talkObjectivism

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog In response to my own request for the discussion, for Show 089 Mosley and Arthur consider the question: How does one validate the objectivity of ethics, namely life as the standard and ultimate value, as opposed to a standard that is arbitrarily chosen? Topics include: the objectivity of ethics; life as the standard of value; two methods of approach on the issue; what gives rise to values; life as an end in itself; rational goals as dependent on the pursuit of life; subjectivism defined; ethical subjectivists and their arguments; the purpose of ethics; types of subjectivism; the relationship of happiness to ethics; what virtue is; the cardinal values and virtues; The Virtue of Selfishness & OPAR as useful resources; Objectivism & dogmatism; etc. There was no show on the following Sunday, December 28th, but there will be this Sunday, January 4th. We hope to see you there, and Happy New Year! Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog Because of technical difficulties with TalkShoe, Show 089 was relatively short. For the beginning of the show Mosley and caller joey23 discuss Newsweek’s interview with Dr. Yaron Brook on Objectivism and the economic crisis, noting its comments on Alan Greenspan, the mainstream publicity for Objectivism it offers, as well as its objectivity. Then, for the remainder of the show, they discuss the related issue of government regulation in the economy. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog On last week’s show on economic freedom, Mosley discussed a common argument against capitalism. The argument states that the capitalist assumes a mistaken view of human nature, namely, that given freedom, he will act morally. This led to the question, “Is man inherently good, evil, or neither?” that served as the main topic for this show. Topics include: Thomas Hobbes and the view of man as a brute; man as neither inherently good nor evil; the reward and motivation for choosing to be good; contradictions in the Hobbesian view and argument for government intervention; altruism as wrongfully assumed as standard for whether man is good; the good as in man’s interest, but remains his choice; charities in a capitalist society; government “charity”/welfare parallel to FDA and regulatory institutions; cultural shift required for capitalism to work; example of paying tips at restaurant; capitalism in theory vs. practice; activism and successful argumentation; etc. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog For this holiday weekend, Mosley hosts the show and discusses the issue of economic freedom in the context of today’s economic situation, with special focus on the auto industry. Topic include: government bailout of the auto industry; the expression “too big to fail”; “are we all socialists now?” and the socialist trend in America; “bailout” and “aid” as buzzwords; learn from mistakes, don’t appease them; the role of unions; the industrial revolution; connection between economic and political freedom; separation between state and economics; legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc.; possible topic for next show: is man inherently good? On the issue of being “too big to bail,” feel free to check out Alex Epstein’s article Too Big to Bail. Also related to the show, you can check out Yaron Brook’s article Are We All Socialists Now?. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog Back from his trip to Seattle, Mosley returns this week to host the show. After querying the chat room for show topics, he and Arthur decide to discuss the morality of gambling. Topics include: taking advantage of other people’s irrationality; gambling as not categorically immoral; gambling with false belief of luck vs. rational understanding or skill; gambling as possibly a form of rational recreation; gambling as skill or luck or combination of both; morality and responsibility of casino owners; analogy to bar owners and tobacco companies; fraud vs. asymmetric information; morality of card counting; stock markets and gambling; Arthur and Leonard Peikoff anecdote; playing the lotto. Also, for those interested in the relevant topic of addiction, feel free to check out Show 056 where that is discussed (mp3, iTunes). Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Michael from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog I had a discussion today with the editor of the paper for which I work. I had, days before, handed in a piece on an AIDS awareness event. Sections of my piece were taken and combined with another author’s piece in order to avoid the printing of some facts which I brought up in the original piece. Now, I understand why the piece was not run in its originality. It was not my best work and was written in a slight state of emotional flurry, and some of the information I highlighted in my account might have caused a backlash. I do not blame them for not running it, and was in fact surprised that they used even parts of it. Discussing this though, one editor commented that the piece I turned in was too “sensational” and another commented that I should not “sensationalize” things. The main editor did not say that I was unobjective in my reporting per se, but that I focused too much on one aspect. I then commented that we perhaps did not have the same understanding of “objective.” I told her that being objective meant being totally honest and truthful. She agreed, but with the caveat that one should be unbiased as well. This began my thinking; what exactly does it mean to be objective, and how does this effect the nature of thinking and with a more specific focus on the field of journalism? Objective means, quoting from the Merriam Webster Dictionary, “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” Bias means “an inclination of temperament or outlook ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.” Another definition listed for objective is; “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.” So then, it is possible, using those definitions, that a part of being objective is to be “unbiased.” But what do these terms mean when people use them today? Objective, using the provided definitions, can be perhaps rephrased as relation of facts without imparting value to your narrative. Is this how the term is used today? Today, unbiased is often related to telling a story without taking a side or without presenting any facts in a manner which could lead to or hint at judgement. Is this being objective though? The other definition of objective states “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.” Can an account be objective if certain facts are ignored or unstressed in the name of being unbiased? I do not think so. Now as to the event I attended as part of my job for the school paper; it was an AIDS awareness event sponsored by the Beacon of Light Baptist Church. This was by no means a secular event. In the first minutes of the ceremony the entire room broke out into dance and Gospel music. The guest-speaker, a gynecologist, told the audience half-way through her own presentation that AIDS was the Devil’s way of “taking us out.” Afterward an Evangelist came on and related how her husband had gotten AIDS by cheating on her with another man. She also related to the audience not to “go gay.” During the Question and Answer period the guest doctor stated that there was “no such thing as safe sex,” and then went on to make several unverified statements attacking the effectiveness of condom use. All of this information was cut from the final article. I was told my article was sensationalistic. What I was reporting was sensational. To be objective in this matter, it was not well written, and I perhaps did not take the greatest care in conveying these facts in a manner that did appear totally rational. I did make note of the valid scientific information presented, but this does not change the fact that the presentation was a religiously motivated and attempting to scare young African American women into religious abstinence with misinformation and mystic beliefs. I do not think that is objective in the least to ignore these facts at all, even in the name of being “unbiased” or “fair.” To be objective is to consider all the facts of reality, and, as a corollary, judging them and giving them value. To ignore certain facts in the name of being “unbiased” is to be dishonest. Just as you do not want to give facts that create a false image of an entity, you should not withhold information which would do the same. It perhaps is true that the man who reports should not hand judgement to those he reports to, but it is not his place to decide which facts should and should not be included solely on the basis of bias. Facts are facts and nothing can change that. Some facts are not essential, such as the ethnicity of the man the Evangelist’s husband slept with. Some facts, such as the rhetoric and obvious motivation of the assembly, are. Not making explicit judgement is part of the reporting process, but avoiding facts because they would lead to a negative judgement is not objective in the least. Was my article objective though? Looking it over now with a cool head, I feel that it is. It does not seem that sensationalistic looking at it now after several days have gone by. It could use some editing and touching up, I can see that now. One phrase does come across as perhaps condescending, although that is a honest mistake on my part and not an act of conscious malevolence. Ultimately, to be objective is to take in all facts of reality and integrate them, even those that would make people uncomfortable or angry. Anything less is simply evading the truth in part, and in whole. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Michael from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog I had a discussion today with the editor of the paper for which I work. I had, days before, handed in a piece on an AIDS awareness event. Sections of my piece were taken and combined with another author’s piece in order to avoid the printing of some facts which I brought up in the original piece. Now, I understand why the piece was not run in its originality. It was not my best work and was written in a slight state of emotional flurry, and some of the information I highlighted in my account might have caused a backlash. I do not blame them for not running it, and was in fact surprised that they used even parts of it. Discussing this though, one editor commented that the piece I turned in was too “sensational” and another commented that I should not “sensationalize” things. The main editor did not say that I was unobjective in my reporting per se, but that I focused too much on one aspect. I then commented that we perhaps did not have the same understanding of “objective.” I told her that being objective meant being totally honest and truthful. She agreed, but with the caveat that one should be unbiased as well. This began my thinking; what exactly does it mean to be objective, and how does this effect the nature of thinking and with a more specific focus on the field of journalism? Objective means, quoting from the Merriam Webster Dictionary, “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” Bias means “an inclination of temperament or outlook ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.” Another definition listed for objective is; “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.” So then, it is possible, using those definitions, that a part of being objective is to be “unbiased.” But what do these terms mean when people use them today? Objective, using the provided definitions, can be perhaps rephrased as relation of facts without imparting value to your narrative. Is this how the term is used today? Today, unbiased is often related to telling a story without taking a side or without presenting any facts in a manner which could lead to or hint at judgement. Is this being objective though? The other definition of objective states “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.” Can an account be objective if certain facts are ignored or unstressed in the name of being unbiased? I do not think so. Now as to the event I attended as part of my job for the school paper; it was an AIDS awareness event sponsored by the Beacon of Light Baptist Church. This was by no means a secular event. In the first minutes of the ceremony the entire room broke out into dance and Gospel music. The guest-speaker, a gynecologist, told the audience half-way through her own presentation that AIDS was the Devil’s way of “taking us out.” Afterward an Evangelist came on and related how her husband had gotten AIDS by cheating on her with another man. She also related to the audience not to “go gay.” During the Question and Answer period the guest doctor stated that there was “no such thing as safe sex,” and then went on to make several unverified statements attacking the effectiveness of condom use. All of this information was cut from the final article. I was told my article was sensationalistic. What I was reporting was sensational. To be objective in this matter, it was not well written, and I perhaps did not take the greatest care in conveying these facts in a manner that did appear totally rational. I did make note of the valid scientific information presented, but this does not change the fact that the presentation was a religiously motivated and attempting to scare young African American women into religious abstinence with misinformation and mystic beliefs. I do not think that is objective in the least to ignore these facts at all, even in the name of being “unbiased” or “fair.” To be objective is to consider all the facts of reality, and, as a corollary, judging them and giving them value. To ignore certain facts in the name of being “unbiased” is to be dishonest. Just as you do not want to give facts that create a false image of an entity, you should not withhold information which would do the same. It perhaps is true that the man who reports should not hand judgement to those he reports to, but it is not his place to decide which facts should and should not be included solely on the basis of bias. Facts are facts and nothing can change that. Some facts are not essential, such as the ethnicity of the man the Evangelist’s husband slept with. Some facts, such as the rhetoric and obvious motivation of the assembly, are. Not making explicit judgement is part of the reporting process, but avoiding facts because they would lead to a negative judgement is not objective in the least. Was my article objective though? Looking it over now with a cool head, I feel that it is. It does not seem that sensationalistic looking at it now after several days have gone by. It could use some editing and touching up, I can see that now. One phrase does come across as perhaps condescending, although that is a honest mistake on my part and not an act of conscious malevolence. Ultimately, to be objective is to take in all facts of reality and integrate them, even those that would make people uncomfortable or angry. Anything less is simply evading the truth in part, and in whole. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog The topic for Show 080 arose from a conversation between Mosley and regular listener iheartcells. Mosley made a comment about the status of homeless people, saying that they are lazy people who made bad decisions. iheartcells asked, “Are you sure that you have enough information to make that judgment?” In the show Mosley and Arthur discuss this. Topics in the show include: Mosley and iheartcell’s discussion; making unwarranted judgments; judgments as not just for the bad, but for the good; today’s negative connotation with judging others; different types of judgment; justice as a virtue of making rational judgments and acting accordingly; judgments as requiring rational standards; the need for and evaluation of evidence; judging friends; moral agnosticism; the morality of being overweight; making assumptions; the source of the need of rational judgment as self-preservation; praising the good as of primary importance; rash judgments; judgment applied to the financial crisis. In the end, Mosley concluded that he did not have enough information to make his judgment, with the understanding that judging others and making sure that one does so rationally is of crucial importance. On this topic, Ayn Rand said: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. To see more of what she had to say on this and other issues, feel free to check out The Ayn Rand Lexicon. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog These notes were written by a listener, Steve, who is a member of the talkObjectivism Facebook group. Is there something wrong with labor unions? Mosley questions the source of his dislike for unions: Maybe people have a right to collaborate in order to fight for their needs, higher wages, etc. When unions are in private companies, there is a ceiling to claims that unions can make. When the company can no longer make a profit, the union can’t keep demanding raises and benefits. (The current GM troubles are a good example of this). When unions are in government industries, there is no ceiling to the costs of demands, because the government (therefore the taxpayer) has an essentially bottomless pocket. One example of unions and related government/labor issues is the minimum wage. We discussed the alleged benefits of government mandated wages. While some claim these mandates benefit “the poor,” in fact they only benefit those who are already employed at some level above the minimum wage. When minimum wage levels are increased, the pool of capital available for labor has to be distributed among fewer people. This means people get laid-off, or at least not hired. Historically, every time the minimum wage has been increased, unemployment has gone up. Since the minimum wage keeps the unemployed from entering at the bottom of the economic ladder, it keeps unskilled laborers (who are willing to work for less) from competing with the more experienced, higher paid workers. A coalition of “bootleggers and Baptists” is formed. Those who honestly believe (however misguided) that wage increases benefit people are joined by the labor union elders who have a stake in protecting themselves from competition. Mosley goes on to explain the background of the Pittsburgh public port authority system, and rumors of a private system coming along. Steve calls in with the story of the Trans-Santiago bus system as told by Professor Mike Munger of Duke University, on the EconTalk podcast put out weekly by the Library of Economics and Liberty. The Chilean government municipalized what was once an open market of over 300 private bus companies. The bus market used to run in the black, about a $60 million dollar per year industry. After outlawing private buses and municipalizing the service, the government bus system is now about $600 million in the red. Arthur calls in to remind that in weighing any two “imperfect systems” there is a difference between a government system and a private system. Government systems tend to be stagnant, and can only be as good as the committee that engineers it. In a public system, the goods and services offered improve through a constant process of trying to satisfy the consumer. Arthur also points out that all goods have to be produced by someone, even when they are paid for by the government (the taxpayer). The government doesn’t produce - it can only redistribute the funds of those who do. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog Last week on Show 081 Mosley and Arthur began to discuss their views on the nature of volition. Arthur presented a perspective, as he cautioned, that may not be in complete coherence with the Objectivist position. Dr. Paul Hsieh, of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and the NoodleFood blog, wrote us an email that offers his views from an Objectivist perspective and indicates where he differs with Arthur. After review, Arthur still maintains his position, but believes that Paul brings up several important points which he proceeds to discuss. Topics include: TalkObjectivism blog and content; upcoming Objectivist events (see post below for more information); Paul’s email; choice and being able to do otherwise; the introspective evidence for volition; development of life compared to development of volition; volition and deliberation; determinism as an excuse; “could have done otherwise” as shorthand; determinism as necessary for understanding; genetic influences on behavior; what is under volitional control; sexual attractions; can choices be foreseen; volition and animals; consciousness as an action process; emotions; and much more. Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog For Halloween weekend, Mosley and Arthur discuss various relevant topics starting with the supernatural then moving on to Halloween and the significance of the various activities surrounding it. Toward the end of the show, they discuss the election, which is almost here. Being somewhat distracted in the chat room, I was not able to note all the topics, but they include: the supernatural; ghost stories for entertainment; philosophic significance of Halloween; dressing up and trick-or-treating; haunted houses; horror movies; fiction vs. non-fiction movies & TV shows; benevolent and malevolent universe premise; the election; Obama & religion; lesser of two evils; voting; and more. We hope you enjoyed the show and will see you next week! Re-posted from Meta-blog

By Mosley from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog We continued our discussion about Steve Ditko and how his Objectivist views shaped his artwork and career. Thanks to Javier Hernandez, we were able to get Blake Bell, the writer of the new book about Steve Ditko, and Mort Todd, who worked closely with Steve on several projects since the 1980s. This was a very interesting show. If you enjoyed last week’s show you are going to love this one. If you would like to learn more about Blake and his book, visit ditko.comics.org. His book Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko is out now and you can pick it up at Amazon.com. Todd Mort also has a few sites I would like to plug. Sadistik is a project where he translates Italian photo comics to English. You can also check out his media company at ComicFix.com. I would like to thank everyone that was on the show. It was a lot of fun and I look forward to talking with you again sometime. Re-posted from Meta-blog