Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. Fair enough, and so am I predisposed to sympathy with taking this into account on passing sentence. IF - it were not for hate crime's partner (in crime), "hate speech". Now, it appears, freedom of speech can itself be a crime, which can make a criminal of anybody and so, slippery slopes. The freedom to think, evaluate and have responding emotions such as hate, and to express it verbally is an implicit individual right, fundamental to the concept of rights. Never of course to act physically on such emotion against anyone, as 'emotionalists', by definition, presume one can't avoid doing.
  2. Yes, but once proven to be of malicious intent -- i.e., a "crime" -- what next? The punishment. That's the stage I was emphasizing. (It has to be said that all "crimes" presuppose a "criminal", presupposing one who acts with deliberate, malicious intent (outside of the borderline areas, e.g., gross negligence, as you rightly state) against a victim's property and/or body). After proof, the punishment, separating which is the whole point and I am on board with Gus Van Horn that considerations of "hate" crime must be eradicated when applied to the judgment, sentencing etc., of culprits. We have seen this concept disastrously at work for a while, it has only exacerbated irrationality, hatred and prejudices, it has been destructive to people's inter-relations and honest flow of ideas, promoting 'self-censorship' or other mind controls, in generally decent individuals. "Hate crime" seems legally similar to double indemnity, adding a charge of arbitrary or supposed (mind) malice on top of a charge of real, criminal "malicious intent". Hate crime begins a slide towards the non-objective rule of men not rule of law, also and above all.
  3. And hooray for Henry! Except, do you think China abides by his and Mises' principles of laissez-faire? Nope - while certainly the Chinese have studied in depth all the schools of economics in order to turn them to advantage against the West. What I roughly call Penetrate and Absorb, their "100 year" strategy I picked up from some working contact with one of the China mega-industries launched in SA and many other parts of Africa. Introducing Hazlitt in this context is something like bringing the principles and discipline of chess and a Grandmaster to a no-limit poker game with cutthroat players ...;) international trade is what it is, after prolonged undermining of capitalism by all governments, and it's a hard wheeler-dealer like Trump I think you need for now.
  4. You'll have to quote it for me, I haven't seen an O'ist definition of force refer to or include "proof of intention". The *motive* for a crime is a matter for the police and courts, in the process of proving guilt.
  5. The crime is enough, and once proven is sufficiently self-evident of the criminal's frame of mind. No one, especially not the government, can be charged with the responsibility of reading the contents of a person's mind and his emotions, guilt, hatred, remorse (genuine or pretended) are superfluous to Law. The action itself, and personal volition and accountability have to be the only criteria for Justice and for that we need defined, unvarying, objective punishments fitting the crime - applying "extenuating circumstances", most circumspectly.
  6. A "bad deal", I'm telling ya! A trading 'partner' who is consistently profiting more out of the deal than oneself, what's that but a self-sacrifice? The spectacle too of the EU threatening to tax Levi's etc. in response to steel tariffs, is laughable. One has to admire the effrontery of leftist-statist countries playing the free and fair trade card.
  7. Eiuol, Could you be specific on his immoral acts, please? All in all, I think Trump has been making of himself a lightning-rod, so drawing and exposing what and who IS irrational and "immoral". I think there is method in his madness. I won't be surprised (if and then) a lot of ills which have been allowed to simmer beneath the surface, will vanish in light of day. The divisiveness in society, for starters. (And his "shithole" comment has had some Africans admitting the truth in it, owning up to reality, so to speak). "Just for fun" was a rhetorical query I made, not expecting to be taken seriously. I do not think at all he is mainly in this for the enjoyment, the power, the money or the glory. We shall see. In a year or so President Trump's initial motivation will be clearer - and most critically, we will observe some end results: on the state a. of America b. the rest of the world. I undertake to eat humble pie here if I find myself in the wrong.
  8. I've thought about your clear position carefully and it just doesn't gel with me. What you describe in the excerpt above was Trump shrewdly taking advantage of a situation. A ready-made electorate, to use towards his power. Well, you've described what every politician dreams of! Therefore Trump simply climbed into the opportunity and has done no wrong, politically - he simply climbed in. Like a politician. But obviously I don't subscribe to that skeptical view of his motives. There are too many aspects (his palpable dislike for the ideology and policies of the previous administration, for one) which indicate he is driven by his own ideas and personal values. His selfless/selfish value to open opportunities for the unemployed desperate to work. Out merely to please his voters? Nope, I don't think so. Since he's criticised intellectually, I make the claim one doesn't have to be 'an intellectual', being an observant realist with high standards is enough. The body of "whiny whites" who hadn't evolved with the times, is your other premise. There's too much too unbundle about blue-collar workers and their nature and possible self-stagnation, the essentiality or not of a healthy and expanding manufacturing sector of a country, the controls and regulations from Washington which can and will limit the workers' opportunities - and how much bureaucrats and intellectual elites may have deliberately stifled some industries and jobs, and so on I won't touch. That's your field of expertise. But - as the saying goes, "the worm turns". In politics, one ignores and sidelines a sector of a populace at one's peril. A lesson learned for those who consider themselves part of any elitist group, arrogantly above the bourgeoisie. As far as whining goes ... It so happened during the period of Obama's terms of Office, I followed the articles, etc., and many other sources, like friends who've long emigrated to the US, and I received the feedback and major impression that, despite feeling they'd been alienated from their country, most conservatives were quietly, almost stoically, resigned to a sense of powerlessness. Without bitterness, I heard from a few some respectful talk of "our President Obama". Fast forward, to the hysterical frenzy responding to Trump. Who has ever seen seen such vitriol, uttered so continuously after any US election in the past, I haven't and I go back many elections. The responses today bear no resemblance to any reaction the conservatives may have been blamed for before; not on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark. The absence of character and self-respect displayed now by the losing Democrats and others, and those out to 'get Trump', headlined daily on CNN backed with the BBC, serves as a telling contrast to the predominant dignity of conservatives. But to return to the point I began with here. When I noticed the same puzzling hate phenomenon in other places by people like British and South Africans, (anti-haters, naturally...)who have no personal connection to nor vested interest in the USA, I began to ask myself why. These people all act like kids who've lost their toys, but it cannot be only about the loss of political power, there has to be more. Power implies control, control to do what, over whom? I began here with the comment on altruism which interestingly has been overlooked, and which Objectivists ought to be familiar with and concerned about: Known here, politics is the consequence of moral principles, not the cause and can't only be debated out of that context. Behind the progressive left, is the altruist dogma - accurately, altruism-collectivism-egalitarianism (and "emotionalism", to round off with). But the principle requires political power to enforce - and the self-sacrifice of enough people who willingly acquiesce. Keep it short, this doctrine we know is the Left's religion, its church, the State (and to some, the 'Global State') and that alone simply explains to me the fervor and vilification by its -worshippers- that erupted when the growth of their international religion was interrupted and interfered with by Trump, the apostate. There is not much more I can discuss to add to my confirmed view. One comes at these complicated issues on many levels, inductively, from observation, past experience, thinking and many assessments - and "facts" are many. Which facts have greater value/disvalue, can be discussed endlessly. Evaluating the morals, motives and character of a key player is another rabbit hole. You can only make the judgment based on your comprehensive "view". I don't have insight or prescience into Trump (as no one has either) but my view is a highly positive, a-skeptical one of the president (while aware of his 'style' ,'aesthetic' and personality imperfections) which is in opposition to other views here. Avoiding the wrangling, I'll leave it at that.
  9. You quoted her not I, I used that now notorious word, non-specifically, since I'm not interested in Clinton. Her statement, once quoted is then fair game, to be analyzed by anyone for "truth value" - and her "half of Trump's supporters" was clearly untrue and pertinent to this debate. Don't be so coy about naming the fallacy, once upon a time I studied Latin, yes, in darkest Africa wouldja believe? Read or not read me, I won't be acceding to your suggestion anyway.
  10. Rather ironic and disingenuous that, coming from la Clinton. On her watch, racism, etc.,etc. only grew worse. Trump inherited all that, and certainly took initial advantage of "-phobias". While he didn't make the usual soothing noises to satisfy the people a politician is adept at, I doubt strongly he's phobic about any 'group'. "Half" of his supporters, I think is a total fabrication by her. On the fringes of Trump's supporters are the worst of the right, ("fellow travelers" who should be shunned by conservatives) - as there exists the worst of the Left (who number a larger, noisier and more powerfully connected "fringe", I have the impression, not positive). The Progressives have shrewdly made much of Trump's support into 'Fascists' and bigots, concealing their own left-fascist policies. (And knowingly creating further divisions). I'll have to consider your prediction about Trump accomplishing what a career pol can't. Interesting. I think the "self-sufficiency" and self-responsibility - or independence - for individuals and country is implicit in most of what he says and does. One can question the methods he uses (protectionism) but output, performance and good earnings are the prerequisite for an individual's pride, and counter the welfare state. As much as I oppose pragmatism there are worse philosophies (if one can call it that). Just more conjecture, but I've wondered if the way forwards might necessitate a turn back, into and by way of American pragmatism, which then gradually could be augmented, this time, with proper principles to achieve laissez-faire, limited govt., and full individual rights - but, anyhow and for sure - the Left will never, ever implement these principles. Amused, sadly, at your comment about "socialist business" leaders. Yes, that I've been noticing. Pretty much an effect of postmodernist influence, I guess
  11. Looking to politicians for principles. Maybe sometimes, in difficult times like these, but a doubtful premise. It seems I set a lower bar. Having the space and freedom for each of us to live by his own principles is the only non-negotiable expectation. How about, rather, looking for politicos to say what they mean to do, and do -exactly - what they say? (Within Constitutional, congressional, etc. limitations). That suffices for liberty lovers. I believe part of the tizzy the world is undergoing about Trump stems from exactly this fact: he is *not* a politician, he doesn't fit any pattern, as has been complacently accepted by westerners' prolonged statism (just consider all the years of compromising and secret deals which politicians had to make, to have gotten anywhere). Contrarily, President Trump obviously lies his ass off on the lesser things, simply to confound his meanest opponents (or does anyone believe, just for the fun of it?) and so keeps himself highly "visible" -- in order to get his job done. He noticeably has kept largely to his word on 'the main thing'. While, most politicians, forever aware of their superficial media and public image of 'candor' or 'honesty', turn that right around, and lie or are deceitful on the big things. The "main thing" I think is that Trump plainly saw the need for a country and its every citizen (yes, with his eye mostly on the conservatives, the "deplorables", and his electorate - but all would gain) to return to former levels of self-reliance, self-esteem and independence, only achieved by being productive, earning a living, looking after one's own values. One does not have to be a reasoning philosopher to come to a certain conclusion. A man who has moved everywhere and heard from many, many people, from the corridors of power to dying factory towns, only needs to be deeply aware and thoughtful about all he sees, in order to be quite "intellectual" enough, to see, to identify the problem, assess its causes, and decide on a solution. Is the president not plainly acting towards that goal of a great America? A goal which inevitably requires less government interference, ultimately. A goal which has to entail individualism, "rugged" -as it may be. Collectivism, and people splitting from each other by "group identity" - along every fracture line, possible, and a few never heard of before - and insidiously promoted by many governments, is the modern sickness existing where I am and in every place. The USA is one place in the front line, whom the rest of the world watches to see what idea "wins". (It's as if, I speculate, being built originally upon "an idea", unlike any other nation, also makes America vulnerable to every bad idea which arrives). I don't know if Trump's aim and ensuing acts and methods - as I can best evaluate him and them - can be called "self-less", s'nerd, by any meaning. I think it's most necessary to mentally isolate character from personality with all individuals, since it happens a not very likable personality sometimes goes with qualities of character (or the reverse); for we Oi'sts, you know, virtues of character are predominantly for one's own benefit and purposes, though secondly, of advantage to others around. But if Trump helps create a future and potential ~greater~ value which he believes make his efforts worthwhile, non-self-sacrificial, his goal could well be most rationally selfish. Not having knowledge of government procedures, is also what can be seen in a positive light. Let's have more industrialists and businessmen become presidents and PM's in the world. They are able to balance their books, will answer to shareholders and make a profit, at least, all of which bureaucrats are inept at - and know from the inside the dirty tricks govt. and business in cahoots get up to...
  12. This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . . A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if hechooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices. (Had to make sure I wasn't misleading anyone about altruism. From the Lexicon, Intro: VOS. Sorry about the formating.
  13. Well, "heroism", no (it's early days...) I wasn't suggesting anything such, and in case anyone thinks so, I don't see him as a rational egoist, either! Although I can spot some Objectivist virtues in him (productiveness, honesty, pride, purpose). My main point was he utterly believes in his mission and its good. And unlike nearly all politicians after power, he didn't have to curry favor, make backroom deals, sell out his principles, and so on, to run for Office. ("Independence", no?) I tend to think that Trump came to the White House expecting and ready for the fight of his life, and as a streetwise tactician from a tough real estate world, preempted his opponents and hit em first. We all know he wouldn't have got an easy ride, from Democrats and the media, no matter how diplomatic and gracious he may have been to them. And I'm thinking that respectability has its limits. Who is doing the "respecting", and if it is the snooty, intellectual, leftist/socialist 'elite', who needs it? I don't mean you, obviously. However, if partisan politics and the Press hadn't been so viciously, inexplicably, undemocratically anti-Trump, I feel he would be running things with a lot more presidential graciousness and a lighter hand.
  14. To go to your last, first: As you know, sNerd, the lone wolf (predator) is as much altruist - sacrificing others to himself - as those who self-sacrifice. The other side of the altruist coin, I think Rand named this. For the grand stage of America, there would seem to be no getting to "there" from "here", overnight. That's going to take a large mindset change from the population, I think not by electing the 'right' president. In the interim, I've long been in favor of an American government looking critically at your nation's role in the world. It is an injustice for the American taxpayer to meekly foot the bill for other nations mistakes, corrupt practices, and in the end, as ever, lack of value in themselves. Past time for a complete 'reset' I think, in terms of aid, alliances, trade treaties, moral support - and military interventions. BUT not - to cancel everything outright, please understand, but to review the reality of where US actions are beneficial, useful, wasteful, creating dependence, rationally moral, reciprocated (or, at least accepted with appreciation). The very mention of Trump's to withdraw aid, etc. has been sending shockwaves through some countries and institutions, nominated by him or not. One way or other, each is taking a look at themselves and individuals are realizing their addictive dependence upon the USA's munificence-- and *perhaps* beginning to plan to go it alone and find their own sovereign pride and independence. There's no better outcome than helping someone get on their feet after a disaster (etc.) --and then leaving them alone. (Don't bet against the president not understanding this.) On "intervention", I believe the biggest of false dichotomies, is American "interventionism vs. Isolationism". The world prospers and does better with a morally, financially, not to mention, militarily, strong America - while America has to stay fully involved with the world and trade (in its people's self-interest). Even foes of your country look to it and up to it as a standard, in a twisted way. While those of us who look to you as examples of rational, free values continue to do. I think you find I am anything but catering to a jingoistic "good for my/your country and damn the rest". If nationalism and the extreme Right grows in the USA, it will be a danger. But I see that as improbable, and you aren't there yet, while I see the Left and hard Left as a greater, immediate threat to you there, as it is generally to the West and western values. As for an individual so a nation, it's clear to me only the strong and independent can afford to be (and choose to be) gentle and generous. My view (as a long, if not always uncritical admiring observer) is the US has become morally weakened in recent decades by inroads from the Left. Get strong again with Trump for now. Hopefully the regulative state will downsize, (but you'll know much better than I). Then issues e.g. immigration will sort out themselves.
  15. President Trump's popularist appeal (and his antics), serves a principled purpose - and I am positive it is a purpose he believes in 100%. After he became president, he could easily have turned into Mr. Nice Guy and gone along to get along - if personal popularity for its own sake was in the least important to him. He hasn't changed much from campaign days, I gather. I suggest to not be fooled by the front he puts on (in his volatile nature, not always calculated - sure) and even there, he firmly has the big picture and a pre-eminent value in mind, over his personal image. I find myself in a strange reversal - as with those who argue with me (quite nastily) about Trump in my country (as though there isn't a bad enough situation here to concern themselves about) - since unlike most of them, I have always been somewhat/very cynical about all politicians, 'leaders' and generally, the cult of personality, but in this instance I am uncynical. I believe this businessman turned national leader and leader of the free world, has a forthright vision of the self-interested good of the US, (and by secondary consequence, other nations) - he *means* it. Who can honestly negate this objective? But his vision is misperceived as self-aggrandisement and power lust. And along with some of his policies and fickleness at times, what one might disagree with is ~the way~ he goes about things, but displaying "style", warm feelings and the "good intention" for the public's appetite are trivial compared with character, actions and results. The altruist Lefties I hear from can't stand listening to this very thing. Raw as is his personality, character qualities Trump has plenty of, unfashionable as it has become to mention within the Left, and clearly he recognises (and prefers to deal with) those who also have integrity (or don't).
  16. "Buffoon"? Who cares how he comes across - and although of another nationality, I care very much about America's future direction and particularly its moral stance. When Trump says of something, "That's a bad deal!" - what does that say? A bad deal is surely when you get less out of something than what you've put in. In other words, losing a greater value for a lesser; In short, self-sacrificial altruism. Why, I can't understand, has this central aspect never been picked up (that I've seen) by Objectivists? For whatever his (very likely), businesslike pragmatism, your president has one overall principle, and that's to pull back the USA from further descent into its dutiful sacrificial altruism, which all other nations have taken as 'a given' for so long. Make no bones about it, beneath the enraged/scornful opposition (we get here too from our self-righteous Left-liberals) they ~know~ what's going on. No one will mention, or always explicitly understand, the basic ideology at stake, but this unbelievable, unceasing opposition to Trump, especially the hatred seen from the loathsome CNN, can't be taken any other way. It shows me their fear, and that a threat to their altruism is implicit in whatever they're doing. Like I say, what do I care about what he says, or acts like. We are feeling his shakeup in many places in the world, all to the better.
  17. In answer to your last question -- And how! It helps to get well acquainted with the credo when you see it in action and word every day (in some form, coercive, psychological, tacit, etc.). It must be much the same over in the US or anywhere in the West, that I've seen. Maybe, a little more rawly open and entitled here. Not that he 'invented' it, apart from naming this "altruism", but it was Comte who identified the phenomenon--and gave it further moral credibility as you know. I'm paraphrasing, but his justification was that each person, 'you', come into the world to a ready-made civilization and all the benefits of that. Therefore, it seemed to his logic, millions of people before you had worked towards your ends (a totally mystical premise). From that, he concluded, to sustain that society and its good, every child born, immediately has an automatic duty to continue the labor for "others". He literally wrote that about newborns, I saw in some passage. Not - of course - that "altruism" is put to anyone so explicitly and blatantly. The real premise remains implicit and insidious, under the cover of "good works", or what most would do - naturally - out of their chosen, identified values, when seeing the plight of anyone else perceived to be in distress. IOW, altruism takes what's generous and good-willed in people and perverts it against them, in the name of moral duty for all time and for all-comers. You'll see there is where "dependency" comes in, in my argument. (Not "inter-dependency", btw). "You" and your present life was the product of, and so, dependent on others - "You didn't build that!" - now others (here and in future) are dependent on you. To break the vicious dependency cycle only requires one person who states : "No". His life is his own, and he neither needs others' help nor accepts the obligation to live for others in turn - i.e. - the independent man, in mind, actions and values. Sure, there's most definitely "not enough" of the independent type. Many might believe there is something wrong and enslaving with the burden of self-sacrifice vs. other-sacrifice which societies place upon them, but haven't the intellectual ammunition to fight it. They just go along with everyone else, afraid of looking 'selfish'. To complete the toxic brew, collectivism and altruism link closely. Collectivism, as in each one derives his identity from and makes as his standard of value, the collective, race, 'group' -etc.. Here, the "opposite and enemy" of collectivism is of course individualism. That arrives at these two opposing diametric axes: independence-individualism versus altruism-collectivism. Again I think the latter, anti-freedom immorality can be broken with a resurgence by an intellectual minority, asserting that each individual's life and mind and well-being is (self-evidently) autonomous, therefore morally his own.
  18. Really good work from you guys. As for 'objective value' in the minor things like taste preferences which are sometimes considered "subjective", I think of it exactly as in the manner in which one gains knowledge of facts from the senses, to the percepts, to identifications, integrations, to evaluations of facts - and so on. All the senses contribute to knowledge, bottom up, in one's cognition - equally, all the senses contribute to enjoyment, from top down, in one's value/evaluation. A hierarchy of value then, is congruent with one's hierarchy of knowledge. Hierarchical clarity answers most uncertainties attached to this, in my view. I think my opinion is consistent with Objectivism. "Survival" ~ for an individual choosing a life proper to man qua man ~ is identical to "flourishing", in my simple take on that matter. And happiness is to be found, taken and/or sought here and now - as well as in one's short and long future - especially not forgetting the "simple" pleasures.
  19. Independence ¶ Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence. Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual --------- Easy Truth: "Independence implies a complete separation like a hermit". I think it's important to understand independence in its conceptual form, and then to see that in the context of altruism. It is specifically the lack and shortage of *mind* independence which strengthens societal and global altruism. The resurgence of either one defeats the other. When most men can and sometimes do, deal with each other from independent mind to independent mind -- that's the precondition for benevolence to all, and the condition inimical to altruism. That is, without the dutiful obligation, coercion and psychological pressure to take responsibility for another's life. One should first eliminate the supposition that altruism = charitable works, (helping someone in distress, etc. etc.) Charity has been sneaked in as the package deal with altruism, to conceal the intention to control men's minds by "moral" means. "It's your mind they want". (Galt) As Rand saw the consequences (we all can see), it's precisely this good will to help others back on their feet, that will be destroyed by the creed of altruism, which engenders all-round resentment and angry entitlement. Because altruism is above all, anti-life - unregarding of anyone's independent values, choices and identifications - ie. one's independent mind. For altruism to continue to exist, it is crucial that men don't think for themselves, but go on accepting the mystical cult of "other" (apart from those individuals whom one cares, for in any way - i.e., values, in their own right - but all anonymous people, anywhere). In other words, one has to "self-abnegate", or negate, submit and self-sacrifice one's own existence, value and values on demand, and suffer the guilt for never doing enough, as no one can. From experience and observation, I don't think any more that rational selfishness - in its entirety - is the diametric opposite or antidote to altruism. This pays overmuch regard to the anti-real, never justified, immoral creed; and further, rational selfishness, conversely, is all geared to what to live FOR. The single element within the Objectivist ethics of mind independence ( the person who asks "Why?" and will not accept the usual excuses for his sacrifice) alone suffices to strike it down.
  20. Well said, Strictly. I suggest as another approach (or perhaps a re-wording) to this well-discussed subject, that consequentialism is completely tied up with the retrospective, while the objective morality is largely pro-active. (Not to say - of course - that one doesn't compare the outcomes to actions taken - and vice-versa - after the fact). C. has a strong element of unguided hit- and- miss, trial and error, and experimentation - in disregard of the fact that reality is not very forgiving on one's life of excessive errors, mis-steps and misjudgments. It's not as though one has unlimited time and (physical, spiritual) resources to "get it right". Which feeds back to the over-riding questions: What is morality - why does man need a code of values? Rand has it that the second query is the prerequisite to determining the first. I'll roughly put it that one needs objectively-moral guidance - in advance - of choosing one's values and goals, and of selecting the essential steps to those ends. Having justified for oneself the 'rightness' of the ethics, by the identity of nature and man, it's all up to the individual to discover his own 'goodness'. Edit: Apologies, I've tacked this onto the wrong thread. Mixing up two interesting topics I guess ;(
  21. ET: Following that 2014 post I was informed that Rand in fact didn't say this ("The true opposite and enemy...") by a prominent academic. So I no longer quote her as writing it. I had found the quote, attributed to her, some five years ago while pursuing links about Objectivism and ending up on someone's website (?), I don't remember, but I copied it down believing it as hers. The concept and the style it was worded looked all too familiar... Mainly I was much taken with what this says about not only altruism, but its 'opposite', independence and have viewed these in this light since then. I will add that I doubt that every single, informal, ad hoc comment by Rand has been noted and recorded, we know how ready she was to apply herself to any questions on any occasion. And even if she didn't say that, from the greater context of all she wrote of altruism, and all my experiences of altruism - in its full sense of self-sacrifice - with regard to independent and dependent minds , I remain firmly convinced that she could have.
  22. Obviously, and it might need re-stating, virtues are the means to an end. Nobody has stated otherwise, I believe. The inversion, of placing virtue over value - and isolating virtues "in a vacuum" - is an error of intrinsicism sometimes made. To put it this way, as much as one prizes his virtues, moreso does he prize the values that follow from them. They have a hierarchical relationship and also a causal relationship, based and dependent upon one's cardinal values and virtues. "As a consequence, it [a lack of virtue] may cause reconsideration". (ET) No. And there is no "may" about it. What one reconsiders is: rational, virtuous action -> rational outcome. A rational action presupposes it has virtue. What result did I accomplish? Is it good (for me)? Was it what I wanted it to be? Could it be better? Which actions could I change? Simply, as one does for any endeavor, I am matching up my intentions and efforts, with what I finish up making (with the purpose of improving my performance). This isn't consequentialism, which judges the 'good' (whether subjective, intrinsic, or objective) by results, "solely". Applied to rational selfishness, then, since I gained an achievement -- therefore I MUST have practiced the virtues of Objectivism... Not necessarily. Good conclusions often arrive from mixed premises. How much rationality, independence, justice, integrity - etc.- one brings to the actions is a prior commitment, not - only - to be reviewed and assessed after the fact. And it could be overlooked that it is not only for the 'gaining' of goals that virtues are crucial, but equally for the ongoing 'keeping' of those values already attained. Also, one never knows, in reality, which specific virtue, or combination of, may be called upon next, from moment to moment. This and more, as I've learned by experience, settles for me the necessity of a conscious commitment to every "objective" virtue, full time. This morality is not called "rational" selfishness for little reason. (Consequentialism seems like baking a cake without the recipe. See - it turned out fine and tasty! Therefore, it follows, I can repair an engine without using the engine's manual...)
  23. They are equivalent, in my mind. As with e.g. induction and deduction, they form an aligned 'two-way street'. This returns to the "how?" (in what manner) one reaches one's goals, I raised about consequentialism. To achieve some goal - but at small or great cost to one's integrity, honesty and so on, is not a gain, but a net loss. I see there is agreement that one's virtues are also one's values, and since all values are ensconced in one's value-hierarchy, therefore virtues too, may equally be sacrificed to "a lesser or non-value". Material profits can't be allowed to substitute for (higher) values or virtues since the latter are with and for one, lifelong - and one's "goals" are never ending. Equally, material things cater for the cherry on top, which one makes and accepts as one's due rewards towards an enjoyable life. It may seem also, that some things just "fall into your lap". Undeserved, unpredicted, good fortune, accidental - or whatever. Because the causes bringing about effects (one discovers by experience) are seldom instantaneous, or even perfectly lucid in the moment, in reality. But these too, are one's subsequent, earned rewards for living a rationally moral life . I believe that in the final analysis, happiness, in all its manifestations, is a present 'spiritual' continuum, not only a future state.
  24. A reminder, reason is a value. "The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics--the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life--are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride." I mention this in case it is reason you are actually meaning - "...when I have a rational explanation..."
  25. Thank you. Still seems to me that any and all systems of ethics have the 'value' of some, or someone, or some ~entity~ in mind. Deontological, altruist, egoist, egotist, virtue ethics, religious. (Have I left any out?) The queries: "What sort of consequences count as good consequences?" - and- "Who is the primary beneficiary?" - and - "How are the consequences judged and who judges them?" ... are all implicit and explicit to any ethics. There is always a cause leading to an effect, and always the 'value' of that effect perceived to and for 'someone'. Objectivism simply recognizes you, the cause, ARE the effect - without breach. When it comes to assessing others' morality, all one has to go by is "the consequence" and concrete outcome or 'product' of their thoughts and virtue, - or lack of - and I think the one area consequentialism may not be superfluous. Virtues are values. Can anyone respond to that? (While everyone understands the proper relationship between value and virtue, virtues, the tools and means to one's values, are in themselves invaluable).
×
×
  • Create New...