Seeker

True. What I meant was that the feeling is real. If I feel sad, for example, I can be consciously aware of that fact, I can introspect and determine what premises are causing that feeling. So, I am speculating that in the case of "God" that process has gone awry. It may be the result of a primacy-of-consciousness approach to thinking generally, it may be that the feeling itself seems to lack a proper referent so the mind invents one commensurate to the feeling, etc. I would not say however that the concept arises out of nothing, with no cause. An unexplained feeling might well be the cause. The question then is how to deal with it. Edit: The correct concept for the divine feeling might be "benevolent universe".

In fairness to theism (and this is as far as I will go), the concept of "God" may be an attempt to tie up some emotional "loose ends" that don't easily map onto a conscious concept. A sense of "the divine" coupled with an erroneous attempt to introspect and assign a concept to it might result in "God", with the rest being rationalistic fluff that expands and extends the misconception. Which is to say, there is indeed something real there in the first place - the unexplained feeling of something "out there" greater than oneself - and what is needed is the proper way to deal with that particular corner of the human psyche.

Why does it raise an ethical question? What evidence have you that it might not be moral? Spell it out, please. Edit: To clarify, since we are discussing what a corporation ought to do or not do, please describe what facts in reality lead you to think it might be an issue.

And you're missing my point - see post #31 above, on surrendering popular usage to the enemy. I thoroughly disagree that the definition of "selfish" excludes self-interest - that is bizarre indeed. Now, if the popular usage means excessive self-interest, then the package deal should be perfectly evident - self-interest is definitely in there in such a way as to render it bad (because if it were good there could be no such thing as too much of it). I think that is the more likely explanation for your dinner scenario: it might be considered selfish to eat dinner if you ate an amount considered excessive in relation to others. The proper response (in addition to eating your fill) is to insist upon the correct meaning and reject the one that says that self-interest can be excessive, because to accept that is to accept altruism.

Except that concern for one's own (actual, rational) interests is the definition of the word. So of course it is a package-deal. The way to deal with it is to use the word correctly, according to its actual definition. Now if you want a word that describes "where people steal and cheat to fulfil their own hedonistic pleasures", I suppose there's "hedonistic". Maybe someone else can think of a better word for that. In any event, it's no excuse for accepting the misuse of a word with a definite moral meaning for the purpose of distorting and destroying morality, as the redefinition of "selfish" does.

So you would admit that altruists have stolen the word to create a package deal that equates rational self-interest with theft? Why then not take it back from them? Why allow our enemies to redefine words in ways that disable our arguments, forcing us to constantly abandon our terms, instead of fighting for what the correct definitions are? Why disarm ourselves while arming them by handing them the power of our own language to use against us? That is exactly what your approach does. It says that others can change the popular usage to suit themselves and we have to follow what they say, but we can't change it, because the popular usage is automatically correct. You fail to see that we are players in determining what the popular usage is going to be. We, as much as anyone, have the power to shape the popular usage. If the term was stolen and made an illegitimate package deal that is anti-man, the only correct course is to take it back and give it its proper, rational, reality-based meaning. But we can't even attempt that if the prevailing usage, no matter how wrong it may be, is taken as authoritative. I am not convinced that you are right that the word has in fact been redefined as you suggest - but if it has, then that is ample reason to take it back to its correct meaning.

No, we correct the ones that matter, whose package dealing inflicts the greatest harm. Surely your answer to not correcting every package deal that exists isn't correcting none of them? So the vast majority will be repulsed when they hear selfishness described as a good thing? Most Christians would be repulsed if you stated that man is not his brother's keeper and has no automatic obligation to care for others. Environmentalists would be repulsed if you stated that the Earth is man's to use for his own needs, not to be preserved as pristine wilderness. It is the ideas they are repulsed by, not the words used to represent them, so why should their revulsion mean anything to us? As I said, they have to get used to considering ideas they find revolting if they're going to learn anything, so we may as well use the proper terms. And let me be clear: I think what they find revolting about the word "selfish" is its actual meaning, i.e. it is the non-selflessness of rational self-interest they are repulsed by, probably because they're either socialists or God-fearing Christian altruists, so it is absolutely correct to stick it to them directly. The meaning in common usage adds the word "excessive" to "self-interest", presupposing that there can be such a thing as excessive self-interest. That is precisely the lie that must be attacked to defeat altruism. Given a harmful connotation that abuses the language for the purpose of harming man, as the usage of "selfish" as a pejorative does, we are right to insist upon the correct usage in framing the debate.

But this approach begs the question of what the meaning in a given context ought to be. It forces everyone to surrender to the words, and therefore the ideas, of the mob. It gives away the argument at the outset. Note that Rand emphatically did not go against popular usage willy-nilly, but did so selectively, with intent of a certain effect. She knew which words were worth fighting for. "Selfish" is a case in point, because the popular usage attaches to a false dichotomy between selflessness and vice. The new definition no longer attaches to an incorrect concept. I take your point to be that the proper usage and meaning of words is contextual. I believe that Objectivism agrees on that point. The proper meaning in a given context is not necessarily whatever the mob says it is, however. If anything, it is the function of intellectuals to guide the mob, not vice versa, including by using certain terms in an unpopular way when necessary - by defining, not just using, the terms of the debate. This requires courage and is not easy. If in your debates it becomes counterproductive to use the word "selfish" in the given way, then you are free to use "rational self-interest" instead in that context. Rand's purpose and methods are not necessarily yours, in the context you have defined. On the other hand, I have pointed to certain virtues of "selfishness" - it grabs attention, it makes people think, etc. so you may be well-advised to use it in a way proper for an intellectual setting the terms of a debate.

It is also important to be able to spot opportunities. I agree with you about dictatorships, but in a relatively free society such as ours there is such breathtaking opportunity that for anyone to complain about its lack is truly incredible. Yes there is government over-regulation and that is a major obstacle, but by far the greatest limitations are self-imposed by people who see limits everywhere instead of opportunities and are trained in baseless, negative thinking. Their beliefs and habits of character are their biggest problem.

I disagree that Rand was mistaken in her choices of words. She was not only a philosopher but also a novelist, an artist of words, and chose words precisely for their effect. A slight turn of meaning, a varying shade of intent to grab the reader is a question of artistry. Philosophically, Rand had good reason for redefining many words, that so many words had been given the wrong meaning in the first place or commonly misused was ample reason to use them in a new way. What better way could there be of giving altruism the slap it deserves than by discussing the virtue of selfishness? It prepares the miseducated person for the change in thinking that will be necessary. It's a down payment on changing countless mistaken premises. If you can't accept that selfishness means rational self-interest, how will you ever accept that environmentalism is based on myths, that socialism hurts those it is meant to help, that the ethics you were taught since being a child are all wrong, etc.? The point is, it gets you thinking and wakes up your brain to consider that the proper meaning of some words isn't what common parlance says. That's all to the good. I'm glad that Rand used words as she did, because of her personal artistry as well as the impact her words made philosophically.

Keating couldn't have been great given his tremendously flawed character, but character is something chosen. So I would take Rand's description in that context. As to everyone, I think I am on pretty solid mathematical ground in saying that not everyone can be above average ... so, no, not everyone can be exceptional at the same thing. But, there are different things people can do, various niches to fill, and a mentally healthy person who commits himself or herself to the task can indeed achieve greatness in his or her own unique sphere.

For one thing, once the first Joe Consumer gets screwed, he's not going to just beat his head against the wall. He'll go public and join with others to let everyone know how badly he got screwed, then everyone will know - and then there will be no more hidden caveat. Word will spread like wildfire, and MS can watch its market share tumble to exactly the extent that they screw everybody and someone else comes along with a superior approach to protecting content. Second, maybe the prices for hardware will go up at least temporarily - and maybe they should, so that the content industry can protect its ability to ensure that it gets paid as it should for each unit of content sold to consumers. Third, if MS behaves really, really badly, the market will punish them by finding other ways to run computers. I am not saying I think this will happen, because I think that MS won't go all out to screw everyone with a key revocation blitz as fathomed here. They, like everyone else, ought to and will act to protect their profits. They will weigh what's in their interests and (I expect) be careful in revoking keys. They are banking on this OS, are they not? Why would they go out of their way to screw their customers? Fourth, why in hell are the hardware manufacturers writing all of this easily-hacked code anyway? They'll get their comeuppance too, as word spreads and people stop buying their products. The alleged fraud against poor Joe Consumer will not exist, and even if it does, word will spread to counteract it. The companies will correct themselves to stay profitable. Freedom will work, as it does every time its tried.

I'm not sure what the moral quagmire is, unless we are to substitute our judgment for Microsoft's in determining what is in Microsoft's economic interests. Other than that, Microsoft can make Vista a worthless brick and try selling it for $1000 for all I care, and I don't see it as a moral problem. If you don't like Microsoft's product, don't buy it (and don't give me that bleeding-heart mumbo jumbo about how everyone has to use it so MS has special moral obligations - like hell they do - they have no obligation other than to themselves, and it's not for us to scream bloody murder just because we may not like their choices). Deal with it. Start your own software business if you don't like Microsoft, that's what I say.

I have the impression that the ones obsessed with eliminating single-member first-past-the-post district voting are statists looking to eliminate another barrier to statism. Replacing local constituencies with their inconvenient local needs (distractions from national socialism) and winner-take-all with party lists and preference voting, makes it impossible to exclude these people from government altogether. Beware anyone looking to eliminate the means of his exclusion ... private property is his enemy, he wants to eliminate any system that gets in his way. A handful of places in America actually use this type of voting, most notably college student governments created in the 1970s at the height of leftism on campuses (these groups infused with the principle that students ought to run the place). Anyway, the "will of the people" is no proper standard for governance. At best it is a means to justice, and only if a majority of the people are good capitalists anyway, in which case the system of voting to represent their policy preferences hardly matters much since government doesn't do much. Only a statist would be obsessed with ensuring that the voting system is fine-tuned to the voters' policy preferences. My advice is to run shrieking from this sort of system.

Some states would undoubtedly be less free, but others would have more freedom, maybe much more. One justification for federalism is that it allows group of persons to live together under public policies that best reflect their distinct philosophies. There could even be a state for Objectivists! Federalism would certainly allow that to come to fruition much more easily than if a majority of the entire country had to be persuaded.

Such a perfect government might be possible to achieve. The question is whether it could be sustained. I think it is tremendously significant that the United States has a federal, not national, government. Citizenship itself is divided between state and federal. The balance of national and provincial tendencies and attachments, it seems to me, quite useful in preventing either from running out of control. With one exception, we haven't devolved into civil war, nor have we allowed nationalism to run totally rampant (as happened in Nazi Germany, for instance). It is easy to see the vices of provincialism and lose sight of its practical benefit. It is not hard to imagine a national government invested with undiluted legislative power soon finding an excuse for expanding that power, and for a fervent nationalism supporting that expansion unchecked. Basically I am arguing that local attachments and jealousies have the virtue of balancing national ones. Ideally, neither would exist, but once again it is man's capacity for unreason that makes government necessary, and a divided power along with it. For all its flaws I must say that the United States' federalism works pretty well - at least, it has prevented something much worse from coming along, and that's pretty significant. I think our fundamental disagreement may be one of relative optimism versus pessimism. Optimism says that a better government is possible; pessimism tells us that certain limits are required if it is to be sustained. I am pessimistic enough about the potential for the abuse of power growing over time to want a balance of state and federal power, other changes notwithstanding.

... or the whole world, which is the next logical step. I think it is quite impossible to design a government incapable of violating rights. Removing ambiguities in the constitution is not a sufficient answer. How many totalitarian dictatorships guarantee individual rights on paper? Ideally, we would not need government because all persons would be perfectly rational. The need for checks and balances to divide power, not allowing too much to be centralized in too few hands, vanishes with the need for government itself. To the extent that government is needed, its power must not be overly centralized, and dividing power is necessary.

Yet once we accept that a government is capable of violating rights given the power to legislate on a given subject, the alternative to having a state government do it is having the federal government do it. Which is harder to escape from then? We cannot assume that vesting more legislative powers in the federal government at the expense of the states will always result in an expansion of individual liberty. It may be - and often is - the exact opposite. On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting a broader federal limit on state and federal powers generally, to eliminate those that are not objectively justified - a wider 14th amendment, if you will. That seems okay, but it doesn't imply a wholesale transfer of those legislative powers that are justified to the federal government, because of the danger of aggregating too much power in the hands of too few people.

I tend to think that what government regulates matters more than which level of government regulates it. If people were perfectly objective, then there would be little to argue with your premise. But people are not perfect (which is why government is needed), and this fact implies a whole host of checks and balances. A meaningful federalism that permits individuals to escape from the tyranny of one state to other less hostile jurisdictions is among these. The federal goverment's main justification is military. To avoid aggregating too much additional power at that level suggests that it is proper to reserve other powers to the states. Also, the 14th Amendment equal protection and due process clauses already do place meaningful federal restraints on the exercise of state power.

No, I consider you confused on basic epistemology. There is no evidence - none - of consciousness after death. You have no reason to believe it. It is not a possibility, but an arbitrary assertion. You do not find the evidence compelling because there isn't any - just your wish, your wish that reality isn't what it is. Well you can go on wishing all you want to, but you ought to be condemned for it. Wishful thinking isn't an innocent indulgence, it is an evil pathology that has caused and continues to cause terrible problems for mankind. If you were sincere in your search for truth, you would start by renouncing baseless, wishful thinking.

Have you seriously challenged these conclusions? What evidence do you have of their validity? By what standard of proof have you accepted them as valid? If your task was to honestly state the best arguments against their validity, what would you say? That's my 2¢.

A member of this forum, Ian, posted a while back and I find it worthy of quoting here. Hope this helps.

One more time - as I said in my last post! - Ayn Rand stated, "man's survival qua man ... does not mean a momentary or merely physical survival. ... Man's survival qua man means the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice" (VoS, p. 26). So there you go. Is that clear enough? You should be able to see that by man's existence I mean full existence that entails all of the "the terms, methods, conditions, and goals" that are required. Your definition is "momentary and merely physical" because it asserts that those are sufficient to say that a man "exists". The question is not what "exist" means, but rather what exists exactly? A physical body, or a physical body and a rational mind? If we say that we are referring to a man, i.e. a rational animal, then it must by definition be the latter. Did Hitler exist as an animal? Yes. Did he exist as a rational animal? No. He was not surviving qua man. Ultimately, he died as a consequence. Mao-rality doesn't work because it ignores causality: the cause of man's long-term survival is the use of his rational mind. If a practioner of Mao-rality survives, then it is in spite of Mao-rality, not because of it. Hence choosing Mao-rality is not choosing reality. Thank goodness, where would this argument be without the fabulous and utterly useless life expectancy maximizer? The life expectancy maximizer is an absurdity. Why, then, do you think that it proves, rather than refutes, your point? As I recall, your argument essentially asserts that life on the maximizer simply won't do. The correct claim against it however is that the maximizer is an absurdity precisely because it fails to provide for man's needs qua man, which is to say, it doesn't really extend his life at all. As I predicted it would, the debate turns out to be what man's survival needs are. Those needs include using his mind, with all of its complex psychological requirements that the maximizer cannot fulfill. This is where you attempt to discount that fact by qualifying your notion of survival as merely physical, which Rand expressly refuted. If your sole rejoinder to that is an absurdity, then I think I have won the debate.

I have some difficulty grasping this issue, but I hope that someone will help me understand a particular aspect of it, as illustrated by the following questions: How can a less-than-lifetime patent be appropriate when man's conceptual faculty theoretically embraces planning the whole of his lifespan? Who is someone else to say at what point his lack of productive potential terminates his claim? If the idea is rightly his own property, who is anyone else to judge the manner or duration of his use of his idea? If a man's needs include the need to benefit from his own ideas (through such license fees as he can negotiate, for instance), then how can a termination of that right by law be anything other than a denial of his right to life? Thanks in advance for your answers.

You say that "we have that a non-moral person is non-existent, dead and doesn't survive", and indeed, that's true in the long term, as Atlas Shrugged vividly portrays. Survival for man is long-term. As Ayn Rand stated, "man's survival qua man ... does not mean a momentary or merely physical survival. ... Man's survival qua man means the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice" (VoS, p. 26). Hitler's choices were disastrous for him - he died! Being moral is necessary for man's existence, ultimately. I suppose you might respond that since Hitler existed incompletely and for a little while, that's good enough. But the point is, his choices were death-oriented. He chose unreason, unreality, and death sooner or later - he could not say when. As we have discussed, choosing reality and life is the precondition of morality. For man, that's a long term prospect. So if you choose life, ethics can show you how to live your life. If you choose death, as Hitler did, or just a little life (which is the same thing, ultimately), then you have no need of a moral code and no need to inquire into ethics. You could die today, tomorrow, or next week because of your choices, but in the long run you are still choosing death and non-existence, not the most life that was possible to you.