SnowDog

Well I thought I was an Objectivist. I've been studying her philosophy for about 17 years. But apparently, by the standards of those here, I am not. Moreover, I didn't realize that Ayn Rand had an opinion on humor. Also, note this: I don't care to offend, but I didn't think that being in complete agreement with Ayn Rand was a precondition for using this forum. As I understand it now, after exchanging emails with the moderator, someone who does not agree with everything encompassed by the term 'Objectivism', should only be using the forum to ask questions and gain knowledge. I don't think I can gain much knowledge simply by asking questions. I need to be able to post my ideas and have other people shoot them down, and tell me why I'm wrong. But if posting my own ideas is not allowed here, if those ideas contradiction something that Ayn Rand said, then I don't think I can use the forum in a meaningful way. I've only been posting here about a week, so I'm sorry I have to leave. But to answer some of the questions directed to me on this topic, let me just say that Ayn Rand is my idol, and has been for a very long time. However I think it's absurd that Ayn Rand would dedicate Atlas Shrugged to supporting the Church, and I find the absurd quite humorous. Sincerely, Craig

No, I'm afraid I don't view it as an attack. I thought it was funny. I don't know what type of humor one would call that, but I do believe that one cannot rationally describe humor. I see no harm in laughing at oneself from time to time. Sincerely, Craig Haynie (Houston)

One thing about the Libertarian Party that I believe critics tend to miss: It's not a static party. Peter Schwartz argues that, because the Libertarian Party accepts the Objectivist politics without accepting the underlying premises, that the implementation of libertarian ideas would necessarily lead to nihilism because of the lack of understanding of the premises upon which the politics is based. For some reason, though, he does not hold the same attitude toward either the Republicans or the Democrats whom are both leading us down this same path. I contend that the Libertarian Party of today will not, and cannot be, the Libertarian Party of tomorrow, if people start joining it, supporting it, and voting for it. In other words, if the Libertarian Party ever did acquire power, it would only be after a large segment of the American populace supported it. At such a time, it will have grown significantly, and then be composed of a much larger segment of the American population. The politics will have moderated quite a bit, but the theme, the underlying premise would still be 'Liberty', and the policies it adopts would be the policies supported by a majority of its members at that time. Those members will be a very different group than the members of today. Craig

Note that "The Ayn Rand Reader" was designed as an introduction for new readers. Craig

It was noted that I may have offended someone with this post, so I removed the post.

Well you didn't actually get there through the front door. (http://home.tiac.net/~cri/index.html) If you had, then you would have read this: "This site isn't hot; it isn't cool; it's, well, it's sort of tepid, a cross between an e-zine and an intellectual rubbish heap. " "This website is dedicated to the proposition that all people are created irretrievable, that they are naturally endowed, and to the last word, however belated. " "This is a large site with a lot of crap, er, fine material in it. It is organized as a monthly e-zine with a table of contents for each month. ..." I thought it was funny. Craig

Get a warrant... The same procedure should apply as if the police wanted to search someone's house or effects. But the whole nature of detaining suspects before trial, and searching anyone's property before trail, doesn't strictly respect a potentially innocent person's rights. It's an exception which is made in the interest of the state, and in the interest of justice, to help law enforcement identify and prosecute criminals. As such it's written into the US Constitution. Craig

Maybe, but for me it's a discussion for another time as it opens up a whole lot of ideas. For the example that I was making, I was trying to be clear that the actor would DIE and sacrifice his life -- not just take a high level of risk. Craig

Cool, but you're reversing the terms in your example, and I think it may make a difference (maybe not). To keep your example in line with the relationship between life and value, it should be: "To see, one needs to maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ. Therefore, one should maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ so that one can see." Compare that with relationship between Life and Value: "To live, one must value life. Therefore, one must value life in order to live." This is a bit different than saying, "Life is the requisite of value; therefore all values should support life." While life is the requisite of value, it's also a bit more than that. It's the entire reason for the concept of value in the first place. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think this is a clearer example: "To live, one must act; therefore all actions should support life." To me, this seems intuitively clearer because any other type of direction for action would be completely without reason, and acting without reason seems like an obvious dead-end to me -- like Sisyphus and his rock. Craig

Thanks AisA, but I've read her essays on this several times. I can't get any more knowledge from her at this point, but I do plan to reread 'The Objectivist Ethics' again shortly. But to the point, the critics will say that this is circular reasoning, (if they haven't already, I don't know). All we're saying here is that living things should live because they are alive. But the key here seems to be that Life is circular -- it is an end in itself -- and does not need to justify itself in any other terms. In other words, living things SHOULD live because they are alive because this is the nature of life. Notice, also, that it's not just life and value which are interconnected but action as well. For me, the relationship between life and action seems more solid than the relationship between life and value. Note: 1) All living things must act to live, and only living things can act. 2) The reason a living entity can act, is to support its life. 3) Action taken for any other reason defies the purpose and the need for action. So when we say: 1) Life requires action. 2) Action requires value. 3) Value must be directed to Life. All we're saying is that Life has certain requirements which must be fulfilled in order to live, and that any sort of self-directed activity outside of this scope has no reason behind it, and therefore is irrational. Therefore, action without reason is a dead-end. It's like Sisyphus and his rock. But when applied to human life, such logic becomes a little more fuzzy, not because the principles are in question, but because the definition of human life is rather vague. We are far removed from nature where life is a day to day struggle of mind and muscle. Here I sit at my computer thinking, "How am I going to spend my day?" So can one dedicate one's life to being a doctor? Can one dedicate one's life to being a pilot? Can one dedicate one's life to being a philanthropist? What are the limits of human self-directed activity? It seems to me that as long as one is not acting in a self-destructive manner, then one should be able to apply his cognitive fascilities anyway he so chooses so long as it furthers a productive, independent, life. Craig

But you've reduced the idea of a sacrifice to that of just 'risk'. We take risk everyday, (even just driving to work), so I certainly understand that taking a risk for something in which someone has invested a great portion of his life is quite understandable. But your answer also implies, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that a known sacrifice of one's life for anything would be wrong, if the person could conceivably go about living a normal life shortly after the event. This the conclusion that I draw here, and I find it quite interesting. It looks like Objectivist Ethics can be completely derived from the nature of Life, itself. I had long thought that there was a disconnect here -- a leap from deduction to empirical observation. However, it now looks as if you start with an observation of the nature of Life, then you can deduce the entire ethics. 1) Life requires Action. 2) Action requires Value. 3) Value must support Life. 4) Virtue is derived from value. 5) People must choose their values accordingly, and one's life must become one's highest value. Etcetera... I see another disconnect when we get to the Rights of others, but I'll address that later. Craig

OK, so if I undertand your point, then people should ONLY choose those values which support their lives. So people should not sacrifice their lives for their children, or thrown themselves in front of a bullet for the President? Craig

I think one of the problems with the idea that values "can only" support life is that it's counterintuitive, and seemingly at odds with the definition of value as "that which one acts to gain or keep". We can see, as has been discussed, that some people, (perhaps most), value their children's lives very deeply, and want to keep them alive and healthy, even at the expense of their own lives. But if a value, as a concept, is derived from the concept of Life, and can only exist as something which supports Life, then it seems it's not accurate to say that someone can value their children's lives, apart from their own lives. So when a parent sacrifices his life for his kid, what is he valuing? Can it be said that a parent is valuing his OWN life with such an act? Likewise, if a bodyguard throws himself in front of the President to take a bullet, what is he doing? In this case, it's much less clear because such bodyguards have much less emotional and personal attachment to the people that they protect. Are these types of bodyguards valuing their chosen careers above their own lives? Are they acting irrationally? Craig

Hello! I've read that speech many times. I never disagreed with it; I just didnt' understand it the first time I read it. I still don't understand parts of it. This morning, (and I don't have the text with me now), I looked back over some things that Ayn Rand had said about value. Paraphrasing she said, to separate Life from Value is worse than (something you would think is bad). I must have read that paragraph dozens of times, but never quite 'got it' until now. I think learning is different in some people. Some people can read things one time, pick it up, and assume that everyone else who has read it, draws the same thing from it. I, on the other hand, have to understand it thoroughly -- be able to make breakfast with it, so to speak. I'm still not quite sure that my epiphany was correct. I'll be reviewing that for the next few months, even. Sincerely, Craig (Houston)

Wait a minute. I thnk I've had an epiphany. It seems to me that it may have been mentioned earlier in this discussion, but I just caught it. Most of this discussion has centered on the idea that there is a disconnect between the idea that "life is the precondition for value" and that "the pursuit of life should be one's ultimate value". I had thought that there was no way to derive the second from the former, but now I think there is. Follow this: 1) It is life that brings about the idea of value. Without life there is no such thing as value. 2) To stay alive, one must pursue values. To pursue a value IS to pursue something necessary for life. I think the disconnect comes when one thinks that a value is simply "that which one acts to gain/keep." While this may be a good definition, the purpose of gaining and keeping anything is to stay alive. This is where the idea of value comes from. This is why the idea 'value' is created. 3) Therefore one must value one's life as one's highest value. To put anything else in its place is to reify a stolen concept. It's the same thing as acting without purpose. Or to work without a goal. It would be like saying, "To live, one needs to eat. Therefore one should eat so that one can drive a car." The purpose of eating is to live. Likewise, the purpose of pursuing value is to live. It can't be anything else without losing meaning. Does this make sense? Craig

Yes, I've been studying this philosophy since 1987. I disagree that the cardinal virtues have been exhaustively discussed -- at least not to the point where I completely understand them. Craig

I think to act irrationally is to act without reason. My take on this whole argument is that people need to act in accordance with their nature. People should try to be people, and this is largely undefined. As long as people are not acting against their long-term interests, then they can engage in a whole host of activities. In so far as helping others goes, if someone wants to make a career out of it, and perhaps build some charity, and does it because he wants to see a benevolent society which helps those who are misfortunate -- then I think he's acting in accordance with his long-term interests. On the other hand, if he engages in destructive behavior which adds significant risk to his life, without any observable benefit, then I think he may be acting irrationally in such a case. In an emergency situation, it seems contradictory to me for someone to choose another life over his own life, as the act of living requires the actor to develop hopes and dreams for a long term life. If he sacrifices himself for another, whom he does not know, then he would be acting against any values and plans he had for his own life, and I see no reason for him to throw his values (and his life) away in this situation. However, if he were ninety years old and in weakening health, then perhaps I could understand such an action. With regard to sacrificing one's life for one's children, then it seems more logical for a parent to make this choice. A good part of my value structure is to make a good home for my kid. Without the kid, my life seems less significant. So I can understand this, too. However, trying to determine what is rational and what is irrational for a human seems somewhat arbitrary, and I can't find any hard rule. The only guiding principle seems to be that people should be people, and they should try to guide their lives accordingly. Likewise, the bird shouldn't try to swim and the fish shouldn't try to fly, (broadly, of course). Craig

But back to what I think is Ryan's question: what if the altruist 'chooses' to live for others, and builds an ethical framework accordingly, choosing to live for himself insomuch as it enables him to help others -- Mother Theresa, for instance. If such an individual's life is a secondary value to his primary value, (to help others), then is he acting irrationally? Why? Craig

Yes, but there's a key here. If someone must first CHOOSE to live before his actions lie within an ethical framework, then any actions taken without first choosing to live, become a-moral, not immoral. And while we can say that human nature requires that people choose Life as their ultimate value, there is no strict conclusive evidence that this is what they MUST do. Objectivist Ethics START with the choice to live, not before. Craig

Betsy, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that the decision to choose to live is a meta-ethical question, (an a-moral question), which must be answered before an ethical framework can be built? That for those who do not choose to live, their actions lie outside of an ethical framewok? Craig

The Initiation of Force is not a concept? How did you lose that argument? Anyway, wouldn't you consider that someone who commits an act of fraud against someone else, has initiated force against him? Likewise, someone who steals something from someone else, without any physical contact with the victim, has initiated force against the victim? Therefore, it seems to me that the initiation of force is a much broader concept. I think the initiation of force occurs when someone's Rights are violated. If so, then you first have to define individual rights, but you don't have any circular references. An act of aggression is the act of violating an individual's rights. The Initiation of Force is an act of aggression not taken in retaliation to a previous act of aggression, nor in defense against an act of aggression. Craig (Houston) Craig (Houston)

Good Points. I understand the Is-Ought relationship. Man's nature dictates how Man should act. People should act in accordance with their nature as rational volitional human beings. But morality based on human nature is different than morality based on one's Life as one's primary value, yet we seem to need both. We can't build an entire moral code on the idea that man should act in accordance with his nature because we have only minimal guidance determining man's nature. We know that living things NEED to choose to live, in order to live as their nature dictates. And we know that the choice to live is not arbitrary. The nature of living things dictate that. But the only thing the Is-Ought relationship gives us, is the requirement that living things choose to live. So this first moral requirement is determined by man's nature. Afterwards, the choice to live dictates one's moral code. With Life as one's highest value, an entire code of action can be derived from this value. Essentially, prudence dictates the rest. Now, if there is something in one's moral code which would tell him to commit suicide, then it could only occur if one could not live life as his nature intended. If, somehow, the environment became very unfriendly to life as man's nature requires. Still, if we are unable to obtain the chance to live, which would therefore make it unable for us to choose to live as our nature requres, then death may be our only option. Yet still, this seems a-moral to me. Without the chance to live as man-qua-man, then there is no choice to live as man-qua-man, and without choice, there is no morality. A moral code rquires choice. Craig

You raise an interesting point: can a moral code tell one to die? I think not. The moral code is the code telling volitional, conscious, creatures, how to live. Its purpose is derived from the requirements for life. Living volitional creatures need to KNOW how to live, as Right from Wrong. Without the choice to live, there is no such thing as right and wrong. The person who chooses to die, does so without a moral context. As a final act in one's life, it cannot be said to be either right or wrong. By what standard would one measure the decision to die as right or wrong? A goal is required to derive a moral code. That goal is one's life. Craig (Houston)

Morality is a code of action, telling us how to Live, is it not? How can such a code be applicable to someone who wishes to die? The killer-on-a-rampage is an animal, and needs to be treated as such. He is not acting immorally. He is acting a-morally. The choice to live is the foundation for objectivist ethics. The whole thing can be deduced from this starting point. Morality has meaning, and is applicable to those who wish to live, because it is defined as such -- as a code of action for those who wish to live. Craig

Free Will implies a break in causality, does it not? If I decide to move my arm from left to right, then somehow I'm changing physical properties in a way that the determinism of causality would not allow. Otherwise, there would be no free-will. We would be simply bound by the physical laws as is every other inanimate object in the Universe. It's sort of a mystery, isn't it? Sincerely, Craig