Kaizen

I'm sorry- while I'm at it. It's only 2 weeks since I first heard of objectivist philosophy. So excuse my ignorance. But I find it interesting that someone can apply a school of thoughts of absolute certainties. I mean no disrespect, I am only interested, and I also find some of what I read very agreeable to my personal “beliefs” From my (shallow) readings of this topic “is implies an ought” and the case of the male mantis. As I understand it Ayn Rand did not find a way or did not care to explain Hume’s “every is implies an ought” from a logic point of view. Instead she referred to the natural world as a proof that every man lives only for himself and for his own purpose. When pointing to some animals they obviously live for procreation, such as the mantis and indeed most female animals getting pregnant and reducing their own chance of survival through energy expenditure. Does this does not question the base of the philosophy requiring all animals and thus men to live only for themselves and nothing else like procreation?

Hi Cole. I couldn't get your link working so it did not give me any answers. Now, I could make up a story of a friendless, widowed, dyslectic, rural living, sweet 85 year old lady, but with regards to your reference towards "lying-con- man" it’s not very relevant. Again though, that would bring me back to the basics. What is a liar? What is a lie? When is someone lying? Exclusion by omission or exaggeration may also be considered a lie by some, but not by all. When does a person take the step from just pointing out the positives of the product/service to outright lie about it? E.g. in a Dove soap bar commercial they don’t focus on stating all the things that may possibly harm the users. Peeling skin, rashes, allergies etc. Although these are probably symptoms that some customers experience when using the soap, and the company knows about it. Is this a lie? I would say no. But when does it become a lie? When 10-20-50-60-90% don’t experience the soothing moisturising effects of Dove as promised but instead find their skin floating in the tub? I see this mix of philosophical utopian philosophy and applied subjective psychology as a blind corner. One demands absolute certainties, the other subjective interpretations. Am I wrong?

Ok, I thought it was implied in the context that an old lady buying a car may be ignorant of its real value for a valid reason, just as someone abroad seeking medical treatment may be ignorant due to constraints such as time. Now, I don’t see how “ignorance” can be applied and regarded as a principle. As a generalised rule - maybe. One can never be certain whether the person one is dealing with is ignorant or not, or if that ignorance is due to a valid reason. No, you are not necessarily conning anyone. I may have my own special reasons to pay you a million dollars for your car. And as long as you do not explicitly state that this is the real value of the car you have not done anything illegal as far as the law goes. However, according to Peikoff you may be a parasite on me if you believe me to be “deludable, ignorant, blind, gullible” in this particular case and that is the reason I agree to the deal. Simply, I lack the capacity to comprehend and interpret the situation at that moment, not by wilful neglect, but for reasons beyond my control – and you are aware of it. My interest here does not lie with the buyer of the service or product though, but the seller. What I’m trying to state is that there can be no principle one can look to, no definite limit, and no objective rule for when a seller who deals with a “valid” ignorant buyer is no longer an honest businessman but a conman taking advantage of that person. It is and must be a subjective evaluation. Therefore I may think of someone as a conman, whereas he himself disagrees. Is he then able to go on living happily ever after or does he feel like a parasite etc. on other honest working people just because of my judgement of him? The "is" corresponds to many subjective "oughts".

Aunty Brenda may be ignorant. But we can't relistically know the real value of every service and product that we acquire. If I crack my head open holidaying in Paris, I'm not going to drive around to five different doctors to establish a fair local price for stitching me up. I have to rely on the first doctor or nurse to charge me a sensible price for their service. Maybe the doctor charges me $400. Asking 2 other doctors later on, one may say I got the ripps, while the other couldn't possibly tell since he wasn't there. I'm none the wiser. In this particular situation I am as Peikoff says; one of the people who are ignorant, blind or gullible. The doctor of course, wants to maximise his profits. He may therefore argue that $400 is a fair price. Maybe he also finds a couple of fellow doctors who agrees with him. But there has to be a limit for what is a fair profit maximised price, and when the doctor turns into Who sets that limit in an objective way? If $400 is ok but $401 is not, would the doc charging $401 go home knowing he is a liar, conman and parasite on honest working men? And how could we possibly get a concensus on what is a fair price, even among doctors? Do you see the possiblity for limitless personal interpretation and justifaction? "I gave him that expensive anastethic" "The nurse told me she spent a bit extra time with him, certainly worth the extra $78". When does the doctor stop being a doctor and becomes a conman? At what dollar value?

About this conman argument. Suppose I accept the standard of morality and values as you define it: only an honest working person can be truly happy. Yeah? How do you define an honest working person? Take the much despised used car salesman. He has a car on his lot. Old aunty Brenda comes along. Now, the salesman knows that the car is worth say between $10 and 12k. He’s also got the gift of the gab. My question is: Where does he draw the line? When does he go from being an honest businessman exchanging goods, to become a conman? Aunty Brenda doesn’t know much about cars. She may pay $20k and walk happily away never knowing the difference. $11k seems fine. $12k? 12,246,58? $13k, heck he threw in a full tank of gas. $14,15,16k? A dollar here, 2 cents there… Do you see the dilemma? Its all within the laws of society, where is the limit of morality?