Mindy
-
Posts
463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Mindy
-
-
The same principle would apply. Loan is just one possible concrete of many.
Somehow, you missed my point. Would you re-read the post this is a response to?
Mindy
-
My take on end-of-life choices is this: You are acutely aware of who you "were," and what you stood for. You take pride in that, and spend your remaining time reviewing and celebrating yourself/your life/the joy you took in living.
In this state, it would be impossible not to be as you have struggled to be, and found deep satisfaction in being. To continue just as you have been, to value as you have valued, is the greatest affirmation of yourself and your life you could make. To betray that would be like killing yourself, and worse. It would be killing yourself from that moment on, and retroactively killing everything you had lived for...
So, the point about respecting your "whole life," is germane in this sense. There would be nothing you could buy, no indulgences, etc. that might compare to the importance of being true to your self, to the very end.
Mindy
-
Are you suggesting that a person could have moral pride even though they abandoned moral principles and became rights violating savage toward the end of their life?
The context is this discussion, this thread. Everyone posting here agrees with the importance of morality. Exactly what consists in, in these specific conditions, is just what needs to be figured out.
When you say, "...even though they abandobned moral principles..." you are just assuming that the loan would be immoral. We are comparing reasons for believing that versus believing that it would be moral.
Mindy
-
It will be proof whether others admit your position is proved or not. Proving something, and proving it to someone else's satisfaction are two separate things.
Not only do you have to come up with the proof, you have to stand alone in your conviction that the point is proved. About one in ten million people actually wants to know when they are in the wrong.
Mindy
-
If I had very little left it would have been extremely important to me to live the whatever precious remaining I have left as the kind of human being I would be proud of. I would want to die with moral pride. Seems to me that you underestimate its value overall (I noticed you did not list it above along other virtues) and especially when life is limited. No value is higher than self-esteem - that fact is not affected by how much life you have left (I would argue the opposite - that it becomes more crucial when near the end of life)
It is easy to identify people who fully grasped Objectivism. They display "radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in values of both material and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself".
The question being debated is how morality, objectively, and on principle, applies to the sort of choices that remain to one when his death is predicted to be only months, etc., away. Your comment assumes an answer to that question, rather than proposing reasons why the question ought to be answered one way or the other.
So, for example, when you say, "I would want to die with moral pride," that is what everybody agrees on. But what that entails is the question we are trying to figure out.
Mindy
-
"Long range" means, plain and simply, "the integrated whole".
I would dispute this interpretation. Long-range considerations in morality exist because man's rational faculty makes prediction, forward-looking, and the planning based on those possible.
To farm or manufacture or voyage or marry, man has to consider how his actions will turn out long-range. (As much as possible.) Otherwise he is subject to "shooting himself in the foot:" acting in the short-range in a way that will cost dearly in thge long-term.
Ideally, an individual has always been forward-looking, and his past matches the present and likely future. Hopefully, he has led a morally-instructed life that becomes an integrated whole. To achieve that integrated whole it is necessary to live by principles throughout, it is necessary to live long-range. But the specific meaning of "long-range" is not "the integrated whole."
Mindy
-
There's no rule that says they must. Why do you think they are obliged? Why do you think they owe you anything?
Let's see...this is a forum for discussing ideas. It is not Nancy Pelosi's throne.
Mindy
-
Does it? Are you under the impression that I owe you an explanation?
Yes, as I said.
That said, I will share with you my reservations. There's an appearance by your participation in that book thread that you believe it is morally sound to misrepresent ones true intentions as long as its legalistically okay even when the other party is being honest and upfront with you. In that vein, I do not think I could trust you or your intentions in the capacity of a moderator.That's clearly a mis-statement of my several arguments in support of the actions of the OP. Are you deliberately mis-stating it, or are you unable to see the difference? Neither is a recommendation for being a moderator. So, my taking a position you disagree with, yet cannot argue successfully against, leads you judge ME as having a character flaw? And this is "uninterested behavior" for a moderator?
Mindy
-
Morality does not guarantee practical success - it guarantees success in living qua Man.
If one chooses one's actions based solely on what guarantees practical success, that's suggesting expediency of the moment. Tying back into the bookseller question, it's momentarily practical to buy a book, read it, and return it, despite no problem with the book, simply because the bookseller doesn't explicitly state in his book return policy that there must be a defect. It's a pragmatic action to gain the value of the book while exchanging nothing for it - but it's not a moral one.
I can make practical choices that ensure greater prosperity for my future, but if my choices compromise my integrity, even though I may prosper, my choices would not be moral choices.
What is moral is what is practical for the goal of living qua man. "Practicality" is not a dirty word.
Mindy
-
What has happened in the past is that if a moderator was personally involved in the dispute, if the violation is not blatantly obvious, is that they typically consulted the other mods and admins in the Moderators Forum before taking any action. They may recuse themselves entirely or simply act on the consensus arrived by the mods/admins. That said, I do not object to the proposal you guys are talking about becoming a formal practice.
I've seen two threads locked. One was closed with an explanation why. The other just got locked up. I think moderators ought to explain why they've locked a thread.
You are a moderator and you are strongly opposed to my being a moderator. Why? You chose to make your view public, so it would seem you ought to be willing to make your reasons public, doesn't it?
Mindy
-
See I like that. I enjoy not constantly "seeing the strings" as it were.
This is my favorite forum in large part because the mods here are just like any other active participant until they feel that something demands attention, in which case they tend to try to take care of it privately. While some things may tend to go off-topic slightly or get a little more personally heated than they do on other forums I find the quality of the experience to be improved, not diminished by the style of moderation that currently exists.
I don't get the relevance of your statement to what I said...?
Also, take a post that is just abusive of another person. It may have been "warned" or something, I have no way of knowing. So, how can I judge the wisdom and practices of the moderators?
Mindy
-
It is neither.
"It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code."
What you describe is pragmatism, unless I'm very much mistaken.
Why do we need guidance in making "choices and actions?" Because if they are the wrong ones, we are injured or reduced. Given our goal is living and prospering, and that we have to choose how to do so, the principles that guide our choices and actions are those that maximize our living and prospering, and what could be more practical than that?
Pragmatism doesn't own the concept, "practical."
Mindy
-
If you were to go to college first, could you get a technical position in the army, even some position that would enhance your education?
It's very difficult to deal with your family in this sort of situation. I suggest spending some time, with paper and pencil, writing down the underlying values that you share with your family and jewish society and Israel, such as: you are devoted to being a good person, you think Israel ought to be allowed to exist, you love your family...whatever is true. This way, when you talk with them, you can avoid (well, hopefully) the hysterical responses that by not going into the army you are opposing Israel as a nation, you are rejecting your family members, you have gone over to the devil, etc. Just as jews want to be allowed to live as they see fit, so you want to be able to live as you see fit.
Wish you the best in this.
Mindy
-
This is not an argument, and has no probative value. It is question-begging, and an attempt to intimidate.
Morality is not its own reward, it is a matter of practical success in life on the whole.
This is a confession, not an argument. I would argue that as one sees the end of his life coming, the whole of his being becomes more defined. To resort to scurrilous tactics would be a betrayal of his life, and disgusting to him. On the other hand, a person who can not factually look on their life as on the whole good, and who looks on death as unfair, might resort to such actions as acting out and self-pity.
The interesting question here is whether, nearing death, the long-range view that underlies morality doesn't become irrelevant. To "stand on principles" that consider long-range effects seems, on the face of it, (though it isn't, in fact) to become pointless.
Question-begging here. You are claiming what the Objectivist position is, in this specific situation, not defending your view of what it is. Also, smacks of intimidation again. "If you want to be an Objectivist, you must see the flaw I do."
Mindy
-
This is an Objectivist forum, no?
Strange to believe that our Objectivist moderators cannot be given the benefit of the doubt to behave objectively within the rules.
Not sure how much weight my opinion has, but for what it is worth for the reason stated above I am against formalizing that policy on principle.
That makes me think. I've never been warned or otherwise been subject to moderation. Why, then do at least two of our "objective" moderators judge me, in strong terms, to be unfit to be a moderator? There must, on the premise above, be objective reasons, I think those involved are obliged to explain their position.
Mindy
-
Personally, I'd like to see a policy change such that when a moderator is directly involved in a personality conflict with a user, that moderator isn't allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner with regards to that user. The conflict of interest should be readily apparent as to why disputes between users and moderators should be settled by any OTHER moderator than the one involved in the disputes.
Surely that is already the case. I agree that it is required. At the very least, any action a moderator takes should be reviewed by another moderator. In the ideal case, there is very high agreement among moderators as to when and what action should be taken. The work is reviewing the threads systematically with the intent to spot violations of the rules, No?
Mindy
-
In this house sale scenario, there is no divergence between the intent of the seller's proposal and the actions of the buyer. The seller of the house simply intends for someone else to buy it at the asking price. The buyer may think he's getting a ridiculously good deal, but he is not acting outside the intended nature of the sale.
In this scenario, despite the fact that the intent of the seller is most likely based on misguided notions of morality, it is still immoral for the buyer to deceive or fail to mention to the seller that this sale would not fit the original intentions of the seller.
The assumed intent of any seller is to get the maximum price for his goods, and if you assume the book-seller meant for people not to take returns on the OP's basis, you should equally assume that the home-seller meant to get as much as he could for the house.
I do not see that someone's elses's intentions are my obligation to enforce. I do not create a claim on others' actions just by stating my intentions. Notice that when a declarations page for some program or database one is accessing must be read and agreed to in order to get access, the user must overtly mark that he agrees.
The argument seems to be devolving to: any sensible bookseller would have added a clause such as, "return if the item proves unsatisfactory..." therefore, it is incumbent on the public to behave as if he had included that in his explicit return policy.
Doesn't that patronize the seller? I once bought a very nice necklace of hand-cut and polished rhodochrosite beads, at a sort of antiques/flea market. I paid twelve dollars for it, when it was probably worth ten to twenty times that much. The owners didn't know what it was, and thus, what it was worth. Was that immoral? I was very pleased with myself.
Mindy
-
Whether they ought to do so or not isn't actually relevant to the question at hand. That is specifically whether the OP may do so without abusing the book-seller.
If you were to re-word this so there is not a false alternative implied, that is, do not presume that there is one and only one moral choice ("the moral thing to do") I'll consider an answer.
Again, that either choice is moral does not entail that the choice is trivial, so, give me a specific question, and I'll consider it.
The same moral judgment doesn't always apply at every level of abstraction, to a given sort of action. What is moral for me might, in your case, not be moral. The question is not specific enough.
That question is redundant over a previous one.
My position includes that if the book-seller does not claim all the protections he might, it is not others' responsibility to protect him from himself.
I also think that you presume too much as to what is in the book-seller's best interests.
If someone puts their house up for sale, for a ridiculously low price, would you forego purchasing it, choosing instead to advise him as to what price he ought to be asking?
Mindy
-
I suggest that rather than people merely volunteering to be Mods, they should speak to the things they would like to be able to do as Mods on the forum. I think it would be great to have new moderators who bring new enthusiasm and new ideas. So, I'd be interested in what types of new ideas a prospective moderator would like to implement. Nothing detailed; even a couple of sentences along the lines of: "I'd like to see moderators do XYZ, and I'd like to volunteer to make it happen".
I'd like to see a forum in which moderators or rules helped point out when germane questions or arguments are left unanswered; and where previous discussions on the forum are referenced or summarized, so as to shed light on the current discussion--with the exception, possibly of "newly" newbie's questions.
I would like the formal rules to be up-to-date, and enforced, where possible, or modified.
Perhaps a buddy system for newcomers who want it, someone who knows how to work everything on the site, and, also, who can discuss why the newbie is getting different responses than they anticipated. Explain fallacies, give help with expressing themselves so as to get their point across, that sort of thing.
What about an overview of logical terms, fallacies, etc., as they are frequently seen here, though that would be a few pages of content, not a moderator function.
Other than two closed threads, I've never seen a moderator do anything. If moderators' actions (or some of them) were public, their presence and the reality of the rules would be believable.
Mindy
-
You said in the chatroom you were leaving, wanted your account deleted, and had no interest in staying here not long ago. Do you aspire to have a career as some sort of ninja? Either stay or leave but please do make up your mind. The fact that so many people on this board seem to have some sort of issue with you (which I cannot gleam merely from looking up your post history) suggests that there is likely a reason why you are not suitable for a moderator position, no disrespect intended. I mean I have gotten into some pretty heated arguments on sensitive subjects on here yet I have not managed to pull anywhere near the straight out disrespect that you seem to have been receiving from a handful of people on here, many of them individuals that I have intellectual respect for and that have been here for quite some time. All of them people that I (or anyone else from what I can tell) have not been able to stir up in any way near what you seem to have managed. I have been pondering whether or not the start of this thread had something to do with recent events regarding your desire to leave, in which case it would not be appropriate for you to apply for the position in any manner in the first place. That is all I have to say about this given by lack of knowledge given events that have occurred.
I don't know what you are talking about. I did not say I was leaving, or contemplating leaving. Nothing of the sort. I can't imagine what you are talking about. Could you identify the incident, so chat records could be checked?
No, I am not popular when I point out people's fallacies, etc. But that is a comment on them, not me. My posts are all extant. If you can't judge for yourself if I am knowledgeable and reasonable, it is a shame, but I stand by what I've written, and am willing to defend it.
This sort of thing is revealing as to what people value. I am surprised you, CapSwine, defer to your friends' opinions on a matter you can judge for yourself perfectly well. Of course, you and I did have that argument on chat...
If being a moderator is a matter of being popular, that's a different matter.
Mindy
-
Do not fall into the trap of applying quantum mechanics to philosophy. In the same vein, people often use the uncertainty principle as a way to validate the existence of free will. Scientific principles have no bearing on philosophy, as those very scientific principles are grounded on philosophic principles. Brian
The expression "those very scientific principles" is ambiguous, because "very" can be an adverb modifying "scientific" (as you read it) or as a deictic, meaning "same", analogous to "that very dog barked all night" (as I am morally certain Brian intended it).
Brian's quote clearly sets a context in which the ambiguity you point out is impossible. His meaning is perfectly clear, that scientific principles at large are what he refers to.
Mindy
-
You are not on subject. The subject is specifically a verbquote]Here is where you are making your mistake. al promise to pick up a friend by a certain time. The verbal promise to do someone a favor is the only thing at issue. You have to respond to this subject.
No, morality is not a subset of legality. Legal acts relate to the NIOF. That means legal issues are inter-personal. Morality is broader, as it includes those things and also intrapersonal considerations.
Speaking for myself, my nature is the same as the nature of man, both abstractly and concretely. Your distinction comes from where?
.That argument begs the question. It assumes there is a question of "should" besides the legal question. But that is pure assertion on your part. The thread is about whether or not there is wrong involved if he is legally within his rights.
Mindy
-
Well, I would be glad to illustrate what I believe to be the moral dimensions that extend beyond the legality of the action.
Every action that we take impacts our moral character.
In short, there are negative effects on his own life which extend beyond the legal status of his action, and this is the basis for an argument that in this scenario specifically, there are moral considerations outside the legal issues. He is not making this decision in a vacuum; he must consider its long-term effects on his life. In this scenario, they are most decidedly negative.
This is question-begging. You prove that there are moral aspects beyond the legal by saying his action is immoral, though legal. But that is what the debate is about. You can't just claim returning the books, within the store's policy is immoral. Doing what he is doing is not harmful to his character (so to speak) if it is not immoral. Whether or not it is immoral is the question the thread poses.
Mindy
-
Whatever identity the planet has, it can only be found out by beginning with perception. I repeat, any attempt to deduce facts from metaphysics is pure rationalism.
And would you then go outside the ship to try to perceive whether or not the law of identity held there? Or would you go out to collect data because you knew identity held, so that knowledge would be useful?
Mindy
Why should intuition and ad hoc reasoning submit to logic?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by Mindy
Truth is correspondence with the facts of reality. The facts of reality are the many ways entities' identities are manifest.
Logic is the discipline in thought of recognizing and respecting identity. A is A. All men are mortal, Socrates is a philosopher, therefore: nothing. The terms in a syllogism must be exactly the same, in order to preserve identity, to base our conclusions on identity, to know what's true.
There are hypotheses, suppositions, educated guesses, insights, etc. that serve us well in contexts beset by unknowns. They work by analogy, which is a partial pattern-matching. Being able to compare things in many specific respects is valuable in coping with the unknown. But, in all such situations, it is still fundamentally the same thing, logic and identity that is relied on. The unknowns (relevant unknowns, relevant to one's purpose) keep your thinking from fulfilling the criteria of valid induction or deduction, but that doesn't open the door to the arbitrary.
Mindy