[Nicomachean Ethics and more.]

I never understood philosophy until I read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." I had a couple philosophy courses in college, tried to read a few philosophers, and felt exactly as you describe.

The problem is the philosophers taught in philosophy courses today have such utterly flawed, and irrational philosophies that they have to write opaquely or it would be too easy to figure out they're full of sh**.

Read VOS, and all of Ayn Rand's works. Then read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - by Leonard Piekoff. Then start reading everything you can on logic, reasoning, and the fundamentals of philosophy (its structure, branches, and integration). Then go back and read OPAR.

That's what helped me.

[Selling illegal drugs]

You're still not understanding that quote. "an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgement" does not mean that both parties have to think they benefit from the exchange, even if they don't really benefit. It means that both parties have to actually benefit from the trade, and also realize it.

"Actually benefit from the trade" by who's standard?

[Selling illegal drugs]

What the drug dealer has to offer is self-destruction, and the customers of a drug dealer are profoundly irrational, not the virtuous men whom traders seek out. Self-destruction is not a rational value, it is the antithesis of value. Evading the reality of the product and the men you must deal with does not make such a career moral, because evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices.

I appreciate you going into depth on this, David. I just wonder about two aspects of the debate:

1) Are all customers of drug dealers irrational necessarily, or just the majority? Is it drug dependent (e.g. cancer users of marijuana are rational, but no meth user is rational)? Is it dependent upon the fact that the drugs themselves are illegal? And by this I don't mean they should be illegal, only the fact that they are illegal puts the user (and seller) at risk of a life in prison.

2) What of other products which can only result in self-destruction (e.g. tobacco)? Are these users also irrational and their sellers immoral? What about products a great many users abuse (e.g. high fat foods)? Would a moral man not sell a fatty cheeseburger to a fat man?

[Selling illegal drugs]

Keep in mind, I pointed out before that the drugs effects on it's users is not the only consideration in determining the morality of illegal drug sales, it just happens to be the only one this discussion has focused on.

Yes, I wasn't giving this aspect enough attention. Because even if a seller sells only small amounts to casual users, and somehow never had to concern himself with risks from the other criminals, he still runs the risk of being imprisoned. Living your life like a hunted animal is certainly not living like a man. Selling illegal drugs is immoral, regardless of the context.

Thank you, RationalBiker.

Then considering a full context of the fast food industry, would you care to make that case? Perhaps in a different thread? I see the context of selling food, even fast food, as different from selling illegal drugs.

*Edit* Given what I wrote above, I'm not sure I could do this. I'll have to think about it more.

What about cigarettes? Are they different from selling illegal drugs? Especially given the FDA has classified cigarettes as a drug, and has made some cigarettes illegal? I'm sure we can expect a criminal underworld to spring-up around these, and selling them puts one at risk of being imprisoned.

I think it is highly likely that David has a much more thorough and integrated understanding of Objectivism than I do. I'm presenting what I understand of the issue based on an application of my understanding of Objectivism. Also, not to say this is the case here, it is not unheard of that two people discuss the application of Objectivism's principle and still fail to agree on a common answer. That said, I think David and I are both arguing the Objectivist "position" (as it were), albeit from different perspectives.

I have great deal of respect for David. His posts are always logical. If two people fail to agree on a common answer to a logical problem, wouldn't that mean one of them is incorrect? It simply can't be the case that selling illegal drugs is objectively moral and objectively immoral.

Well, if that is the case (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that it is), then it is impossible NOT to deal with them in some aspect or another. However, you still have a choice in which aspect that you deal with them. Do you; a) sell them copies of the Bible and assist in furthering their irrational beliefs or; sell them copies of Atlas Shrugged in the hopes that you can get them to see reason?

I think this is the right answer. I can't see how the Trader Principle, and an objective morality, precludes a moral trader from trading with an immoral trader. As long as they both are allowed to independently determine their own self-interests for that trade, then the trade is moral. They may both be rational, both irrational, or one of each. But as long as they interact with each other "by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment," (AR) then the trade is moral.

It's not in my rational self-interests to sell illegal drugs, but I judge that independently. I can't see how it would not be in my self-interests to sell a lunchbox for $100,000, even if the prospective buyer is making an irrational decision. To argue something like, "Well, you don't want to live in a society of idiots and whim followers," can open up a whole range of arguments. "You should provide housing for the poor because it's not in your self-interests to live in a society of homeless." "You should pay for others' health care because it's not in your self-interests to live in a society of sick people." And on, and on, and on.

Well, that depends. How much is knowledge of you trade in your self-interest? Let's go back to the gun example. Although I have concern of government forced "background checks" on gun buyers, I think it would be a rational business practice on the part of the private seller to do it anyway. I think how exhaustive one must examine these things is contextual to the business and to the degree that the trader values knowledge of his chosen trade.

Okay.

[Selling illegal drugs]

Yes, to the extent that I know whether or not my actions are contributing to another person's vices or immorality, to the extent that I know that the occupation I've chosen is typically contributing to immorality and vices rather than being productive and contributing to virtuous actions. It would be a detriment to me, greater than the financial gain, to help the junkie population flourish, and by extension, the criminal and other damages caused by propagating that culture of behavior...That context it too broad for a useful answer. Maybe. By what other reasonable means could I have had KNOWLEDGE of his intention to use the gun in that way?...What is required of us is not to evade our knowledge, not to claim "plausible deniability" to facts and circumstances right in front of our face. How much effort one puts into seeking this knowledge when it is less obvious depends on how self-interested that person is regarding the endeavor they have chosen to pursue.

So, the knowledge I have, or can reasonably obtain. I don't need to perform some exhaustive investigation of the guy, right?

If I know, or suspect, the buyer of my product will use it immorally - in a way that destroys life - it would be immoral for me to sell it to him. Not because his actions are immoral, but because it is not in my rational self-interests to live in a world populated with those who would destroy life. To assume the junkie asking for a dime bag is a casual toker would be evasion. However, it is possible to sell only to those you know are only casual users.

I agree to all of this. The question seems to hinge on whether the casual user is objectively immoral. If he is then selling illegal drugs is immoral in all cases. Medical dosages of drugs, medically administered, are not considered illegal and would not come under this question. However, medical marijuana, though legal in some states, is still federally classified as illegal. One could be selling marijuana to cancer patients (for example) and I would not consider them immoral, but they would still be selling an illegal drug. I suppose cancer patients wouldn't be considered "casual users" though and therefore wouldn't come under this question. So we're back to the question of whether casual users are objectively immoral.

I haven't been discussing the context of selling cigarettes, big macs, or Taco Bell fajitas.

I understand that, but I'm trying to get to the principle. Cigarettes destroy lives regardless of the degree of use. Everyone who buys cigarettes is acting irrationally, they are using them to destroy life. I know that. Therefore, going by what you wrote above, it would be immoral of me to sell cigarettes. (The same analogy could be made for selling high-fat, cholesterol-laden food.)

Hmmm... maybe if I say it again... Have you forgotten that I have acknowedged at least once (well, twice now) that there may be exceptional cases?

Well, I understand it can be tedious, and I apologize and ask for your forgiveness. However, I have to be sure the anwers are explicit. When I've been accused of distorting "the Objectivist position," and of having some sort of irrational (by implication) philosophy called "JeffSism," I need to be sure who holds which position. Because I don't think David Odden agrees with your position. I think his argument is that selling illegal drugs is immoral whether it's to the pot-head stuck to the couch, or Johnny Once-a-week Toker. Which position is Objectivism, which is RationalBikerism, and which is David Oddenism?

I'm really just after the rational, logical, provable-through-objective-reality answer. I really don't care whose "ism" it is.

I think madkat makes an important distinction ... Selling the guy a sandwich is not catering to his vice, is not aiding in his self-destruction, and as a self-interested business venture, selling sandwiches in the vast majority of contexts is likely productive and virtuous.

You are conflating "knowingly catering to one's vices and furthering evil" into "doing business". The former is merely a subset of the latter. This may be the distinction that clears up possible miscommunication.

I agree madkat makes an important distinction. The only point of contention I can see though is that the vast majority of the population isn't simply immoral and irrational in certain respects, they're immoral and irrational at the core - their very philosophies are irrational. They might be able to function, but they are immoral. If the principle is: don't deal with immoral people, people you don't respect, then we shouldn't deal with them at all.

Is it not furthering evil to be a method by which irrational and immoral people continue their existence?

[Selling illegal drugs]

From Galt's Speech:

The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is

the trader

. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure,

which he receives from men he can respect

. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice....

I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.

I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear

.

We are surrounded by people who have surrendered their reason; people who are stupid, dishonest, and fearful. How can we morally deal with them?

[Selling illegal drugs]

I've said this several times before, but it bears repeating one more time; your morality depends on your KNOWLEDGE of another person acting rationally.

I agree. Are you obligated, to yourself, to your own morality, to determine whether the other person is acting rationally?

When you KNOW that the gun you are selling is going to be used to go shot up a school full of children, you can't just say "That will be $550 please" and sell the gun morally absolved of what the other person has told you he is going to do with the product you provided him.

You don't "know" anything other than the person has made a threat. If he tells you nothing, gets his gun, then kills someone, are you immoral for not discovering his real reason for wanting a gun?

Are cigarette sellers immoral?

By the observations and reasoning they use involving the facts of reality before their senses. That's what makes the morality objective.

So, it's not only possible, but required for us to know what is good for others?

Are you asking me a context-less question for which I have not made a general assertion? Are you confusing my argument with someone else's? Have you forgotten that I have acknowedged at least once that there may be exceptional cases?

Then you would agree selling illegal drugs can be moral?

Oh yes you did. When you say Obama is right about his ideas on healthcare you are saying he is right that everyone should be taxed to provide a government-based healthcare system. Inherent in that is forced taxation. That is very much a part of Obama's idea of what is right about a healthcare system.

Oh, no, I did not. I wrote nothing about Obama, or anyone, using force. I never wrote anything about being taxed. I used Obama because he's a person whom, it can be assumed, everyone here has heard the views of.

Again you assert an improper analogy, again confusing a "moral requirement to act" with a "moral requirement NOT to assist in another's immorality" or not to act.

Well, if the argument is one person's morality can determine the morality of another, it doesn't matter if we're discussing moral requirements to act, or not to act. If your morality determines my morality, then it determines my morality.

This is the argument I'm addressing:

Buyer: I want a lunchbox. I'll pay $100,000 for it.

Seller: That is not in your self-interests.

The argument is the seller is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are.

Me: I don't want to pay for some stranger's health care.

Obama: That is not in your self-interests.

If the conclusion of the former example - that the seller is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are - then the conclusion of the latter example should also be: Obama is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are.

If my morality says it's okay to rob people to get money in order to buy drugs from you, your morality says "That willl be $50 please." Your decision to do business with this person would be immoral. It is unjust to take the money from this man that has come at the expense of an innocent victim. Also remember I said "in a sense", not strictly determined. Your knowledge of his actions or intentions SHOULD be taken into account in your morality. You said your morality is independent of whatever his actions are as long as you serve your higher values. That is an example of the moral agnosticism about which Rand speaks.

The morality of the vast majority of people in the world says there is a Supreme Being in the sky and we should do whatever He says we should do. Is my decision to do business with these people immoral? The vast majority of people in the world believe it's okay to rob people at the point of a gun in order to get money to give to other people who do not have it. Is it immoral of me to do business with them?

I would proffer that in this particular instance you have somewhat limited knowledge and exposure to the illegal drug trade and all various facets that exist that make it thrive and the impact it has on people and communities. You probably don't have much exposure to drug dealers and users on say, a daily basis.

Absolutely.

I've spent the better part of 24 years around this culture and I've seen its huge destructive impact. While maybe misguided, I have this image in my head that you only see Johnny Toker sneaking the occasional joint to "help him relax".

No, I've seen the destruction it can wreak. Not as graphically as you, but I'm not naive. I've also seen the damage cigarettes and high-fat food can wreak. In terms of scope and breadth, these two products cause far more destruction. Is that the standard we're using - how much destruction the product causes?

I'm not exactly sure where you and I disagree, RationalBiker, but my argument all along has been context determines the immorality of selling illegal drugs. The arguments I've been contesting have been that selling illegal drugs is immoral regardless of context, that if it's immoral to sell illegal drugs to junkies, then it's also immoral to sell illegal drugs to Johnny Toker. I've also been arguing against an obligation, or even the possibility, of knowing what is in the self-interests of another and whether my morality hinges on that ability. Perhaps that is our only disagreement?

(JeffS wrote: If it were the case that dealing with immoral people makes one immoral, then we're all immoral because we all deal with immoral people - people who do not have an objective morality.) BTW, I've seen you do this several times and I'd like to point out that is it fallacious to argue that the consequence of something determines whether or not it is true or false.

This was brought up again above, but I wanted to address this point here. I'm not arguing the consequences of something determines whether or not it is true or false. I'm attempting to get at the underlying principle. Are we immoral if we deal with immoral people? That seems to be what you, and others, are arguing. If that's not it, then please explain.

JeffSism may be fine with that, but the morality of Objectivism would not be.../... You may personally have a difficult time with this, but some folks do not.../... Venture away....

What is the purpose of these statements? They really serve no function other than to stick little barbs in. If there's another function, I would like to know it. If not, perhaps we can try to keep little barbs out so we can have a rational discussion?

[Selling illegal drugs]

I can demonstrate its truth by reason, and if I were to fail, someone else here could help me out.

What "truth?" That there's an "Objectivist position?"

Are you willing to first understand Objectivist Epistemology, so that you understand the process of integration and concept formation which is the basis for all of Objectivism, the "means of reason" you mentioned?

So far, you have not even acknowledged a single mention of the means of reason behind our arguments. This is the first time you mentioned means of reason, and you still haven't begun to show that you understand what it is. Instead, you did nothing but misuse and misunderstand it, and never acknowledged the attempts to correct you.

If I'm as deficient in reason as you assert, then it should be easy for you to prove it. So far, you haven't.

Good for you, now all you have to do is convince me to join you in the immoral act of taking advantage of this buyer's irrationality. Good luck with that.

Why is the other buyer irrational? What do you know about him (or her) that I haven't provided?

You've nailed assumption down pat, Jake. You should move on to validating those assumptions with objective facts. Or would that be something the "Objectivist position" frowns on?

[Selling illegal drugs]

That is true, if you don't subscribe to Objectivist Ethics. But I can know that in the case of an Objectivist, because I can know reality, and a proper value system is based entirely on reality. What I do know about reality is that it would be irrational for a person to value a lunchbox over a significant portion of their wealth.

I have a buyer already lined up willing to pay $150k for the lunchbox. You can't possibly know the circumstances of my situation unless you want to babysit me. I determine what is in my rational self-interests, not you, as the Trader principle requires. There is nothing in the Trader principle which requires one to only deal with people who make rational decisions. If that were the case, very few of us could morally trade with each other.

[Selling illegal drugs]

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that even if you value Scooby-doo lunchboxes more than you value $100K, that still may not be in your rational self-interest, and that there may be facts available to another person which allow them to recognize that a person is not acting in their rational self-interest. Just because one values something does not mean that value is rational, objective or in one's self-interest.

Then wouldn't that mean my morality is dependent upon whether another acts rationally? Doesn't that require me, if I want to follow my moral code, to determine what is rational for another? If so, then that really puts morality at a disadvantage since so few people are rational. My value of Scooby-doo lunchboxes may not be rational, but it also may be. How can one trader, acting in their own, independently judged, self-interests determine what is in another's independently judged self-interests?

Your argument basically boils down to this; morality is subjective and not objective. In a system of objective morality, one person CAN (and should) determine if another person is actually acting in their own self-interest IF they have enough knowledge of the context.

Objective morality does have a certain degree of subjectivity. At its basest level, a man must first choose life. If life is chosen, he can only live as his nature, as a man, requires him to live in an objective reality. After that, he is free to choose his own value hierarchy while still remaining objectively moral. His value hierarchy is subjective; what comes below his own life and his own happiness is up to him.

If I value a joint every once in a while, and I know it won't reduce my ability to live life as a man, that it will actually increase my enjoyment of my life, then what can possibly be immoral in smoking? What is the underlying principle making illegal drugs immoral? Is it the fact that they are illegal? No, that's rightly discarded. Is it the drug itself? I suppose that's possible (I don't know all the drugs), but I would venture the vast majority of illegal drugs have some application where the drug serves life. What else is there? There's nothing in the nature of illegal drugs which make them immoral.

Their use may be immoral, but that's the case with every product known to man. If we're going to argue illegal drugs are immoral because some choose to use them to destroy their lives, then we'll have argue everything is immoral because some choose to use them to destroy their lives. If we're going to argue illegal drugs are immoral because most use them to destroy their lives, then that narrows the field a bit, but we'd still have to include things like cigarettes and Big Macs.

Are you talking in re Objectivism or in re JeffSism? According to Objectivism (in part) it is even if only being connected by the concept of justice.

Can you explain what you mean here? Even with the concept of justice, my morality won't change based upon your morality. If your morality says it's okay to take my property, my morality will remain steadfast in asserting it is not okay to take my property, and I can objectively prove it is not. I can still judge that you are objectively immoral, but your immorality doesn't make me immoral. If it were the case that dealing with immoral people makes one immoral, then we're all immoral because we all deal with immoral people - people who do not have an objective morality.

... you can and should given enough information in a given context, at least according to Objectivism. I pointed that out to you in that quote.

I've agreed with this from the beginning. Does the concept "illegal drugs" come with its own, built-in context? I've been arguing, "No, it does not." Yet it seems many believe it does.

This is another indication that you do not see the integration of Objectivism as a whole philosophy. Here you don't consider that according Objectivism the government does not have a right to rob us of our money in order to provide services inconsistent with a proper government.

I didn't bring in force at all. I fully understand the Objectivist stance on the use of force. My point was only that, using the logic that's been presented so far, Obama would be correct in asserting we have a moral obligation to provide others with healthcare (and whatever else he values more than human life). The argument used so far is that one's morality is dependent upon the choices, the values, of another. Well, Obama believes he's operating from a correct moral code, that he has the right values. To argue his morality determines my morality is to argue he would be correct in asserting I'm immoral; that his morality has just a much validity as mine. He's choosing my values for me, and labeling me immoral when I don't agree with him. If I can label a drug user, or a lunchbox buyer, as immoral simply because I would choose to do something else with the money, then I'm setting his values for him just as Obama is trying to set my values for me.

I think the main problem seems to be that you look at Objectivism as separate little pieces and do not see how they fit together as an integrated whole, i.e. the trader principle is separate from objective morality and our obligation to judge others, the Trader Principle is separate from the concept of justice, Objective ethics is separate from proper government functions, etc.

I don't see that at all. What I love about Objectivism is its integrated nature. It needs some work to become even more integrated (a thorough ontology would help), but it's the greatest advance in philosophy for perhaps thousands of years precisely because it is so integrated and Rand didn't shy away from addressing the questions which other philosophers brushed aside, leading to their disjointed and convoluted philosophies.

Hmm, that's what Objectivist's are supposed to do as well. Interesting that you present a false dichotomy between Objectivism and the use of logic and reason. Referring someone to read a particular piece of work is not telling the to parrot anything. You are making the assumption that just because someone may agree with Objectivism that they did not process what they read through a critical evaluation and come to their own independent agreement with what the material. That's a pretty common mistake though so you are not alone.

Which is why I don't call myself an Objectivist. I don't call myself anything except a human being; a label that includes everything necessary to impart how I interact with the world - through logic and reason. I don't make the assumption that all who call themselves Objectivists are mindless parrots. In fact, I came to this board with the assumption that the majority of posters would be rational, logical thinkers. Jake implies there's some "Objectivist position," some party line that needs to be presented, and anything contrary to that "position" is a misrepresentation of Objectivism. I like to believe it's exactly as Ms. Rand said, "... you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason."

There is no "Objectivist position." There is only logic and reason. Any assertion that such a thing exists is to parrot conclusions.

[Selling illegal drugs]

1). The following statements contradict Objectivism.

In these, you are simply refusing to acknowledge (or you are not aware of) Objectivist Ethics:

Where, in Objectivist ethics, is the argument that one's morality is dependent upon another's decisions laid out? And please try to wrap your head around the fact that I'm not arguing we should not judge what is moral for ALL men, nor am I arguing we shouldn't judge what is moral for any one man. As I've pointed out time and time again, I'm arguing we cannot, and are under no moral obligation to, judge what is in another's self-interests. To presume so is to presume we can structure their values for them. How do you know I don't value Scooby-doo lunchboxes more than I value $100k? The answer is: you don't, you can't possibly, and you're under no obligation to do so. Your morality is not dependent upon my morality. If it does, then Obama has it right and health care is a moral obligation because he can structure our values so that others are more important than ourselves.

Here, you are beginning to ignore Objectivist Epistemology, namely concept formation, by calling an application of Rand's method of forming concepts (differentiation and integrastion, etc.), arbitrary, and then proceeding to ignore it completely. I have seen no evidence that you understand, even partially and in practice, how to properly define abstract concepts. You are constantly rationalizing and context-dropping instead:

What reasoning allows one to assert: Using cocaine is misuse? (Hint: Pay careful attention to sentence structure.)

Here, you deny the existence of the trader principle, and continue to claim the refusal to pass moral judgement as a virtue:

Neither accusations are true, and thus not proved by the text you quoted. I'll ask again: Where does Objectivist literature lay out the argument that one's morality is dependent upon the decisions of others?

And now, the statement that denies the very essence of Objectivist Ethics, it being objective and based on one specific reality:

Where, in the Trader principle, or anything written by accepted scholarly experts of Objectivism, is it demonstrated that one trader must judge what is in the best moral interests of the other. How does the statement, "The seller can't judge what is best for the buyer, only what is best for himself," deny objectivity or one specific reality? Does the only reality we have enable us to innately know each others' values?

Indeed, morality and rights cannot be juxtaposed. This alone is enough proof that you don't understand the basics of Objectivism:

Hmmm, that's interesting.

"A 'right'is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context."

"'Rights' are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics."

- Ayn Rand

And finally, you are continuing to not realize the difference between a properly defined concept and rare instances of it that are atypical and omitted in the process of concept formation, in accordance with some very specific methods Ayn Rand defines in her Epistemology:

I've acknowledged, continuously and from the beginning, that there are typical and atypical instances of illegal drug selling. Since the question I was addressing was: "In what way is drug selling moral?" I provided ways in which drug selling, even illegal drug selling, is moral. As with any product, selling illegal drugs is moral if it serves a moral purpose. The OP did not place constraints upon his question, so I answered in that vein.

What's really funny is you want to claim the "typical" use of drugs makes their sale immoral, therefore the proper answer to the OP's question is: selling illegal drugs is immoral. You then throw out "atypical" uses of drugs and decree them moral with no more justification than, "it just relaxes and cheers me up. Moderate ammounts don't do more than moderate ammounts of alcohol, and there are fewer side effects (loss of balance, hangover, plus alcohol sometimes makes my stomach hurt)." Which amounts to, "It makes me happy and doesn't make me feel as bad as other drugs." Your logic equates to no more than, "Selling illegal drugs is immoral, but selling illegal drugs is moral." You then have the temerity to accuse me of ignoring typical and atypical uses, then lecture me on proper Objectivist principles. Yeah, that's a real Objectivist for you - finds his happiness in the bottom of a bong and bases his conclusions upon his feelings.

Finally, I would like to know the reference in Objectivist literature with the assertion that any part of a concept can be omitted in its formation. I'm not talking about simple differentiation, because that's not what you're asserting. You're asserting that we can ignore characteristics of a concept simply because there are only a few cases of the concept having those characteristics.

The Conceptual Common Denominator in the concept "illegal drugs" is not "causes people to destroy their lives." Nor is it: "drugs Jake thinks are okay and takes." The CCD in "illegal drugs" is: drugs outlawed by the state. It says nothing about use, amount, effect, or anything you want to ascribe to it.

2). Yes, you did claim to be an Objectivist, and you did hijack a thread in which someone was trying to learn about Objectivism, under false pretenses, claiming all the nonsense above is the Objectivist position:

A flippant remark for a ridiculous assertion that recieved more than it was worth. If you truly believe the Trader principle dictates one must only deal with those who do not practice evasion, then that precludes the vast majority of the population as trading partners since the vast majority of the population practice evasion. A point you predictably ignored.

For the record, I am not an Objectivist. I prefer to use reason and logic to find answers to my questions rather than simply parrot someone else's conclusions. Since you're so good at the latter, I'll be glad to recognize you as the High Priest of "the Objectivist Position." If this forum were for "the Objectivist position," then every thread would be two posts long and end with, "Read the works of Ayn Rand."

P.S. All the above is not what bothered me, I am wrong quite often, so is almost everyone here, about many things in Objectivism. What bothered me is the fact that you became offended because people corrected you, instead of considering their arguments more carefully.

I did not become offended at all. I considered everyone's arguments and responded to them civily; which is something completely beyond you.

[Parents and Children]

green1706 -

You might want to check out http://www.olist.com/ogrownups. It's a group for parents with mostly Objectivist members. You'd probably get a lot of good ideas by posting to that group.

[Selling illegal drugs]

I already answered that, in this thread.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=230444

No, you didn't answer it directly, and referencing it again won't change that. But I'll take your answer to be, "No, selling illegal drugs is not immoral, at least, when someone is selling illegal drugs to me. If they're not selling a drug I take, then it's immoral."

Doesn't matter if it's marijuana or meth, Jake, it's still an illegal drug.

To the question: "Is it immoral to sell illegal drugs?" the proper answer is: "It depends. It could be moral. It could provide people with something they value, that serves their lives. It could help them to live longer and happier lives." Yet, when I give that answer I get roasted and accused of playing "word games." Interesting. I suppose I've broken some unwritten rule here at OO.

Your refusal to read other people's posts is becoming tiring. Stop hijacking threads with nonsense, please. There are at least half a dozen things you said in this thread, that are antithetical to Objectivism, and yet you're claiming to be an Objectivist, and answering people's questions as an Objectivist.

I've read your posts, among many others. Without any evidence whatsoever you accuse me of not doing so. What's really becoming tiring is your inability to engage people without believing you know everything, then hurling ad hominem attacks at them when they prove you do not.

When you have evidence of me: 1) writing anything antithetical to Objectivism in this thread, or 2) claiming to be an Objectivist, or 3) answering people's questions as an Objectivist I'll be eager to see it.

Learn about concept formation, and definitions, please, before you answer people's questions while claiming to be an Objectivist.

Gee, thanks for the advice, Omniscient One. While you're compiling the evidence above, perhaps you can find the evidence of my misapplication of the concept "context."

Learn the limits of your own understanding before someone else airs them out for you. It'll save you, and them, a great deal of time.

[Selling illegal drugs]

In what context?

Nah, ah... I wasn't allowed to bring context into the discussion. Neither should you.

In other news, selling flavored cigarettes is now immoral.

[Selling illegal drugs]

"ways in which drug selling was moral" makes no sense, as an answer to the question "In what way is drug selling moral?". (David asked for an explanation, using the singular way applied to the concept "drug selling" -which denotes said activity -, not the plural "ways" denoting instances of the concept "drug selling". )

Let's, for a second, replace the concept "drug selling" with the concept "man" (meaning "human being", as Rand defined it), and the attribute "moral with "retarded":

If David asked "In what way is man retarded?", you would've answered: Well, ways in which man is retarded are: Bill, he's retarded, Rosie, she's retarded, etc. I gave you numerous ways in which man was (why the past tense, btw?) retarded, so we're done here: Man is retarded, I answered your question.

It's nothing more than word play, basically, based on ignoring the difference between "in what way" and " ways in which", and between a concept and rare instances of it.

Is selling illegal drugs immoral, Jake?

[Selling illegal drugs]

I provided you with a starting ground with that quote. It said nothing about being your brother's keeper and was in fact in the book titled The Virtue of Selfishness. I'm going to suggest at this point that if you really have an interest in understanding that issue further, that you might want to read some of Rand's books, namely the one I quoted.

I've read it four times. You're correct - it says nothing about being your brother's keeper. Thus my confusion as to why others would suggest we should be.

Just understand that you can't take the Trader Principle out of Objectivism (if in fact that is the particular Trader Principle you are referring to) and leave the rest behind and claim the trader principle does not include what is spelled out in other parts of the work. Objecitivism as a philosophy is an integrated whole and you can't represent accurately that this or that is consistent with Objectivism unless the whole representation is consistent.

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I don't know where we've disagreed in your reply to me.

Take care.

Thank you. You as well.

[Selling illegal drugs]

You don't seem to understand the proper role of definitions in the Objectivist epistemology. When in fact a man lacks the ability to reason, we do not conclude -- contrary to fact -- that he is not a man. We conclude that he is a broken unit. Under your approach, the nature of man is subservient to and ever determined by our ideas about man. All you have to do, if you have a problematic man, is to define him out of existence. Your definition of terrorism is simply wrong: terrorism is the act of destruction for the purpose of creating terror. I don't know what definition of terrorism you're operating with, but clearly desparate acts of terrorism by the slaves of the North Korean dictatorship would not be evil for doing whatever they could to reclaim their lives. Theirs would be a self-defensive use of terrorism. So, it is false that men can always reason, regardless of context; it is false that terrorism is always evil, regardless of context. These statements are usually true -- in normal contexts they are true, and they are untrue only in marginal contexts.

The point, which it seems that you failed to grasp, is that the context of ordinary existence does not need to be explicitly spelled out every time someone makes a statement. When you want to ask about an abnormal context, such as a person who illegally supplies marijuana for sick people, then you have to ask about that context. When you don't ask about that context, we will rightfully assume that you are asking about normal circumstances, not marginal cases.

David, you began your participation in this thread by asking, "In what way is drug selling moral?" I provided ways in which drug selling was moral. You, yourself, provided a way in which drug selling, even illegal drug selling, was moral.

I've written all I care to. Thanks for the discussion.

[Selling illegal drugs]

Here you are questioning why you should care about what happens to the buyer of your products as long as selling them serves your highest value even when you KNOW he/she is being self-destructive (immoral).

So which is it? Do you agree with me or do you think you have no moral culpability in selling to a user you know is being self-destructive?

That's a difficult question, and I tried to reason through it after the part where your quote of me leaves off.

I agree it would be immoral to sell to someone whom you know is only using your product to kill themselves, but not for the reasons that have been implied so far. The reasons given so far seem to imply we have an obligation to keep track of our fellow Men, to be "champions of humanity." As if we are our brother's keepers. If Objectivism has proved we are, I would like to see the proof.

My argument against selling to such a person is based purely self-interested grounds: if you kill all your customers, your long-term success is doomed. That's no way to live and thrive. It's not for any decisions your customers make, it's the decision you make for yourself - to live long-term as a Man.

The arguments have been going off on different tangents, and one of those tangents was the trader principle. I argue the trader principle says nothing about one party judging what is in the moral interests of the other party (beyond determining that a market exists for his product). Sellers do not have to judge what is in the moral self-interests of buyers, and buyers do not need to judge what is in the moral self-interests of sellers. In fact, I argue that to do so goes directly contrary to the trader principle.

I'm not sure how you would quantify that, but I'm going to claim based on my experience that that is the exception in pretty much all illegal drugs except possibly marijuana. In particular, when you talk about drugs like Heroin, Cocaine (particularly crack), and Crystal Meth, the TYPICAL user is going to be the self-destructive sort who is ruining their lives. As the seller, the evidence would be plainly before your eyes every time a junkie walked up to make a buy. That is why I say the seller is responsible for knowing the TYPICAL usage and effect the drug has regarding his customers. Objectivism (and just as importantly the concept of Justice) is not about plausible deniability as a means to evade responsibility and morality, you should make yourself away of the business you are getting into, and not ignore the obvious evidence that is in front of you.

Again, you're adding context. Most of the population will die from heart disease caused, in no small degree, by the food they eat. Eaters of all food who are not practicing self-destructive behaviour are the exception. Since the "typical user" of red meat will ruin their lives by eating at Burger King, should we deem all sellers of Whoppers to be immoral? Is it the responsibility of all who sell food to determine whether their customer is going to eat themselves into a heart attack before making a decision to sell them dinner? As a seller, the evidence is plainly before their eyes, and they have overwhelming statistics to support their decision to refuse service. Morally, shouldn't they?

Of course not. We expect people to have the self-restraint necessary to control their food intake, yet, in the majority, they do not. Why do we not expect the same from those who choose drugs?

And I that doesn't even touch on the risks associated with the illegal drug business that has nothing to do with the drugs effects on its users.

I think this is a good point, and could be a fatal flaw in my logic. Here, intrinsic in the concept "illegal drugs" is the fact that they are illegal. The seller runs the risk of getting put in jail, getting killed, having his property stolen - definitely none of it good for living as a Man. But what does that say about any risky behaviour? The man who highly values adrenaline rushes, should he abstain from jumping out of airplanes because he could die an early death? Should he not race cars because a fatal crash is a heightened possibility?

In an objective world, this wouldn't be an issue because no drug would be illegal, free market principles would prevail, and the government would protect your property. But in our current reality, I admit that it's a problem.

[Selling illegal drugs]

That is like saying that the claim "Man can reason" or "oxygen is a gas" cannot be judged as true or not, without context. You logic leads to the conclusion that statements such as "terrorism is evil" cannot be judged as true or false without further context. Yes, there are exceptional contexts and marginal cases, and if you want to address an exceptional context you can do so by saying "terrorism is evil, except in this context...".

I disagree. Two of your examples are not similar to my statement. In your examples of "Man can reason," and "terrorism is evil" the context is already included due to the definitions of each term. Man (so capitalized) is defined as a rational animal - he reasons. Regardless of context, "Man can reason" is true. Although definitions of terrorism vary, they all include some component of initiative force. As such, terrorism is evil (immoral) by definition.

There is nothing inherent in illegal drugs, nothing that by their nature - contained within the definition of "illegal drugs," which makes illegal drugs immoral regardless of context. "Illegal drugs" does not automatically come with the characteristic that their use, or sale, or even their very existence, is immoral. It is their misuse, when they are used antagonistic to life, where their immorality lies.

Your other example of oxygen is a perfect example of this. Without context, oxygen is not a gas. Oxygen is a gas within a certain temperature range, but it also may be a liquid, or a solid, or even a plasma depending upon the temperature. Were your statement "oxygen is a gas at room temperature," then you're back to providing context and its context is included with the definition.

That same line would hold that being a prudent predator can be moral when doing so serves your life and your happiness. You can construct the sentence -- you just can't point to the concretes that instantiate the claim.

A prudent predator of other humans? I can point to a great many concretes to show how being a prudent predator of humans cannot be moral, and I'd begin where Ms. Rand began. Again, your example bears no similarity to my argument.

If my statement is false, then why did you write:

Suppose that you are put in an untenable position because of existing immoral laws -- you were convicted of possession. Industrial concern over drug convictions -- zero-tolerance policies by employers -- are predominantly manufactured by the government. As an untalented youth, that means you cannot get a job as a clerk at Lowe's, regardless of your current grasp of the foolishness of drug use. When the government prevents you from existing any other way besides being a dope peddler, of course it is moral to exist rather than to die.

If selling illegal drugs is immoral, regardless of context, why did you provide a context in which selling illegal drugs is moral?

[Selling illegal drugs]

Once you have judged that a man's actions are immoral, justice would dictate that you not further them by enabling them with trade (in the case of the topic at hand; drugs). You'll notice her concern as well for "culture" eroding, as it is (generally speaking) in one's rational self-interest to live in rational, stable culture. By enabling a junkie (that you know is being self-destructive), you contribute indirectly to all the junkie does to feed his habit.

I agree. However, you're adding context not present in the original question; you're adding a junkie that I know is being self-destructive. Does Objectivist ethics require I determine whether my buyer is a junkie bent on self-destruction before I sell to him? Does the trader principle require me to judge whether my product is in the self-interests of the buyer? Do either preclude me from selling (assuming I wish to remain moral) if I judge the buyer is making a choice not conducive to his life and happiness?

The OP's question is: Is selling illegal drugs immoral? Without context (is the buyer using your product to kill himself, or others?) we can't say. There is nothing inherently, sans context, immoral in selling illegal drugs. The characteristic of being illegal does not make the act immoral - since illegality is an arbitrary classification imposed by the state. The characteristic of being harmful in certain dosages does not make the act immoral - since all drugs, in the correct dosages, can help to prolong life and ease physical suffering. As David pointed out, even selling illegal drugs to people who are clearly destroying their lives can be the moral choice given the proper context.

As with all products, selling illegal drugs can be moral when doing so serves your life and your happiness. Not the short-term goals of a hedonist, but the long-term goals of a human being.

[Selling illegal drugs]

No. Why would you ask me to? What's that got to do with anything? I can't point you to any obligations to determine anything, exccept not evade what's already been determined (like the fact that injecting crack into yourself is immoral). I can point to that.

I don't know why you'd bring up any obligation to determine things. This is the first time the phrase popped up in the thread, so you must not be reading my posts carefully enough.

I'm asking you to so I can read for myself the logic that leads one to believe they must judge what is good for someone else in order to be moral. If I choose a particularly morality, am I not obligated to myself to follow that morality? If, as a seller, I can't be moral unless I judge what is good for my buyer, and I want to be moral, doesn't that obligate me to myself to judge what is good for my buyer - regardless of how they independently judge their own values?

And the quotes you gave all say that morality has to be chosen, not forced on someone. They don't back up your claim that morality is subjective (meaning whatever is moral for a person depends on their opinion), at all.

I never made the claim that morality is subjective. Please point out where I did so I can correct it.

I've claimed, from the beginning, the trader principle does not require either party to determine what is good for the other party in order to remain moral. I've also claimed that Objectivist ethics does not require anyone to judge what is good others in order to be moral.

Ayn Rand never said whatever morality anyone choses is the right one, and everyone has to go around pretending that crackheads must know what's good for them better than anyone else. She said that morality is objective, determined through rational means. The fact that it has to be chosen, or that it is relative to context, in no way contradicts that fact, and has very little to do with this fact: shooting crack is immoral, according to Ayn Rand's objective moral code, and anyone who understands that moral code knows this fact, and should judge those who do shoot up, as immoral. This is knowledge everyone shuold already have. Claiming that you would need to somehow determine it, and you can't be obligated to do so, is obvious refusal to think, not refusal to go out of your way to find anything out.

Well, I'm thinking pretty hard, and it's still not very clear.

In one sentence you claim: "The fact that... [morality] is relative to context, in no way contradicts that fact [that morality is objective]." You follow with this phrase: "... and has very little to do with this fact: shooting crack is immoral..." Since you provide no context, the only valid conclusion is that shooting crack is immoral regardless of context. Shooting crack is immoral and not relative to context.

I would like to know how you arrived there. Which is it? Is morality relative to context, or is shooting crack immoral regardless of context? If both are true, is it because shooting crack deserves some special consideration divorced of context? If so, why does shooting crack get this special consideration? Does marijuana get the same consideration, or does its morality depend upon context?

[Selling illegal drugs]

The irrational is never the moral. You may have the right to be irrational, but it is never moral to be irrational.

Agreed.

It is. Ethics is (among other things) the craft of determining what is in an individual's self-interest.

Determining what is in another's self-interests?

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work."

"Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life."

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a “moral commandment” is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed."

"A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly."

I find no reference to an obligation to determine another's self-interests. Can you point me to the correct reference?

However, I can never enforce my own judgment on others, because that would never be in this other person's self interest. People need to have their own values, exercise their own free will, by nature. That is why, using force to impose reason, could not possibly help a person, only harm them, even if the thing being enforced is what they should should choose for themselves.

Agreed.

[Selling illegal drugs]

This is a pretty profound confusing of the concepts of "morality" and "rights". The irrational is never moral. Is that news to you?

Uhhh, no, it is not news to me. I'm not sure what your point is. What have I profoundly confused? Are you arguing morality and rights cannot be juxtaposed as I did - that there is no such thing as a moral right? Because that's what I wrote: "You have a moral right to choose not to sell to me..." The adjective "moral" is being used to describe the noun "right," not the word "irrational." Is that what you're arguing against? That moral cannot be used to describe rights?

Or, rather, are you arguing that reasons cannot be irrational? Because that's the second clause of my sentence: "... for any reason you want to come up with; even irrational ones." "Irrational" is being used to describe the pronoun "ones," which replaces its referent "reasons."

Have I broken some Objectivist code, or something?

[Selling illegal drugs]

It depends. If all you have is that money, and you can't give me a good reason why you want it, then I'll assume you are mentally impaired, and I'll refuse to take your money. But if you're a millionaire looking to satisfy some silly whim, then sure, I don't have any reason to think this would hurt you, so I'd take the money.

How is this not indicative of you determining what is in my self-interests? Do Objective ethics require you to first judge what is in my best interests before acting?

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand you have the moral right to refuse to sell to me for any reason you want to come up with; even irrational ones. But that doesn't seem to be your argument. You seem to be acting as the rational intermediary between my desires and my wallet.

Perhaps you mean to argue it wouldn't be in your self-interests to sell to me because you'd feel guilty for supposedly taking advantage of me. However, that doesn't avoid the fact that you're judging my interests for me. If we return to the relevant quote, the exchange never happens because you are using unilateral judgment to determine what benefits me.

It has nothing to do with legality, in fact the trader principle is not restricted to drugs at all. Making a career out of trade that is not beneficial to both sides is an immoral choice.

Why would anyone freely trade if they felt it were not beneficial to them? You're making a judgment about what is beneficial for those you sell to, you're not allowing them the freedom to determine what is in their own self-interests. I don't see how the trader principle requires either party to determine what is in the interests of the other. In fact, I think it's quite clear that each party must independently judge what is in their own self-interests.

I don't think occasional pot smoking is immoral, no. It really doesn't change my thoughts on anything, it just relaxes and cheers me up. Moderate ammounts don't do more than moderate ammounts of alcohol, and there are fewer side effects (loss of balance, hangover, plus alcohol sometimes makes my stomach hurt)

Though I don't smoke it, I have, and I agree it's not immoral. Is your dealer immoral for selling to you? Why, or why not?

No, it doesn't put anyone off limits to an Objectivist.

You wrote: "A trader should choose to not deal with people who's independent judgment is obviously wrong (such as a drug addict who decides drugs are good for him), but only with the people who's judgment he can assume is not built on evasion."

So, you must believe the judgment of the vast majority of the population is not built on evasion.

Considering the vast majority of the population believes in some sort of supreme being, how can you maintain both of the above statements?

How do I determine if cocaine is harmful to any random person? By integrating pertinent facts about cocaine and its effects on other humans who used it before, and using my mind to draw a conclusion. Basically, I determine it the same way I determine that a speeding truck will likely kill a person, if they step in front of it. Not through magic, just by thinking.

Well, you've added some context for your speeding truck example, but no context was provided for the cocaine. Are you arguing you can determine cocaine is harmful to any random person because cocaine is harmful in all contexts?

[Selling illegal drugs]

There is nothing that says it is irrational or wrong to pursue short-term business options.

One could make the claim they were selling drugs in the short term to procure funds for a more viable long term plan which would negate the longevity of prospects argument.

My argument would only apply to choosing to sell illegal drugs as a career.

It is also negated by the fact that you expect consumer attrition regardless of how that occurs- be it moving away, loss of income, loss of interest, aging factors or yes, even death. It is an absolute that every customer of every business is going to die.

Certainly, but one could expect far greater attrition selling a product that kills it users. Would your long-term interests be served by serving only alcoholics? Even if you turned every person in the country into an alcoholic, eventually you would have no more customers because they'd all be dead.

I'm not ignoring "by their own independent judgment", you're ignoring "an exchange which benefits both parties", and are claiming that they are mutually exclusive, since a trader can't know what's good for their trading partner.

No, Jake, I'm not ignoring it. Nor did I argue you were ignoring the prepositional phrase. I'm calling attention to it as you called attention to what you believed was the salient part of the quote.

Traders should only deal with people who agree to a deal "by their own independent judgment". However, they don't have to deal with everyone, no matter what their judgment. A trader should choose to not deal with people who's independent judgment is obviously wrong (such as a drug addict who decides drugs are good for him), but only with the people who's judgment he can assume is not built on evasion.

Well, that really puts the vast majority of the population morally off limits to us Objectivists, doesn't it?

It is ridiculous to say that I can't judge whether cocaine is good or bad for a person. I can, so can everyone with half a brain.

Really? How do you determine this?

Whoever says cocaine is good for them, you should know better, and refuse to deal with them. Not lie to yourself, and say "oh well, I guess if he buys cocaine from me, it must be good for him, who am I to know that it's not".

Let's suppose I really want a Scooby-Doo lunchbox. I mean, I want it bad. You just happen to have one - beat up, stuffed in a forgotten part of your garage - but I want it anyway. I offer you $100,000 for it - a sum clearly off the scale of how much you think it is worth. Would you refuse to sell it to me? If not, why not?

Do you use illegal drugs, Jake? If so, are you immoral? Is your dealer?

Right, but from the get-go, the benefits of medical marijuana have been acknowledged here. The questionable morality is limited to recreational use.

Medical marijuana is still illegal. If you're going to argue selling medical marijuana is moral, then you're arguing selling illegal drugs is moral. As to recreational use, what is the difference between having a drink after work and smoking a joint after work?