Korthor

I've kept to a simple line of reasoning that what Imus said was bad and it was good that he should apologize (I didn't say anything about firing). Nonetheless, many people go off in a "Sharptonesque" fashion to say that the injury to the girls "wasn't even the main issue" and then cite their favorite examples of injustice (the Duke players also come to mnd). Don't you realize that you sound exactly like Sharpton, exploiting the issue for your own political agenda? The quesstion of whether Imus should apologize has NOTHING to do with the PCification of culture. It was a question of whether he caused harm, and whether he sould apologize for that harm. I agree that the media circus that has arisen does raise important issues about PCification. I love free speech (nigger nigger nigger), and am somewhat disgusted myself. But the fact that Sharpton is bad doesn't make what Imus said right.

Seeker... You said "So that when we examine his actual remarks and see that, in context, they were not intended maliciously, we understand that it follows that there is no just basis for feeling hurt - and a rational person would not feel hurt and feel no need of an apology. Similarly, a rational person would understand that no hurt was intended or conveyed, and feel no need to apologize. " I took that to mean that you were making the argument that if you accidently hurt/insult/injure/kill someone, then because your intent wasn't "malicious," you don't owe an apology. Maybe I missed your point. Perhaps you would care to clarify?

So Seeker... If you accidently shoot me in the face, are you saying that it wouldn't be "just" or "rational" for me to be pissed off? I would at the very least expect an apology.* Do you apologize if you accidently bump into someone? Do you apologize if you make an honest mistake calculating your share of the check and underpay? Or do you lash out the people hurt by your carelessness as "irrational" people? Jeeze, we're trying to have a society here people! It's OK to be civil beyond the bare requirements of justice--it won't hurt that much. *Although in Cheney's case, the shootee actually apologized to Cheney for inconviencing him by getting in the way of the shot. I think this perhaps more accuratley reflects Seeker's line of thinking.

I agree, but I wanted everyone to stop and marvel for a second. Has anyone ever seen a cable news network report on a what a comedy show reported on what other cable news networks reported about what their own network said? Ladies and gentleman, we've entered the looking-glass...

The young women addressed by this felt insulted. So your argument is that lots of people are saying bad things, so we should say more bad things? How was it a "power play" on their part? Have you seen their press conference? They reacted with reason, dignity, and maturity, and are planning to privately discuss the issue with Imus. If it was a "power play," they would go publicly on the Sharpton radio show and blast his ass. Once again, we must distinguish between those who are using this incident for their own political agenda (Sharpton), and the talented, beautiful, and mature young women who were hurt by his comments but reacting in the best way they know how. I also feel terrible about how the Duke lacrosse players were treated, but these women weren't one of the 'nappy headed hos' that made the false rape accusations against the Duke players. Why does one wrong negate the other?

That's not a violation of identity. You can say something you mean as a joke that nonetheless hurt someone else. You should then apologize. Why is that hard to understand? This is especially likely to happen when the speaker and the speakee don't know each other personally, as happened in this case. The fact that Imus, by all indications, does feel genuinely bad about what he said proves my point.

Most people, even those calling for his firing, admit that he was trying to make a joke. This doesn't change the fact that what he said was hurtful and insulting to innocent young women, and it was completely appropriate that he apologize. I just can't understand why some on this forum feel the need to defend the content of his comments. My best theory is that they hate Sharpton. OK. But I'm not going to vivisect puppies on my front lawn just because it pisses off antimal-rights activists.

When whites use the word "nappy" to describe their hair, it's sort of like Gentiles accusing other Gentiles of "jewing" them when they're being cheap. The word is inherently racially charged, although I do not believe that Imus was motivated by racial aniumus. Seriously, is there anyone who could interpret "nappy-headed hos" as anything but an insult? And when Imus uses such language (which he has done repeatedly in the past) for ratings, how is he not being a "race-baiting sensationalist"?

Perhaps the only good thing to come out of the Imus controversy is the most meta-meta-meta moment in cable news history. The clip leads with a scene of a TV in the middle of the studio. The TV is playing a clip from The Daily Show showing clips from cable news commentators repeating Imus’s comments. For those in the audience counting, that’s MSNBC—Comedy Central--MSNBC/Fox/CNN—MSNBC. That’s at least three levels of additional mediation after Imus’s comments. That’s why I love America. If you want to see the original (if that’s the right word), it’s the clip “Shock Waves” on the Scarborough Country section of the MSNC TV website… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

What was wrong with their "behavior" or "grooming"? Were they behaving badly? Why is not having straight blonde Nazi hair bad grooming? So black people are OK as long as they look and act like white people? I'm glad Imus made his comments so all the racists would out themselves.

I think you can't get a good answer to the question of whether Mormons are Christians, since there are many definitions. But here's one more thing to throw into the mix. One thing that distinguishes Mormons from other sects of Christianity is that the others believed in a "closed canon." They accepted the Bible (with or without the Apocrypha) as the holy text and didn't expect more where that came from. Mormons claimed that there was this new holy text, and it seems logical from a Mormon perspective that there could be others. I also would like to echo that the difference between Christianity and Mormonism on the Bullshit-o-meter is enormous. Mormonism ranks only slightly lower than Scientology on that scale. "Reformed Egyptian" is a real language? Give me a break. At least the Bible was written in real languages.

Thanks for pointing me to the Stick. I just checked it out and it was grade-A dork fun. I especially enjoyed the reworking of the "Whose on First" routine in terms of "levels."

Yes, and the Iraqi civillian deaths have also been high. And yet Bush and McCain insist that the surge is working. You really have to be either as stupid as Bush or as power-hungry as McCain to make such a claim with a straight face.

We've been going around in circles and getting into tangents, so I'll ask you two simple questions. 1. Is there a phenomenon in which people seek material possessions as ends in themselves, without connecting it to a larger value system? 2. If so, what should we call it? I don't think "Philosophical Materialism" does the trick because I'm decribing a psychological pathology, while PM is a philosophical perspective on the nature of the reality. One might have something to do with the other, but I hardly think you can use the term PM to adequately describe what I'm talking about in my first question. P.S. I'm not conceding your argument that anti-concepts can't be reclaimed. I made my most extensive argument my last post (maybe you missed it). But I think this is more of a side issue and so if you want to debate me on that point, maybe we should start a new thread.

These were disciplined varsity atheletes, not hooligans. Why are they "loud girls"? Is their hair "ratty"? Where's your evidence? Even if you're right about the way that some (e.g., Sharpton) have exploited the situation, it doesn't make what Imus or you said any less despicable. I haven't seen you, but you definitely have a loud mouth and a ratty soul. And I bet your hair is ugly too.

The real issue seems to be the distinction between humor and insult, which often quite grey as demonstrated in Southpark. I think Imus was meaning to be funny and came off as insulting. Is insulting people OK? I would say insulting "civillians" (i.e., non-celebrities) on national radio is bad. He probably shouldn't be fired, but to say that he should have stuck to his guns (as some have suggested) is ridiculous. If you insult someone who didn't deserve insulting, even unintentionally, then basic human decency suggests that you apologize. That was how I was raised anyway...

For those who defend the content of his speech, I think it's important to make a distinctoin between: 1. Racist speech that deals in stereotypes in general (e.g., Sharpton's comments about "diamond merchants"). 2. Racist speech targeted at particular individuals. The first might sometimes be OK, especially in a humorous context (e.g., Southpark). The second is almost always wrong, and that's what Imus did. This was probably the best moment of these kids lives, the product of years of dedication and hardwork, and then Imus calls them in particular "nappy-headed hos." That's just wrong, and the fact that some on this forum feel the need to defend it disgusts me.

I feel like I'm getting some level of agreeement that there is this phenomenon I've described with the lable "consumerism." Why not give it a name? What's wrong with using words or phrases that were invented by one's philosophical opponents. After all, Rand often said that each person was an end in themselves, and not to be used as an end by others. Know who came up with that brilliant notion? GASP GASP Immanuel Kant in his "Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals." I'm willing to call it "materialism," although I think the word is not specific enough to a phenomena which has become more pervasive in late capitalism (the phrase "late capitalism" was invented by Marxist: should I say something else?). Actually, now that I think about it the word "phenomena" was given philosophical meaning by German Idealists and Continental phenomenologists. Should I avoid the word "phenomenon"? But isn't there a phenomenon "phenomenon"? But wait, the word "Being" was given the most extensive philosophical treatment by Heidegger, and I would not want to implicitly support his ontology by using the word "is." Damn, keeping my language pure is (damn it, I'm being Heideggerian again) hard. Now I know how Imus feels.

I've been following this story because I'm a cable news junkie and that's all cable news is talking about. Most people are NOT calling for his firing. Al Sharpton and P/G are fairly alone here. I agree that the whole thing has taken a life of its own that's a bit annoying given all the incredibly important things going on in the world right now. Nonetheless, I don't think it's bad for people to debate and discuss the appropriate limits of racist speech, what the penalties for such speech should be, and whether an apology is enough. I am of course speaking within the context of the free market, and there really isn't a FCC issue since the FCC doesn't regulate racist speech (which it considers content), only profantity. Finally, what he said was extremely insulting to a bunch of 19 year old atheletes who have worked really hard to get where they have. I personally don't care whether Imus stays or goes (his program is god awful boring and pointless), but I won't cry if he goes.

1. I'll insist that "consumerism" in its traditional leftist sense means a pathology at least as much as it does an ideology. In fact, I've never seen anyone explain the meaning of consumerism as an ideology (although I have come across the cypher "consumerist ideology"), while I have seen more-or-less coherent explanations of it as a cultural pathology. If you have some particular thinker or source in mind that dictates that we must think of it as an ideology as opposed to a product of a lack in ideology, then please give it up! 2. I do know people I would say are suffering from consumerism. And no, they're not thieves. They're just confused. 3. You ask, why not describe the lacking values rather the phenomenon that results from the lack of values? Why have words like alcoholism, co-depdency, or New Age mysticism? I think all of these are a result of a lack of coherent values, but they do correspond to things in reality. 4. I think we have some disagreement about anti-concepts. I don't think anything is inherently an anti-concept, it's just how you define it. And yes I do think that "egoism" pre-Rand involved a package deal, and thus WAS an anti-concept. She changed it from an anti-concept to a real concept. I was suggesting we do the same with "consumerism," unless the canon was closed after the death of St. Rand. 5. I thought your suggestion of "materialism" was intriguing, but wouldn't it fall prey to the same problems? Let's say I said "Geeze, that guy lives a shallow materialist lifestyle" rather than "Geeze, that guy lives a shallow consumerist lifestyle." I think it would risk much of the same anti-capitalist baggage that "consumerism" does. In the end, almost all words with sociological, psychological, ethical, or political content are infected with bad thinking. Maybe we need to just invent an Objectivist version of Esperanto.... or maybe we can just try to be conscious of what we want our words to mean. 6. Is there a connection between the psychological pathology I'm describing ("consumerism" or "materialism") and philosophical materialism? If there was (as you seemed to imply), that would be a strong argument for that word choice. If you were able to make a convincing argument, I'd give you serious props just like DragonMaci did. 7. Did Rand (or anyone else) have a good word for the "lost feeling resulting from a lack of values" that I claim can sometimes lead to "consumerism"?

You say that the phenomenon I described ("viewing material goods as an end in themselves rather than as a means to achieving other goals and values") never existed. I'd say it's pervasive. In advanced industrial societies, there are hundreds of millions of people with lots of things but no coherent value system. They're looking for something to value, but don't know what. Some turn to substance abuse, some to religion, some to co-dependent relationships, and some to "consumerism" (a concern with acquiring the most things without have a coherent way of reconciling such an acquisition with their value system). I think the "package deal" issue is more problematic. To recast your point in my own language, you're saying that consumerism combines two concepts: 1. viewing material goods as an end in themselves rather than as a means to achieving other goals and values 2. viewing material goods as somthing desirable I'm willing to concede that the predominant usage does indeed involve this pernicious package deal. If I'm right that the concept I described is a legitimate one, then we're faced with two options 1. Come up with a new word for what I'm describing. Nothing immediately comes to mind, but I'd be happy to listen to nominations. 2. Work to reform the philosophical meaning of a anti-concept into a real concept. After all, the word "egoism" was an anti-concept until Rand reclaimed it. I'm an agnostic about which path to choose, but we shouldn't ignore that material prosperity is no guarantee to happiness if you can't get your values right. P.S. Part of our disagreement lies in the fact that you're critiquing the concept of consumerism as an "ideology," while I'm interested in discussing a psychological pathology. If anything, the pathology I'm describing is a product of a lack of ideology.

You're really talking about two examples. 1. The person steals and plunders because he wants to... You never answered my questoin about how many happy immoral people you know? You keep saying that there could be this hypothetical evil-doer who escapes the consequences of his actions (which is possible), and is such a blithe spirit that he lives a life of joy, other people be damned. Do such people exist? Possibly. To continue with my archery example, it's also possible that someone who's shooting at random might hit the target more than a skilled archer. The point of Objectivist ethics isn't to cover for every unlikely scenario, but to describe the way to live a good life. It's also possible that betting all your money on roulette will be the key to wealth, but you're more likely to get there with a good job. 2. The poor person faced with the choice between starvation and stealing a loaf of bread... Historically, any society that ever presented its members with that dilemma usually enforced draconian penalties against theft (amputation or even death). Thus, if you are really presented with this dilemma, then your life is likely to be quite short anyway (unless you become a really good thief, which will likely put you in option 1). In an advanced industrial society, the chances that anyone would face involuntary starvation is extremely small--can you think of a single example since WWII? The bottom line is that you can always think of perverse hypotheticals that would never happen that prove that acting morally might had adverse consequences. But once again, Objectivism is teleological (concerned with developing techniques to aim at the goal) rather than consequentialist. Learning the right way to shoot is the best way to hit the goal, but you can of course imagine weird scenarios where this wouldn't be true.

I'm of mixed opinion about whether "consumerism" is an anti-concept. If someone paid me enough to define it, I would say "viewing material goods as ends in themselves rather than as a means to achieving goals and values." I'm willing to be convinced consumerism is an anti-concept, so pick away at my definition please!

I wrote earlier that you should be careful not to frame questions concerning Rawlsian ethics in utilitarian terms. I would make the same caution concerning Objectivism, since neither of them are “consequentialist”* philosophies. Thus, your continual pressing of the question “Will immoral acts necessarily lead to bad consequences?” is somewhat beside the point. 1. Objectivist ethics is a theory of the moral life, not a theory of “immoral acts.” Objectivism is not a series of “Thou shalts” like one would find in most religion and traditional moral systems. Immoral acts are not immoral because they violate some moral code (e.g., Kantian deontology) or because they lead to bad consequences (utilitarianism), but instead because they are not compatible with the moral life. You ask the question of whether there’s a guarantee that the immoral person will get what’s coming to them in the end. The answer is no and yes. You’re right that it is entirely possible that someone who kills, rapes, and tortures puppies will live a long and prosperous life, dying surrounded by his grandchildren. In fact, history is full of tens of millions of people who have lived off plundering others and seemed to suffer no obvious negative consequences.** On the other hand, they would have not have lived a moral life, what Rand would call a life of man qua man. Objectivism ethics is a theory of how to live as man qua man, or as I like to put it, how to live “the good life” It’s true that acting morally doesn’t guarantee happiness, and acting immorally doesn’t guarantee unhappiness, but those are consequentialist problems. 2. Objectivist ethics is teleological (oriented towards a goal). That means it is concerned with describing habits and codes of conduct that will put one on a trajectory towards “the good life.”*** The key insight to understanding “the good life” is that pleasures (obtained morally or immorally) last a moment, while happiness is a matter of a lifetime. Happiness requires a sense of self-esteem only possible when one is acting properly towards oneself and others. Thus, Objectivism doesn’t command one to be just because injustice is immoral (deontology) or because injustice had bad consequences for oneself or others (consequentialism), but because acts of injustice are incompatible with the goal of leading a just life, which is in turn important to being happy. 3. One could of course claim that people who commit unjust acts go on to be happy. I could dispute those claims, and we could perhaps do psychological studies that would lead us around in circles. In the end, one has to ask how someone not on the road to happiness (only pleasure) even know if they’re happy? How many happy immoral people do you know? I will close with the question, “Why is Tony Soprano depressed?” If one can answer that question, then one begins to understand the importance of teleological morality beyond mere consequences. *I’ll use “consequentialism” and “utilitarianism” interchangeably, although there are subtle differences between the two. ** “Life isn’t fair, your Highness. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.” The Princess Bride. *** Here’s an analogy to distinguish between consequentialism and teleology. Think of archery. Consequentialism is concerned with how many times you hit the target. Teleology is concerned with developing the techniques that will allow you to properly aim at the target. Sure there are ways to cheat, but will you find the archery satisfying if you do?

Forgive me if it's too late to resond to your original question, but... It’s been over a decade since I’ve read ToJ, but here are a few thoughts: 1. Rawls doesn’t think of his position as advocating using others as a means to an end. After all, a prohibition on using others as a means to an end is one of the ways Kant defines the categorical imperative in his “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” And Rawls, of course, is writing in a Kantian vein… his major claim to philosophical fame is a reintroduction of Kant to Anglophone political philosophy. If you do think that he is advocating using others as a means to an end, then this might suggest a contradiction in his philosophy. You should be aware, however, that he would deny this charge because he thinks of “justice” in a much different fashion than Rand does. 2. Read how Rawls defines justice. Look how Objectivism defines it. In Rawlsian terms, Objectivism would be characterized as a “deserts” theory of justice (i.e., it’s just for people to get what they deserve). Look at the sections where Rawls talks about a “deserts” theory. What are the problems in his arguments? How is the Objectivist definition better than Rawls’s? 3. You should keep in mind that Rawls is not a “utilitarian” theorist. Although he talks about libertarians like Nozick, his primary target of attack is the utilitarianism that predominated in Anglophone political theory. Thus, you should be careful how you characterize his arguments.