iouswuoibev

Yes, I wasn't making a distinction between one's interest and what one finds interesting. I don't think the word 'self-interest' makes that distinction either... I agree, so far as one chooses the correct principles. But according to my principles, I don't see how helping an old lady across the street is a principled action, or how helping a thousand old ladies brings any gain, immediate or not. Would these actions not in fact be benevolent?

I think the thread I started on pets demonstrates a case of someone's interest not benefiting them. I think I should clarify: when I say self-benefit, I mean the result of an action promoting one's life. In this context, I think it is fairly appropriate to use the phrase 'self-benefit', but I think it is more precise to say 'self-interest'. Benevolence as a long-term habit (virtue) can be of self-benefit, but individual cases are not tantamount to promoting my life. Whether I help one old lady across the street or pass on by, makes absolutely no difference to my life. Whether I would feel good about doing such a thing is a measure of my character, and how much benevolence I have. To summarise, I think 'self-interest' can describe things that are for your own benefit, or they can be things that are neutral. But they cannot be things that are contrary to promoting your life. 'Self-benefit' can only mean the first.

I hope this isn't too off-topic. Are there are any people here who like/own pets? See the attached image for mine. I've yet to see the subject of humans and animals brought into an objectivist context, so I'm curious to hear what others think. I myself like many sorts of animals, but I haven't been able to apply any objectivist principles to explain why this is the case. They obviously aren't a recreation of anyones value judgements, and they don't seem to reaffirm any of my values. The pleasure I get from an animal (please don't misinterpret that ) has nothing to do with life-sustaining action. So how does objectivism explain this?

I just want to put a word in here: that reading Ayn Rand doesn't necessarilly make you intelligent. This is shown by the number of people who reject her work. But I recognise that her philosophy is true and I will continue to study it. I think as far as programming goes, I am intelligent, but when it comes to things like debating and other activities that involve conflict with others, my ability is 'inhibited'. I think I have a problem with low self-esteem (as opposed to not having the logical ability to see the holes in someone elses reasoning), especially in the face of another individual. I am working on changing my thoughts and emotions accordingly, but I still have a way to go in improving my self-esteem. Thank you for your encouraging words. I am resolute when it comes to my work and I have an unwavering belief in my ability to realise my goals. When I complete my project it will be the first time in my life that I will have achieved one of my own ambitions. Any mention/curiousity/encouragement about my work from another individual bolsters my motivation and is appreciated.

There are two mutually exclusive statements that can be said of an existent. Existent X is composed of something that exists. Existent X is composed of nothing. If the latter is true, then X does not exist, in which case X is not an existent, which is a contradiction. Therefore, in order for an existent to be an existent, the first statement must always be true. The first statement works recursively. X is made of an existent, and that existent is also made of an existent, which is also made of an existent, and so on. This recursion is infinite. Does this mean that infinity is real? I read an article linking from this site which asserted that infinity cannot be real, but I have lost the page. I am wondering if it is the consensus among objectivists that infinity is not real except as a relational concept, and if so, does that not contradict the facts I have described?

Just thought I'd mention, Owen Wilson is not in Around The World In Eighty Days. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327437/

I own all of Rands non-fiction (I think). Just not finished reading it all.

What brought it all home to me was when, after we finished talking, I didn't have much to say other than that I disagreed. We just sat there in silence and she gave me ample oppertunity to respond. I knew there were many things to be said for what she brought up, and I had just previously been reading about that here: http://www.solohq.com/Objectivism101/Misbe...tionsMain.shtml But I still couldn't think of a single thing to say. I thought I read somewhere on this forum a description of why dog-eat-dog doesn't apply in a true capitalist society, but I did a search and couldn't find anything. I think it was that statement especially that caught me off guard.

These are all good points. I certainly don't have a problem grasping words. I've noticed that I am much better at debating when typing online (because I have time to think), and I sound like a stuttering fool when talking in real life. I'm wondering if using the internet all the time has put me out of practice in talking for real.

My reasoning is that it is stolen money, and I couldn't accept stolen money... is this taking it too far?

I didn't think of looking at it that way. I am getting disability benefits at the moment and 'in theory' can not work. In reality though, I can work, it is just a *lot* more difficult for me than a normal person. The only things I purchase are with the benefit money, so, I think it's more the case that I'm spending other people's money than my own. Thanks for that. I think my problem is rooted in the lack of ability to condense my meaning into as few sentences as possible, quickly enough and without losing any meaning. Also there is a problem that is fundemental to objectivism in that a lot of premises need to be explained, clearly, so that the other party doesn't go filling in the gaps with their own false premises. E.g. in order to explain why tax is wrong, I have to start with explaining that man's mind is his means of survival, and then carry that through to the conclusion that tax is wrong (which is a lot of talking!).

Okay, I've just tried to come up with some responses I might have had in the conversation... this stuff is what I came up with on my own, they are my own words. But I need help in finishing some of these sentences. Dog-eat-dog is a false concept because... Mexico is a poor country, not because it is capitalist, but because the government fails to achieve its duty to protect individual rights. (Is this correct? Like I said, I don't know anything about Mexico). If I am forced to give up my money to society, then... (I'm stuck, what could go here? Remember the sentence can't be too long, it needs to sound natural and befitting of conversation... we type differently to how we talk!).

I am not good at arguing. I was arguing with my mother today, because I wanted to cancel my benefits because they are amoral. She bombarded me with a load of nonesense about "dog-eat-dog" and if I want a capitalist society I should go live in Mexico (I don't know anything about Mexico, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a valid argument). I didn't know where to begin! I want to know if anyone has a directly applicable method for being better at persuasion. Although I managed to state my basic premises for why I didn't believe in benefits (I don't believe in taxation, because it is obtained through the use of force), I wasn't able to say anything persuasive or recall the fundamentals of why it is wrong. I study Ayn Rand's work and many online articles, but the extent to which I study only seems to help me remember what was said (literally). It's like recalling lines of a textbook for an exam. While I can evaluate what I've read and understand why it is right, I can't seem to integrate them into my mind, and make them my own thoughts - so I can put my thoughts into my own words instead of just recalling words I've read. I can't adapt to the conversation, I can only crudely reiterate the few tenets that I'm able to recall. I feel like I understand when I am reading, but I don't memorize my understanding. It is becoming very annoying. Any suggestions?

The link contains http:// twice. Removing that should make it work.

"Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent" - he used that, spoken by Kahlan in Faith of the Fallen.

In her literature, Ayn Rand spoke of man and mankind. In this day of political correctness it is tempting to yield to the objections some people might have to these terms, reasoning that it is better to use different words if it will avoid possible protest, and get the point across quicker. I think there are appropriate places for shying away from the use of these terms. For instance, I wouldn't start a sentence by going: "I would like all the men on this forum to post their ideas" when refering to all people on the forum. This is politeness, because in some contexts, using 'men' to refer to all people is genuinely implying male superiority, or otherwise simply refering to men only. But I think there is another strong reason to stick with and use the words that Rand did. They are the only words in the english language that are used for refering to more than one person that - from my perspective at least - denote individuality. If you used the word "people" when speaking of individuals, it would not carry the implication of individuality across; instead, the words "people" and "person" carry with them the suggestion of a faceless person within the essential collective. I think these terms have gradually amassed these negative messages from their heavy use in the preachings of collectivism and altruism. Speaking of man and mankind carries with it the sense of individuality, and I think this is why Rand was taken to using those terms so especially. Ultimately, the matter seems unsettled for me. Replacing the word 'man' with 'people' when quoting or paraphrasing Rand seems blasphemous, as it diminishes the sense of virtue behind the words. The word 'people' almost seems corrupt and selfless in the context of Rand's writing. Is this an extreme impression or does anyone else share these feelings? Having said that about Rand's work, the words 'man' and 'mankind' would look startlingly archaic and out of place in almost any modern text. For those who think this is a non-issue, I assume that they would know how I should resolve it, and I'd be keen to hear what that resolution is. It's not a big issue for me either, but right now I just go with my gut feeling when choosing my words, rather than going from any rational premise that I'm aware of. EDIT: Another possibility is that I've gradually associated the words with individuality because Rand is one of the few books I've read that uses them- and they really carry no such meaning.

Justice, is the deliverance of punishment. It is legalized retribution. It sounds very righteous, and people often use the concept to try and be a justification of and unto itself, which is circular reasoning. It does not answer the question.

And to address the original topic, I am pro-choice because killing living genetic material that has no values and no awareness is not destroying a value, and therefore there is no reason to oppress the freedom of choice.

Hello and welcome. I would argue that this is a slight misrepresentation of objectivism. I think the issue is not of self benefit but of self interest. One could construe stealing as being for ones 'selfish benefit', but not for one's self interest. One can benefit others lives in their self interest, but not to their benefit. But, I am the less experienced student of objectivism, so feel free to tell me why I am wrong.

Purpose in this context is reason. If someone commits a crime, it does not logically follow that that in itself is the reason for their punishment. I can see many reasons for punishing a criminal, but that they commited a crime is not in itself a reason. Prevention is one reason. Retribution is another reason. The statement you put forward is ambiguous. I assume by 'punishment' you mean any punishment, and by 'crime' you mean any crime. I think we can agree that there is no correlation between punishment of criminals and criminal activity. But to take your hypothesis to an arbitrary level, would you advocate the death penalty if, just for the sake of the argument, it meant you had a 50% chance of being murdered if you left your house? I am making the assumption here - by the way that you conclude that the reason for punishment is because of the crime - that retribution is the appeal that punishment holds for you. Which brings me to ask: what is the value of retribution? You say that the effect that punishment has on anyone else is besides the point. But to what extent does it remain 'besides the point' ? Is it still 'besides the point' when it creates a major risk to individuals? Is it that valuable? I am still applying your hypothesis here, to illustrate my point; the real issue I am getting at is, what is the value of retribution? Why is it important? In the case of the death penality, RationalCop stated one value: it provides an absolute guarrantee that the criminal can never harm him or anyone else ever again. However, this value does not apply to retribution for crimes that don't involve violence against a person. So what other value does retribution have? It has been mentioned that it has a 'comfort factor', an emotional appeal, for some people. I can relate to this, and I think any conscientious person would be compelled to want retribution visited upon anyone who violated their rights. However, I do not see how this value has rational premises, and while it may be incensing to witness a murderer being spared from death, I do not think it is irrational to discard the base emotional value of retribution from consideration. In lieu of realising that there is a risk of executing an innocent in the practice of execution, and weighing that with the moral, but ultimately, flawed value of retribution as I've put it, I don't think the death penality is the rational option. If there is a value in retribution that I overlooked, I would be interested to hear it.

Are there any countries, in our present time, that have an integrated laissez-faire government and full-strength capitalist economy? Are there any countries that come close to having this?

I don't think I stated that it is the nature of a hobby that is contradictory to rational behaviour. I did state that playing a MUD that demands a huge sacrifice in time and effort in order to get a sense of pleasure from it, is irrational. Hobby's in themselves are not.

Ah, I get a sense of what you mean now. When someone abandons the concept of selflessness, it permits them to have a genuine, selfish interest in the welfare of others.

I think I've discovered the UK group that Betsy was refering to: www.ukoa.org. The yahoo group can be found if you click on the "GROUP" link.

I guess it has yet to be put to the test. Yeah, I meant to say "turn a blind eye".