hunterrose
-
Posts
1217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hunterrose
-
-
Be that as it may... do you think Congress would control inflation better than the Fed?Our congress, who has the ability to control the inflation of our currency, chooses not to, even though it is directly against the interest of the American people.I do share your feelings on forced taxation, though.
Wholeheartedly agree.The sad part of it is that if one person in five had the intrepidity to act on their beliefs to his extent, the problem wouldn't exist. They would have a hard task to put 60 million people in jail.
Harder things have been accomplished in this world (I wouldn't think it'd have to be exactly simultaneous.)But, how are you going to convince 60 million people to simultaneously stop forking over money?
What about choosing to follow the just laws and picking out the objectively unjust ones?We cant pick and choose the laws we wish to abide by. To do so would be anarchy. -
You're cool with me alreadyAnd I even speak southern Appalachian English.
Welcome
-
!!!I'm moving to New York as of tomorrow.Nothing like a big jump, eh? Best wishes
P.S. Moving doesn't mean you're off the hook to write that novel
-
But you're ignoring the fact that lottery players who are aware of the odds are taking stock of reality. When/if they win the lottery, they are well-served, and these circumstances are a debilitating counter-argument to your argument that one ought to do that which is more likely to result in acquiring one's goal.People who play the lottery and expect a return on their money are ignoring the fact that the odds are against such an outcome by many millions to one.Counter-argued. Your ought doesn't hold up to your own standards.
No matter how many times you've said it, your argument still doesn't follow:You have demonstrated that you are incapable of conducting an argument without misrepresenting or ignoring what your adversary says.Here is what I wrote to you in Post #537: “I’ve said it many times before: if one’s life is the standard of one’s values, one ought to take actions which are [more] likely to preserve one’s life.”
- one’s life is the standard of one’s values
- ???
- one ought to take actions which are more likely to preserve one’s life.
#3 doesn't follow from #1, and if there is a #2 to your argument, you've never stated it.
The quote from post #537 is an unproven assertion. Your ought is still invalidated by your own standards.
- one’s life is the standard of one’s values
-
Really? Prove that a billionaire can feed and shelter you better than you can??Such circumstances assume the existence of a force better (“more expert,” as you say) at maintaining a subject’s life than the subject himself is. But such an assumption is purely theoretical; you’ve provided no real world instance where that is the case Then perhaps you should define what you mean by "maintaining one's life" if you really want to insist this meets your standards of oughts.
I don't think Rand meant that looting is guaranteed to result in a destruction. However, if she did mean such and in terms of physical destruction, it'd be erroneous, I agree. If she mean such in terms of non-physical destruction, it'd be arbitrary (not erroneous) until a way to prove one whether was non-physically destroyed was arrived at.You have to demonstrate that all looters face [guaranteed] destruction, physical or non-physical. If you cannot do this, then we can agree that Rand is in error, as I said in my Post #1.Was that satisfactory?
There are plenty of circumstances where people play the lottery and end up more well served.Self-interest is best served by taking stock of reality.- define "taking stock of reality"
- prove that self-interest is best served by taking stock of reality
- prove that people who win the lottery do not take stock of reality
If you cannot do this, then we can agree that winning more money than Mao or the average tax collector ever had qualifies as being well-served, at least as your counter-examples describe it.
If you truly believed that was relevant, you'd acknowledge that certain people profit by not following your ought of "more likely to succeed" actions. You haven't.If certain people can selfishly profit and prosper by not following Rand’s prohibition on the initiation of force, why should we suppose that her oughts apply to them?
??? This...Refer to my second paragraph in this post and then, if you are up to it, offer a counter-example.
...is your second paragraph, but what are you asking me to counter-example? You don't say why one ought to take actions that are more likely to preserve/enrich one's life.If one’s life is the standard of one’s values, one ought to take actions which are likely to preserve (and perhaps enrich) one’s life. - define "taking stock of reality"
-
You can't arrive at any system of Thou Shall X from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one's values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by not doing X.If X equals maintaining one’s life, then the above statement is false.Nope. There are just too many circumstances in which the looter is "well served" by not maintaining his life e.g. if someone (who is more expert at maintaining his life) maintains his life for him.
Let's stipulate that. You still believe that there are some circumstances in which one is well-served by not maintaining one's own life. Thus, according to your metaethics, maintaining one's life wouldn't count as a Thou Shall.If it were true that X may maintain Y’s life as long as X is “more expert at maintaining his life,” then it would apply to the non-looter as well as well as to the looter.So the question remains: is there anything that qualifies (to you) as an objective ought? If there isn't, then your stance isn't just anti-Objectivist, but (far, far worse) anti-ethics in general.
What's there to explain? Pick a form of destruction. It's blatantly obvious that looters don't necessarily meet physical destruction. If you can find where Rand said otherwise, everyone would admit she was wrong on that count.You still have not explained away all the counter-examples to Rand’s claim that destruction of the looter is the price of looting.Personally, I don't care for the arguments that looters will necessarily meet emotional/mental/happiness destruction. I don't know why you'd possibly want to tackle such an imbroglio, but if you do, come up with a way to prove whether a person who appears happy and mentally/emotionally whole isn't actually unhappy or emotionally/mentally destroyed. I think that's a waste of time, but... whatever.
Whatever form of destruction you're talking about, it doesn't matter. Rand NEVER said that you shouldn't loot because you are guaranteed to meet destruction X. If she did, then her argument against looting would rise and fall with appropriate examples. Since she didn't... what difference do your counter-examples make in terms of ethics?
Surely you, the Counter-exampler, don't deny that there are some circumstances in which one's self-interest is well served by not doing the action that is likely to help one attain one's goal??? Because softwareNerd long ago mentioned that there are plenty of circumstances where people play the lottery (an action that is not likely to attain one's goals) and end up more well served than if they'd put it the same money into the S&P 500 (an action that is likely to attain one's goals).We don’t make such a case because it is not a “given” that “self-interest is well served by not doing the action that is likely to help one attain one’s goal.”Again, the point is that you are a victim of the same argument you're using against Rand. If a couple of circumstances where people profited from not doing Rand's oughts invalidates her oughts... then a couple of circumstances where people profited from not doing Gary Brenner's oughts invalidates his oughts.
-
Is the following a correct interpretation of your metaethics?
You can't arrive at any system of Thou Shall X from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one's values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by not doing X.
Nope. There are just too many circumstances in which the looter is "well served" by not maintaining his life e.g. if someone (who is more expert at maintaining his life) maintains his life for him. Maybe you were thinking of something else?If X equals maintaining one’s life, then the above statement is false.
No, we haven't. Your quote was a statement comparing moral action to actions that are "not necessarily moral and not necessarily immoral." What I'm asking is:We have already been over this...
If we know a given action is more likely to help attain one's goals, how do you make the case that this given action is an ought, given that there are too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by not doing the action that is likely to help one attain one's goal?Moral actions are by definition of greater value in maintaining an ethical standard than actions of moral uncertainty... -
Then is the following a correct interpretation of your metaethics?No, the point is, as I’ve shown in this thread, we don’t arrive at a system of rights, a system of Thou Shall Not Aggress Against Others, from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one’s values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by prudent theft.You can't arrive at any system of Thou Shall X from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one's values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by not doing X.
You can't arrive at any system of Thou Shall Not Y from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one's values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by doing Y.
Rand’s ethics involves a logical gap. It starts with the premise that one’s life is one’s standard of values, and then goes on to prohibit looting without showing that looting is necessarily harmful to the looter’s self-interest.Your premise is that M is someone's standard of value... and then goes on to prohibit acts that are less likely to obtain M... without showing that said acts are necessarily not going to obtain M? Is this also a "logical gap"?
Given everything you've said, can you make the non-subjective, non-arbitrary argument that one should prohibit the performance of acts that are unlikely to help one attain one's goals?One should not prohibit the performance of certain acts without first being able to make a logical case that such acts are unlikely to help one attain one’s goals.Or is Inspector right about your subjective commitments and arbitrary postulates?
-
I largely agree with that, but this is about behaviors, not actions or intentions. And behaviors can be destructive by nature even if outside factors can prevent them from resulting in destruction 100% of the time.
Perhaps a better example of the behavior/action difference: gravity accelerates objects at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. That's the behavior.
It doesn't mean that every gravity-affected object will have a net acceleration - action - of 32 feet per second per second. Gravity and non-gravity factors determine what action occurs.
So you couldn't determine the acceleration of gravity by showing that gravity and only gravity is responsible for an object's net acceleration. It'd be a highly erroneous standard of proof, leading (natch) to highly erroneous conclusions.
But this is exactly the type of thing you're trying to do (intentionally or not) with determining the nature of looting and firing a gun at oneself.
-
Waitaminute. You're providing a method of proof for something totally different.
The point is that firing a gun at oneself is a destructive behavior, not that firing a gun at oneself will always result (no matter what) in one's physical destruction. What is your standard of proof for the former?
-
But the Imus fuss was not about initiation-of-force censoring. They didn't violate his rights or initiate any force.Here's a sign of the real trouble. Poet Maya Angelou calls for censoring "offensive" speech.By the way, you might be taking Mrs. Angelou out of context. (In the clip), she didn't say or answer that the government needs to provide more censorship. Rather, she said that, as individuals, we have to censor what we say or we will "not be given a microphone." If you run off your sponsors/profits, your employers will no longer give you a microphone - therefore you need to censor yourself. If this was Angelou's message, you could hardly disagree with her point.
Imus's treatment is the exact way people say animal abusers should be treated: shunning, but no violation of the abuser's rights. There then is irony in damning the assumed motives of Imus's detractors.
-
Minority pressure groups didn't control Imus's agenda. CBS (or is it NBC?) did. Imus's sponsors did. If Imus's bosses/sponsors had chosen to stick to their guns, Imus would not be shut down. And since no is arguing that they should have continued to support Imus...Low-rent comments should not be shut down by minority pressure groups. The problem is the few trying to control the agenda for the many."The few" spoke their mind. The owners responded. No force, no controlling, no "postmodernist" problem with what has happened to Imus.
-
I agree that the proof requires that certain factors be isolated.
- Why do you say that a proof requires that certain factors be isolated?
- Does proving that firing a gun at oneself is destructive require isolating means of protection (e.g. Superman)?
- Why do you say that a proof requires that certain factors be isolated?
-
Superman isn't a part of the nature of firing a gun at oneself; the only way to know whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive is to take Superman out of the equation. Don't you agree?
I don't understand; scuba tanks are logically a part of scuba diving. Scuba tanks aren't part of the nature of free-diving, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.And by the same logic we can say that scuba tanks are not part of the nature of staying underwater for 30 minutes.You didn't directly answer my question.
I assume your answer was "No." So the other question remains: you agree that some things must be isolated, so how can I show that Superman (or any particular thing for that matter) is a factor that must be isolated in determining whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive?
Consider your task like that of medical researchers. In order to establish a link between cancer and cigarette smoking, researchers must rule out other possible causes of cancer. If you argue that looters are destroyed by their looting, then show that the forces that kill (or impair or render useless) other citizens are not the forces at work in the “destruction” of the looter.
Neither of those answers the question.Show that IRS looters are destroyed as a result of their looting. Once you have done that, you will have demonstrated that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter.
Nonsense. Progress: you've agreed that some things must be isolated. Now we just need to know how to determine what needs to be isolated, or at least how you determine what needs to be isolated. Then we can (without the isolated factors) determine whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive. If it (or something else) is a destructive behavior, I can show how looting is a destructive behavior.This is getting us nowhere. -
If Al Sharpton humorously called Ayn Rand a "paleface ho" on his radio program, would anyone here say that Sharpton was simply calling her on her behavior and lack of sunshine? Would anyone here say such a comment wasn't necessarily improper just because Al's intention wasn't malicious? Or compare insulting Rand to rap?
I would find such comments about Rand distasteful and worth getting fired for. But I guess that would make me a postmodernist.
-
I don't know about that, though I agree that there was a risk. Galt says "Do you wish to give any outsider any relief from the consequences of remaining outside?", implying that the decision to not tell Rearden is a matter of not giving an outsider relief, moreso than a safety issue.Galt doesn't want to risk being found out by the looters. His comment to Fransisco was to show Fransisco that he was overly concerned with someone else's feeling at the expense of his safety. And least that what I got from my reading of it.Personally, I think it's an interesting indicator of the difference between Francisco vs. Galt. Aside from the safety issues, I would have though similarly to Francisco, in wanting to save a friend from a lot of heartache. 'Course, this is the same Galt who is angling after Francisco's love, and doesn't say so for a long, long time...
-
Would it make a difference whether he probably had had several minutes to think about it?I'm just sick of seeing people's lives be destroyed because they make an off-hand racial comment that they probably would not have made, had they had about 5 seconds to think about it.
"Nappy-headed" doesn't really refer to people of other races.How do you know that he targeted them because of their race?
So judge angered racists, but not joking racists?I would not in any way defend Michael Richards' racial outburst. The difference is that by his own admission, his intention was malicious. That intention is essential in judging a case of this type. Motives matter.
Slur or not, you don't consider that racist? What if he'd said "black-skinned hos" or "wide-nosed hos" or "slave-descended hos"?Imus did not make a racial slur. He said that some of the women on the Rutgers rugby team were "nappy headed hos." He was making fun of their appearance, particularly their nappy hair.At any rate, if someone wants to boycott him for his comments (I don't) I don't see anything wrong with that. His bosses would be a bit hypocritical for allowing him this type of speech for so long and then now acting shocked that he says such things. And there are certainly some folks trying to cash in.
I don't think Imus "owes" any one or any race an apology. But that doesn't change an assessment of Imus and his comments.
-
Your example involves two separate things: a monetary benefit and a physical destruction.The mortal is paid $1,000 per “shooting.” ...Ergo, the mortal continues to live as a result of firing a gun at himself.Is firing a gun at oneself by nature monetarily beneficial? No; the monetary benefit occurs if and only if there is a business agreement to receive pay for firing a gun at oneself. Working for pay is by nature monetarily beneficial, firing a gun at oneself is not necessarily so.
If firing a gun at oneself by nature physically destructive? Superman isn't a part of the nature of firing a gun at oneself; the only way to know whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive is to take Superman out of the equation. Don't you agree?
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Would you clarify?Show that the forces that kill (or impair or render useless) other citizens are not the forces at work in the “destruction” of the looter. -
Would that prove that the mortal continues to live as a result of firing a gun at himself? Or that he continues to live as a result of Superman stopping the mortal's destructive action? You still haven't answered the question.Now suppose there really were a Superman and that every night as part of a stage show the Man of Steel stops a bullet a mortal man is firing at his own head.
Forgot about looting for a half moment. You continue to say that no behavior qualifies as necessarily destructive. I must show your premise to be wrong (via a simple example like firing a gun at oneself) before I could prove that a complicated behavior (like looting) is necessarily destructive.What is the point of the comparison?
You agree to stipulate that certain factors must be isolated in determining the nature of looting. Since I have no idea what "certain factors" you agree must be isolated, how can I show that having a million-man army protecting you is a factor that must be isolated in determining whether looting is destructive?Of course I agree that the proof of a cause and effect relationship requires that certain factors be isolated. But that’s not my job... you’re the one who has to do the work here. -
You tell me; how does your "ethics" determine such things? Even once one has obtained your necessities of survival, a person still has goals. Your standard to this point has been that the moral choices are the ones with the greatest liklihood of obtaining one's goal. If a man decides that watching The Simpsons is more likely to attain his goal of relaxing from a hard day's work than reading the trashy book, you hold that (here) watching the Simpsons is the moral choice.It is [not] necessarily immoral to undertake an action which has an undetermined moral weight... if I accomplish [providing the necessities of survival] from Monday through Friday, is it immoral to read a trashy book on Saturday and Sunday?Wouldn't this man then be immoral for reading the trashy book (instead of watching The Simpsons) in this situation? If he isn't, then your standard of morality (most likely to obtain one's goal) isn't consistently applied to your ethics and your standard of immorality (commiting suicide) includes more things than you care to admit.
If I fire a gun at my head, Superman could catch the bullet before it splatters me. Would that prove that I continued to live as a result of shooting a gun at myself?
Would you answer the question?Here we go with the gun at the head again.
Stop being facetious. You haven't even admitted that some things must be isolated in the first place. Tell me, why couldn't you throw feathers off of a tower to determine the acceleration of gravity?Fine. We can conclude by saying that until you isolate looting from “Superman” factors or “immaterial overpowering” factors, the Objectivist position that looting leads to the destruction of the looter is unproven. -
That's still not an ethics. Ought a person choose a moral action over a "not necessarily immoral" action? If yes, then "not necessarily immoral" actions are actually immoral. If no, then your moral actions are "not necessarily moral". Either way, your "ethics" would be eviscerated.Suicide is immoral. However, there may be life-endangering actions that fall short of suicide... So we would call those who engage in these activities “foolish” but not necessarily “immoral.”What would constitute proof that a given tax collector lives a safe, comfortable life as a result of her looting?
That doesn't cut it. If I fire a gun at my head, Superman could catch the bullet before it splatters me. Would that prove that I continued to live as a result of shooting a gun at myself? Of course not, it'd only prove that some things can ameliorate the results of destructive behaviors.That the house, the cars, the three square meals, the vacations in Cozumel, and Junior’s college tuition were paid with checks from a bank account into which IRS paychecks were deposited.If you wanted to determine whether shooting a gun at oneself (or looting) was a destructive behavior, you have to isolate it from "Superman" factors, just as a proper scientific experiment requires isolating immaterial overpowering factors.
-
What then if society similarly shuns you for the animal abuse of salting slugs in your garden, or for knocking over an anthill in order to get the choicest picnicking area?Perhaps a local alternative would be to paste flyers with a photo of this guy all over town with the words "Animal Abuser" scrawled underneath. -
Why not?It is moral to break law only as part of a wider campaign of civil disobedience actively aimed at bringing a bad government or political system down by force, and we are absolutely nowhere near that stage.
It got Anakin!I kind of wonder if ... welfare will corrupt you.Please tell me where Galt's Gulch is or where we can build it.
Keep your eyes open...
-
Okay, so immoral risks/conduct consists of risks/conduct that is less likely (than another known conduct) to obtain one's goal. Probability determines what is moral and immoral conduct (to you, anyway).[A risk becomes immoral] at the point that it exceeds the risk level of an alternate opportunity with roughly the same rewards[immoral conduct is] conduct that is deleterious to one’s goals.
...Then why do you so self-destructively contradict yourself here?
Isn't a person immoral for doing immoral conduct, taking immoral risks Probability determines moral conduct... but it doesn't determine immoral conductIf one’s life (and perhaps living well) is the standard of one’s morality, then one would be wise to choose the means most likely to attain such results. If one still realized those goals without paying attention to probability, we could call him foolish, but not immoral.If nothing is immoral, then you still don't have an ethics.
He was hit by a meteor, remember?We are not told what his ailment is...
Excellent, there's hope for you yet!...We have no way of knowing whether there is a [causal] relationship between his suffering and his thinking.How do I prove there is a causal link between Marty thinking and Marty getting hit by the meteor? What would constitute proof that a given tax collector lives a safe, comfortable life as a result of her looting?
Nurture and Suicide
in Ethics
Posted
It may surprise you or not, but a lot of people with normal and proper upbringings are having these same difficulties. While an improper upbringing can lead to problems, care should be taken that it not be used as a social crutch.In your hypothetical example, you used "unable" several times. Wouldn't "unwilling" be more correct? I can understand why the hypothetical James would be unwilling, but I don't think James would be unable due simply to the way he was raised.