yangw66

If you would like to read my arguments in the debate forum- <a href="http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=10914" target="_blank">http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=10914</a> By the way, I believe that every action a human takes is reasonable, that every single action forwards himself towards happiness, be it from subjective feelings, from force, or from contemplation. "Long-term" and "short-term" are hypocritical terms. Men always do what is in their best self-interest. There is no point moving on if we are divided in this.

I would say, no. Just like I would say power over humans is not parasitic either. My argument is- why can't other humans be part of the environment we use for our own productivity? The answer is- we are obligated by our own morality to give something in return. The second-hand/ first-hand/ respecting one's rights etc. are all parts of the same package, we have this morality (of respecting one another) because it gives us chance for a better survival. It's as simple as this. My final point- You agreed with my assertion that when morality is unnecessary, we will act against it. Then why not when rights are unnecessary, we will act against them too? Are you saying that rights are fundamental and unchanging? That they are not derived from our morality? I had no illusions that one person or another will win a debate like this, it's impossible to change one's philosophy this simply. But I do come out with the satisfaction that someone has wrongly accused me of being a nihilist.

I appreciate the number of responses. And I want to say that I admire Rand's values very much (in fact I share many of them), but her philosophy is very short-sighted. What I am trying to do is use what she says against her, not because I actually believe my examples. When I say- "Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit" is what Ayn Rand said. So this only works with men? If so, then as soon as the "one another" becomes animals we can assume power over them?" I mean that- can we do whatever we want with animals? But not with men? And the replies I've received seem to be "yes", because it is not rational to deal with animal, only with men. Of I choose C. in the hungry bear example, just as I would choose to use force against a man who uses force. Although I don't understand where the use of force comes from originally came from. What I'm trying to say is that humans reason with other humans only because this way we are most likely to benefit, we don't reason when we don't benefit. Human nature is a tentative thing. When you say a being must act according to his nature you are implying that human nature never changes, that there is a fundamental morality. There is only one thing that is fundamental- the pursuit of happiness. A being's nature changes when a being's nature impedes the pursuit of happiness. Monkeys became humans (sorry if this is incorrect) because humans are better at being happy, or survive. We adapted laws and morals because they seemed to be necessary. "I feel like it" is a perfect reason, it is the reason for everything we do.

My position is that no man, no organism, is truly independent- we all have to take from our environment, we are all bound by our pursuits of happiness. Roark, then, also fits into your description of a parasite. He needs to kill trees to build, kills animals for meat. Unless you say of course, that parasite only extends to those who deal with men, and stop at the brink of humanity. We cannot treat fellow men as we treat fellow animals. If this is your reasoning- that only among men can we not loot and steal, and from every other living thing we can- then this is simply a moral that men collectively have developed to ensure their happiness. At this point, we have to agree that morals is simply a component of practicality, and that morals are followed only so long that an individual benefits from following it. Long term happiness and short term happiness are usually used to contradict each other, whereas actually one must look at it like this- Long term happiness + short term happiness + everything else= Total practicality in the pursuit of happiness. A robber robs because he thinks that it is in his best self-interest, whether we agree with it or not. There is no "proper morality", there is no universal morality for humans. It was moral to invent sailing to benefit humankind. But was it moral for the third of Europeans who died of the bubonic plague? Instead of sailing, those third of Europeans would have chosen to improve their caravans, becoming "second-handers" as Rand would call them. What we need to realize is that, since we are bound by our pursuits of happiness, every single action we take is a step towards that. There is no action that comes from a living organism that can be condemned, not a single one. Human morality is seen as important only because we want it to be; it give humans a greater chance of being happy. But when morality is impractical for our happiness, such as dropped money on the ground, we will always act against it. Current thought is that there is an absolute morality we must adhere to, but does not realize that all of our actions are moral, and that we act on our values of the moment only. Again, men's anguish comes when his value is proven wrong, when it is proven to be not the best for happiness. At this point he must change his value. A man picking up money on the ground knows that he should not do so, because he may lose money someday as well. However, what if it was a million dollars, a billion dollars, is it still immoral? There is only one way to avoid the anguish men face everyday, to be set on ones' value. This way a man never needs to change, if Roark realized that his modern buildings have a serious flaw, that it is easy to collide in face of earthquakes, he will still keep on building them for those who want them. This applies to everyone, a robber robs because it is worth it to him. Peter Keating is the way he is because it is worth it to him. A living being is only the way it is because it believes that being what it is gains him to the best chance of happiness. We are all first-handers in terms of pursuing happiness- we all do what we want to be happy. We are all second-handers in terms of pursuing happiness- we have conformed, when conformation is necessary; we have separated, when separation is necessary.

My idea of the most independent being does whatever that is in his best interest (whatever that is needed to survive), without regard to any so called moral values. Humans are "better" than all other organisms on Earth because we have developed morals such as no killing, no stealing, and "free trade". These morals guarantee the better survival of the whole species, and the cost to the individual is neglected. This is exactly why we are trying to come up with environmental laws, because global warming can threaten our survival as a species. The notion of "free trade" stems from the idea of both parties gaining the same benefits. However, the word "benefits" in that sentence is completely subjective. Look at this hypothetical situation- A man buys a gallon of fuel a million years ago, it costs 1 cent. A hundred years ago, it costs 1 dollar. Now, 10 dollars. A thousand years in the future, 1000 dollars. This system of free trade will always be set up to protect the survival of the majority, to benefit the majority, and neglect freedom of the individual. In my view, the perfectly independent man would refuse to pay anything and take the gallon of fuel for free, neglecting the society but satisfying oneself. A bullfrog eats it own kind for immediate benefit, and does know the detrimental effects on its society. The bowerbird steals from its neighbors for immediate benefit, and does not realize this entails its neighbors stealing from it. Does any of these two species demonstrate "second-hand" behavior? No, they have no human morals, and cannot be condemned for their actions. However, they are doing what is in their best interest. Most humans, on the other hand, have human morals. We developed these because they give us the best chance of survival for each individual. But still, whenever the situation presents itself we will forgo these morals for self-interest. A man picking up money of the ground will likely keep it, despite going against his morals. It is these constant shifts that cause humans unhappiness. Roark on the other hand, does not suffer from these shifts; Roark will always buy gas for 10 dollars, not for 1 penny more or 1 penny less. Ayn Rand's concept of "first-hand second-hand" is an attack on her own rational human interest. Humans are always first-hand, all living things are always first-hand. This is because all of our actions always reflect what we think is in our best interest. The concept of second-hand overlaps the former- when men develop morals, they become second-hand; when men refuse to kill or steal, they become second-hand; when men become collectivists, they become second-hand. The important point here is that species become more second-hand only when their interests depend on it. When the greenhouse effect is proven to provide global warming, we will become even more second-hand as we develop a new moral- using carbon based fuel is a crime. In conclusion, living things have gradually become more second-handed as the millions of years passed, yet at the same time, we have always been first-handed. There is no dilemma.

haha ok... well I'll admit I don't have much experience arguing/posting. but i would like to know what i said was wrong at least

"Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit" is what Ayn Rand said. So this only works with men? If so, then as soon as the "one another" becomes animals we can assume power over them? So then why can't we assume power over other men if we wanted to? Because it's too cruel and against our altruistic values?

After reading The Fountainhead and looking over Ayn Rand theories, I have quite a few arguments to make. So hopefully someone or someones can help enlighten me. I'll start small. Isn't Howard Roark the ultimate ignorant person? And so is Toohey. That's why both of them are happy in the end, in my view. The only thing I can agree with Rand is that ignorance is bliss, and that the constant changing of values denotes anguish. As far as I can tell, Howard Roark is nothing but a "second-hander" as well, although less in the extent of others. The phrase "Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit" by Ayn Rand is evidently derived from altruism. The perfectly independent being does what he wishes, with no "must" in any part of his value.