TLD

No, she did not. Jake's use of the trader principle is inappropriate here.

That is an interesting take. I think the main reason for such disagreement on this topic is how altruism is being defined. If you view everyone who performs altruistic acts as true philosophical altruists, then (as AR said) there is potential conflict of interest and harm to one's self-esteem by receiving such a gift. On the other hand, if most "altruistic" people do not truly believe that you don't deserve what they want to give you - that they want to give knowing that you don't want them to sacrifice themselves, then accepting the gift is not acting as a "taker" of the unearned and is moral. And I believe this is the case: that most altruistic acts are not performed by true altruists and cannot be judged philosophically as if they were. BTW, the same problem - applying philosophy inappropriately - is causing some to think that there are no choices made by man that are outside the realm of morality. Such errors - such judgments - contribute significantly to negative public reaction to Objectivism.

He inappropriately "deleted" them. I was responding to his arrogance in the previous post (which is apparently ok for the moderator) and then added valid content. Then I reponded to your comment ("You do realize you used the word moralizing about a dozen times now without ever hinting at what it means?") noting your exaggeration and apparent lack of understanding of "moralizing." I can admire you sticking up for your friend, but the 2 of you remain unwilling to accept valid points that don't suit you. End result: those attempting to determine when receiving gifts is a moral issue remain confused.

To those who want valuable objective discussions: David, as the moderator, has cancelled some of my posts because they conflict with his points of view, albeit he believes it is because I am not adhering to Oist principles. I am fully an Oist and have been attempting to make valid points here. He loses his credibility when he controls the forum in order to make his views appear sacrosanct.

Read my last post. You also miss the point here. I can't believe you could think selecting a flavor of ice cream is a moral issue. That's moralizing. "Ethics is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions" - necessary for his survival. That does not include subjective choices that have nothing to do with survival and do not tie to principles.

You frequently tell people (across forums) that they do not understand when it is you who does not understand. And you have moralized more than once. Ignoring your irrelevant analogy, you confuse Subjectivism with subjective (as in optional choices). I'm certainly not saying that moral values are a matter of subjective choices. I'm saying that there are non-philosophical choices in life that are not objectively (via principles) determined. If you cannot agree with that, then the discussion is closed.

Now you are moralizing. Yes, while morality is a code of values for the purpose of guiding man's choices, all choices are not dictated by morality; e.g. the flavor of ice cream you choose - subjective. The choices we have been discussing re. receiving gifts from an altruist (where such would not be harmful to you, would not be hypocritical, etc.) are subjective and not philosophical. You can argue all you want about where to draw the line, and examples have been presented here to help determine that line. In each case, one has to determine whether or not it can be shown to be right or wrong. In cases where it is not determined to be wrong (examples already presented), there should be no harm in receiving the gift. *** Mod's note: For an extensive spin-off discussion on the choice of flavor, see this thread. -sN ***

That is a new context. The gift was somewhat conditional - intended for one who loved you. It should be returned; but if the giver refused it back, then it can morally be kept.

'DavidOdden' You keep asserting: how about arguing (providing evidence and logic) in support of that claim? What makes it fundamentally "moral" to accept gifts?[/code] I've already argued that this is not generally a moral issue. And no one has presented a good argument for why it is. [code]It is not an automatic objective value to "acquire stuff". Who said it has to be? All that has been said is that acquiring stuff can be of value, earned or unearned. This discussion is now going nowhere.

'DavidOdden' I said that accepting an unearned gift from a person you despise is not unforgivably evil. That simply means that you can judge how far from proper to man's life an act is and how obvious it should be to any man that the act is immoral -- Adolph Hitler was unforgivably evil, Neville Chamberlain was evil, and Ronald Reagan was bad. It is not universally obvious that accepting an unearned gift from a person you despise is immoral, which is why we're having this discussion. That doesn't change the nature of the act, it simply means that it is difficult to understand the nature of the act. Which, I conclude, is that the act [i]is[/i] immoral.[/code] This by itself is unclear. I assume you are not saying that it is immoral simply because the nature of the act is difficult to understand. One does not need to know precisely why a gift is given in order to accept it. I would say, however, that accepting from one you despise would be hypocritical. My previous comments were based on the initial premise that the receiver detested the giver's moral code; and other examples that followed were not dealing with detestable persons that would imply such hypocracy. Most people, unfortunately, have bad values, but they are basically decent people. For the most part, it would not be immoral to accept gifts from them. [code]Axiomatic Its not a moral act due to the fact that it was not earned by ones own merits for oneself, and it is not an immoral act due to one not advocating the sacrifice. So my next question is, is there a moral grey area with regard to receiving sacrificial offerings? Or is it just simply not within the sphere of ethics at all? Again, it does not need to be earned in order to be moral; e.g. inheritance or where one simply wants to give something to you knowing who you are. I think it takes some moralizing (existing in many of these forums) to come to your more strict conclusion. That is not to say that you would not appreciate the gift more if it was earned. No, the "grey" can virtually always be eliminated with proper application of principles. Those circumstances where this is a moral issue have been pretty well defined.

When I say "true self-destruction" I mean Altruism to the point of death. We are talking about Altruistic acts far short of that.

I did not say intrinsic good, just some benefit. Receiving something from someone else without "earning" it (e.g. inheritance) does not imply you should not receive it. We are not taking something by force. It is not a moral issue whether or not to accept what someone wants to give you unless there is some negative consequence of receiving it. If someone I did not know left me something - highly unlikely and not in the previous discussion, I would inquire as to why; but given no good reason to refuse it, I would likely accept it. Likewise, if I found money on the street, I would see if there was a way to determine who lost it; short of that, I would keep it. In neither case does that imply "taking the unearned."

Certainly not / Of course. But Oists teach others all the time without sacrifice.

'Jake_Ellison' By accepting someone's sacrifice, you are clearly appeasing the act. That's just a fact of logic: if you did not do A (accept), then the person's attempt to do B (give you the money) would have failed. A was a condition of B, and since A is entirely in your power, you contributed to B. Saying that it would've happened anyway is a commonly used technique for rationalizing.[/code] I don't agree. If the giver is an altruist and he knows you are not and that you don't approve in principle, but he wants to give it anyway - to you or someone else, then there is no moral issue involved in accepting the gift; and that would not be appeasement - nor rationalization. A person who is altruistic is not evil; his values may not be rational, but - in this context - he knows what he is doing and still wants to do it. Further, it is not one's responsibility to always judge the degree of another's altruism and to base one's action on that. Obviously, if one wants to give to the point of true self-destruction, you should attempt to stop him and not be the recipient; but I ruled that case out earlier as being unrealistic.

There is always some benefit in getting stuff; e.g. financial gain. And some things come our way without earning them; e.g. inheritance. Yes, the context certainly helps determine what to do. However, even if you detest the person - for his morality I assume here, he knows how you feel about his values and he still wants to give you something, then you are not morally obligated to refuse him. That then leaves you the choice, depending on other factors; i.e. you may still have reason not to accept the gift.

'Axiomatic' To give a concrete example: An altruist who does not have much, as has not managed to produce, wishes to offer all that he/she has to you. You actually detest this person and have openly rejected thier moral code and have even spoken as to give them a chance to understand and accept a proper morality. They completely reject proper morality as anticipated and instead wish to sacrifice everything they have on a whim to yourself (perhaps in order to justify the validity of their morality?). Is it moral to accept it? My current understanding is that it would be perfectly moral to accept it, but I have had some doubts. Another corrorally question that could be asked is, would it be immoral to refuse it if it would certainly benefit you to a large degree?[/code] It is not possible to be so thoroughly altruistic and survive. So I think your example is overly hypothetical. But in a normal altruistic act of giving, and where you have discussed with that person why he should not sacrifice himself and he still wants to give, then you have no moral obligation to refuse. Further, what appears to you to be sacrificial might not actually be so to him.

'Frostbyte' So since I cannot afford private schooling, which would be the moral choice (this is mainly hypothetical as I've already made my choice and this discussion won't change that) Should I pursue my own rational self-interest by attending public schooling and moving on to college, OR should I stick to my moral belief in capitalism and refuse to participate in a public sector? If I choose to refuse participation, besides giving up desired career choices which require education, I could also (if I refused to attend prior to the legal drop-out age) force my parents to face consequences and possibly end up in some type of public run institution anyway.[/code] There is no real choice here: you should pursue your education and the only way to do that (it would appear) is by utilizing public education. You are not condoning govt.-run education by doing so. You would simply be using what your parents have already contributed to and what govt. has limited you to as a result of tax, legislative and regulatory policies.

'ZSorenson' As far as I understand, the traditional definition of an Objectivist is: a philosopher that understands and subscribes to the tenets of the philosophy discovered and articulated by Ayn Rand. Those who hoped to learn about this philosophy and/or agreed with or admired it were 'Students of Objectivism'.[/code] There is no such thing as "traditional" def; an Oist is simply one who adheres to the principles of Oism. [code]Nowadays, it seems commone to use the label 'O-ist' to describe people who are generally knowledgeable concerning, and who agree primarily with, Objectivism. "Generally knowledgeable" and agree "primarily..." is not enough. Your lists sound like rationalization for some who are not ready to be considered Oists.

'masked' If Rand (or anyone) proved that children are not property, please provide a link. Currently it just sounds like your personal wrong interpretation of what they proven, but again, I can be wrong.[/code] One cannot prove a negative. It has been stated multiple ways that children are individuals and thus have rights - period. [code]I am not asking for handouts. If you feel like I am proposing that you to re-prove something feel free to ignore this post. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. If I knew everything about Objectivism I would have no reason to be here... The latter is not true: there are many Objectivists who know most or all about Obj. who benefit from this forum. The point is, I made a very valid philosophical (not legal) argument about why young children do not have rights and none of you have tried to prove me wrong. Please, show me a fault in my argument. Link to an Objectivist definition of a 'right' that proves me wrong. You have not made any such valid argument. Before and after this post, you have been shown faults. Rights are inalienable for man - period.

DavidOdden This being an Objectivist forum, it is not necessary to re-prove every point already (publically) proven by Rand and other Objectivists. It is thus legitimate, given the nature of this forum, to assume e.g. the essay "Man's Rights". Whether or not you agree with it, you must at least understand it. It's clear that you don't properly grasp the concept "rights". So I suggest that you first read the essays in [i]Virtue of Selfishness[/i]. That will help you to correct your errors, I think.[/code] I have to second that. He shows a very low level understanding of Obj. concepts which has really dragged this discussion out and down. There is a line to draw between helping someone understand Obj. and that person taking some responsibility on this forum to study.

'phibetakappa' This is a bromide, it is not an argument. "naturally" have the right to raise their children. As I stated in a collectivist state parents would not have the right to raise their children. More parents every year in America are being told by various forms of government how they can and can not raise their children.[/code] Careful. Rights are inalienable; being able to exercise them is a different issue.

Perhaps I was focusing on this being an Objectivist forum???? Too many times, someone who knows Obj. principles wants to not just attempt to clarify them but to act like the principles have to be arbitrarily challenged; the latter goes too far in my mind.

One should not play devil's advocate with principles. Children are not property - period. They are not fundamentally like animals at all. Parents do not own them - period.

'masked' By what standard does a government measure what is "acting properly"?[/code] Rationality [code]I am not sure how you can violate a right that can not be exercised in the first place. Can you please explain? I was referring to your examples when noting violations of rights.

'masked' A child is not capable to sustain its own life for some period after birth. During that time, is that child property?[/code] A child is an individual with the same rights as an adult. However, he simply cannot exercise all rights at a young age and the parent has to make decisions for him. "No" to "property. [code]A parent refuses medical treatment for their child because of religion. A parent physically abuses their child because of mental problems. These are obvious violations of rights. Considering that the child in the examples is always too young to live on their own or to make their own choices, should the government be able to do anything? Should everything a parent wants to do with their child be legal? Parents are responsible - for the child's livelihood; and the Govt. should only act to prevent violations of rights. I think that Ayn Rand was legally for and morally against abortions, but I am not sure how she felt about young children. Objectivism supports abortion in principle. What about "young children"?