Greebo
-
Posts
1458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Greebo
-
-
People get lost in the woods every day. That is not unusual. Those who are lost alone...die much more often than those who are lost in groups.
In alaska, with just two people, one who can get food and one who can navigate.
Sure.
"Not putting other people's needs and interests above your own" does not mean the same thing as "paying no regard to them."You are dropping context. You need to take Rand's full and numerous quotes on the subject in mind when you formulate your argument. You are redefining her position in order to defeat it - you've invented a straw man.
HAHA
Oh, I see - you're not in this to learn, but to win. You don't think you might be wrong and wish to validate your premises, you are out to prove everyone else wrong and want to score points. Is that your idea here? If so, then all you are is a troll.
Since selfishness is defined as having concern for yourself with NO REGARD FOR OTHERS, then it must be concluded that this is what Rand meant by Selfishness. She defined it herself in "The Virtue of Selfishness."She also said "you are not required to give in order to exist."
She wrote a lot more too - you should read it all and integrate it all.
And in normal circumstances the latter is true. Your invented hypothetical is not a "normal circumstance" - it's a fringe circumstance.
You are calling me foolish, but you are contradicting her statements in your argument. The statements are set in stone. Sorry.Correct only if you limit your quotes to the exact ones you cherry picked instead of taking them ALL in context.
RAND SAID "THE ONLY RATIONAL ACTION IS THE ACTION THAT SERVES YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST.And I showed you how aiding your friend was in your self interest in two different ways.
Use her definition, as she expounded on it multiple times, and stop dropping context, and you will understand what she meant.Define SELF-INTEREST...and you will finally understand that term.If you believe that one should not sacrifice,and you believe that not feeding my friend is the same as sacrifice, then you must believe that not paying taxes so the poor to can have health care is also sacrifice. Right? Same concept.
You do not understand the terms you are using, again. Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative measure of values. Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's of force.
Having the means to help some one, but not helping them. "AYN RAND SAID YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SHARE."SHE DIDN"T SAY "YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SHARE< EXCEPT WHEN NOT SHARING RESULTS IN SACRIFICE" Right?
Must you yell? Again - get your definitions correct as Rand meant them.
AND DON'T INSULT ME.My goodness, temper tantrum much?
-
That is not the dictionary definition of the word. LOOK IT UP. If Rand said that, you have proven that she does not know the complete DICTIONARY definition to a term in her own lexicon. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfishness. Did she sight her definition? No. I win.
No, you don't, not if you change what Rand herself clarified as her meaning in order to fit your idea of what her words were intended to mean.
-
I of course focused on the two terms on which the above assertion is dependent upon: "rational" and "self-interest."
First of all, remember that "self-interest" is a LONG term prospect.
The, I read more and found that she explicitly presents Objectivism ethics as a morality of rational "self-interest" OR of "rational selfishness." Since the "self interest" is not defined as "selfishness," and "selfishness" is not defined as "self interest," AND since the two terms do not share the same dictionary definition, I can only assume that one is used as an alternate for the other, or one is used to modify the other, meaning that Rand must have presented three options. They are as follows:The bold part is incorrect:
self·ish[sel-fish] Show IPA
adjective
1.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
But, wait, does this mean that any action I choose to perform is rational, if it serves my well being and gains me a superior position or condition, so long as that actions pays no regard to others?As a matter of fact, it does - as long as the "paying no regard to others" means "not putting their needs and interests above your own".
So now I know what ends justify my actions as rational, but, Rand does not tell me what actions should be made, just that I shouldn't sacrifice myself, or murder people.This is where you really start to go off the rails - the position is that you should not sacrifice yourself or others - sacrificing others isn't limited to murder.
If my friend and I are lost in Alaska, without a compass...and my friend knows how to navigate without one and I know how to find food and water, what would be my best rational action?So the scenario you come up with is an unusual, extreme hypothetical situation which is basically a "lifeboat scenario" with a slight twist. This, to you, seems rational?
If the only rational action is one that serves my own well-being and gains me a superior position or condition, with NO regard to others, then the only rational thing to do is find food and eat all of it without sharing with my friend.Stop here.
It is in your interest for your friend to survive because YOU VALUE YOUR FRIEND. He is your friend for a reason - because you DO care about him. This doesn't mean putting his interests above yours - but it does mean recognizing that the world is a better place for YOU with him in it.
Further, unless you're an idiot you recognize that EVEN IF YOU HATE THE OTHER PERSON, you need a navigator to escape your situation - so not only do you value your friend, you NEED your friend's ability to navigate, but even if he wasn't a friend, he's necessary to your long term self interest, so keeping him alive until you escape the emergency is in YOUR interest.
And thus your hypothetical falls apart.
Ultimately you should re-title this thread to "A poorly conceived example of Rational Selfishness"
-
When people hunt, they usually do it for sport, for the same reason someone would do any other kind of sport.
Having grown up in West Virginia, where hunting season for most hunters means bringing in food for the winter, I'd like to see the statistics backing up this apparently unsubstantiated assertion.
-
None of the above, however, come close in size and scale to the "metric fuck-ton of shit".
-
To start with, the premise of O'Ism isn't that Socialism cannot succeed, it is that it is morally wrong.
-
What you intended to do WRT the 2 week out hardly matters - you committed to those 2 weeks and broke that commitment.
Suppose I have started working for another company, and signed, a let's say a 1-year contract. Then, 3 days into my work, another offer comes along that gives me a much better deal. I'd have to start immediately. Wouldn't it be right for me to leave immediately, or should I give a two week notice, as per my contract?Again - commitment. You make it, you need to keep it.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integrity.html
-
And an excellent read, btw!
-
-
Resurrecting this thread because a similar discussion has come up elsewhere.
An argument has been made that Galt had no right to reproduce the motor because, since he developed the motor while working for Starnes, the idea itself was the intellectual property of Starnes and 20th Century Motors.
My position is that 20th Century eventually ceased to exist, and with it any ownership claim by it or any of it's subsequent owners over the motor's principles. As such, Galt was free to reclaim ownership of the idea and not only use it for personal use (his apartment) but for profit (the Gulch).
-
No, "doing whatever we can to survive" is not the only option that remains: You could instead choose to not do whatever you can to survive. People occasionally do choose to kill themselves, after all.
You dropped context:
"The value of our life, however, remains, and so morally, when rational action is no longer possible, then doing whatever we can to survive and to get us BACK to being able to live as rational beings is what remains."
The conjunction is important. *IF* we are compelled to choose between doing something we would regret for the rest of our lives, or dying, then choosing to die is a perfectly valid choice.
Trying to survive (rather than trying to get yourself killed) obviously would be the rational choice, since you value your life. However, this means that rational action is still possible.You have a gun to your head.
You have been given a choice.
Kill a baby and go free, or die.
You have no other alternatives.
If you kill the baby, could you live with yourself? I don't know - perhaps you could - I could not, and I would choose to die in that instance, because if I killed the baby to save myself, my own self loathing would leave me incapable of rational living henceforth.
-
Then why did Rand say that self defense was a moral imperative? It sounds to me like she did think there was a rational/moral option.
What is the good?
All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.Life is our ultimate value. As rational beings, acting in a consistently rational manner is the ultimate virtue.
However, when rationality is no longer possible, such as under the threat of force, exercising that virtue is not possible.
The value of our life, however, remains, and so morally, when rational action is no longer possible, then doing whatever we can to survive and to get us BACK to being able to live as rational beings is what remains.
-
In objectivism, what makes violent actions wrong is not their intention, but the (supposed) inability of the victim to be rationally self interested.
The inability which is created by the aggressor by demanding that the victim act in the aggressor's interests.
2. "Self defense is possible, and is in one's rational self interest" - If this is the case, then Ayn Rand is also contradicting herself, because she said the victim of violence is forced to act against one's rational self interest.The moral/rational option has already been removed - by the aggressor. Man is only required to act morally rationally in situations where rational/moral behavior is possible.
When the aggressor initiates force, he creates a situation where moral action is no longer possible. The victim may choose to fight, or flee, or comply, or refuse and die - and all choices are equally valid and, WITHIN the narrow context of the compulsion, but those choices have been instigated by the aggressor and responsibility for the outcome lies with the aggressor, not the victim.
-
Strictly speaking, those are the choices he wants me to consider. I still have other options- I could try running away, or retaliating, or simply refusing. I could even try calling his bluff- just because he makes a threat doesn't mean he actually intends to follow through.
True, but none of those choices would be at play if he were not there holding a gun to your head.
The divorce, by comparison, is one party who is part of a mutually entered contract indicating that they wish to terminate that contract.
Robber, gun to head, creating choices for you that wouldn't exist otherwise, at all, and which you had no hand in creating. Spouse, divorce lawyer on retainer, creating choices for you that wouldn't exist had you not first CHOSEN to get married.
-
Ok, I'll agree- my wife isn't forcing me. But that just proves that a man who points a gun at my head isn't forcing me either.
The guy with the gun to your head is giving you the choice of do what he says or stop being able to choose, ever again.
Do you consider those to be valid choices?
-
Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons
What has been the medical view of circumcision?
In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.
Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.
Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm#view
The judge cited medical reasons not to ban the practice - the judge apparently thinks he's a doctor .
-
Consumer debt for products which gain no value harms your ability to provide for your long term needs. As such, using debt to buy most of the consumer crap on the market that we are told daily that we need to have is, from an O'ist standpoint, immoral.
There are, however, cases where debt allows for an overall increase in productivity and is thus justified. Buying a home, for instance, in the long term allows you to stop paying rent and as long as you don't regularly refinance to borrow more, fixes your monthly living expenses to a degree. Borrowing to invest in new materials and goods for business purposes can result in greater returns than you would otherwise see by growing a business debt free, although the hidden cost is risk and it means you REQUIRE a higher income each month just to stay afloat.
So there are times where debt usage can be moral. More often than not, however, it's just indulging in impulse behavior.
-
Mmmmm. Baby, medium rare!
-
The specifics of the implementation leave the realm of philosophy. Philosophically, what's important isn't how it's implemented, but that it is implemented morally.
-
So I understand what you said thusly: It is morally okay to help a child who is disabled for the rest of their life. However, if there isn't enough voluntary donations to support the person they should be left to die.
Yeah, uh, no. Go back, read it again, and try to read every word this time.
-
Okay. Well I really don't like reading through Atlas Shrugged but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Objectivism is for a lot of things.
Thank you for your response, though. It cleared things up for me a bit.
You should be aware that Rand wrote a hell of a lot more than Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. Those are simply her fictional works. Her philosophical essays are what you really should be reading, as well as "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Peikoff.
-
Really? Is this a universal principle? That all living beings must have causes? Does the idea of an un-caused living being violate some unknown law of logic?
Are you aware of any living beings who have not had some cause?
Nothing.
Why do you suppose that God requires a cause. I sincerely hope (against what I know is probably the case) that you don't intend to say that I've contradicted myself by accusing me of asserting "that everything requires a cause" because I most certainly have not ever said that and I have not operated off of that fallacious principle once.
Are you aware of any living beings who have not had some cause?
-
"We could have evolved more like ants for all we know - in which case socialism would be rational for us."
But we did not evolve to become ants, we are human beings. And the human mind does have an intention, a purpose: to survive. We have personal thoughts and feelings that move us onward in that direction, even as small children.
I'm not saying we did. I'm saying that intent and purpose aren't interchangeable synonyms. Human beings weren't "intended" - we happened. We DO have a purpose - our purpose is our own lives. When you talk about the intention of nature you're talking about what some outside entity called nature consciously desired for humanity.
If we HAD evolved like ants, that also wouldn't have been *intended*. Our purpose as living beings would still be the same - living - but our fundamental nature would be different, and colony survival WOULD be our means of survival.
Both ants and humans have the same core purpose, both have very different natures, but neither was "intended".
-
Oh, I'm sorry, do you object to inane comparisons that are absolutely irrelevant being used as if they were serious?
Cause, you know, I thought that was the way you presented a case - pull in absolutely absurd irrelevant concepts and treat them as if they were equivalent to the subject at hand. You know - like trying to suggest that fucking to make a baby = the kind of constructive effort involved in creating a new concept.
Rational Selfishness, Personal Experience and Questions
in Ethics
Posted
Do you mean to suggest you have never heard anyone, ever, say "he/she/you are so SELFISH" in a manner that implies that selfishness is anything but good?