Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

chuff

Regulars
  • Posts

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by chuff

  1. At the risk of oversimplifying, it appears this decision acknowledges the legal principle that the States have final authority over their own election laws (as they do over any other state laws that do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as well as over the interpretations of their own constitutions).

  2. On 7/12/2022 at 8:07 PM, freestyle said:

     

    Also, oppressor and/or oppression is another English word for this concept which is not inherent to selfishness.  

    I would steer clear of the 'oppressor' language, both because it has other political connotations, and because there is no real power dynamic in either of the situations OP raises.

    Sacrificing others to oneself seems like the best description. (Thanks @Doug Morris) Maybe there are even other ways of seeing these kinds of actions as wrong?:

    > The woman is not paying attention to the task at hand, she is making others dependent on her, she is blocking their freedom of movement unnecessarily, she is placing the lower value of applying makeup above the higher value of getting where she's going, she is endangering herself and the rights of others by stopping her car on an open motorway... (there may also be things leading up to this situation that were irrational/unethical: Why is she doing her makeup in the car?)

  3. Sorry to double-post.

    An interesting article by Elan Journo related to the recent diplomatic history of the USA and North Korea has the reader concluding that withdrawing foreign aid is a huge step in the right direction, especially to unsavory characters. Indeed, it looks like the ARI's criticism (and Rand's own, actually) of the UN involves primarily its acceptance of anyone and moral failings in not standing up or any kind of principle and conceding to bullying behaviors, essentially begging would-be aggressors not to do so and offering to pay them not to. The response that seems more appropriate to such is to simply work to remove the offenders from the relationship, withdraw one's support, or even one's membership in an organization that accepts such behavior. Such a context makes withdrawal from the UN an attractive option for America's interests.

  4. For instance: on the question of whether our government has the "right" to depose foreign governments, and presumably the right also to subsequently install those we consider sympathetic to us (viz. Allende, Mossadegh, historical examples abound), is there a cogent way to approach this question within the Objectivist framework?

    My first thought is that an Objectivist-based argument would have us deliberating over whether it is in the "national interest" or not, which is nothing more than the composition of the individual interests of American individuals...? How is that measured, and where does that get us?

    My second is that it may instead sound like this: the American government, since it can do nothing other than that which is prescribed as proper, should just voice opposition or support but commit nothing apart from our verbal sanction (in either sense of the word, respectively) except in the case that Americans' lives, liberty, or property are in peril or threatened. (I understand that the lack of privately owned land renders this somewhat less straightforward a question in terms of property being invaded).

    I am confused about the proper method to even go about answering these sorts of questions (intergovernmental relations), much less the answers themselves!

  5. I want to open a discussion among the members of this forum about international relations.

    The Peikoff.com podcasts have a category for foreign policy, but it is currently empty. Aside from the published work of John David Lewis in the Objective Standard, I have not seen much about an approach to international relations that reflects the philosophy of Objectivism. Rand elaborated on some current events of the time, and her general attitude toward the UN (similar to her approach to the Libertarian Party, her critique being their philosophically groundless nature) is evident. (A separate forum for "international politics" has more to do with events in other countries than with theory of how a country's government should act in the international system). Most of the contemporary theory I've seen, including that of Lewis, has almost always to do with the right that our government has to protect its citizens or defend it from foreign invasion or attack (an extrapolation, it seems, from the individual's right to self-defense). I am interested, however, as a student of IR, in the other ways in which nations can interact. It seems that an Objectivist theory would be nearer to Liberalism than anything else, although I would like to see this developed further.

    Thus I would like to incorporate or see incorporated the philosophical grounding of Objectivism in international affairs and diplomacy between nations (by nations, I of course mean governments). In order to do this, I have tried to apply the more fundamental branch of ethics, and have only found a way to do so by comparing countries' governments to relations between individuals.

    So the central question of this thread is, is it proper to extrapolate relations between individuals to relations between governments?

  6. Short answer: No.

    The key word here I think is proud. My being American is not an achievement of my own, therefore I have neither right nor reason to take pride in it.

    To say sincerely that "I am proud to be an American," what I would really mean is "I am pleased to live here" or "I am proud to be associated with the achievements of America's founders," for example. But no, even with the common dictionary definition I don't think it fits for my context. I can only imagine that a refugee from under a much more authoritarian state who gained censorship could be proud of becoming an American. I've been an American since day one, by no effort of my own.

  7. I knew there was a great quote somewhere for when I heard this same observation in terms of why Einsteins are not as well paid as Lady Gaga's and the like. This helped me and I hope you find it applicable, Designer:

    "The free market represents the social application of an objective theory of values. Since values are to be discovered by man’s mind, men must be free to discover them—to think, to study, to translate their knowledge into physical form, to offer their products for trade, to judge them, and to choose, be it material goods or ideas, a loaf of bread [, a conditioner containing diamond dust] or a philosophical treatise. Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests. Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men’s ultimate arbiter: if a man’s judgment is right, the rewards are his [I paid for this product for a purported benefit to me that is true/exists! yay me!]; if it is wrong, he is his only victim. [I paid for this product for a purported benefit to me that is false/does not serve my rational interests! if I am smart I will not make similar choices in the future]" (emphases and brackets mine) -- Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p24

    In other words, in a free society, the only ones harmed by foolish purchases are the fools that purchase them. Ways to stop these occurrences include education, campaigns, and other things someone more creative as well as deeply concerned about poor consumer behavior in the cosmetic market could come up with.

  8. After rereading this topic it appears my approach to estimations of people as good or evil was flawed in that it was steeped in intrinsicism. In my question and responses I was divorcing value from valuer. "Of value to whom or what," to paraphrase Rand.

    There isn't an "evil" or "good" separate from my estimation of people or actions as such.

    Another idea about value judgments for people I have is that my estimation of a fellow man as good or evil is founded on which he represents. The actions of dictators represent evil actions that are done to me though they may not directly affect me. I've only just begun this train of thought.

    It seems this would be a way to further objectify "good" and "evil" as conceptual labels for individuals, as softwareNerd pointed out: While it would be nonsensical to say that my own rational interest is not served by, say, historical figures who died long ago, it would be perfectly rational to say that in my readings of history I can conceptualize of men as good or evil to designate which value they represented, were he to be in my own context.

    Thoughts?

  9. Good question.

    Satanism holds that man needs reason to survive. It holds that you have certain needs that need to be fulfilled and that claiming them to be evil is - well, evil. They think that you have to live on earth by reason.

    But he thinks that man needs some sort of dogma and since reason is opposed to dogma, reason alone doesn't suffice. So he invented his own dogma/religion based on what he calls "self-worship" as some sort of shield against christianity and anyone who thinks that self-sacrifice is a good idea. To get some position in the satanic church he has founded, you must have made it in the real world first. You must be already successful to actually become a satanic priest.

    But as far as I have read about him, he started believing in his own inventions. He claimed that he had put a curse on someone and that this was the reason this man died in a car accident.

    LaVey read Ayn Rand before writing that. He was not impressed with it standing alone, and took on and included "Might Is Right" by a Ragnar Redbeard. LaVey's plagiarism from her and other sources is well established; after a search for it you should be able to find examples of line-by-line borrowings.

    Another part of it was that he found that people respond on a profound level to symbols, which is what made him believe so strongly that rituals were required.

×
×
  • Create New...