Lorenzo de' Medici (old)
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Lorenzo de' Medici (old)
-
-
Nothing to do with the thread? You previously stated the purpose of the thread is this:...
No it has nothing to do with the thread. This is what happens when and if someone falls into a straw man. I expected intellectual honesty, I am concerned that the straw man you are presenting is not an error of knowledge. Check your facts. Have you actually read The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand? If not, then here is a link for you. Judge for yourself the validity of Kelley's arguments: The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand
And yes, I have had elements of that example discussion with various people confused by David Kelley's toleration book. Apart from the specific example of a mother giving tequilla to her baby, I have personally had this part of the discussion with several people, including you at one time:The confusion comes from people who accuse Kelley of something he does not say, not from David Kelley. If you want to debate the topic in person, I am willing to engage you, that is if you can abide by your own rules of civility.
It can take many hours of discussion to get "B" past just this point, if ever. I've personally had discussions like the other parts, too, including in regard to Kelley's "primarily epistemological" argument, his "suspending judgment" argument, and his concession that ideas can be morally "significant," but not "primarily" or "fundamentally," all driven by a desire to avoid being judgmental ("moralistic"). The shoe fits.Just because the shoe fits, that does not mean it is your shoe. Why are you ignoring the supporting quote I provided from Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism Course?
-
Here's the curious thing. I don't know if I would characterize it as a mind / body dichotomy, but it is some sort of dichotomy, because to be rational means to have man's life as the standard. If you do not have man's life as the standard for morality, then you are not being rational. And morality is in the province of rationality -- to have some other standard than man's life is not to be moral in the rational sense of the word. Having man's life as the rational standard for morality was one of Miss Rand's greatest accomplishments. It is this connection and integration of rationality and man's life as the standard that makes the Objectivist ethics rational. So, by implication at least, to say rationality versus man's life as the standard is to throw out Miss Rand's integration of rationality and morality, which means to throw out the Objectivist ethics, which is certainly contradictory to Objectivism qua philosophy.
Life is the standard of value, rationality is the standard of virtue. Rationality is the only virtue that is not contextual. There are contexts in which it is perfectly acceptable to be dishonest, such as when a Nazi is at the door looking for the Jews you hid in your closet. It would be irrational to be honest in that context.
-
Brandens pre-split work is valuable, because he was an objectivist->then openly and clearly changed his views. Kelley on the other hand doesnt seem like he changed his mind at any point, he seems to have always been a non-objectivist. And please tell us, which of Kelley's pre-Truth and Toleration work is valuable to Objectivism?
If you are concerned about endorsement, any and all of the works that were endorsed by ARI when Kelley worked for them, at the minimum: The Art of Reasoning, The Evidence of the Senses and his lecture course on The foundations of Knowledge. Fundamentally, all of a person's works should be judged on there own. I don't think it is necessary to always agree with everything that a person writes. I certainly do not agree with everything Ayn Rand ever said. If you do not find it valuable to study David Kelley's works, then don't.
Ahh, so this is the root of your many confusions. When you read you skim quickly and excitedly, skipping keys words such as negations. I can't help you with that.Why are you evading, and not answering my question?
-
First, he accepts the mind-body dichotomy implicit in the "motives vs. consequences" debate, and then writes in Truth and Toleration "In judging an action, therefore, we are concerned not only with its consequences, measured by the standard of life, but also with its source in the person’s motives, as measured by the standard of rationality. The question is how to integrate these two factors into a single judgment. Philosophers have long wrestled with this question; they have proposed various theories about the proper weight to assign to consequences on the one hand and motives on the other. The Objectivist ethics, unfortunately, has yet to address this question in any depth." (T&T pg 22).
An example of the mind-body dichotomy would be only focusing on motives or only focusing on consequences. Just as a person might focus only on reason or only on emotion. A person might feel they must choose between either reason or emotion, never seeing any correlation or connection between the two. If you were accused of murder, one of the importance considerations in the trial would be motive. The fact that someone kills another person by mistake does not make him a coldblooded, evil, murderer. The consequences between someone who commits manslaughter by mistake or murders someone is the same, death, but the moral judgment we must pass is not the same.
-
You write that, "Kelly applies toleration mainly to the realm of ideas and benevolence mainly to actions." This only emphasizes the mind-body dichotomy implicit in his moral theory.
This is not an example of the mind-body dichotomy. As I have stated before, people can be disintegrated, meaning they do not have to act in accordance with their stated convictions. This is implicit in the fact that people have freewill. Aside from disintegration, to recognize that a person has a mind and a body and that they are not the same, which is why we have two different words for the concepts does not mean I or David Kelley regard the mind as in conflict with the body. The point you are trying to make here has no validity in my opinion. You could drop the word tolerance and instead call it benevolence when dealing with a person's ideas. A person can have conscious convictions that contradict their subconscious evaluations. You would benefit from listening to Edwin Locke's lecture on Reason and Emotion.
First, he accepts the mind-body dichotomy implicit in the "motives vs. consequences" debate, and then writes in Truth and Toleration "In judging an action, therefore, we are concerned not only with its consequences, measured by the standard of life, but also with its source in the person’s motives, as measured by the standard of rationality. The question is how to integrate these two factors into a single judgment. Philosophers have long wrestled with this question; they have proposed various theories about the proper weight to assign to consequences on the one hand and motives on the other. The Objectivist ethics, unfortunately, has yet to address this question in any depth." (T&T pg 22).I have already dealt with this. When motives are not consistent with consequences, this is called an accident. An accident can be good, it can be bad, it might even be neutral. I'm sure everyone here has done something they did not intend to do. You do not deserve praise or condemnation for an accident, but you may be legally responsible depending on the context.
Objectivism rejects the notion that the debate is even valid, so why address something that is already false to begin with?. He ignores this. He fully embraces the motives vs. consequences debate throughout his entire discussion of moral judgment. He assigns the standard of rationality to motives and the standard of life to consequences. And then asks how one assigns the proper weight to each when moral judgment is necessary. Much later the dichotomy becomes only more obvious when he assigns evil as pertaining primarily to actions and only derivatively to ideas. (T&T pg 39).I agree with Kelley on this point. A person's motives should be judged by the standard of rationality, just as virtues are all variants of rationality. The metaphysical results of actions are appropriately evaluated by the standard of life.
Notice what she does not do. She does not separate motive from consequence, mind from body. She focuses instead, on the moral judgment of everything that is within man's power of volitional choice: ideas and actions.I do not see anything here that is worth commenting on.
-
Yes, we must give the benefit of the doubt to those we are uncertain of regarding their irrationality or their error; until we know that it is not just error by such a gross mis-characterization that it has to be evasion.
Kelley applies toleration mainly to the realm of ideas and benevolence mainly to actions. I believe that this is a helpful differentiation. You act with benevolence when you see that someone is suffering and you have little evidence that it is out of justice. With ideas, you can see that a person has accepted some false premises, or is confused, but you can and probably should give a person the benefit of the doubt before you judge their character on the whole. One often needs more evidence before you can know that someone is acting with malice intentions. And even when and if you do find that a person has been willfully evasive, and there are degrees of evasion. People can change and make amends for their evils. A moral judgment should fit the crime. Relationships between men are built on trust, past experiences and mutual investment. The more you have invested in a person, the more you are likely to offer toleration. This is most evident when it comes to how we judge family members and life long friends who do not share all of our values or ideas.
I want to make something clear here. I am in no way denying Rand thought Kant was the most evil man ,or that Peikoff has made similar statements. I am now in the process of figuring out how to reconcile/integrate this with his statements on there being no degrees of virtue. Full stop.Not all evasions are equal. The degree of evasion constitutes the degree of evil. The greater the mind the longer the range, the greater their virtue. I hold that there can be degrees of virtue just as there are degrees of vice. It is quite obvious with the virtue of productiveness that some people can be more productive than others.
-
Political rights apply to all individuals, even evil ones. Force is only to be used in retaliation to an initiation of force. No academics deserve to be assassinated. It is ridiculous to move from that political conclusion to infer that the ideas they advocate and the professors themselves are therefore literally "beyond good and evil", which is an ethical statement. It is backwards reasoning violating the principle of hierarchy of knowledge, or in other words a stolen concept. It is a primitive and false conception of evil to think "evil people should be killed", or the flipped version that if one refrains from killing a particular person it must be because he has some good in him somewhere.
Initiating force is not the most evil thing possible; that only kills individuals. Persuading an entire civilization to willingly self-destruct is far more efficient, effective, and possible than killing all of its members therefore more evil. It is not a contradiction that the most evil person can be the least offensive, physically nonthreatening person because ideas really are more powerful than swords or guns or bombs.
That is a good answer, but politics is the application of your ethical theories of philosophy. It seems to me that it is problematic to use the word evil as it is being used. You say that initiating force is the most evil thing possible, but then say that persuading people to self-destruct is more evil. Well, which is it? Which one is more evil? If words and thoughts are more dangerous than actions, then why not eliminate such a threat, if it is so clear that it will cause destruction? I thought that actions speak louder than words? Perhaps book burning is a good place to start? Also, who has the ultimate responsibility for their actions? The persuaded or the persuader? There is an element of determinism in the idea that by writing a book, that people will necessarily take to the ideas and implement them. It has taken thousands of years for a great mind to appear and make the discoveries that Ayn Rand did, but I do not think that her achievements were just a matter of being the most honest person that ever lived, I think she was a genius. I believe that Peikoff and I agree on that point, that she was not just honest but a genius.
-
So first you say that someone isnt fair to Kelleys argument, but then give a total misrepresentation of Peikoff's?
The point is, a person can be just as unfair to Peikoff's position as anyone here can and has been that opposes Kelley. Not that I believe that Peikoff is totally guilty of moralizing, and injustice.
-
Kelley's let's not judge people by their ideas most of the time is a philosophical error about a very significant issue and thus leading to very significant negative consequences.
That is not fair to Kelley's argument. I could argue the same way about Peikoff because I think far more harm and danger comes from the opposite of Kelley's approach, which is: judge fast, judge now, forget waiting for all the facts, forget if you are right or wrong, ask questions later, if at all. Forget proportions (not one crumb), there are few errors in philosophy - so you are most likely evil, and you don't understand Objectivism unless you agree with me.
-
Toleration is the giving of sanction. At every moment in our lives we must not willfully sanction the irrational—we must not sanction evil. This is not a impossible task, in fact, as Rand wrote in Virtue of Selfishness, it's quite easy: "When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere “I don’t agree with you” is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction." If it can be firmly established that Objectivism does not tolerate the sanction of the irrational, then what is left to tolerate? Only the rational. And here we have no problem.
Nobody tolerates virtue or rationality. Tolerance can only be applied to a specific spectrum of ideas or actions that a person disapproves of. If you state that only a person who deserves tolerance should receive it, fine. But that begs the question, how do you judge, how do you know who deserves tolerance, how much time should a person have to adapt, how much time should a person be allowed to learn, how much time does a person deserve? These are not easy questions, no magic bullet will work. For rationalists, moral judgment is quite easy because context is ignored. If we hold that ideas and actions are either good or evil, then what is the moral status of tolerance? Is tolerance, when practiced rationally, evil? Was the patience that Ayn Rand was often praised for a virtue or a vice?
-
What you need to understand James, is that the degree of evil is ultimately irrelevant. One should not willingly sanction any degree of evil, no matter how trivial.
I don't think that is the debate, I think the debate involves knowing if one is guilty of sanctioning evil. For instance, you could spend a lot of time avoiding buying gas from Iran, if you can find out which gas is and is not from Iran. Is it sanction to buy gas that is 10% Iranian? Sanction means you morally approve, morally agree.
The reason why the sanction issue even came up between Kelley and Peikoff is because Kelley spoke to Libertarians about why you need a rational philosophy to support capitalism.
Consider this quote by Ayn Rand:
"This is an insidious kind of intimidation: it equates a speaker’s views with
those of the discussion’s sponsors. A man of integrity is conscientiously precise about the
nature of his views on any subject. If his views are going to be judged, not by his own
statements, but by the views of those who invite him to speak... then his only alternative is to
accept no speaking engagements. If so, what happens to our freedom of speech?” “The
Disenfranchisement of the Right,” The Ayn Rand Letter I (Dec.20, 1971), p. 26.
"Tolerance", as it is described and explained by Kelley, is not consistent with Objectivism. A crucial aspect of Kelley's view of tolerance is the suspension of judgment when we lack sufficient evidence. This means in effect that one ought to suspend from making judgment on all evidence currently available.This is false. You only judge to suspend moral appraisal of a person when you lack evidence. And this is not inconsistent with Objectivism. I quote again:
“If you do not know how to judge the character of a person because the facts available to you are insufficient and the evidence of his flaws is inconclusive, you must give him the benefit of the doubt not on the ground of mercy but on the ground of justice. Because to let off the guilty is less disastrous than to condemn the innocent. Because virtues are more important than flaws. Because justice demands that a man be considered innocent until proved guilty and this principle applies in law courts as well as in your personal relationships with people. Except that in personal relationships, when you give the benefit of the doubt you do not dismiss the case. You wait for further evidence to prove the good or bad character of the person before you pass a moral judgment.” - The Basic Principles of Objectivism - Nathaniel Branden, Justice vs. Mercy Track 1 at 9:23
(This course was endorsed by Ayn Rand)
"The principles of justice also determine the limits of toleration.
Tolerance is not appropriate, as I said in “A Question of Sanction,” when
a person is willfully irrational. Thus I do not hold, as Peikoff claims, that
tolerance means suspending moral judgment in the realm of ideas. It means
suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence." – David Kelley (The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand)
-
The concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them. Schwartz asserts that we should not sanction the Soviets because they are “philosophical enemies.” This is a bizarre interpretation of their sins. Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism.They are evil because they have murdered millions of people and enslaved hundreds of millions more..
Notice that Kelley states primarily, this does not mean that ideas cannot be judged by ethical standards.
Kelley is also pointing to the different respects in which a person can be evil. Obviously you do not use force against people just because they believe in socialism or communism.
Truth and falsity, not good or evil, are the primary evaluative concepts that apply to ideas as such.This is correct, this is the link between epistemology and ethics. Otherwise your ethics are floating, disconnected from epistemology, aka: rationalism.
If we approach ideas with the question: true or false?, we stand ready to combat bad ideas by the only means appropriate to intellectual issues: open, rational discussion and debate. But if we approach ideas with the question: good or evil?, we will avoid debate for fear of sanctioning evil-doers.I think his point here is to consider degree and measurement. Obviously, going to a party dressed inappropriately is a bad idea but I seriously doubt it warrants the label EVIL.
-
Both Kant and the Marxist professor are evil for spreading ideas that completely fly in the face of reality and would impose communism or worse on the whole country, if they could.
I believe in the debate between Peikoff and Kelley the concrete was that Kant was more evil than Stalin because he made Stalin possible. I believe it is moral to shoot a Stalin or a Hitler on sight. If Kant is just as evil as or even more evil than Stalin, would you assassinate Kant? Would you assassinate an academic marxist? If you do not think you should assassinate an academic marxist, then it seems that you agree with Kelley because while it is true they are both evil, it is in different respects. It is because of that difference in respects that you can engage in discussion with a marxist and not with Stalin.
Consider this quote by Ayn Rand:
"I could deal with a Marxist with greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That's the libertarian movement." [FHF] - Ayn Rand Answers, P.72. (bold mine)
-
we are objecting to the fact that Kelley thinks that only actions should be judged, not the ideas that led to those actions.
Provide proof of this claim please.
-
On motives and consequences:
When a consequence does not match a person's motives, I believe this is called an accident. What seems to be in dispute here is: Can we deduce (without a doubt) a man's motivation solely by evaluating the results of his actions? In my view, it is illogical to think that you can always know a person's motives based on the consequences of his actions.
-
Tolerance, in Kelley's view as I understand it means acknowledging a person's context. It means waiting to make a final judgment until you have enough evidence to know if a person is willfully dishonest, evasive or in honest error. This is not inconsistent with Objectivism. See these relevant quotes:
“If you do not know how to judge the character of a person because the facts available to you are insufficient and the evidence of his flaws is inconclusive, you must give him the benefit of the doubt not on the ground of mercy but on the ground of justice. Because to let off the guilty is less disastrous than to condemn the innocent. Because virtues are more important than flaws. Because justice demands that a man be considered innocent until proved guilty and this principle applies in law courts as well as in your personal relationships with people. Except that in personal relationships, when you give the benefit of the doubt you do not dismiss the case. You wait for further evidence to prove the good or bad character of the person before you pass a moral judgment.” - The Basic Principles of Objectivism - Nathaniel Branden, Justice vs. Mercy Track 1 at 9:23
"The principles of justice also determine the limits of toleration.
Tolerance is not appropriate, as I said in “A Question of Sanction,” when
a person is willfully irrational. Thus I do not hold, as Peikoff claims, that
tolerance means suspending moral judgment in the realm of ideas. It means
suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence." – David Kelley (The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand)
“Therefore in place of the slogan “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” Objectivism answers: judge and be prepared to be judged and more, be prepared to be judged for your judgments. Because, one of the solemn responsibilities entailed in the act of passing moral judgments and one of the reasons why most men are frightened to pass them, is precisely because any third person is then able to look at your judgment and to look at the object of your judgment and to judge you on the bases of the kind of moral judgment you have passed. And that is precisely the responsibility which many men dread.” - The Basic Principles of Objectivism - Nathaniel Branden, Justice vs. Mercy Track 2 at 14: 35
-
Psychological visibility, as far as I know, was first identified by Nathaniel Brandon when he was writing for Ayn Rand's newsletter The Objectivist. What he noticed is that he got pleasure from the fact that he could play with his pet dog, Mutnik, and that he could not play with his plants. He noticed that the pleasure derived from the fact that Mutnik understood his intent to play, and he originally called it "The Mutnik Principle." Psychological visibility has to do with realizing that one is understood by another consciousness as to intent. It is a value in a social context because imagine what it would be like to be misunderstood by everyone around you; in such a case you would feel invisible to them on the psychological level. In those cases where one's intent is misunderstood, one feels that one is not known by the other consciousness; and in those cases where one's intent is understood by another consciousness then one is known by the other consciousness. It is a value in a social context because one can see it as the basis of friendship and romance -- to be seen psychologically by another as to one's true intent and purpose, and to be admired for those things one wants to be admired for.
As an example, I like to be admired for my writing ability, especially for my poetry and short stories, by those who understand them. If I was friends with someone who didn't even recognize them as meaningful, then I would feel as if I am not being understood on a deeper level than what I wear or how I speak.
But I do think that it is important in a social context and therefore it is not a metaphysical component -- one's relation to reality -- except insofar as someone else being aware of you and your values all the way down, so to speak. Of course, Objectivism is not primarily concerned with how others see you or understand you; but let's say it is certainly a nice value to have in a social context, since Objectivism is not about becoming a hermit and living off by oneself and being totally isolated. One likes to know that one's values are also important to significant others -- i.e. friends and lovers, and if one is totally misunderstood with regard to intent, it would be very difficult to be friends with them. But I guess the importance of psychological visibility is dependent on what importance one places on friendships and romances.
Tom, that is a great post. Thank you for your incite.
-
Why allow others to see it?
Because psychological visibility, like any other human value, cannot be obtained by fraud. And because persuasion, speaking up for one's convictions is generally in one's self-interest. In deeper terms, are you asking why do people need or want friendships or romantic partners? Why is it necessary to live authentically?
-
More and more lately, I notice that a lot of people's (namely, my friends') psychological and relationship problems stem from low self-esteem. Holding my friends as values, I of course want to help them. What are some methods of boosting your self-esteem? (I of course realize that only the people in question themselves can do something about it). Thanks in advance.
Hi Nick,
I think it is essential to define what self-esteem is. I find this definition to be one of the most useful:
"Self-esteem is the experience that we are appropriate to life and to the requirements of life. More specifically, self-esteem is...
1. Confidence in our ability to think and to cope with the challenges of life.
2. Confidence in our right to be happy, the feeling of being worthy, deserving, entitled to assert our needs and wants and to enjoy the fruits of our efforts."
- The Power of self-esteem p.8 - Nathaniel Branden, PH.D.
Self-esteem is something a person has to give to themselves. No man can give another man confidence anymore than he can breathe for another man. Much like physical health, the level of a person's self-esteem is not established overnight, it is the result of many choices, stemming from their contextual knowledge. Sometimes (quite often), people can develop a pseudo self-esteem and look to their friends, lovers, family etc. as a source of their self-efficacy and thus they create a false confidence. A social metaphysician is a person that is unable, or, has not yet learned to self generate their self-esteem, think and act with independence and of course, true happiness becomes impossible for them to reach. Instead a social metaphysician in principle ties the value judgments of others to their self-worth. This does not necessarily mean that the value judgments of others must be positive or negative.
Generally, to be of help to your friends, I'd suggest being a good role model and learn to improve your own self-esteem. If you cannot help yourself, you are not ready to help others.
Consider these six pillars of self-esteem:
1. Living Consciously. To live consciously is to be present to what we are doing; to seek to understand whatever bears on our interests, values, and goals; to be aware both of the world external to self and also to the world within.
2. Self-acceptance. To be self-accepting is to own and experience, without denial or disowning, the reality of our thoughts, emotions and actions; to be respectful and compassionate toward ourselves even when we do not admire or enjoy some of our feelings or decisions; to refuse to be in an adversarial or rejecting relationship to ourselves.
3. Self-responsibility. To be self-responsible is to recognize that we are the author of our choices and actions; that we must be the ultimate source of our own fulfillment; that no one is coming to make our life right for us, or make us happy, or give us self-esteem.
4. Self-assertiveness. To be self-assertive is to honor our wants and needs and look for their appropriate forms of expression in reality; to live our values in the world; to be willing to be who we are and allow others to see it; to stand up for our convictions, values, and feelings.
5. Living Purposefully. To live purposefully is to take responsibility for identifying our goals; to perform the actions that allow us to achieve them; to keep on track and moving toward their fulfillment.
6. Personal integrity. To live with integrity is to have principles of behavior to which we remain loyal in action; to keep our promises and honor our commitments; to walk our talk.
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/pd...urgent_need.pdf
-
The Culture of Reason Center is proud to announce that we have again extended our bookstore list. These audiobook titles are now available for download directly from our website:
Please visit: The CRC MP3 Store
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal MP3 $24.95
For the New Intellectual MP3 $16.95
Philosophy: Who Needs It MP3 $20.95
The Art of Nonfiction MP3 $16.95
The Romantic Manifesto MP3 $16.95
The Virtue of Selfishness MP3 $16.95
The Voice of Reason MP3 $27.95
Why Businessmen Need Philosophy MP3 $13.95
These audiobook titles are available for sale from The Culture of Reason Center Bookstore. Blackstone Audio, Inc. products are only available through The Culture of Reason Center for customers in The United States and Canada. Ideas expressed in any of the materials, books or lectures offered, are not necessarily endorsed by The Culture of Reason Center. Audiobook prices are subject to change at anytime without notice. Refunds are not available for downloaded products. All sales are final. Customers are allowed 3 attempts to download audiobook products.
-
The Culture of Reason Center is proud to present its new logo provided by Gary Bulin.
-
I think it would be helpful to isolate and identify some of the various issues that are involved in this discussion.
1. The rights of babies/children.
2. How should government determine legal adulthood (when can a young person make full judgments about their body).
3. The rights of parents to use their judgment.
4. What are objective parental obligations.
Circumcision deals with these issues:
Is there a health benefit to circumcision?
What is the esthetic significance of the practice?
Does the practice of circumcision strongly impact male sexual pleasure?
I do not think it is moral to circumcise babies or children unless there is a strong medical reason for the procedure, such as a birth defect, abnormal function or something of that nature. I would have a difficult time supporting laws to make the practice criminal though.
Morally, the good is anything that supports, furthers, enhances the life and the happiness of a rational being. I believe the pleasure of being uncircumcised outweighs the medical risks (if there are any) of being uncircumcised. And personally I think it does look better.
I am wondering if anyone has sued over being circumcised against their will?
-
I am pleased to announce that I have expanded The Culture of Reason Center Bookstore.
To visit the store: CRC Bookstore
Titles include:
The Ayn Rand Lexicon – Harry Binswanger $18.48
For The New Intellectual – Ayn Rand $6.47
Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - Leonard Peikoff $16.63
Philosophy Who needs it? - Ayn Rand $6.47
The Fountainhead – Ayn Rand $7.39
The Romantic Manifesto – Ayn Rand $6.47
The Virtue of Selfishness – Ayn Rand $6.47
Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand $7.39
Capitalism The Unknown Ideal – Ayn Rand $7.39
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology – Ayn Rand $16.63
We the Living – Ayn Rand $6.47
The Art of Reasoning – David Kelley $63.74
The Early Ayn Rand – Ayn Rand $7.39
Ayn Rand Answers – Ayn Rand $12.93
Ominous Parallels – Leonard Peikoff $14.78
The Voice of Reason – Ayn Rand $14.78
Unrugged Individualism – David Kelley $10.16
The Evidence of the Senses – David Kelley $16.63
The Psychology of Romantic Love – Nathaniel Branden $12.93
Book sales help to fund and support the growth of The Culture of Reason Center in Dallas, TX.
Purchases can be made during our scheduled audio-lecture events or from our website. Ideas expressed in any of the materials, books or lectures offered, are not necessarily endorsed by The Culture of Reason Center. Book prices are subject to change at anytime without notice. If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, return it in new condition within 30 days, and we will gladly exchange the product or refund the cost of your purchase. Damaged items do not qualify for refunds. We are unable to refund shipping costs.
-
Thank you for all that you have done this past year, Toad! You have achieved a lot, I am very grateful and proud of you.
David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism
in Ethics
Posted
Benevolence is appropriate if someone deserves it. When you lack the evidence that someone is guilty, offer them benevolence. But certainly, benevolence isn't a virtue is it? What value can be obtained by benevolence anyway? Why bother with such a marginal issue.