Trebor
-
Posts
924 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Trebor
-
-
Speaking of a 'handshake' protocol, I've heard it put that the handshake comes from reaching out to another person with one's weapon hand, without one's weapon of course, as a gesture of openness or friendship, etc., of placing oneself in a trusting and defenseless (somewhat) relationship with the other person. A sign or signal of goodwill.
The same could be said of the bow or bowing in greeting in cultures where bowing is common - by bowing one puts oneself into a vulnerable position as a show of friendship or friendliness and trust. (Not to be confused with bowing to an enemy in submission.)
I don't care much for small talk, but it plays a similar role.
-
Jennifer, you may find Dr. George Reisman's article, "Education and the Racist Road to Barbarism," to be of some help in understanding the issue.
As well, here's an interview of Dr. Reisman: "A Cure for Racism."
-
-
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then....
-
In his podcast, Episode 64, on June 1, 2009, Dr. Peikoff was asked:
03:50: "'Do you see value in having Objectivist churches? By church here I mean an institution that will serve a similar role for Objectivist as traditional churches do for religious adherents in the sense of providing spiritual and emotional fuel to the soul by providing a means to connect in person with others who are also pro-reason.'"
Listen here on Dr. Peikoff's site for his response.
-
Amy Peikoff has announced (February 17, 2012):
I have shown the following to Leonard Peikoff, who encouraged me to make it public. He plans to discuss this issue in his next unfilled podcast, which will be the first Monday in March (March 4).
(SPOILER ALERT for those who haven’t read The Fountainhead)
See the rest of her post on her blog (Don't Let It Go):
On Leonard Peikoff’s brief podcast discussion of the Kobe Bryant case
Miss Peikoff ends her note with:
(Please note that I did not find it necessary to use any of the following adjectives or phrases in expressing the above disagreement: “disgraceful,” “disgusting,” “anyone of good moral character or intelligence…” etc.) -
Thank you, Steve, for the link. I'll certainly read Dr. Hsieh's response.
-
Thank you, Mr. Miovas, for posting the link to Checking Premises (I was unaware of the site before you mentioned it), as well as to this latest post by Mr. Joyce, "Subjectivist Objectivists."
I, for one, certainly like the idea behind Checking Premises, and I'm grateful to the principals and associates of the site for creating it.
-
I know that it's hard to believe, but the "UN moves to promote a 'world tax'"
"No one should live below a certain income level," stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. "Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services."These services were presented at the forum as basic human rights equal to the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax.
"We will need a modest but long-term way to finance this transformation," stated Jens Wandel, Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Program. "One idea which we could consider is a minimal financial transaction tax (of .005 percent). This will create $40 billion in revenue."
"It is absolutely essential to establish controls on capital movements and financial speculation," said Ambassador Jorge Valero, the current Chairman of the Commission on Social Development. He called for "progressive policies of taxation" that would require "those who earn more to pay more taxes."
Valero's speech to the forum focused on capitalism as the source of the world financial problems.
When asked where she expected the money to provide all needy people with a basic income, healthcare, education and housing would come from, Fatima Rodrigo, one of the presenters at the forum, mentioned the "very small tax of .005 percent."
She added, "There is plenty of money, we just need to stop spending it on militaries and wars."
-
The question, to which Dr. Peikoff replied in his podcast, Episode 202, of February 6, 2012:
"Is it rape if you obtain sex through fraudulent means? For example a man does not love a woman but tells her he does so that she will have sex with him. Is this the moral equivalent of rape?"
Listen directly on Dr. Peikoff's site here (Duration: 02:45)
I've transcribed his answer in full, hopefully without error:
Well, if all she needs is three words, "I love you," and you're not saying it, then it's not an issue of rape.
You have to determine here, before you talk about rape, what is the context.
A woman can give her consent by her presence, in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says. I'm thinking of that case of Kobe Bryant, where the woman came up sometime in the middle of the night, after some drinking, to his bedroom, and then, when he purported to do something, she said, "No, I don't consent." You cannot do that! You have given every evidence that that is what you are going to do, and it's too late at that point to say, "Sorry, but no!"
So, we're assuming it's not that type of case and you actually have created some kind of false identity; she falls for it and she never would have otherwise.
Well, that's obviously deception, so in a sense it is like rape because she is engaged in the act without her actual consent, without her knowledge - means she would not consent to what you're doing, and it is a form of having sex by force.
But, I don't think you could ever make that a legal crime because, you say, she says she thought you loved her, and you say you didn't say you loved her, but if it came to the law case, how are you going to decide? What is objective?
If a woman says, "he told me that he loved me," and he didn't, a defendent can say, "I indicated that I had a great admiration for her, otherwise I wouldn't want to sleep with her," etc., etc., there is no way of adjudicating what emotions he did or didn't have.
But if there is evidence of physical, of violence, of, you know, in a context that she didn't know him, she was walking down the street, etc., that's a different story.
So, that's what I would say. It's fraud, but in the form you present it, it's not legal, not a legal case.
-
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: Happy Birthday Ayn Rand--Why Are You Still So Misunderstood. Thursday, February 2, 2012, by Don Watkins (Fox News Opinion)
"On February 2, Ayn Rand's birthday, it's clear that she has helped many people see that something has gone wrong in America. But they haven't yet understood the source of the problem or Rand's radical solution.
This was an exclusive article written for Fox News Opinion."
In the summer of 1921, a young Ayn Rand saw Moscow for the first time. “I remember standing on a square,” she would later recall. “And it suddenly struck me. . . . ‘How enormous it is, and how many people, and it’s just one city’ . . . . I suddenly had the concrete sense of how many large cities there were in the world—and I had to address all of them. All of those numbers had to hear of me, and of what I was going to say. And the feeling was marvelously solemn.” -
In his podcast, Dr. Peikoff has discussed Miss Rand's definition of "capitalism" a couple of times. His comments might be of some help and interest:
Episode 24 - August 04, 2008 (unofficial index):
14:20: "'In Ayn Rand's definition of "capitalism," she says that all property is privately owned. Is that really true? For example, would the buildings and land that house the government, police force, and military be privately owned?'"
Listen directly here (on Dr. Peikoff's site).
Episode 91 - December 7, 2009 (unofficial index):
13:37: "'Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism is not the same as the conventional one. Conventionally: "An economic and social system in which the means of production are privately owned." Ayn Rand's: "A social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."'"
Listen directly here (on Dr. Peikoff's site).
-
If you check out this piece, one of the characteristics or properties of every entity mentioned, is that it exists. You can further identify that if a rock was thrown, it moves through the air. The motion exists. When you weigh the rock, it's specific weight exists, and so on.
[my bold]
In his podcast, Episode 10 — March 10, 2008, Dr. Peikoff responded to the question:
05:14: [A metaphysical question.] "'What is existence? Existence is an attribute possessed by existence, and we directly perceive existence.' (...) 'The fact that I can't define "existence" bothers me. Is "existence" then kind of a misleading concept?'"
His response to the first part is especially relevant to what you have said, that existence is a characteristic or property [an attribute] of everything that exists.
You can listen to his reply to that question on his website directly here.
-
On this much, at least, we are agreed: one ought to be as clear as practical in one's own mind about what is true and what is false. But honesty, as it is usually understood, implies being true to others. The question then became whether or not one should be true to enemies and we drifted into a discussion of extortionists as an exemplary enemy.
If we are discussing honesty as being true to others and if we regard extortion in its various forms a the act of an enemy and if we understand the extent of extortion then the most obvious conclusion is that honesty, in this sense, is not a useful principle, even in general.
No, we are not discussing honesty as being true to others, and since you insist on equivocating between honesty and telling the truth, evading the distinction, I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion.
This is your clearest statement on this point yet and so I can't think but that you are denying reality here; you are being dishonest with yourself. You try to justify this self-deception by a retreat into "principle" and a disregard for "details" but the fact remains that you are rejecting a very useful distinction that, in this scenarios we are discussing, mean the difference between life and death.Since you think that I am being dishonest, engaged in self-deception, why in the world would you want to continue any discussion at all with me anyway?
Regardless, even if you do see such a reason, I do not.
-
Your distinction between details and principle is a false one. If a principle leads to wrong choices it is not a reliable principle. If you mean that the principle is usually true but that I am differentiating on exceptions I would suggest you are mistaken.
The distinction is valid. The principle is not that lying to an enemy is always good or right or what one should do, nor is the principle that one should never lie to an enemy, that it is always bad or wrong to do so.
The principle at issue is honesty, not whether or not one should or should not lie in particular instances. One should, on principle, always be honest, but honesty is not a matter of always telling the truth. The principle of honesty is that one should always be true to reality, or, put negatively, one should never evade relevant facts.
When confronted by an enemy, depending on the situation, it may or may not be wise to lie, but one has the moral right to lie to protect oneself, just as one has the right of physical self-defense, such as the use of deadly force in self-defense. Depending on the context, if one thinks it wise to do so, one is acting morally in self-defense if one lies or if one pulls the trigger.
How one goes about defending oneself depends on the context, on the particulars, but the principle of honesty is not merely "ususally" true, it is always true (valid).
My understanding of Objectivism, and I do not claim to be an expert in any sense, is that a moral choice is one that facilitates one's own survival and flourishing. In this situation differentiating between trustworthy and untrustworthy extortionists is the key to survival and a critical point of differentiation for choosing an appropriate response. I fail to see what use knowledge of your rights is here.I reject the distinction between trustworthy and untrustworthy extortionists. On principle an extortionist is untrustworthy, untrustworthy to recognize and respect one's rights. Sure, there are differences between one extortionist and another, but the differences are a matter of degree, not principle.
Well, we have jumped around many related questions. But I didn't ask if one has a moral right to lie, I asked if it is moral to lie. My claim is that morality of lying depends on factors that you are dismissing as details and not on factors that you are focusing on as principles.One's right to lie to an enemy is a moral right to lie. But again, the principle, the moral principle at issue is the principle of honesty, not lying versus telling the truth. There's no moral principle, no rational moral principle, that holds that lying is always wrong or always right.
Let's just say, generally, that if you derive value from risking or giving up your life for those you love (and I'm sure we could invent plausible scenarios for that) then you will certainly have opportunities here. I would call that martyrdom.Okay, I wouldn't, but I don't see that it's really important with respect to the main issue.
I think the problem stems from your equation of morality and rights. I am not questioning morality (see above), only the the value of knowledge of rights. Please explain how your knowledge of rights is going to aid you in any way in dealing with extortionists (whether freelance, organized crime, or government).I'm not equating morality with political rights.
When you ask, "I am not questioning morality (see above), only the value of knowledge of rights," are you referring to moral rights (what is morally right or proper), or to political rights?
If you mean what is morally right, then the whole point of knowing what is morally right is to enable you to live. If you don't know what's right or wrong, if you have no moral principles to guide you, how do you decide what would be right or wrong to do in any particular situation?
If you mean what is legally recognized to be your rights (whether those rights are objective or not), political rights, then it seems obvious why it's important to know what your legally recognized, respected and protected rights are (objective or not). It can mean the difference between freedom or imprisonment.
-
It may well be the case that, as you say, tax rates will increase over time, there is no, express or implied promise that the tax rates will remain stable, but, nevertheless, it is still a point of differentiation that implies a different response. Quite obviously, the taxman, the organized crime syndicate, and the freelance extortionist have no concern for individual rights as Objectivists understand it. Nevertheless, it is still the case that the rational response to each is different according to their trustworthiness. You can pay off the tax man for the year at the current demanded rate. You can't (reliably) pay off a freelance extortionist at any point.
A differentiation in details, but not in principle.
I am, in fact, questioning the importance of that knowledge. What i the value of knowing that a mugger is wrong? What does that even mean, Objectively speaking?What does (right and) wrong even mean, Objectively speaking? I'm curious, are you very familiar with Objectivism? Is it your view that morality is irrelevant? (I don't get the point of your question.)
Yes, that's exactly the comparison I am aiming at. If it helps, we can shift the discussion to a comparison of organized crime to freelance crime. Imagine you own a shop and the don's boys come by and ask for "protection" money. (Assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the police are indifferent or corrupted so that is not an option.) My argument is that the rational choice, generally speaking, is to pay. Another option would be to move out though, to carry the metaphor forward, we might imagine that other place have the same problem differing only in the rate demanded for "protection". You might even call on the don to protect you from a freelance extortionist.This all started with your question, I believe, as to whether or not it is moral to lie to an enemy. By saying that one has the moral right to lie, in self-defense, to someone who is acting to violate one's rights, that does not mean that one's only moral option is to lie, nor that one is morally obligated to lie. It just means that one would be in the right, moral, if one decided to lie in such a context. Maybe this is where there is some confusion?
See above. Of course, martyrdom is always an option.I guess it depends upon what you mean by martyrdom. Risking your life and dying in an effort to save someone you love dearly is not what I would call martyrdom. Risking your life to flee Nazi Germany and yet dying in the attempt to escape is not what I would call martyrdom. Would you? For a fictional example, in the movie Braveheart, before Wallace was tortured, the Queen (?), who he had fallen in love with, not wanting to see him suffer, asked him to drink some potion to ease the coming pain. He humored her and "drank" the potion, but then spit it out when she left. While being tortured, asked if he wanted to say something (which might quicken his death and stop the torture), he cried, "Freedom!" and his head was cut off. Martyrdom?
I guess the bottom line claim is that knowledge of rights is of no value in this analysis.This, I do not understand at all. Knowing one's rights can make a life and death difference in one's life as well as in the kind of nation one will have.
If it is truly your view that morality is irrelevant and impractical (my words), then I guess we're simply going to have to disagree. But then, why ask questions about morality if you think morality is irrelevant?
Baffled
-
I see one's sexuality as a choice, actually. Not to suggest that you wake up one day and decide your sexuality, I only mean that it is a sum of many choices over a very long period of time. A good comparison is sense of life.
...
I basically agree with you on this. The same issue (and phenomena) is at play with all sorts of preferences, I believe, such as career choices, for instance, or sports activities that one enjoys, etc. An orientation (of personal preferences) that flows from one's positive and negative life experiences, especially while young, and especially one's thinking and conclusions (correct or not) drawn on those experiences, the significant ones.
-
When she adjusted her views to state that it was immoral she qualified it with *why* it was immoral. Rand, like anyone, had to some extent to rely on what was "known" at the time. Most respected psychiatrists, psychologists and medical doctors at the time were in agreement that homosexuality was a mental disorder. When Rand made this statement homosexuality had recently, as a whole, been labelled as such by the DSM-II in 1968. (It was also listed as a deviation in DSM I). Rand, not being omnipotent was relying on the widely accepted science of her time. This science claimed (somewhat contradictory) that homosexuality was not only a mental disorder but also a choice.
...
As to her finding it immoral based on what was known at the time I have no issue with either. We can only conjecture what she would have said if presented with what we know now about human sexuality.
...
Whether the DSM is correct in removing homosexuality or was correct in defining homosexuality as an illness is to me beside the point in this matter though. My point was simply that the DSM was what all doctors used to diagnose & categorise mental illness. Inasfar as psychology was a young science at the time it was what people would have viewed as a reliable resource.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Miss Rand considered homosexuality to be immoral (your point as to whether she was referring to some innate sexual orientation or to some homosexual acts taken) most likely based upon the psychiatric view (science of the day) that homosexuality was a mental illness?
Mental illness equals immorality?
Edit: You say, which is perhaps significant to my question, "This science claimed (somewhat contradictory) that homosexuality was not only a mental disorder but also a choice."
What do you mean by "somewhat contradictory"? How is it contradictory, and how not, if you don't mind?
-
Do you disagree that the difference I cited previously exists? It is a fact of reality that one can (generally) trust the taxman to go away after he is paid what he demands but that a criminal extortionist cannot be so trusted. (Perhaps organized crime would fall somewhere in between.)
The issue is one of principle. One can trust the taxman (or the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer) only to the extent they do what they say they will do. With the taxman, sure, he is controlled by law, but in principle, and in time if the principle is not rejected, what he demands by force will grow, legally. It's the issue about a mixed economy breeding more and more controls as it is not a stable economy, because of the principles that have been accepted and rejected. Individual rights have been rejected in lieu of some other primary, and although there may still remain areas of de facto respect for and protection of rights, those areas do not exist on the basis of the principle of individual rights, but rather, perhaps, on the basis of majority rule, the common good, the whim of the dictator, etc. Nothing that one can hang one's hat one in the hope of respect for rights.
Well, sure, but you generally cannot control that. The only question is how to respond to it. And whether the two situations deserve the same response.Principles guide you in determining what to do in different contexts, sure, and in different contexts, you'll have to do different things. The important thing is to know that you, as an individual, do in fact have rights, by your nature, not by permission of anyone else. This doesn't mean that in every case in which one is confronted by a mugger, for example, one should rush him in attack and hope that one can disarm him simply because you know that he is wrong and you are right. In some cases one might judge that one could easily do so, and then do so, but in other cases, one may judge the risk to be too great. Still, even if one complies with the mugger's demands, one knows that he is wrong. If one can't do anything immediately, knowing that he is wrong means that one will be motivated to do what one can, when and if one can. So, one complies and later calls the police, etc.
I saw a TV talk show once in which the guest was an ex-policeman discussing various strategies in dealing with bad guys. One case sticks out as relevant (if I understand your questions). His advice to any woman confronted by a man with a gun telling her to get into his car was: Never ever do it! The reason they want you to get into their car is so that they can take you to a place where you'll have less of a chance of survival. His advice was to flee or fight, but do not get into the car, and he pointed out that even though the man has a gun and even if he fires it, the odds are that you can escape with your life, even if you are wounded. The odds are not in your favor if you get into his car. His advice makes sense, but even then there's room for judgement by the woman.
My claim is that one can make a calculated decision in the case of the taxman to pay the ransom and avoid the threatened harm.I agree. And one can make a calculated decision in the case of the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer as well.
The important thing is to understand where rights are, that individual rights are inalienable, not gifts or grants from the state, God, society, etc. The fact that you may have to obey bad laws does not make them good. Knowing they are bad is important to challenging them or deciding to escape a country, etc. If, however, one has accepted the idea that one's rights are but privileges, one may well give up hope for either a better government or escape. (Socrates chose to drink the hemlock. I think it was Aristotle who said that he would not let men sin against philosophy twice.)
What are the criteria for deciding? I cited one such, the risk that friends would question your fidelity and integrity to them.To me, it all depends on the context. I could imagine situations in which you wouldn't even want to reveal who your enemies are to your friends, and situations in which you would want their understanding and perhaps help in dealing with an enemy. Regardless, it's good to know just who is a friend and who is an enemy, and by what standard, meaning just who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. (Bad guys have enemies too, but that's good.)
What is the point you are trying to make? It seems that we're just going back and forth without direction, so I thought I'd ask.
-
"Trustworthy extortionist"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
"[O]ut to make an easy buck at your expense" is a form of destruction of your life and values, incidental or not. The taxman, the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer are acting by choice, not by accident, against your life and values. The man who claims a right to take anything from you by initiating force, in principles claims the right to take everything from you.
Is it ethical to treat someone as a enemy without telling them? Why do you ask? The answer, in my view, would depend on the context.
-
I don't understand why you think that they are different, in the relevant sense. Sure, pay your taxes ("the taxman can be bought off at the demanded ransom") or comply with the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer (the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer can be bought off at their demanded price).
What's the relevant difference? Why not "dump the taxman and a extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer into the same bucket"?
An enemy is someone who is actively out to destroy one's life or values, including one's pursuit of one's values.
-
Okay, thank you, I'll look it up. Out of curiosity, can you say that it does answer my questions as to the criteria and evidence on homosexuality as/as not a mental illness?
-
If it was a matter of science, I would be interested to know just what the scientific evidence and criteria was for having held that homosexuality was a mental illness and what the scientific evidence and criteria was for the change of view.
-
Saw this mentioned by Timothy Sandefur ("Freespace") as "Now, this really is straight out of Atlas Shrugged":
"Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits" By Pete Kasperowicz - 01/19/12 10:20 AM ET
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board."
But of course the Democrats are worried about higher gas prices!
Justice for rape victim
in Ethics
Posted · Edited by Trebor
There are two issues, it seems. One is her own well-being and dealing with what happened in a manner so that it does not negatively impact her life, further. The second is a matter of justice for the crimes committed against your friend.
I would highly recommend contacting Dr. Michael J. Hurd, a psychologist and fan of Objectivism, and asking his advice on both matters - I don't know (it's doubtful) that he could give you any legal advice, but perhaps he could help you to understand the significance to your friend's well-being of pursuing legal justice after so many years.
You can read many of Dr. Hurd's "Daily Dose of Reason" articles which are archived on his site and even read his books to gain some insight into his orientation and approach. He does hold sessions with clients over the phone and even by email, I believe. My bet is that he would have some very good practical advice to offer.
Best wishes to you and your friend.