[Forrest Gump]

You don't think he worked hard? Or applied intelligence, however much he had?

I do agree with the general jist that some liked the good movie for bad reasons, though.

[The Prudent Predator argument]

The act of accepting an irrational process is self-destructive regardless of its results in one case or another.

Let’s stipulate all of the above.

Whaddyamean "let stipulate"? Do you agree or don't ya?

The lottery is not practical.

Wouldn't a single exception to the impracticality prove that it's practical?

No. The odds for the winner are the same as for the loser. The fact that A won and Z lost does not prove that A had better odds than Z.

sN makes a good point. What definition of "practical" are you using?

[Pragmatism]

What useful results does not preying on friends lead to?

That's pretty simple: the shared fruits of cooperation (e.g. employees in a company or soldiers in an army).

Simple? I actually would like to get precise here. You can get the useful result of cooperation and obtain the "useful" result of preying on friends as well, so long as you aren't caught in the act. Why would a pragmatist assume otherwise in saying that it is not virtuous to prey on friends?

So, if I understand you, something that might coincide with a choice is regarded as a "future consequence" of that choice?

There are well known scientific techniques for distinguishing between correlation and causation. Is this really an issue here?

You didn't answer the question. But I suppose we can get to that by and by.

To extend my point, suppose a bum asks you for $100. A future consequence is that this bum may be the only one on hand some day when you are in an emergency and decide to save you based on whether you gave him the $100.

For the sake of argument, I assume an infinite number of these future consequences will be consequential (if they end up happening) or caused as opposed to correlated (if you think it matters). My issue is how does the pragmatist process these infinite future consequences, given her finite amount of time.

[Pragmatism]

A pragmatic dictator is not concerned (and ought not be concerned according to Pragmatism?) with whether his means will lead to his disaster until the consequences actually play out, until his evil actually becomes [detrimentally] consequential.

This is again a straw man. Pragmatists are concerned with future consequences of choices.

So, if I understand you, something that might coincide with a choice is regarded as a "future consequence" of that choice?

You are not treating the fundamental Pragmatic principle seriously. The Pragmatist says he "knows" X when the believing X to be true leads to useful results.

It is not virtuous to prey on your friends. It is virtuous to prey on your enemies.

But do you, the pragmatist, know that? What useful results does not preying on friends lead to?

[Pragmatism]

If the difference in means are inconsequential then the Pragmatist is not concerned with them.

But this shackles the pragmatist to his capacity to experience consequences. To borrow from the looting thread, a pragmatic dictator is not concerned (and ought not be concerned according to Pragmatism?) with whether his means will lead to his disaster until the consequences actually play out, until his evil actually becomes consequential, until the bombs are over Baghdad or nukes over Hiroshima or the able men go on Strike. Isn't this myopia inevitable to pragmatism?

You are asking that people show you that the results of looting are bad for the looter in order to prove that looting is bad. That is called "Pragmatism".

[The Prudent Predator argument]

I would say that such activities carry a high risk of self-destruction. So, no, pointing a gun at one’s head and bringing the hammer down on an empty chamber (even if there is a bullet in another chamber) is not self-destructive.

Ah, then you still don't understand. Something like random bomb-defusing is fundamentally different from something that is risky like a run in Pamplona. You have to grasp that before you will understand any argument against looting.

Running the bulls is pretty risky, sure. But the means to go about such an endeavor at least has rational basis. You could actually prepare for something like this. Get in physical shape. Watch how (and how fast) bulls move. Learn the contours of the streets. Carry an emergency firearm (heh.) I don't know, wear armor and not wear red. While daredevilish, it's not inherently irrational...

...like defusing a bomb by cutting random wires. The MO a person accepts in such an act (life-or-death through random action) is objectively self-destructive, regardless of whether it takes the form of random bomb-defusing or other idiocies, regardless of whether or not it results in physical harm in a particular application of the principle.

You're saying that these two things are fundamentally the same, merely a difference of degree. You see these two actions as both having chances of peril, and without concern for why they're perilous, begin running with philosophical scissors. You don't understand that the "mere" act of accepting an irrational process is self-destructive, again, regardless of its results in one case or another.

[The Prudent Predator argument]

Do you agree that playing russian roulette is the destruction of the player? Or that randomly pulling wires from a bomb is the destruction of the defuser?

Sure.

Really? Your Mao statements

Logically, all I have to do is present one example to disprove the statement that looting leads to the destruction of the looter.

suggest otherwise.

I'm not asking whether russian roulette and random bomb-defusing can be destructive, but whether they are destructive actions even if they don't result in physical injury. Surely you don't agree with that?

I acknowledged that the looter faces great risks. However, I also pointed that there are many productive men who also take risks: soldiers, bounty hunters, racecar drivers, marijuana dealers, etc. If the argument against looting boils down to the fact that the looter may have his life prematurely shortened, then that argument would also apply to...

That's not the argument against looting. The argument is (or rather the argument leads to the conclusion) that looting is destructive to the looter regardless of what results a particular case of looting leads to.

FYI I'm sure the Objectivists here (of which I am not included) would say that the looter doesn't face risks in the first place, as "risk" implies there is a potential reward.

As for Mao’s imposed impairment, what if the Chairman simply enjoyed mass murder more than designing buildings, running a steel factory or managing a railroad?

It seems a digression, but I would say that whether or not X is enjoyed has little (if anything) to do with whether X is objectively destructive/impairing.

Does anyone wish to argue that racecar driving is inconsistent with Objectivist ethics?

Someone did make a similar argument not too long ago. It's somewhat interesting. Check it out.

[Illegal Immigration & Objectivism]

i think that the "rule of law" and the "unfairness" arguments are connected. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is unfair to legal immigrants because they choose to follow the law.

Does that depend on whether the particular law is even just?

*Reactionary analogy time*

By your same argument, it would have been "unfair" to grant amnesty to runaway slaves - because doing so would be unfair to people who had bought their freedom from their masters legally?

The only thing IMO unfair is that a legal immigrant would have to go through such a convoluted process in the first place. That others find a way to avoid this unjust process isn't the injustice.

[What would you do if you met Ellsworth Toohey?]

What would you do if you met Ellsworth Toohey?

Ask him to supersize my fries.

[Pragmatism]

Anyone can call themselves an Objectivist too, or a Catholic for that matter.

But anyone can't call every ethical choice an Objectivist one (or even a Catholic one for intents and purposes). E.g. raping isn't a proper ethical choice under Objectivism or (unless god tells you otherwise...) Catholicism.

On the other hand, raping in any situation can be pragmatic to some folks. And it can never be pragmatic for other folks. And some other idiots will find it to be a pragmatic choice in some situations and non-pragmatic in others. Pragmatism (as an ideology in and of itself) is milquetoasty in that anything can be considered to be subsumed under it.

At the simplest level, Pragmatism discards distinctions without a consequential difference. More generally, it asks the questions: "what mental constructs enable me to best achieve my goals."

In other words, pragmatism (ought this be capitalized?) is concerned with the end, and without concern for the means? That's certainly a difference between pragmatism and Objectivism...

Where is this looting thread? Maybe I should join it.

Uh oh...

I'll have to pore through the rest of the posts of this thread, it is of some interest.

[The Prudent Predator argument]

The victim [of looting] certainly is destroyed.

That part of Rand’s statement was never in dispute. The issue being debated is expressed in the title of this thread.

Ah, then you agree that looting does destroy it's victim. Good, I was afraid you were one of those unreasonable ones

Next question: do you agree that playing russian roulette is the destruction of the player? Or that randomly pulling wires from a bomb is the destruction of the defuser?

The point is that a government looter could lay a heavy tax on a population without killing the golden goose, so to speak. The starvation of millions in China’s "Great Leap Forward" did not put a dent in Chairman Mao’s lifestyle.

Well, okay. But does this point matter? I could/would argue that starving millions did impair what Mao would otherwise have obtained in life, but more importantly, an isolated example doesn't make your case. "The destruction of the looter" doesn't mean that every bank robber will be apprehended or every dictator hung out to dry. Pointing out evil men who weren't killed is as relevant to your debate as pointing out productive men who were killed.

[The Prudent Predator argument]

The other point that troubles me, a point central to her argument for rights-respecting egoism, is the idea that the price of looting is “the destruction of their victims and their own.

Start with the simplest part. You can question whether victimizer is destroyed if you want, but the victim certainly is destroyed.

I would be the first to grant that enslaving and killing people is the surest way to make a society less productive. But a general decline in productivity does not necessarily bring about the destruction of the slave-owner or the dictator.

You're making a distinction between destruction and less-than-destruction that Rand isn't making. When Rand says destruction here, I'm (fairly) sure she doesn't mean you will 100% cease to exist as a result of a given act of looting, but rather that there is no point here in distinguishing between annihilating a person, crippling a person, and slightly wounding a person - they are all acts of destruction. Don't give DavidOdden a reason to tell you about "morgue-avoidance"

You're also stating this in a collective sense ("general decline in productivity") rather than an individual one?

[Pragmatism]

It's not clear to me at this point where Pragmatism and Objectivism conflict except insofar as Objectivism might concern itself with details that are inconsequential.

Pragmatism seems (to me) to throw objectivity out the window. Anyone can call himself a pragmatist; the guy who plays russian roulette for cash, the gal who realizes it doesn't doesn't benefit her in the long run to play, the animal who takes the gun and murders people for fun and profit, the idiot who purposely shoots himself in the foot in order to not have to go to work today, etc.

Of course, I don't exactly understand what pragmatism refers to. What would not count as pragmatism, beyond an explicit pursuit of detrimental consequences? What non-pragmatic system doesn't consider consequences, in some form or another?

I would agree that pragmatism, as a stand-alone system, is incomplete moreso than incorrect.

[Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc]

IF she wants to be a model... if her mate is attracted to femininity. So I guess my short answer is: "It doesn't matter much."

Ok. I am fine with what you've said as femininity/masculinity so long as there aren't the explicit universal behavioral standards e.g. a woman in general should not be more aggressive than level X, having a beard is ideal for men, etc.

blackdiamond reminds me that I don't entirely agree with the masculine/feminine qua efficacy stuff. I don't have any problem with considering the things you (Meta) mention as being masculine/feminine, though.

[Good Samaritan]

So it would be immoral to risk your own life to save a stranger?

Another question is this: does placing rational self-interest above all else necessitate placing my own life as my highest value, over even those of my family or children?

It's the idea of an obligation to save or not save a stranger that'd be immoral. Just as one is not morally required to put oneself in danger for a stranger, one is equally not obligated to stay out of danger simply because it may result in harm to oneself.

Same thing for charity.

At what point do we cross the line from "sacrifice" to "excess", assuming you left enough to feed and cloth yourself?

When it goes against your better judgement?

Are we then required to help others AT ALL? I mean say a house is on fire.

Maybe if you caused the fire

[The smell of religious doctrines]

Only a rational argument can cause me to change my views. I expect that only a rational argument on my part will change anyone else's.

I've tried very hard to avoid dogmatism in all my posts, I think successfully.

I don't have a problem with saying there is a bit of fanboyism here and there. E.g. I've seen a person or two here who believed Kant was the Destroyer of Humanity, but have never so much as touched one of his books; a couple of (out-of-context??) excerpts by others who didn't like Kant were enough for them.

With that said, you're going to find that everywhere. There isn't any place, anywhere ('cept maybe the Gulch) where proving an argument is irrational will make everyone publicly renounce their disproven beliefs and acknowledge the superiority of your statements.

Are you saying that this forum is worse than other places of debate? Cause it seems like you're merely saying that this forum (of free admission) isn't composed 100% of 100% rational people.

Plus, as others have said, you might be using "dogmatism" a bit loosely. What evidence would it take to prove to you that this is not a hotbed of dogmatism? If there is nothing that could prove your charges of dogmatism to be false, then do the excerpts of posts you provided count as rational arguments?

Personally, I like your avatar/user name, but who am I to talk

[Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc]

I can't believe that you do in fact actually believe that a woman should look at herself, metaphysically, as just a "symbol" of something, and should proceed from there to choose behavioural virtues that reflect the meaning of that symbol! [This would be called "ethics of (or from) symbolism"?]

She should look at herself qua symbol as a concretization of the capacity to create and nurture life. She should look at herself metaphysically as a rational animal. Thus she should derive most of her ethics from the latter and should derive an ethics "from symbolism" only in those contexts where she is a symbol, i.e. when she is being looked at as an object by a viewer, a viewer of her choice.

Okay. I'm starting to see where all the other stuff came in. What kind of objective ethical/aesthetics are you saying a woman should derive from her femininity? Because I don't see how you derive any objective oughts/aesthetic standards from the fact that women have breasts (or from any other feminine characteristics, for that matter).

[Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc]

This is where my theory differs. The qualities found in women or men must be a result of puberty, not just more prevalent.

Ah. I don't have too much problem with that. But it does seem to exclude feminine/masculine as describing actions, a definition of masculine/feminine that most folks wouldn't agree with.

PMS is feminine, so is menstruation, and out of the woman's control (unless she undergoes hormone therapy). Violence is always under the male's control, but the root of that hormonal chain could be identified as anger or aggressiveness, which could be classified as masculine.

But aggressiveness isn't a result of puberty - guys are more aggressive (as a whole) well before puberty strikes. I'm not sure you'd be able to identify any volitional behavior as a result (or originating because) of puberty. It seems to limit the concepts of masculinity/femininity to biological characteristics.

[Why has religion been so persistent?]

I'm a bit sleep deprived right now though, so I may not make the most sense

Attaining values requires attaining subvalues. If I'm trying to live, eating food is an objective value - objective in the sense that my goal of living requires eating food.

Eating food wouldn't be an intrinsic value - e.g. people committing suicide doesn't require eating food, and so wouldn't be a value in such a context.

'Course, this alone wouldn't say how to determine whether living or committing suicide is itself an objective value. It just says that, in the context of an existing value, there are objective (sub)values.

Which of the two moral codes of say a capitalist versus a socialist....or a humanist versus an objectivist is the objectively based code and which the delusionally based one?

That's the more complicated question. In terms of capitalism/socialism, we would determine whether an economic system is a means to our end. Without digressing too much, capitalism is an objective value toward prosperity, and socialism an objective value toward material mediocrity equality.

Since you're determining the objectivity of a value in terms of higher values, there is a potential difficulty in eventually having to determine the objectivity of a value that has no higher value. I don't entirely agree with Objectivism's answer at this point, so I'd just as soon not be the one to explain it. But it has been delved into fairly regularly around here. Look up just about any topic in the ethics subforum that has "ultimate value" or "life" in the title. This seems a good one at a quick glance.

[The smell of religious doctrines]

I had initially taken this forum to be a place where honest, rigorous, and open intellectual debate would be possible. I was mistaken.

I wouldn't say that.

The problem (if you want to call it that) is that topics can digress and arguments can be misconstrued, unintentionally and not. But this is due to the general nature of debating people with different knowledge and beliefs, not specifically a fault of this forum, its predominant ideology, or the people who tend to frequent this site.

If you prove the other guy wrong, he either acknowledges it or he doesn't. Either way, good ideas win out.

[Beyond Romanticism... or why form matters]

Art should make humans experience more than they normally experience... art must rebel against the status quo.

You said a lot of things I'd take issue with, but this is probably the most contentious. I don't think the purpose of art is necessarily to show us something unexperienced, but rather to show us something ideal. Big, big, big difference.

To claim that [Romantic fantasy authors] are greater than Joyce is to commit oneself to an indefensible absurdity.

Not unlike claiming Joyce to be the greatest writer of the 20th century?

Although taking a quick passage out of “Ulysses” is risking charges of incomprehensibility, I will nevertheless give you an example of a “beautiful” portrayal of defecation...

I'm afraid that passage only reaffirmed our disagreement on the purpose of art (and my disdain for Joyce). Before reading that I'd certainly never experienced a day in the beautiful life of a turd. The passage indeed rebels against the status quo. But doesn't the excerpt come across to you as rather pointless?

[Why has religion been so persistent?]

Without God...all values are baseless. don't misunderstand me...

Apparently too late! Part of that may be due to some inaccurate(?) words you used, though.

Some values serve a pragmatic function which is why they persist across time. For example, I choose to behave in such a way as to ensure my family fare well in the world. I do this, though, because it serves the selfish...

In a universe without God, none of the above morality has any intrinsic value or meaning. The universe doesn't care if I copulate with my sister or murder my family.

When the folks around here speak of "pragmatic", they mean myopic expediency e.g. stealing lunch because you forgot to bring your wallet, and not a case of buying lunch because you're hungry.

On the other hand, when you used "pragmatic" here, I think you mean serving a purpose or contextually beneficial, and are using it in contrast to "intrinsic" (i.e. not valuable through serving a purpose). Is this correct?

I note that a universe without intrinsic values (as our godless one is) is not the same as a universe without objective values. Contextual values can be objective even if they aren't intrinsic.

[Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc]

I asked whether it was feminine or not, and her body as whole. I think her face, while somewhat masculine, is pretty, and muscles are not ugly. Beauty and masculinity are not mutually exclusive.

You're implying that being beautiful isn't an aspect of femininity? Or that being in a dieted-down state (her "masculine" face) is mutually exclusive to femininity?

The ever-present problem with the way femininity has been discussed is that virtually any quality that is more prevalent in females than males can be classed as "feminine". Are PMS mood swings an instance of femininity or being violent one of masculinity?

I think a deep voice is indicative of size, as even different sized males and females will have different pitches of their voices which mostly correlate with their different body sizes, because what causes a deep voice is a long vocal chord. SO a deep voice can be associated with a large body size, which is an instance of physical strength.

But a deep voice is not indicative of overall body size or efficacy, but rather, as you say, differences in vocal chords - it's not necessarily something that a rational man would value.

[Competitive Games]

Ah. I play a good number of FPS and fighters (mostly Halo 2 and VF4 right now), but rarely online. Mostly single-player or with/against friends in the same room. Maybe when I finally get that PS3/360 I'll get more into the online stuff...

[Why has religion been so persistent?]

Why is religious belief so prevalent across cultures and throughout history?

Because a lot of people always (and always will?) want to believe that the grass is greener on the other side of reality. Envisioning "better" worlds and higher orders because they aren't satisfied with this one, etc, etc. Or more of what AS1633 said.

Finally, I'd question the idea that religion is persistent and not rolling back. The last few centuries have seen more and more educated folk reject the crudest versions, and treat many of the concretes of their religions as being symbolic.

But from my observations, the rejections of those crude versions isn't a principled, objective one. E.g. Christians don't say that Abraham was wrong to attempt to sacrifice his son when god said so... they merely mumble that god will no longer ask such things of us (without any condemnation of a god for asking for such things...) Personally, I think religion is just as persistent now with an additional danger of being presented as more rational. Religion, now with only 5% poison.

Nevertheless, for me the essence of religion relies on one thing: faith in a god. If god cannot be proven to exist, the entire religious edifice tumbles. It is amazing how few people see that.

I'd say the essence of religion (and some other things) relies on not seeing the significance of treating some arbitraries as true. They do not see (intentionally or unintentionally) how treating a particular arbitrary claim is true is, on principle, harmful to them.

When I think about his "conversion", I cannot find the words to say how I feel.

That's what emoticons are for