Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dakota

Regulars
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dakota

  1. Just don't confuse that as saying that anyone else has a right to kill them though.

    Well, I don't see that killing the severly retarded is any different than killing a dog or a cow, if, as is claimed here, they aren't really human. After all, no one has a specified "right" to kill animals, but that doesn't mean that they aren't killed.

    I can see a whole lot of persons, and not just the retarded, being declared "non-man" according to the definitions given here. It's not a big step to decide that people that don't act as rationally as you think they ought to aren't "man qua man" either. That's what the Nazis were good at -- determining who did and didn't meet their standard of a human being with rights.

    I hope you can provide a better basis for the right to life than has been given so far here, because they are horribly open to abuse and manipulation.

  2. Second, recall that "the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)"

    Finally, recall that only humans have a choice to live - plants and lower animals act more or less automatically. It is this fact - man's nature as a volitional being - that is the source of his right to life.

    Based on this, it would appear that the severly retarded do not have any right to life.

    *** *** Mod's note: For continued discussion on retarded human beings, see this thread. - sN *** ***

  3. Abortion is not very controversial in most countries that have accepted a rational ('western") world view following the Renaissance, and it ought not to be in the U.S. if not for people who are very serious about their worship of this guy.

    I wouldn't be so comfortable about abortion remaining "not very controversial" in Western countries: in those countries, there remains a significant difference between the non-Muslim and Muslim birthrates. Islam opposes abortion -- so you can expect that as they assume majority status (which they will in some European countries in 20-30 years), abortion will be severly curtailed.

    Also, surveys show that the American population continues to become more anti-abortion, especially in the younger age groups (Gallup, May 2010).

    I think the subject will become more controversial in the coming years, not less.

  4. I have a few more minutes to try and answer the rest of your post, Eiuol. To be honest, this long delay in posting my responses is tedious, and since I'm very busy I'm not likely to remember everything I wrote in a previous response -- so, since I can't see my previous posts today, I might be repeating myself.

    I don't understand why that point is so important to emphasize.

    It's important for a number of reasons. First, I think rand's quote simply reinforces the difficulty I have with Objectivism being objective (in some areas). I have no doubt tnat for some individuals, putting work ahead of family and friends is necessary if they are to remain true to their hierarchy of values. I don't have a problem with that, if that's what suits that kind of individual. But I fail to the demonstration that it is objectively true of everyone, so that Rand can say that it is "immoral" to do otherwise. This suggests that Rand's vision of what constitutes "man qua man" is too narrow and does not allow for the wide range of personality types, interests, and passions of humans.

    "I'm going to be a doctor because daddy said so" would be immoral

    I think we would agree here. I would prefer the word "stupid" rather than "immoral", but we're close enough.

    so would saying you have no endeavors because your family and friends are "enough."

    Now we disagree on this one. If someone has no particular desire or ability for "endeavors", and is happy to do any kind of work that enables him to provide for his family which he does value highly, he is simply using his reason to provide for his highest good. That's not immoral, it just reflects a different hierarchy of values. It's not "one size fits all".

    Anyway, as I mentioned, this delay is posting my responses is getting tedious. Thanks for your answers, Eiuol -- I appreciate it.

  5. OK, I have another minute or two to spare, so I'll try to get through the rest of your post:

    I'm quite literally confused how you think it's not possible to try to figure out what would best further one's life

    I don't think that at all, so you're addressing a position that I don't, in fact, hold. Yes, it is desirable and possible to try and figure out what would best further one's life. I don't think, though, that Objectivism is the only answer, nor do I think it is objective beyond a certain point.

    Gotta run again.

  6. Do you agree that life is an end you have to choose to strive for, and fundamentally the only other option is death?

    I would respond that it doesn't, at least in the developed West, take much striving at all. It's a given: you didn't "choose" to be born, and in our society it's fairly easy to sustain biological life. No one chooses to stop their own natural breathing, or chooses to stop one's heart from beating, and we don't oversee the minute-by minute functions of our kidneys. In our society, it's fairly easy to secure food and water without much difficulty, which is where we do need to act volitionally. And here's where I always find the conversation to bog down: Objectivists will then point out that "life" is not merely biological life, that it's life as "man qua man". OK, fine, but then we get into what one person's idea of what that life SHOULD be. At the same time, it is maintained (as you just did) that "the only other option is death". So we're back to biological life.

    To me it seems you just aren't satisfied that there isn't a formula to use right now, but that doesn't mean that with knowledge over time there CANNOT be an exact answer.

    I'm not satisfied that Objectivist ethics are actually objective. That's OK -- they're still admirable ethics. And I agree with you that it is possible that there might be an exact answer or demonstration that CAN be given. I just don't see it yet.

    Also, you've been extremely vague on what thrive means,

    Sorry, I hadn't realized that I had been vague. Let me be more clear, then: to thrive is to be happy (what all humans ultimately strive for), fruitful, and emotionally healthy. A person who thrives is not dissatisfied with himself, is happy with his work, and is emotionally stable and able to enjoy human relationships. I think where you and I part company is that it appears, from the discussions here and in my reading, that Objectivists decide (subjectively, as objective science does not support some of these decisions) very narrowly, and according to their own preferences, just who can "thrive". For example, I have no problem whatsoever believing that a group of Buddhist monks living in a monastery are quite capable of thriving. People who value friends and family are quite capable of thriving, even if they may be stuck in rather dull work to pay the bills.

    Gotta run -- I hope I can finish this later.

  7. I think the best way to understand this is to draw an analogy to human health, which I also did last time. Here, I'll use the example of washing one's hands after going to the bathroom. Is this behavior physically healthy or unhealthy? Well, I don't know of any studies which examine the life expectancy of people who generally wash their hands after the toilet, and people who don't. Does this mean that my belief in the healthiness of this activity is unjustified?

    Of course not, and the reason is obvious: human health is objectively measurable. This you admit by your later statement that: "The most obvious and salient direct effect [of not washing one's hands] is the increased risk of contracting infectious diseases." End of story. That's a measurable effect. Otherwise, there would be no basis whatsoever to say that washing one's hands after going to the bathroom was desirable - we might LIKE the idea of washing one's hands; we might think it is appropriate for any number of reasons (including religious or other reasons); but without that objective effect on one's health that you admit, it truly would be just a preference.

    It is of course true that ultimately, at the base of this chain of reasoning, we will have to tie something directly to life expectancy. However, this is not the same as claiming that we have to tie each and every step directly back to life expectancy. In fact, we do not.

    I agree, because not all actions carry with them the weight of life vs. death. However, if we are going to claim that a certain set of ethics is the ONLY ONE that will fulfill man's purpose of life (in this case, life as the primary "choice"), then for that set of ethics to be truly objective (quite a claim), demands that those ethics be demonstrable in its basic forms. Anything else is simply a subjective guide or suggestion for how one ought to live one's life.

    Your failure comes in when you deny our ability to use these clear-cut cases to build a system of moral principles. We agree on the base, but that is not all there is.

    I don't think we disagree at all. I have no problem with a set of moral principles being based on an effective use of man's unique faculties to achieve success. You and I would likely agree, for the most part, on what "success" means -- but that is obviously subjective. Objective facts are not going to back up what you and I think of as most desirable. I have often thought that Objectivist ethics were perhaps best suited for specific personality types who could best maximize their business potential by adhering to them. This is not at all to say that they would be a good set of ethics for those who desired, for example, a rich family life (that would be me). Rand herself said that people who place family, friends, and human relationships above creative work are "immoral" -- that might be true if one's goal is success in business, but it is certainly not true based on science. That's all I'm saying.

    However, what we can do (very easily) is to conceptually examine the direct effects of low self-esteem vs. high self-esteem. First, we need the premise that human beings need to take conscious and deliberate actions in order to maintain and further their lives (an uncontroversial claim, I hope). We define self-esteem as the view that one's own mind is competent to think and that one is worthy of living (here, I am only validating the second part). From here, all we need is the proposition that one is more willing to take the actions necessary to sustain one's life if one believes oneself worthy of living. This chain of reasoning demonstrates the objective value of self-esteem.

    I agree with your reasoning and conclusion here, but I have to say that there are a thousand self-help books on the shelf that will promulgate the same thing -- the importance of genuine self-esteem is not exactly an ignored topic. Not that all approaches to it are rational, or that all recognize what genuine self-esteem is, but some do -- and they do not spring from Objectivist thought. This furthers the concept of Objectivism as a subjective set of ethics that sometimes hits upon more universal aspects of human nature that other "isms" also recognize

    . This is not to degrade Objectivist ehtics: I think they would be most helpful for an individual seeking to succeed in business.

    Now, if you think the chain of reasoning supporting a certain Objectivist moral principle is faulty, then that would be another discussion. However, before one can even enter that debate, it first must be understood that this construction of a hierarchy of moral values and principles is a valid exercise in the first place.

    I doubt I would have any problem at all with the chain of reasoning supporting any particular Objectivist moral principle. I'm probably going to agree with it whole-heartedly. We simply disagree that these principles are objective (beyond certain scientifically objective areas).

    Cheers.

  8. Oh right, you admit rationality as a means, but not the only means. Am I getting that right?

    I think you've entirely missed the point of my posts. I have never questioned the desirability of Objectivist ethics, but I have questioned if they are, as apparently claimed, truly objective (i.e., based on scientific, demonstrable facts and not opinions). And so based on what I find in Rand's writings and here on this forum, I find the assertion made that Objectivism is the ONLY valid philosophy. Well, we might agree that it is certainly preferable to many other "isms", but actual reality does demonstrate that man can and does survive (and sometimes even thrive) by other "isms". Objectivism, therefore, does not appear to be factually objective in the general sense of the word. If it truly were objective, then I would expect objective science demonstrate that only Objectivists live long and productive lives, and those that Objectivists condemn as irrational would be condemned by objective science (that is, they die young and do not prosper). So your question here seems hopelessly fuddled: rationality is certainly used by those whose ends are not consonant with Objectivism. That is, a man might, in using his reason, conclude that it is rational to kill a weak but potentially annoying competitor. "Might makes right" has been a reasonable choice made by many who prospered with that as their philosophy. Many other "isms" emply reason to achieve their aims. Reason as an end instead of a means is an intriguing concept and a nice ideal, but is simply not a scientific, objective fact.

    Objectivism considers rationality the ONLY long term means to success -- with survival implied, but LIFE is the goal, not biological continuance per se, even so far as the latter is essential to the former.

    It all depends, doesn't it, upon the definition of "success". It's subjective. What you think of as "success" is not scientifically verifiable, but is instead an honorable and admirable set of principles that will likely bring the practitioner some success in the business world. It's a very valuable set of principles, to be sure -- but it isn't objective.

    Given an action, is there a rational means to determine whether that action is good or bad?

    This presumes that the rational faculty is infallible. It's not, as even the most casual observer of human nature can see. We are all quite capable of self-deception, and often what we decide is a "rational" answer to a particular problem is, in reality, our own biases and wishes distorting reality to accomodate our particular desire to see an action as good or bad. I don't know how a reasonable person could deny that humans are capable of such self-deception.

    There is no context in which my view is subjective, beyond the fact that I am the one espousing it. By that standard, no knowledge could ever be objective, so what's your point again?

    "Beyond the fact that I am the one espousing it.." -- are you kidding?? You've just explained why your view is subjective! And it does not follow, as you claim, that "By that standard, no knowledge could ever be objective" -- nonsense. A is A. Water is made up of a particular combination of hydrogen and oxygen, regardless of your espousing it or not. If you don't eat or drink, you will die, regardless of your espousing eating and drinking or not. If you jump from a tall bridge into a river, you will probably die, regardless of your espousal of gravity or not.

    Other individuals are a benefit to me in society if and only if they are rational, and only to the degree (in mixed cases) of each individual's rationality.

    Not true. They are a benefit to you if and only they directly contribute to your well-being in some concrete manner. If you are an author, for example, it is perfectly possible for utter nincompoops to buy your books for all the wrong reasons and so contribute concretely to your success. Their rationality doesn't pay your bills, their money does, and whether the money or other means of support comes from your subjectively-decided class of rational or irrational does not matter in the slightest. If you have children (obviously you don't!!), then you know that they can be, at times, the most irrational of creatures, but nonetheless they are a benefit beyond all measure.

    You have it reversed. You are arguing that division of labor and sharing of knowledge work in a vacuum. They don't

    I have not argued anything of the sort. Since I don't believe what you now claim I am arguing for, I have very little to say.

    Good. Then I don't see what the issue is, unless you are wondering whether to turn your kids on to religion or not.

    The issue, in this specific case, is Rand's claim that people who place family, friends, and human relationships above creative work are "immoral". (The exact quote, I think, is on a previous page of this discussion). I want to know what objective, scientific facts exist to make that claim. The fact is, it can't be objectively proven. It's just one woman's opinion. And that is the crux of the matter: Objectivism is great, honorable, sensible, and admirable, but it doesn't appear to be objective. That's all.

  9. That an individual man or men have been more or less irrational without showing ill effects does not vouch for the wisdom of choosing irrationality as one's means of survival.

    I have never questioned the wisdom of choosing rationality as a means of survival. If you think that I have been doing so, you have entirely missed the point of my previous posts.

    If I, you, and every other individual hewed "religiously" to the practice of dealing rationally with one another, and rejecting irrationality in others, then survival would not be the issue ... the only question would be "how successful do you want to be together?", and/or "how fast?".

    You have nicely demonstrated my problem: you are concerned with a subjective view of what man OUGHT to be, not what man demonstrably is. "Man qua man" is far more complex than Rand's particular description. Again, don't get me wrong: I think her moral directives have a great deal of merit, but they simply have no anchor in science.

    You are lucky enough to live in an age where it is cheap to be a "mad" scientist and/or inventor. Say thank you to the people who paved the way and made your life cheap.

    Of course I say "thank you" to all who make my way through life easier -- but am I really supposed to say thanks to those who make my life "cheap"? Nope -- no one who devalues what I do and cheapens it is worth my thanks. What sort of odd sacrificial offering do you think I owe those who would cheapen my life??

    A good doctor has no problem getting patients, dude. If you are in computer sales, my questions would be, do you excel at it? If so, I bet you do quite well.

    Good companies and good people tend to get along just fine, in my experience.

    And the fact that no one is an island does in no way invalidate the degree to which I am an individual, eh?

    I never said that individuality is necessarily sacrificed because we are not truly self-sufficient islands. My point was that the claim that only self-suffiency meant freedom was very limited by the actual facts on the ground: people are subject to their company's success; their individual creative projects may not find a buyer (Rand herself was only successful because of other people buying her books); their possibly very real skills as salesmen are limited by the use of their company's products and its continued success; their success as a doctor is dependent entirely upon others (patients). A good doctor has no problem geting patients, to be sure -- but only because there are so many others (patients) around that he can have a good practice.

    The only truly objective independent and self-sufficient individual that I can see is a farmer who grows his own food, produces his own power, and can educate his own children. That is a free person.

    Don't you have something you want to accomplish before you die?

    I desire that my children may have the same abundance of happiness, joy, and satisfaction that I enjoy. Obviously I can't dictate or force that, but if by my example I show them the results of a life lived to its fullest, than that would be a goal accomplished. So far, so good -- my kids are happy despite the sickening culture around them. They appear to have absorbed the love of family that I hoped they would. I suppose you were looking for some other "accomplishment", but I can think of no other work more important than the forming of one's own sons and daughters. That is creative, in every deepest sense.

  10. I'm saying that objective does not necessarily mean indifferent/impersonal.

    I think you and I have already agreed that there are certainly situations that are objective even though they relate to certain individuals -- for example, if one has a fatal allergic reaction to peanuts, then it is objectively true for that person that if survival is desired, then they ought not to eat peanuts, though that doesn't apply to everyone.

    Objective" I think is the best word because it highlights how many so-called objective moral theories are as subjective as you are claiming Objectivism to be.

    I think the word is misleading because it implies that it is objective; i.e., pertaining to facts, and not someone's opinion or feeling about how man OUGHT to be. This is not at all to say that I think other moral theories are objective. And again, this is NOT to say that I don't think Objectivist ethics are good and reasonable and ought to be adhered to -- you and I would agree, I suspect, on the desirability or undesirability of most actions. I just don't think they are scientifically demonstrable, outside of the obvious life-and-death situations, where science can show that a particular action (eating peanuts if one has a fatal allergic reaction to them) has a certain demonstrable outcome.

    I'm not saying she'd just fall over dead in 5 years, just that her condition of living is not conducive to her existence.

    We agree that her situation is not desirable. Even if she goes on to live a long and happy life, justice is not served because we are all compelled to foot her bill. All I'm saying is that objective science does not apply here, as she is not going to keel over and die. Lots of people live and thrive despite less-than-honorable lifestyles. The Mafia has been around for over a hundred years -- sure, some get caught, but most don't. They get rich, have families, and continue on. Nature doesn't come in and smite them all because they aren't living as you and I think they ought to be. That's all I'm saying.

    I'm not necessarily saying the goal is a certain quality of life, only that the goal is furtherance of one's existence.

    I'd be happy to see the scientific data that shows that increased lifespan is the reward for not living off of others. Does someone who lives in a monastery live a demonstrably shorter life than someone who starts a company? You just can't -- for starters, longevity is far more affected by one's heredity than it is by receiving a welfare check.

    This sense of quality of life can be measured and demonstrated scientifically in specific ways; all Objectivism suggests about ethics is fundamental principles of figuring out how to further one's life.

    But how do you square that with Rand's quote that people who place family, friends, and human relationships above creative work are "immoral"? I value those things very, very highly. Obviously not everyone does -- Rand never had children. I'm sure there are others like her. But can you scientifically demonstrate that my placing my family, friends, and human relationships above my crative work is "immoral"? I don't think it can be done.

    Choosing life is also the basis of morality here, because the only OTHER end that choices lead towards is non-existence.

    We agree about this, to the extent that obviously making choices which can be scientifically demonstrated to hasten death (being an alcoholic, doing drugs, driving recklessly, etc.). I mentioned my pompous uncle, who lived a luxurious life entirely off the money his father had made - he died at 87. Can you objectively demonstrate that he would have lived longer if he had been a self-made man?

    The point there about friends/family is just that having them set as MORE IMPORTANT than yourself is not good.

    But that isn't what Rand said -- specifically, she said that putting human relationships ahead of one's creative work is immoral. Of course it's not good to put everyone else

    ahead of one's self -- but, for many people (myself included), it's the love and closeness of friends and family that bring me joy. My work is very secondary to that. How do sccientifically demonstrate that I'm immoral? It's a question of what people prize and value highly, and it's not going to be the same for everyone.

    However, friends/family ARE important to your existence in pursuing a variety of your own goals whether through the encouragement they provide you, or the way they may actually help you in achieving specific goals.

    I value my family and friends for non-utilitarian purposes -- they don't need to provide encouragement (this is especially true of one's kids), and they don't need to help me achieve specific goals.

  11. Rand was not arbitrarily anti-Religion: that starts with an objective view of Reality and ends with a morality of rational self-interest.

    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.

  12. According to man qua man. Man has an identity. This identity must be respected and understood for survival. It includes being rational among the biological necessities.

    But as is clearly shown by the history of man, man is just as capable of being irrational -- and surviving nonetheless. Man can survive by slaughtering others to further his own ends; by enslaving others; by sponging off of others, by living off of inherited wealth. "Man qua man" is a nice standard of what man should be, according to Rand, but it isn't scientifically demonstrated that man can't survive by adopting other standards.

    Your friend is totally reliant on other people for survival (welfare & unemployment). If for any reason this funding is cut, your friend will find herself in a deep, deep hole. Abyssal-like hole.

    She's not my friend. Anyway, the chances of that funding being cut off are slim to none -- this is New York we're talking about. I suppose there's always a risk, of course, but it's a small one and it is rational of her to conclude that her funding is likely to continue. Don't get me wrong -- I think sponging off of others is reprehensible. That she calls herself an Objectivist is ludicrous. All I am saying is that the Objectivist ideal standard of living is not objective. She won't die because she's chosen to live off of others. That would be an objective proof that the standard id indeed scientifically demonstrable as opposed to being simply a good standard to live by.

    Either live off of one's own productivity, or the productivity of others.

    Reality isn't as neat and clean as all that. If I am a scientist, I have to get funding somewhere. If I am a doctor, I rely on having other people as patients. If I am in computer sales, I rely upon other people to buy my products. Anyone who works for a company is subject to the uncertainties that affect that company. Companies are affected by economic trends. No one is really an island, with the possible exception of a self-suffiecient farmer who raises his own food and produces his own power.

    Living off of your own productivity is the right choice because it ensures your survival regardless of what other people do.

    See above.

    Family and friends is irrational to place at the top of your hierarchy of values because it's an unproductive method of living.

    For many people (including myself), having the love and closeness of family and friends is its own reward, regardless of its "productivity". These are what makes life richer for many people. That it doesn't make the top of the list for you or for Rand is your choice (possibly determined by your personality), but it isn't a scientifically demonstrated fact.

    See Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged.

    That is a fictional character in a work of fiction. I'm talking about reality.

  13. See, there are still some problems here to the extent

    subjective is meaning personal. By objective I essentially mean based

    on fact. There is a problem, I hope you recognize, that Rand needed to

    use SOME kind of word to distinguish her thoughts from a subjectivist

    approach and people who claimed to have an objective approach.

    I provided you with dictionary definitions of how I am using the

    words, so that we can be on the same page. Yes, I know that Rand means

    different things by those words, but that's not the way I am using

    them. I am using them in the generally accepted meaning of the words,

    according to the definitions I gave. Why and how she asssigned

    different meanings isn't useful to this discussion, as it only creates

    confusion. Why she chose to create this confusion is another topic.

    I would ask her WHY having a kid is her highest priority. HOW

    is her life being furthered? That's the only question that needs to be

    asked. Using reason to attain a goal is how people DO anything, but

    the point here is that life is a proper STANDARD to decide which

    choices to make.

    We agree about this. However, this is the crucial point: when you say

    "life is a proper standard", that's objective only to the extent that it

    refers to biological life. If you don't do particular actions such as

    eating or drinking, you will die. That you will die is objective proof

    that eating and drinking is necessary to sustain biological life. But

    you go beyond objective as soon as you modify this basic standard by

    adding the word "proper". "Proper" according to whom? Again, you and I

    would likely agree on most of what a "proper" life consists of, but it

    isn't scientifically verifiable as objective. You can be a parasite

    and live. You might not live as I would like you to, but you would

    live.

    Maybe she'll be happy for 5 years even, but we're talking about

    long-term existence.

    If you can scientifically demonstrate that she will not live beyond 5

    years, then we can agree that the "standard of life" is usefully and

    objectively applied to this situation. You can't.

    The bottom line is that you're asserting life as a standard of value is also subjective, and I'm saying it isn't subjective.

    I would agree that a standard of biological life (i.e., if you don't do this, you will die; if you do this, you will live) is in fact an objective standard of life. Science supports you in that. But as soon as you start talking about the type or quality of the life lived, you go beyond what can be proven scientifically. Your idea of what the ideal ife looks like is simply subjective.

    "Job" and productive work in this context are not identical. People may get a job as a waiter to support themselves while their career goal is that of movie director. The point is to see family and friends as MORE important than your goals in life is altruistic to the extent that it would suggest one takes relationships with others to be a primary. That conclusion was based - just like every other ethical assertion made by Rand - on the identity of humans.

    We agree that "job" and "productive work" are not always identical. However, that some far-off goal (sometimes realized, sometimes not) should be placed above family and friends is strictly a subjective opinion, not a scientific fact. I have no doubt that a few individuals (such as Rand) might be driven to a certain goal in their minds such that they could have no peace unless that creative goal was accomplished, and anyone else be damned. However, most people prize family and friends over such idealism. If your standard truly was "objective", then only those who achieved their particular creative goal would live a long and happy life. But close friends and a happy family still matter a great deal in people's measure of happiness -- you seem unable to grasp that what you think man "should' be is not exactly what man "is". You haven't given me a shred of data that suggests that objective science supports your idea of "man as he should be" vs. "man as he is".

  14. I think people survived using religion and other more primitive philosophical systems. *To the extent* those systems were rational they enabled survival and to the extent they weren't they didn't, but people didn't know that until the ancient Greeks.

    The Greeks were NOT atheists. They were a polytheistic society, which recognized many gods in a hierarchy.

  15. Attending meetings does not make one's argument valid.

    I agree -- I mentioned her "credentials" because that was what she relied on when I challenged her assertion that she was living by Objectivist principles. Her argument could be boiled down to: "I used reason to attain my highest value", and "I know what I'm talking about, because I've gone to such-and-such conference; I've attended meetings and lectures; I've been so devoted that I made a pilgrimage to Ayn Rand's gravesite, so I know more than you do about Objectivism." Again, she's probably right about the last bit, but otherwise her argument wasn't persuasive.

    Eiuol -- I don't have the time to answer you now, as it will take more time than I have tonight. Thanks for your explanation, but it doesn't convince me. I'll address your post tomorrow or Saturday, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree: though I admire Objectivism in many areas, I don't see it as objective as you claim.

  16. "If Ayn's ethical code appears to contradict objectivity, or rely in any way on subjective, i.e., non-reproducible, representations, then please can you give me a single solitary example?"

    OK, I'll try again. Sorry about the delay, by the way -- computer problems.

    First, let's be clear that I am using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in the general sense of those terms: Objective -- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts. Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. Subjective -- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.

    With that in mind, let me go back to one particular example that I gave you, the situation of the Objectivist daughter of a friend of mine. (It's this situation that prompted me to examine Objectivism again after many years.) She is nearing the end of her peak fertile years (she is in her mid-thirties). She wants a family, and wants to be home with her child. Her separated husband is not interested in either being a father or supporting her, so she became pregnant by another man. She is now on the New York welfare sysytem, which is known to be very generous. She has been living on the New York unemployment system, mostly on but sometimes off, for much of the last five years or so. She claims that she is still a good Objectivist, because she has used reason to attain her goal. I didn't think she was quite right about that, which is why I came here. But, on the face of it at least, she did indeed use reason to accomplish out her goal: she needed reason and discernment to find a guy who would be happy to father a child, and she needed reason to figure out whether or not the welfare check gives her the living standard she wants (it does), and then go through the process of getting on it. She did attain her highest goals -- she is now happily pregnant, which is what she wanted.

    Now, you and I no doubt agree that we ought not have to foot the bill. She is compelling others to sacrifice for her, which strikes me as being very un-Objectivist, but she insists that no, she is an Objectivist still. Her credentials appear to be impeccable: she was very active in Objectivist circles in New York, attended conferences, meetings, etc. -- so she claims her interpretation of Objectivism is informed and sound, and much more reliable than mine (she's probably right about that.)

    And here is where it I see subjectivism: it is my OPINION that she ought not to deliberately choose to be on welfare. I cannot point to some set of scientific data that shows that, contra Objectivism, she won't be continue to live -- she may well live a long and happy life. Lots of people do live off of others, and if it really were an objective fact that it is the wrong way for people to live, then I would expect to see the results of that show up in some scientifically verifiable way. It would be objective if science showed that all of those who wrongfully sponged off others died young. That would be measurable, reproducible proof that it's not right to do so. Otherwise, it's just you and me and Rand thinking that her parasitical life is wrong. A good opinion, maybe even a wise one, but NOT scientifically verifiable. Subjective, not objective.

    While looking for some Rand quotes to give her, I came across this from a Playboy interview Rand gave:

    RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

    And this surprised me. I've read a lot of Rand, but I hadn't come across this before. I did pass it on to the woman in question (and received no answer...), but I did think it an extraordinary statement, and one that simply was not objective. I know of many, many people who value family and friends over their jobs. Many have jobs solely inorder to provide for their families, their highest value. That Rand thinks they are all immoral is astounding -- and where is her objective, scientific proof that people who put family and friends over their jobs are immoral? What proof exists?? It is simply Rand's OPINION that "friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life". It is not an objective fact.

    Does that help?

    I consider the ancient Greeks the inventors of reason. Before that there was thinking, but not formal reasoning as we think of it today.

    But again -- doesn't that go against your contention, and the contention of Objectivists (and all sane people...), that reason is necessary to survive? If reason wasn't around before the Greeks, then no humans could have could have survived because reason, the means of survival, hadn't been invented yet. This makes no sense.

  17. America corrupts the majority of the adherents of every religion into a more materialistic, this worldly and practical version. Counting the noses of self-declared religious people in America as if they were equivalent to the monks, self-flagellating worshipers and crusaders of the Dark Ages is not rational.

    I agree with your first sentence. I won't bother to address the straw-man assertion you make in your second sentence, which entirely misses the point I was making.

    People live by mixed premises. One may be religious in church and rational iin office. Parasites thrive tru sanction of the victims.

    We agree. You're confirming the point I am making, which is that much (not all) of Objectivist ehtics really aren't very objective (in the usual sense of the word).

    I think it's pretty non-contraversial that reason is man's means of survival in the sense that you have to follow physics/cause and effect to get anything done in the world.

    Yes, obviously.

    If everyone in the world deliberately did the opposite to what cause and effect requires in their every activity, no activity would complete, and pretty soon we'd all be dead. So at the very least, following cause and effect is a requirement of man's survival.

    I agree with your first statement. However, there is NO history of any such event (everyone committing suicide), and so, as a previous poster mantioned, the human race continues to amble along, often with mixed premises, often chock-full of parasites, often holding views that you and I might not think are very wise.

    Of course, you can also survive by taking an army of slaves, but someone somewhere down the line must be following the laws of physics.

    I'm sure history is replete with examples of slave owners who lived productive lives. If it were truly the case that "someone down the line must be following the laws of physics", then they all would have died early after miserable lives, and slavery would not have persisted as long as it has (and it does continue today).

    So it still remains true that reason is what is making your survival possible.

    Yes, and maybe reason tells you that having an army of slaves is the way to survive.

    Reason has not always been around, it was invented, and people survived before that.

    This is quite a remarkable statement! Tell me, when was reason invented? Give me a date, please. How did anyone survive before then -- did they just get by on emotion? How exactly did that work? And aren't you contradicting your earlier statement that reason is necessary for survival, since these pre-reason people survived well enough to give birth to the person that did invernt it?

  18. I was asking for examples of individuals who thrive and are also parasites.

    I gave you some personal examples, but I can add more, current as well as historical: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Stalin, Idi Amin, several Bourbon kings of France, Prince Charles, Henry VIII, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Khomeini, Leopold II, Muhammad, John Cage....just how long do I need to make this list?

    That's fine, but that doesn't even tell me anything about the purpose of those universities at the time.

    It's not hard to find out this information, but to spare you the bother of some actual research, the purpose was to pass on the accumulated knowledge of that time. That included arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music theory, grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The primary emphasis was on logic. Languages such as Greek were also taught.

    I don't think the Dark Ages are the epitome of reason by any standard.

    I wasn't referring to the Dark Ages, but to the Middle Ages. The Dark Ages represent the period of time between the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire, and the resurgence of political and economic structures, which varied in different areas. Modern scholars generally do not place the Middle Ages in the "Dark Ages" category (with the sometimes exception of the earliest period of the Middle Ages) because of the intellectual advances of this period. By the way, you do know, don't you, that even in the Dark Ages, when the Roman Empire collapsed, that it was religious monks who copied and preserved the texts of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers? There were no printing presses-- this was a great labor.

    That doesn't mean that NO people of the time period were able to thrive, but most people didn't due to the extent religion was seen as all important.

    That would suggest a provable correlation between religious faith and "thriving", which does not exist. Many of the pioneers of various branches of science were also quite religious. The United States has been, throughout most of its history, a very religious country, but that has not kept it from thriving. Your conclusion lacks a rational basis. What I do see is your ideological desire to separate "rational" from "irrational" based on your opinion of religious belief. To the extent that this blinds you to historical reality, it is irrational.

  19. Your trying to evaluate an ethical theory with the same scrutiny as one would a math equation.

    A poster here said that all human values can be proven scientifically. Was he wrong, then? A math equation can be proven objectively (that is, it is true regardless of the attitudes or beliefs of persons). I don't think all ethical theories can be proven like that -- and that is my point.

    Objectivism isn't the method. It's just the name of a philosophy. Reason and logic is the only valid method.

    Correction noted -- sorry, sloppy terminology on my part.

    Which people? Which time period in history? This is important!

    ALL people, and in ALL historical periods. People aren't fundamentally different, in the moral sense, from one time period to another. For example, during the last century, the possibilities available to man for dominion over matter have grown in a manner that would have been truly unimaginable just a few centuries ago. But man's destructive power has also grown, as well as ethical challenges --cloning, genetic manipulation, etc. The huge growth of knowledge does not bring with it a corresponding huge development of man's moral capacity. If, for example, you want to look at the Middle Ages as a period of dark irrationality, you can't ignore that it was also the period when the universities in Europe were founded. You simply can't point to a period and say, "well, people were rational then", compared to some other period of time. It is true that culture has an affect on what is valued: so, in our culture, feelings and materialism reign, which can affect the aspirations of those tuned into the culture. But that does not mean that people today are, in their basic human nature, somehow more or less morally advanced than in other periods.

  20. The issue isn't being kicked out, the issue is that they might try to throw me in a car and drive to family in another state. The issues is that every time I try to leave, they always try to find me and follow me around until I obey...

    Whether you're in danger of being kicked out or sent to another state, the answer is simply that unless and until you are on your own and paying your own way in life, you are your parents' responsibility. Whether you like it or not, you need to obey them (unless of course they are asking you to murder someone or do some gravely immoral, illegal act).

  21. Just because someone agrees about something doesn't necessarily mean they live it out.

    Agreed.

    All you're pointing out is that people can make mistakes in their judgments.

    Agreed.

    People are fallible.

    Agreed, though some here appear to think that Rand was the sole exception....

    Why wouldn't you expect to find a few unhappy Objectivist minded people?

    Actually, I do expect to find unhappy Objectivists, because I don't accept that it is, in fact, objective. And I see more than a few who seem to be very angry people indeed...

    Really the point is that there are methods to achieve happiness if you're unhappy due to various hardships.

    Again, we agree -- however, Objectivism appears to make the claim that it is THE only valid method. Any other philosophy that Rand deemed "irrational" (such as religious faith or hedonism) is viewed with contempt.

    And that is my point here: we agree on the items above, but in doing so you are, in fact, giving evidence to the non-objective nature of Objectivism. If it were really as scientifically proven -- "valid, inductions pristine, measurements reproducible, and conclusions unshakable" -- as it purports to be, then I would expect to find scientifically measurable happiness rise in exactly, precisely, and pristinely in proportion to one's adherence to Objectivism. But reality dictates all kinds of variables, and people do in fact thrive though they are very religious; people thrive though they are parasites; people thrive just on the exercise of power.

  22. Your control over your life is superficial. This is the life of a parasite.

    Objectivist ethics doesn't hold the parasite as the standard.

    And I agree entirely. However, for some people, having the security that comes from not having to risk themselves, or get a job, or do any one of a hundred things that comes with being self-sufficient, might be well worth the negatives. It's also (at least in this country and in Europe) quite risk-free: very, very few people are ever kicked off of welfare.

  23. Hmm, all I saw you mention was that divorce rate thing (which isn't very informative of the discussion here, perhaps the religious have a special dedication to preserving marriages no matter the cost), an uncle of yours (which you didn't elaborate on too much), and a mother who wants to live off welfare (without exactly providing reasoning as to how she'd really benefit herself in the long run).

    So, I did provide examples, didn't I, contrary to the rather hysterical previous poster ("can you give me a SINGLE SOLITARY EXAMPLE?! No? I thought not") You mentioned three. You may have problems with my examples, but only one person asked for elaboration, which I addressed. Not only did I give three specific examples, I also mentioned the welfare classes in this country and in Europe as examples of people who obviously live contrary to Obectivist ethics but live nonetheless. Now, a subsequent poster has this to say:

    People who do not follow basic tenets of Objectivist ethics do not thrive, they survive. Survival is merely staying alive, thriving is the actual act of living, of achieving your full potential.

    And that makes my point -- "thriving" is rather subjective. What one person views as a happy, fulfilled life might not be the same as another. It is subjective because of the individuality of a person's hierarchy of values. For example, in the case of the Objectivist daughter of a friend, her hierarchy of values has at-home motherhood at or near the top (I haven't asked her, so I won't assert that it is her highest value). Since she cannot find a man who will support her towards this goal, she has used her reason to decide how best to achieve this goal, and her answer is to go on welfare. Because she weighed her options and chose a course that would give her what she values, she maintains that she is still living according to her Objectivist principles. (I happen to disagree, but that's another topic.)

    If the furtherance of biological life is one's highest value, then objectively there are things one must do: eat, drink, sleep. To not do so is to die. But once start adding qualifiers to that, such as "thriving" or "flourishing" or "man qua man", you are dealing with something that, in most cases, cannot be scientifically proven. As I mentioned earlier, just a brief look at the "self-improvement" forum on this website will reveal plenty of people who are distinctly unhappy: "I'm depressed again", was a recent topic, for example. If Rand's concepts had as a scientific basis as some claim here ("valid, inductions pristine, measurements reproducible, and conclusions unshakable" according to one worshipper), then I would not expect to find unhappy, miserable, socially mal-adjusted Objectivists. The fact that there are suggests to the reasonable mind that it's not as scientifically neat and pristine as hoped.

    I would not draw this thin, bright line between "following O'ist ethics or not" or "thriving or surviving." These concepts are important for describing the basic archetype of someone who survives by thinking and acting for themselves versus someone who surrenders the responsibility for their own life to others, but actual people and their situations are much more complex. Certainly, though, to the extent that an individual does not take responsibility for achieving their own values, they are merely "surviving."

    I agree completely with this. Again, I happen to largely admire Objectivist ethics. I just don't see them as scientifically proven or provable.

  24. If Ayn's ethical code appears to contradict objectivity, or rely in any way on subjective, i.e., non-reproducible, representations, then please can you give me a SINGLE SOLITARY EXAMPLE?! No? I thought not. Your assertion is arbitrary on its face.

    Actually, I did provide examples. Your assertion is false.

    Now, whether one LIKES Ayn's ethics or not is, perhaps, subjective (but only if you are somewhat irrational, in my experience -- wholly rational folk seem to like it unequivocally). But, her precepts are valid, inductions pristine, measurements reproducible, and conclusions unshakable ... can you honestly disagree, assuming you have read and understood OPAR? That is as objective, scientific as one can get.

    Spoken like a true disciple....

  25. Then you chose to pretend that meant we don't have answers for your questions.

    Hardly. I had specific questions, and most of the answers consisted of "read this". I don't regard that as much of an answer, for a number of reasons, some of which I enumerated. That some of you, as individuals, can't answer my questions does not mean that Objectivism does not provide answers. Two of my specific questions were at least partially addressed (thank you). The partial answers simply clarified what my reading over the years has suggested: Objectivism is simply situational ethics. It proposes a certain standard (a good one, by and large) but that standard is itself subjective (that is, it cannot be scientifically demonstrated). That's OK, folks -- don't get your undies in a bunch.

×
×
  • Create New...