VECT
-
Posts
182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by VECT
-
-
I see, I thought as much then. Though I wish it were different.
Within the confine of rights, what ultimate purpose an individual chooses to pursue is wholly subjective.
-
@Eiuol
At the moment my understanding of Objectivism ethics extend back from politics to only as far as individual rights. If an individual is acting within his/her right, then my current reasoning is telling me that all acts are okay. But obviously I get the sense that's not the case with Objectvism Ethics.
Take the example of a drug addict. Now if this individual chooses to pursue an ultimate goal of independent-sustainable life, then obviously drug addiction would be immoral because it is counter-productive towards that goal. But if this individual chooses pleasure from drugs as his ultimate goal, and his life as a means to that end, then how exactly does Objectivism Ethics tells him that he shouldn't do that?
-
I'll think on what's been said so far and reply later.
-
@Nicky
I do like to argue, but that's only on topics I am confident my knowledge in. It's my belief that debate/argument is the only way to test the solidity of my concepts and completeness of my knowledge. If I lose an argument, which did happen a few times on this forum, then I learn something new. If you are not interested in entering an argument with me, I understand, but there's no point taking it personal.
However, this is one of those topics I am not confident with my knowledge at the moment. So I'm looking for pointers. Either I'll be fortunate enough to read someone's enlightening post, or I'll find what I need on Google in time.
-
Life, as in being alive. Self-sustaining action. Survival is not necessarily self-sustaining if sustaining is longer than a few moments.
So, an independent and indefinite sustainable lifestyle?
But why shouldn't someone choose an dependent and/or non-sustainable lifestyle?
That's the hurdle I'm tripping on right now. Because while lesser values can be judged objectively as moral/immoral by whether or not they contribute to an ultimate goal, how do an individual judge what ultimate goal to choose? At the moment it seems the choosing of the ultimate goal is purely subjective to me.
-
VECT you can find detailed analysis of this in lecture 8 of the 1976 lectures. I have listened to this very lecture 6 or so times in the last week. I took notice of this very "standard" comment. The point surrounds the differentiation of rational self interest from hedonism. It is mentioned that even harmful activities can cause pleasure for a while but cannot lead to happiness- "the state of consciousness that comes from the achievement of ones values", and the "enduring state of non-contradictory joy". The fact that on can fail to achieve ones values while pursuing them rationally is essential to understanding the point that happiness is not the standard.
Thanks, I'll try finding the lectures. You got a link in the mean time?
It's not so much as I think happiness have to be the ultimate goal (I just so happen thought it was, but was mistaken, as you just pointed out). It's that something have to be the ultimate goal/purpose/standard/value/objective. While reason comes into play with judging whether or not lesser objectives/values actually contributes toward that ultimate goal, how do you judge, by what standard do you judge, what ultimate goal you should choose?
-
After some thought, the other way I can see it is:
-
If one wants to achieve happiness-If one wants to live
-To preserve/further one's life, a volitional organism must choose to utilize its proper means of survival as defined by its nature (in the case of human, reason)
In which case pursuit of happiness wouldn't enter the equation. If it just so happens the psychological mechanism that triggers happiness is tripped upon an individual pursuing/achieving rational values that furthers it's life, great.
Would this line of thought be more correct?
-
I disagree.
I disagree that you disagree.
See? I can do it too.
Seriously, if you have no intention of correcting what I wrote and giving critical feedbacks to what I could be entirely wrong about (which is the very reason why I made this thread). Why post?
-
@Jon
Excuse me if I don't trust your logic/integrity at the moment given our last exchange (and your latest attempts at promoting Georgian economic rent in other threads despite failing to justify it's existence in your own thread).
While I consider myself knowledgeable with politics/rights, I'm far less so in ethics. This here is an important topic that I'd like to get sorted out for myself. I am not interested in a debate with you like last time if you don't mind.
@Eiuol
I was reading this when the thought occurred to me:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/
Specifically the parts around, ["Happiness,” observed Rand, “can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard."]
Can you define the "life" you used in your post? Are we talking about "physically-not-dead" or something else?
-
This just occurred to me:
The whole of Objectivism Ethics is based on the ultimate conditional: "If one wants to achieve happiness".
-If one wants to achieve happiness
-Then one must hold life as his/her ultimate value
-To preserve/further one's life, an organism must utilize its proper means of survival as defined by its nature (in the case human, reason)
-....etc.
(correct me if I'm mistaken somewhere in my above logic)
No where does it say that an individual should choose the pursuit of happiness as his/her ultimate goal.
So with this line of thought, while what an individual should do to achieve happiness in this world is objective and can only be discovered through reason.
But wouldn't the choosing of the ultimate goal, happiness (or some Duty), be a subjective choice impermeable to reason?
-
Resources = (naturally-occurring-items) + (technology)
A lot of things we do not consider to be resources now can be resources in the future when new technologies emerges, just as a lot of things we consider to be resources now were not considered resources in past ages due to lack of technology (e.g. fossil fuel).
Also, if all the metals on earth gets mined out, that just means the increased metal price will give huge incentive to interstellar mining of metals from other planets.
The universe is an infinite place. As long as humans are willing to think, potential resources are nearly infinite.
-
You wrote: "his economic rent still wouldn't exist" It does exist. In your trite wordplay you talk about welfare and rights to it etc. That's not a question of the existence of welfare. In the UK it exists, in your country it exists. It's a statement of fact. That's that pesky thing called reality that even though you want to, Vect, you can't ignore.
Now you can bring in a moral judgement but what are you applying it to? A non-existent practice of the poor claiming welfare, or the non-existence of economic rent which is currently taxed in parts of the US? I'm wasting time discussing this with you, you're just irrational even on very basic elements.
Haha. Now who's purposefully misinterpreting who?
Did I claim a law DIDN'T exist concerning welfare or your economic rent?
Or did I claim the mere existence of such laws doesn't justify rationally the existence of the right of one individual to the income of another, just as it doesn't justify the existence of your economic rent, as you would suggest.
My changing the wording of your last post is to demonstrate the futility of this new line of argument you are undertaking.
If laws can somehow justify whatever they declare, then as long as I can get a bill to okay slavery to pass, then slavery would be justified.
You failed to defend the existence of your economic rent on rational ground, so as a last resort you turned to argue that since there is a law presupposing economic rent exist, it must exist.
To borrow your own word Jon, you are at the end of your line grasping at straws.
-
@Jon
Hahahahaha.
Let me change a few words here:
VECT, how do you say the poor doesn't have a right to the income of the rich when there is a income tax in America, which assesses and taxes precisely that?
How inconvenient of you.
Yes, because all current laws are perfect embodiments of rational principles right Jon?
-
VECT, I agree those two follow from his fundamental position on the first issue.
That's the thing.
It doesn't.
My latest post shows how point_1 and point_2 are not connected, that even if I concur all of Jon's standard on what constitutes as "earned", his economic rent still wouldn't exist. The only way, assuming I concur with his standard of what constitutes as "earned", for his economic rent of land to exist, is if he was planning on building a subterranean complex beneath his landlords' apartment, and his landlord charges Jon here a rent for using the land beneath his apartment. Now, given Jon's standard of what's earned, THAT rent would be his economic rent.
But if his landlord is charging Jon a rent for living INSIDE the landlord's apartment, no portion of that is economic rent for unearned land.
And point_2 also doesn't connect with point_3. Since I stated, and Jon here concurred, that even though it's called "land value", community improvement doesn't inject bonus value into the dirt beneath a building, but rather to the building itself. It's the proximity/location of the building in relation to the other community improvement.
All three are separate points.
By no means am I giving him point_1. But if I see a critical argument that can put down his #2 and #3, I'm going to take it. Those two are his end game after all. I can always go back to #1 later.
-
@Plasmatic
That's ONE of the issue.
There are three:
-What it means to "earn" or "make" something so as to become the owner of that which is made or earned (as you stated)
-The existence of the immoral portion of housing rent that Jon calls "economic rent"
-The responsibility for individual A to compensate individual B for improvements individual B made on his own property that indirectly raised individual A's property value.
-
Jon, given your feedback to my examples, I got a sense of where your required degree lies.
So here is my question:
-If I built a house, that house is mine (concurred by you)
-All the earth below my house can be used by another at will, since I don't own it, as long as their usage do not in anyway change/damage my house (concurred by you)
-So when I rent my house out, that means I am renting the house and not the land below it. I am not renting (nor can I rent) the right to the tenant to do as he/she wills BELOW the house, only WITHIN the house
-So how am I charging an immoral economic rent for land I do not own? If property law is set to your standard then I can never claim to own nor rent the land below my house in the first place?
-
If a plot of land is used to erect a dwelling, the improvement is the dwelling. One can own the improvement, the dwelling. At what point, when constructing a dwelling, do you become entitled to extend your ownership claim to that which exists independently of your actions?
Vect claims that there is a magical point when building something entitles you to more than what you have built. What is this elusive point? What is its existence premised on?
What is improvement? It's physical actions that re-arranges the physical matters in question. That's it.
On principle, if you are not going to argue against physical actions (aka improvement) having the ability claim nature matters as property, then all that's left are questions of degree of physical actions needed.
You laugh at merely driving in survey stakes as been too shallow an action. Okay how about if I build a house on it? Oh wait, you were not happy with that amount either. How about I unearth all the dirt of a land I want and re-earth it, would that be enough of an improvement in your book to claim that land? Still no? How about if I unearth all the dirt, mixes that dirt with cement, and then re-earth it?
The same example with a tree house. Obviously you are not going to be happy with the idea that merely building a house on a natural tree should be able to claim that tree. If I uproot the tree and re-root it, would that additional action/improvement be enough with you? How about if I water that tree and make it grow a bit before I build my tree house, surely that's enough improvement to claim the natural tree in your book?
As for homesteading, that's the recommended default degree of improvement needed to claim land. There's no principle against setting the degree needed to a lesser or stricter degree.
But the point of all this is, if you are not going to challenge the principle that physical actions can claim natural materials as property, then it's already game over for your ambition to argue that land cannot be owned on philosophic ground. All that is left to debate is on legal ground of what degree of physical actions is enough for an individual to claim land (mark on map? drive in stakes? build a house? unearth all the dirt and re-earth it? unearth all the dirt and re-earth with cement?..etc.)
-
It might sound nitpicky, but the stakes driven into the ground and registration would be the improvement in this case.
The point is some sort of physical action (building a house, driving stakes, building fences, or merely registering with the government an area of land over a map) needs to be enacted to lay claim.
The question whether or not physical actions can improve and therefore claim natural land/materials as property at all is the question of principle.
Whether or not a certain physical action is enough to improve the land and therefore, to be claimed (and how large an area..etc.) is both variable and debatable.
But then again, I'd say when talking about what degree is proper, that's more into the province of Law-Making rather than Philosophy.
-
@dream_weaver
To be fair, I would also argue that unimproved item cannot be claimed as property.
But how much labour actions is needed to transform an item from un-improved status to improved status is both variable and debatable. I would say that the act of building a house on a land is enough to transform that land from unimproved status into improved.
@Jon,
Principle wise you can only argue either one of two things:
Principle:-Labour actions can improve un-improved (and therefore unclaimed) land/material into improved land/material
-improved land/material can be claimed as property and be rented
OR
-Since men did not bring physical matters from non-existence into existence
-Labour actions cannot claim ownership of land/material, but can only claim their usage right (aka borrowing) from nature
-borrowed material/land can be used at will for one's own purposes, but they cannot be rented
So I'll not bring up whatever past post you've written. Just state once and for all your position, which is it?
If you pick the first, then the question of principle is already past. All that's left is the debate of what degree of labour action should be regarded as proper to transform certain land/material from unimproved/unclaimed status into improved/claimed status.
Practical Degree:
-The labour action of picking a wild apple is enough to improve that wild unclaimed apple into a claimed picked apple and be transformed into a property that can be rented
-The labour action of mining a piece of aluminium ore is enough to transform those aluminium atoms into improved status and claim it as property and be rented
-The labour action of building a house on a piece of land is enough to improve that piece of land to claim it as property and be rented
OR
-The action of simply picking a wilding apple isn't enough to improve that wild unclaimed apple into a claimed picked apple. You have to further make that apple into an apple pie to claim all those delicious apple molecules as your property and to be able to rent them
-The labour action of mining a piece of aluminium ore isn't enough to claimed those aluminium atoms. You will have to input further labour to transform the ore into car-grade aluminium to claim those atoms and be able to rent them
-Simply building a house isn't enough to claim the land below it (others can do what they want with the land below your house, as long as they do it such as way that doesn't damage your house), you will have to input further labour actions to transform those natural dirt into part of a concrete foundation to claim the land below
-
Yes Vect. A straw man argument.
Are you claiming man is the cause of the existence of aluminium atoms? That is simply false.
If you produce some aluminium that aluminium will be yours."Jon, your version of "cause" is to play God and bring physical matter from non-existence into existence."
Sure it is Vect. Keep dreaming lol.I don't dream what you write up yourself Jon.
-
Dream_Weaver,
"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor." Galt's Speech."
"The idea that the law of causality is somehow to be delimited to property only consisting of what man caused is, quite frankly, bizarre in my mind."
Lol.
Jon, your version of "cause" is to play God and bring physical matter from non-existence into existence.
Galt's version of "cause" is to re-arrange existing matters in ways to produce/cause meaningful new combinations (picking a wild apple from a tree, forging sand into glass, mining aluminium..etc.)
I don't know if you are sincerely not grasping this concept or this is just another one of your purposeful evasion.
-
Huh, actually just found this Article in the Basic Law:
Article 5: "The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years."
Well, at least that's going to make it difficult for CCP to pass any laws that limit individual freedom onto Hong Kong the same way they are passing new conditions on this CE election.
-
The point I made to you was about what rights are - they pertain to actions and not to objects. Aluminium atoms - do they pertain to an action? You are even more foolish that you already appear if you are claiming individuals have a right to aluminium atoms. Next you will be claiming we have a right to a six bedroom house, or we have a right to job, or a right to free healthcare or a right to gold. Rights follow the law of causality. If via my mind and labour I produce wealth, that wealth is mine.
That's right, my claiming I have a right to a piece of aluminium I dug up is the same as my claiming I have a right to a six bedroom house that I never brought.I'm just going to ask a very simple question: If I dig a piece of aluminium out of the ground, can I or can I not rent that piece of all-natural aluminium atoms out?
Stop making things up. I have asked you more than once. Where have I ever stated you can will something into existence?
Right here:Yes Vect. A straw man argument.
Are you claiming man is the cause of the existence of aluminium atoms? That is simply false.
If you produce some aluminium that aluminium will be yours.That right, only if I play God and produce some aluminium from non-existence into existence, then I can claim to own them no? Otherwise I can only "borrow" them from nature for my own use only. Renting is a no no (can't rent what's not yours and all that).
Did I state labour actions can claim unimproved land? More dishonesty and misrepresentation.
Right here Jon:
P1. Land is all naturally occurring material
P2. Capital contains land
P3. It is wrong for a landowner to forcibly collect and keep unearned income on unimproved land
C. Therefore it is wrong for a capitalist to collect unearned income for the unimproved land value of capital
The conclusion they arrive at doesn't follow from the premises because it assumes capital contains unimproved land. However capital contains only improved land - the capital is man-made. No element of it is unimproved. The fact land was improved to create capital - the fact it was produced by man makes it his property.Admins forcing me to play the gentleman or they'll delete my post. But I gotta say, your legendary hypocrisy and evasiveness is just BEGGING to be made fun of.
-
@Jon
You said a lot of things and your past positions have been contradictory to say at best.
For instance. You asked me rhetorically whether you can own the genetic molecules within the wheat one grows. You argued the aluminium atoms of aluminium ore one mines out of the ground cannot be owned.
By all account of your past posts you have had a strong position in saying that natural material cannot be claimed as property (unless, as you claim, humans can will these matter from non-existence into existence)
Of course, you also stated improvement/capitals can be owned. And this is where the biggest contradiction in you position happened. All those improvement/captials made of natural atoms (pretty much everything), can they or can't they be owned?
So now with your latest post you state labour actions can claim ownership of Land, then that's that, nothing more needs to be said.
Your other argument that apartment renters needs to pay a compensation back to the community because a part of their property value is linked to community improvement, my mentioning about where that value is injected is only to clear away any confusions, which you did not have, so that's that.
The main argument against this line of thinking lies in the matter of choice, in that it's not voluntary. Say your neighbouring building suddenly decides to undergo large improvement that would result in increase of your own location value, which with your logic, would involve you paying increase compensation to them. Does that mean you then have a choice of not allowing your neighbour to improve their property?
Also like I've mentioned, location doesn't exactly just inject bonus into rent, it injects bonuses into sales and investment. By your principle, sales and investments an individual receives would also need to pay compensation to the community for the bonuses these received from surrounding improvements.
Objectivism Ethics
in Ethics
Posted · Edited by VECT
Say if you are trying to convince someone to a more healthier lifestyle. I had a friend who regularly smokes. He knows the risks and all the potential health problems associated with smoking, down the to exact statistics figure (he actually works in stats). But this guy consciously choose to trade health for the pleasure of a cigarette/cigar. You simply can't reason people out of decisions like that. I certainly tried.
This is just one example. There are people out there who pursues (within the confine of their rights) uncounted variations of what would be considered immoral values by Objectivism standard. You can say, given the objective nature of an individual's psychology, the anti-values they pursue will not lead them to the kind happiness that a proper Objectivist life would. Be that as it may, but how do you objectively compare the happiness gained from a proper-Obj life to say the pleasure gain from drug usage? It's like comparing vanilla vs chocolate.
And that's why I said I wish it was different. Because if it was, then reason would have the power to convince another to change the ultimate end goal they pursue. As it stands, it only have the power to convince others that certain values they are pursuing is counter-productive toward their end goal.