one's hierarchy of values, do not allow one to explore that area of knowledge, YES, the only way to realize a mistake is via being proven wrong by another person or accurate device.

This is a fantastic phrase! It's very helpful. Does it come from a philosophy? As in is there more fleshing out of it I can read about? Agreed. I am most curious about this word that I see used. "Existentially". I don't know what it really means. Is it "non-epistemologically", "non-psychologically", "non-first person", "without regard to consciousness" etc. As far as I am concerned, everything that exists is existential. So I don't know what the word is trying to highlight., I have also seen it here: "Psychologically, the choice “to think or not” is the choice “to focus or not.” Existentially, the choice “to focus or not” is the choice “to be conscious or not.” Metaphysically, the choice “to be conscious or not” is the choice of life or death" (virtue of selfishness)

Amorality is a new concept to me so I am trying to get my head around it. If it is about context, can a person say that "women not having the right to drive in Saudi Arabia, is amoral", because they are not aware, meaning they don't know any better? Something doesn't become evil because someone discovered it. Wasn't it evil all along? Isn't poison always evil, bad for anyone? Isn't the right to own property always moral? Even if Mankind has recently discovered it?

There seem to be two kinds of evasion: 1.Not thinking 2.Thinking or thoughts that override the truth For (1) How is anyone to know when they are not thinking? For (2) anxiety is one's friend because there is an implication that the truth is known but suppressed.

You and I know that but I and a bunch of leftist debating the issue is another story. The phrase "social animal" will allow them to say things like "One is nothing without society" or "You didn't build it" etc. Nevertheless, this discussion has made something clear, Man is a (life enhancing) Social Animal. Meaning, Man does not survive in unjust societies. I don't have the best phrase to use but Man is a Social Animal if the social environment is moral and life-enhancing. If there are no decent societies, Man is a Hermit Animal. I just remembered, that Kira, had to die because Rand said that An Ideal person will die in an evil society.(or something to that effect). Nevertheless, I would still argue that the need for social awareness still holds true. I will see how I can reword my position.