Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Content Count

    5802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. It certainly wouldn't convince me to change how I vote if they are doing the just thing (it is just that ex-convicts have the right to vote). Most people do something because of some kind of incentive towards their values. There is literally no incentive provided by Bloomberg. There is no gain whatsoever for voting Democrat or Republican. Evidence would be nice.
  2. What conditions are you talking about? There is no implication or requirement that any of them vote for Biden or vote Democrat. If they vote Trump, nothing will happen. You're just being pedantic or deliberately dense about what the meaning of "condition" is. It's not a nudge towards who to vote for. There is literally no advantage to vote Democrat. Worse than that, it probably won't even work in the way he would hope, because we have no idea how many ex-convicts would vote Republican or Democrat.
  3. If you do this, then you would be changing the standard of value to pleasure. Or that the standard of value for some things is pleasure. It's not making sense, because an objective value is something that results in your flourishing or that flourishing comprises it. Of course pleasure can be valuable, just like any emotion, but not that the emotion is the source of the value. Emotions are not tools of cognition, they can't tell you what is or is not good on their own. They can't tell you on their own if what you are doing is part of your flourishing. Simply put, all emotions are subjective for
  4. That book is weird, but so is Sullivan's review. It seems that both of them are somehow stuck thinking that intelligence means IQ. They both miss how the bigger problem is equating grades and test scores with intelligence. Sullivan wants to defend the value of intelligence (and does a bad job at it by the way), but accomplishes that by arguing about school performance and IQ. The book argues about the overvalued of intelligence, but accomplishes that by arguing about school performance and IQ. They both miss the more obvious issue: the tools we used to measure intelligence are a mess and
  5. I don't think it is. I don't think Rand thought it was either. I don't think they mean the same thing. Taken another way, this is how you should frame it instead: I have a pretty complex argument in mind, and I didn't want to write out an essay about it (I appreciate you weighing in, DO). For the most part, Luke, you repeat Rand correctly, but based on your posts here, I'm not sure you understand yet what a standard means epistemologically speaking. As far as standards go, I don't think concrete things (i.e. you specifically) ever do as well as abstract things (i.e. you in genera
  6. You said that "your life" is the standard of value, which isn't what Rand believed, because it would be subjective. "Life" is the standard. The majority of your posts are summarizing Rand, so it's important to be precise.
  7. Yes, I agree. But we certainly should not equate "profitable" with "capitalism". I'd rather think of capitalism in terms of a system where free choice is the entire point, which encourages more rational thinking. I don't think there is any mechanism within capitalism that would make an industry like skin bleaching a meaningful business. It's more of a cultural phenomena largely pushed on by factors that are not about capitalism (it's easy to trace something like skin bleaching to overt racism that denied individual rights). You are right that capitalism can't solve racism. I'm only pushi
  8. But why make the weaker claim? We both agree that capitalism does not cause racism. Do you also agree that capitalism causes less racism? If capitalism neither causes nor reduces racism, then capitalism has no real impact on society. It would be morally neutral with no causal impact. If capitalism is morally good, it has a definite impact on society and the moral values within that society.
  9. That's correct, and I wasn't trying to argue otherwise. I'm saying you can validate the moral good of respecting individual rights by observing the concrete outcomes. Capitalism is justified because it protects individual rights, and individual rights are good because they are critical to life in a society. Capitalism creates good outcomes because it is a moral system. If capitalism created bad outcomes, then there would be something wrong about capitalism morally speaking. The quotes you gave me agree with me. That's what an argument from counterfactual is. We recognize that the alleg
  10. But this way of thinking would also be an error. Going by Rand, we should be able to say that capitalism is morally good because of the direct evidence in front of us. That would mean we recognize that capitalism is good because we see that it is good, that people generally get what they deserve, that productivity is better, that innovation is better. Also going by Rand, if it were the case that racism was pervasive so that everyone was doing it, and the system was capitalist, that would be direct evidence in front of us that capitalism is evil and bad. If we can't conclude that a terri
  11. If that were the case, then you could make a case that capitalism is racist. After all, you would be saying it is widespread, and would be important to ask why that is. Economic systems can be a good explanation. On top of that, individuals within a system can propagate or ignore any issues or injustices. So if capitalism creates an incentive to be racist, then we can say it is racist, that is, it comprises individuals who are racist. You basically described what systematic racism would be: all current existing companies and stores are racist. When it comes to hearing out the argument, it
  12. Wouldn't this actually be some kind of argument for public property? Are you saying that Objectivism lacks arguments against public property, but in fact the truth is that public property is valid? Part of Rand's individualism is that groups depend on individuals. Individuals do not depend on groups. Of course you can argue this is false, but this is what she means by capitalism. The individual is absolutely primary, which is the major justification for private property. Anything additional is simply not private property, and therefore to that extent, the system is against individua
  13. I'm not sure this is really showing an example of amoral values or choices. I think 2046's post is a good example of why this isn't really a good example. If we conceive of Rand promoting virtue ethics generally speaking, we don't need to think of certain actions not consequential "enough". Sure, you're not going to die the next day because you impulsively bought ice cream. Nothing much negative would happen. But the point about being moral is to have a flourishing life, not a good "enough" life. What does it say about you if you sometimes give in to impulse and laziness? Why would you on one
  14. It sounds like you're conceding that metaphysical value-judgments extend beyond just ethics. They encompass more than ethics. An aesthetic abstraction may be formed a certain way, but any aesthetic value you pursue easily and the choice to do so falls in the realm of ethics. I can appreciate the quote from OPAR and Tara Smith, but I disagree with their interpretation. I don't think they follow from the quote you gave me by Rand.
  15. Because people recognize that racism is unjust (being the target of racism is never deserved). My only point is that I think it is fair to describe being the target of racism as a diminishment of freedom and justice, which is the same thing as an undesirable society. I don't care how you want to describe it, maybe you prefer a different word than freedom, but all I'm doing is describing a bad society.
  16. I would phrase it differently. To be denied a haircut isn't necessarily an injustice, but it can be. To be denied a haircut because of your race and nothing else is an injustice. I don't mind leaving aside the question of if the best way to describe this is denying freedom, but I don't really see why you would disagree that racism is unjust (rather than incorrect). In any case, I doubt you would say that I am trying to "redefine" liberty. Likewise, I don't think Marxists are "redefining" the word either. Me, you, and Marxists hold different definitions of the same concept, but none of us
  17. This makes me think of acquired tastes. I hate the taste of wine. I don't want to take the time to get used to the flavor, learn about the fancy ways to describe wine, and the different foods to pair wine with. I choose not to grow to enjoy wine. I'm the same way with coffee, and beer. I've also heard that it's common to at first hate these things, but grow to like them. I used to hate the taste of cilantro, but now I like it in some specific dishes. I used to dislike blueberries, but now I eat them all the time. The sensation you get cannot be chosen. Some people cannot help t
  18. No, not just coming from the government. Racism, sexism, etc., are not wrong because they are errors of knowledge, but because they are injustices against people. Injustices deny to you what you deserve, ignore what you deserve, or pull you further away from the fruits of rationality. If somebody does not refuse service based on your race, you have more freedom to act compared to the racist store owner. You can do more, which even allows the store owner to profit more, and then a whole positive feedback loop. I'm not equating freedom and liberty with individual rights. The concept indivi
  19. But where does she demonstrate that position? I'm not going to rehash 2046's argument, so I would like to know any other passage from any other book she wrote that she said or suggested that there are some choices that don't affect the course of your life. I noticed you added the word "main", but that wasn't in the quotes mentioned so far. How come you wouldn't say that Rand portrays aesthetic values as moral values? I think of how Dagny in Atlas Shrugged had a particular way of dressing, somewhat feminine but not in any traditional way. A woman who was essentially the CEO of a multina
  20. I think this is her argument, and she does try to demonstrate this. Her view is that the echoes of expropriation and exploitation exist, and that capitalism necessarily takes advantage of the conditions that expropriation and exploitation create. Moreover, the mechanisms with which capitalism operates will focus on making money at the cost of those who still suffer from the echoes. So what we end up with is a system that will always be oppressing and holding power over someone. This would be systemic racism, the system in this case being all of capitalism. I disagree that she doesn't tal
  21. I mean, liberalism is an aspect of a certain class, we just say it isn't bad. Liberty does mean freedom, but we would argue that capitalism doesn't cause exploitation and all those other things. It should go without saying that the absence of exploitation, racism, sexism, etc. is important to liberty and makes you more free than it would be otherwise. The problem comes down to a difference of knowledge and claims, not that Marxists want to change the meaning of liberalism. When you say the spectacle of rich Democrats, I agree with that, because as I was saying, neoliberals are hypocrites.
  22. Redefine liberalism how? I mean, her opinion isn't a big deal to me, so maybe I should put it this way: do you think she is correct to say that Marxists want to redefine liberalism? "I will not allow these Marxist totalitarians to redefine that word, the way they try to redefine so many. There is nothing liberal about supporting censorship by Big Social OR the government." She writes this as if a Marxist promotes these things in some manner because they believe it is liberal. It doesn't make sense to say that. They do these things precisely because they are not liberal, and they don
  23. I read that article yesterday. I just noticed that the headline is imprecise. Fraser sides with Black Marxism, while Reed is a Marxist scholar who is black. As wrong as Marxists are, I find that Marxists who focus more on class have better arguments than the ones who focus on race. Anyway, I found this part interesting: "He finds a certain humor in being attacked over race. “I’ve never led with my biography, as that’s become an authenticity-claiming gesture,” he said. “But when my opponents say that I don’t accept that racism is real, I think to myself, ‘OK, we’ve arrived at a s
×
×
  • Create New...