Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Free Riders

Rate this topic


Zip

Recommended Posts

That's why I'm concerned about a moral philosophy that would answer that question satisfactory enough for my personal self interest.

Moral how? You are talking about taking from another person to get the unearned? That is not rational self interest, that is what we have now in the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No we're not.

So you know for a fact that nothing will ever happen which will put you in such a situation?

Would you? I hazard from your concern that you would help. Which leads me to the idea that caring, and recognizing the possibility of such an unfortunate event that you and those like you would contribute to a charity that had the amelioration of such a situation as it's casus beli.

I believe in the founding of private trusts and foundations to fund the medical aid for the purposes that we're discussing. That way the hospital doesn't need to lose money and people don't need to die or suffer for lack of cash.

The idea that men are evil in that they would not help even when they can is a weapon of the reform liberal. That ideology has through years of hard work created this premise that without being told what to do, when and how, that we as a species would slip back into the dark ages when life was cruel, brutish and short.

It doesn't have anything to do with believing people are inherently evil. There's a special name for the condition I'm thinking of, named after a woman in New York I believe. Everyone stood around as she was murdered because everyone assumed that someone else called the police. It's a notorious incident and it happened in the 70's I believe, if someone can assist me with that.

Moral how? You are talking about taking from another person to get the unearned? That is not rational self interest, that is what we have now in the current system.

I'm concerned about a philosophy that has no inherent moral value to the suffering of another human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is, what if no one does? There is no guarantee that someone will. Anyone can become that poor person. We're all susceptible to reaching rock bottom, if only for a moment in our lives. Ergo, that person can be me. That's why I'm concerned about a moral philosophy that would answer that question satisfactory enough for my personal self interest. Relying on the faith that "someone" is a bit lacking to me. What motivation is there to care about anything if it's always this amorphous "someone" that will do something?

My personal self interest includes a lot more than that: I don't just want to survive, I want to live a moral life, I want to have self-esteem: I could never have that knowing that someone better than me, someone who has the ability to provide not only for himself, but for many others, a great businessman, engineer, inventor or artist is being enslaved by a tyrant just so that I can have a safety net, since I do not even have the confidence in myself to know that I can survive on my own.

Is that the goal of your life, to be this passive, worthless moocher I am describing? Or do you want to be a hero, a great man who provides a great life for himself and those he loves?

If you want to be the former, then your self-interest does dictate that you should vote and advocate for a looting state, which provides for your sorry existence. However, if you want to be the latter, you should advocate for a free society which allows you to be that hero, even if there are risks involved. (by the way, there are always risks, and ending up helpless on a hospital bed really isn't one of the major ones)

P.S. Please read Atlas Shrugged before you decide.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal self interest includes a lot more than that: I don't just want to survive, I want to live a moral life, I want to have self-esteem: I could never have that knowing that someone better than me, someone who has the ability to provide not only for himself, but for many others, a great businessman, engineer, inventor or artist is being enslaved by a tyrant just so that I can have a safety net, since I do not even have the confidence in myself to know that I can survive on my own.

I feel that same way. But I don't think it's an either/or situation. I believe it's still possible for a society to help the less fortunate without having to 'enslave' the better off.

Is that the goal of your life, to be this passive, worthless moocher I am describing? Or do you want to be a hero, a great man who provides a great life for himself and those he loves?

I want to be the hero. But to strive to be that hero doesn't make one invulnerable to unfortunate circumstances.

If I came across a person who was severely injured in a car accident, I wouldn't move along because "someone" will help him (I can't be late for work or I'll lose a few hours in my payroll!) but because I place value in the suffering of random individuals. Why? Because I'd hope others would do the same for me. Perhaps that person I'm saving is a moocher, or perhaps he'll grow up to be a Randian hero of sorts, who knows? Hell, even if I knew he was a moocher I still wouldn't let him die. I don't have the heart to turn a blind eye to someone dying if I can do something about it. The only thing is, it's a fine balance between helping people as best one can while at the same time protecting oneself from losing more than one can afford (or willing to part with) or being taken advantage of. In the instance of an ER in an Objectivist society (as this thread started out as), I think a Foundation or a Trust would be a good way to fill in the gaps left by those who don't have an insurance card or their own means of paying their bills.

P.S. Please read Atlas Shrugged before you decide.

I'm more than half way through the book, but I knew my answer years before I even knew who Rand was.

Edited by Zedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you know for a fact that nothing will ever happen which will put you in such a situation?

Correct. Or to be more specific, the liklihood is so small that even if such a series of unfathomable, unfortunate events were to occur, that I could hardly care that the last event was to end up dead. There IS such a thing as responsible people out there, ya know. Not all of us slave away for "the man", subject to dismissal at his whims because he caught us goofing off on the assembly line. Some of us ARE "the man".

Hell, even if I knew he was a moocher I still wouldn't let him die. I don't have the heart to turn a blind eye to someone dying if I can do something about it.

But there are complete strangers to you dying every day! Oops - another one just died in Bangladesh... and another in Mozambique! Oops there goes one now in Topeka! What did you do to save THEM? Why were you wasting your time on this forum when you could have been doing *something* that could have saved their lives! Quick! Go! Your superhero abilities are needed!

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. Or to be more specific, the liklihood is so small that even if such a series of unfathomable, unfortunate events were to occur, that I could hardly care that the last event was to end up dead. There IS such a thing as responsible people out there, ya know. Not all of us slave away for "the man", subject to dismissal at his whims because he caught us goofing off on the assembly line. Some of us ARE "the man".

Okay, so you will be left for dead. But you don't speak for everyone. It's fathomable that there are people who are as well off as you or better who wouldn't feel the same.

But there are complete strangers to you dying every day! Oops - another one just died in Bangladesh... and another in Mozambique! Oops there goes one now in Topeka! What did you do to save THEM? Why were you wasting your time on this forum when you could have been doing *something* that could have saved their lives! Quick! Go! Your superhero abilities are needed!

What can I do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that same way. But I don't think it's an either/or situation. I believe it's still possible for a society to help the less fortunate without having to 'enslave' the better off.

If I came across a person who was severely injured in a car accident, I wouldn't move along because "someone" will help him (I can't be late for work or I'll lose a few hours in my payroll!)...

These are two statements that I at least interpret differently.

In the second one you are talking about what you personally want to do, and that is your business. While I agree with Kevin's point (that you are not being consistent, phisycal proximity just isn't a good criteria to why you should be saving some poeple indiscriminately while doing nothing for others who are far away), your attitude doesn't really bother me. If I knew for a fact someone was a bad person (a complete moocher for instance, someone with zero value or potential) I wouldn't save them, even if it was easy, but otherwise I would take someone to the hospital too.

What I do have a problem with is your first statement: sure, there is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a society where individuals help out those less fortunate (and I mean less fortunate, not something else), but how exactly would a society help out. Where would the resources come from? The last time I checked, resuorces and values are produced, and owned by humans, who are all individuals, not by the state (or "society").

How do you propose we get the resources needed from the individuals who produced it and therefore own it to the state, and then to the less fortunate?

If it is through taxes, that means using force-guns and prisons to be precise- against innocent people(against the best people, on top of it all), and I am yet to hear a justification for that from anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with Kevin's point (that you are not being consistent, phisycal proximity just isn't a good criteria to why you should be saving some poeple indiscriminately while doing nothing for others who are far away)

Proximity has a lot to do about it. I can help a person I encountered on the street who was just in an accident much more readily than I can a person in Kazakhstan.

How do you propose we get the resources needed from the individuals who produced it and therefore own it to the state, and then to the less fortunate?

If it is through taxes, that means using force-guns and prisons to be precise- against innocent people(against the best people, on top of it all), and I am yet to hear a justification for that from anyone.

I don't think it needs to be done by the state. Look at the great work of Bill Gates. He founded the Gates Foundation which has done a lot of philanthropic work. Warren Buffet donated I believe 80% of his immense wealth to the foundation. I think in a society where people have the freedom to live their lives they are more naturally willing to do what they think is morally right. I also have another idea, it's a voluntarily joined but non-profit national coverage system which pools large amounts of wealth to cover health care costs. In general, the idea isn't much different than nationalized health care except for the fact that it'd be privately owned by a Foundation and voluntary. I don't know the details about how exactly it'd work, it's still a relatively new idea of mine.

SOMETHING! SOMEHOW!

I was never one to say we all do something somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proximity has a lot to do about it. I can help a person I encountered on the street who was just in an accident much more readily than I can a person in Kazakhstan.

That is not true. You are using oil that was extracted exactly there (this is too easy), just as readily as if it was extracted in your back yard. There are plenty of organizations just as sofisticated as oil companies, that make it possible to help anyone, anywhere, at the click of a button, at the same cost, often less, of helping someone next door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it needs to be done by the state. Look at the great work of Bill Gates. He founded the Gates Foundation which has done a lot of philanthropic work. Warren Buffet donated I believe 80% of his immense wealth to the foundation. I think in a society where people have the freedom to live their lives they are more naturally willing to do what they think is morally right. I also have another idea, it's a voluntarily joined but non-profit national coverage system which pools large amounts of wealth to cover health care costs. In general, the idea isn't much different than nationalized health care except for the fact that it'd be privately owned by a Foundation and voluntary. I don't know the details about how exactly it'd work, it's still a relatively new idea of mine.

Then, please, don't mention society in the same sentence, because people will misunderstand you, expecially those who don't see a problem with the use of force: Bill Gates is not society, he's Bill Gates. And by building Microsoft he has done more good already than his charity will ever do. And Warren Buffet didn't donate that money yet, he'll hold on to it until he drops dead: apparently mr Buffet is all progressive talk, but he was more than happy to take advantage of the evil capitalist America he came up in. He never once thought that his fortune would be in better hands if given to the poor, and he still wants to keep it until he dies, but he sure wants more of my money given to the government.

As far as your idea goes, I think I'll stick to a for-profit organization, when it comes to medical care for me and my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm concerned about a philosophy that has no inherent moral value to the suffering of another human being.

Does it matter to you at all what kind of human being? We are not all alike, or do you think that we are? There are many humans that are totally worthless beings, they only live as parasites on the back of the productive. Why would any person think to support those kinds of people? I am not talking about people that have had bad things happen to them through no fault of their own, but there again one has to make a distinction. Most rational people prepare for bad times, they do not spend their last dime every week waiting for the paycheck to arrive only to spend it all again. Your answer is probably that those people never had a chance in life. Really?

Learning is open to all of us, you do not need a school to learn, libraries are everywhere, including computers. Time is the same for all of us, so there are a few hours to learn in the day for any person. You do not have to make babies when you can not afford them, especially if you do so instead of learning a skill that is salable. You say the big evil corporations do not support the little guy, they get richer and richer and take all of the chances away from the little guy. A little guy can not even get emergency care in the hospital and dies because the rich and evil guy is not willing to share. Only government regulations will even out the playing field. Why not force the rich with the gun that the government holds in your name? It would not hurt them a bit but would save a life. That is the situation we have today in most "civilized" countries. And do not forget that the producers have sanctioned to be slaves to the masses as well (see the collapse of the car industry). That is collectivism, each of the individuals subscribing to altruism, for the good of all, to save all in the emergency room no matter what…

And that is what you call "inherent moral value", for that is what your question implies. For the Objectivist the highest moral value is rational selfishness.

Here is one of the many ways healthcare for a person could be provided in a rational Laissez-Faire nation: producer A of a widget becomes successful, he has many employees. He values his employees, they help him to expand and gain bigger profits. He pays them well, he acknowledges their contribution to his success. Now there is another guy, producer B, who produces a similar product. He wants to grow and find employees that are as good or better than the employees his competitor has. So he offers an incentive for the employees of Producer A to join him by offering healthcare. He now can cherry-pick the best people in the field. Producer A has lost a lot of good people and wants to get them back, so he offers healthcare and some other perks also. By doing so he attracts back some of his old employees and new people as well. In the end all of the employers in the position to do so would provide healthcare.

You ask why this is not done today. Well, all moneys that might be used for healthcare for employees are sucked out of the corporations by taxes and other fees that are compulsory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zedic.

Apparently you have read Rand's article "The Ethics of Emergencies" because that is where she says that you ought to help people in an emergency. One the other hand there are a lot of other things you haven't understood yet, because the way you keep rephrasing what should be an uncontroversial position is drawing a lot of fire. In response, you haven't yielded an inch. The thread is going nowhere.

When I learned Objectivism, it was on my own and consisted of at least one complete read through of everything she published during her life. When I started reading debates about Objectivist principles on usenet and the web I was sharpening my understanding, not gaining it for the first time. Jumping into the middle of a debate before completing an initial survey of the literature is not conducive to learning because one is too busy "not losing" to understand the new point of view.

Give Rand a chance. She was a far better writer than anyone in this thread, including me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, please, don't mention society in the same sentence, because people will misunderstand you

Fair enough, I can understand that. But in my defense, my use of that word comes from the idea that the individuals who make up a community can work together to solve a problem (ie, healthcare).

Does it matter to you at all what kind of human being? We are not all alike, or do you think that we are? There are many humans that are totally worthless beings, they only live as parasites on the back of the productive. Why would any person think to support those kinds of people? I am not talking about people that have had bad things happen to them through no fault of their own, but there again one has to make a distinction. Most rational people prepare for bad times, they do not spend their last dime every week waiting for the paycheck to arrive only to spend it all again. Your answer is probably that those people never had a chance in life. Really?

No, that's not my answer. My answer is that people can change. I would save the life of a moocher if I saw that he was dieing and I had the capacity to because I can't predict the future. Maybe something in the future will change his mind, like how Ron Paul and Ayn Rand changed my mind. Also, because I don't think I'm so special that I can look at a person and judge him to be such a parasite that he should die.

You say the big evil corporations do not support the little guy, they get richer and richer and take all of the chances away from the little guy. A little guy can not even get emergency care in the hospital and dies because the rich and evil guy is not willing to share. Only government regulations will even out the playing field.

Straw man, I never said that.

Why not force the rich with the gun that the government holds in your name? It would not hurt them a bit but would save a life. That is the situation we have today in most "civilized" countries. And do not forget that the producers have sanctioned to be slaves to the masses as well (see the collapse of the car industry). That is collectivism, each of the individuals subscribing to altruism, for the good of all, to save all in the emergency room no matter what…

It's quite a stretch to take what I've said about helping people in emergencies to this.

And that is what you call "inherent moral value", for that is what your question implies. For the Objectivist the highest moral value is rational selfishness.

I'm glad you pointed this out because I realized later that I was mistaken to call it "inherent". My argument is it's rational to place moral value on the suffering of another human being and feel compassion for that person because it's compassion which drives people to help. That's simply an objective fact of psychology. The reason why it's in my rational self interest is because that compassion (and thus assistance) can be extended upon me. Of course it's valid to consider if the person brought it upon himself, because in that case it's a learning experience for the individual and his actions shouldn't be justified and to separate him from his responsibility. You may agree or disagree, that's fine. But I think that farrets out the basic principle behind what I've been trying to say.

Apparently you have read Rand's article "The Ethics of Emergencies" because that is where she says that you ought to help people in an emergency. One the other hand there are a lot of other things you haven't understood yet, because the way you keep rephrasing what should be an uncontroversial position is drawing a lot of fire. In response, you haven't yielded an inch. The thread is going nowhere.

When I learned Objectivism, it was on my own and consisted of at least one complete read through of everything she published during her life. When I started reading debates about Objectivist principles on usenet and the web I was sharpening my understanding, not gaining it for the first time. Jumping into the middle of a debate before completing an initial survey of the literature is not conducive to learning because one is too busy "not losing" to understand the new point of view.

I haven't read all her works, but I've learned all her basic principles. From them, I have reached my own conclusions which you have seen. I'm confident in my logical abilities because I never read "The Ethics of Emergencies", but according to you I reached the same conclusion. But I have also reached my own conclusion involving compassion (as I expressed above) based on observed, objective facts of reality (ie, the psychology of compassion) and have chosen to express it in my own words. Perhaps the problem isn't that I haven't read enough of Rand's work to know how to say it in "her words" or "her language", but that others here have deepened their thought so deeply in someone else's thought processes that they fail to see the true meaning behind my words?

Give Rand a chance. She was a far better writer than anyone in this thread, including me.

She's one of my favorite authors. I look forward to reading more of her works.

In response, you haven't yielded an inch. The thread is going nowhere.

Am I only to yield? I hold to my principles just the same as a more full fledged Objectivist. But fair enough, I see what you're saying. I wanted to interject my own little personal touch to the discussion and I apparently failed to convey to the members here precisely what I was saying.

Edited by Zedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not my answer. My answer is that people can change. I would save the life of a moocher if I saw that he was dieing and I had the capacity to because I can't predict the future. Maybe something in the future will change his mind, like how Ron Paul and Ayn Rand changed my mind.

Alright, you may save any person on earth if you wish to, but you have to use your own funds and/or find people who are willing -- without force -- to do so. Not by law and regulations forced by the majority onto the minority. There is a place for charity, but force can never be used to support it.

Also, because I don't think I'm so special that I can look at a person and judge him to be such a parasite that he should die.

You have to look at the other side though. Who is the person that will have to give up a higher value to get a lower value in this? Make a sacrifice in other words.

It's quite a stretch to take what I've said about helping people in emergencies to this.

It is? How would you finance saving people that can not do it by themselves? Give us a solution how you would go about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I can understand that. But in my defense, my use of that word comes from the idea that the individuals who make up a community can work together to solve a problem (ie, healthcare).

The fact that they can does not and should not become an imperative "must"

No, that's not my answer. My answer is that people can change. I would save the life of a moocher if I saw that he was dieing and I had the capacity to because I can't predict the future. Maybe something in the future will change his mind, like how Ron Paul and Ayn Rand changed my mind. Also, because I don't think I'm so special that I can look at a person and judge him to be such a parasite that he should die.

Then no one here will try to stop you, but your feelings are not, again, a mortgage on anyone's actions but your own.

I haven't read all her works, but I've learned all her basic principles. From them, I have reached my own conclusions which you have seen. I'm confident in my logical abilities because I never read "The Ethics of Emergencies", but according to you I reached the same conclusion. But I have also reached my own conclusion involving compassion (as I expressed above) based on observed, objective facts of reality (ie, the psychology of compassion) and have chosen to express it in my own words. Perhaps the problem isn't that I haven't read enough of Rand's work to know how to say it in "her words" or "her language", but that others here have deepened their thought so deeply in someone else's thought processes that they fail to see the true meaning behind my words?

Who's compassion will you base this demand for action on? Yours? Mother Teresa's? Ted Bundy's?

Am I only to yield? I hold to my principles just the same as a more full fledged Objectivist. But fair enough, I see what you're saying. I wanted to interject my own little personal touch to the discussion and I apparently failed to convey to the members here precisely what I was saying.

I think everyone here understood what you were trying to say, as they responded over and over again with similar answers to your assertions.

You believe that by virtue of the value men hold for each other into which you have brought the emotion of compassion that the possibility of a man dying because of his own action or inaction (in the case of accident or failure to plan respectively) is unacceptable.

But more you take this value judgment out of your value hierarchy and try to pawn it off on EVERYONE because YOU have such a high opinion of it.

If that is the proper course of action in this case, and because morality qua morality doesn't increase or decrease with the severity of ones action or inaction then when someone next fervently believes that no man should go hungry and the starving people of the world need our help to eat that we will enslave ourselves to them because our compassion is involved there too. And then when someone says that the homeless deserve to have a roof over their heads and our compassion demands that they be sheltered then we take another step into slavery for the sake of those people who like you are compassionate, and caring but believe that their compassion and caring should be extended to everyone and backed with the point of a knife or the barrel of a gun if necessary. And on and on it goes...

Don't get me wrong. I applaud your convictions but they are YOUR convictions. I'm glad this world has people like you in it and I think most people have that sense of compassion and caring but they must be free to act on it without being forced, without being commanded and without guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is? How would you finance saving people that can not do it by themselves? Give us a solution how you would go about it.

I believe that people are generally good at heart. When they have the means they like to do what they can to help. So even though all suffering can't be stamped out, a lot can be done when groups of people (voluntarily, out of their own convictions and feelings of compassion) work together to solve a problem.

If that is the proper course of action in this case, and because morality qua morality doesn't increase or decrease with the severity of ones action or inaction then when someone next fervently believes that no man should go hungry and the starving people of the world need our help to eat that we will enslave ourselves to them because our compassion is involved there too. And then when someone says that the homeless deserve to have a roof over their heads and our compassion demands that they be sheltered then we take another step into slavery for the sake of those people who like you are compassionate, and caring but believe that their compassion and caring should be extended to everyone and backed with the point of a knife or the barrel of a gun if necessary. And on and on it goes...

That's the logical fallacy of affirming the consequence. Because it's moral to help others doesn't automatically lead to enslavement. I've been to third world countries and have had starving people beg for money. I don't think it was immoral that there wasn't much I could do because it was beyond my capacity to do so. Yet, if I witnessed a person get shot and just stood and watched dispassionately with a cell phone in my pocket (after the assailant fled) as the person bled to death, I'd consider that immoral. Knowing where to draw the line isn't easy for me to explicitly define. I don't know exactly why I feel this way. It's a gut feeling telling me there must be some sort of middle ground somewhere between Kant's altruism and Rand's selfishness.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud your convictions but they are YOUR convictions. I'm glad this world has people like you in it and I think most people have that sense of compassion and caring but they must be free to act on it without being forced, without being commanded and without guilt.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. I'm glad you understand my position and I commend you for your intellectual honesty. I personally don't see my morality as a command because ultimately how one acts is a choice. It's more like asking oneself in a situation: "If I was in his shoes knowing what I know about myself right now, would I want me to act?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that people are generally good at heart. When they have the means they like to do what they can to help. So even though all suffering can't be stamped out, a lot can be done when groups of people (voluntarily, out of their own convictions and feelings of compassion) work together to solve a problem.

Nobody said that you can not help a person. Most of us would probably do so, to a point, even if we did not have a chance to evaluate who this person is at the outset. Volunteers are always welcome. But the biggest help you can give is to instill rational thinking into the people who suffer. (You changed the subject from emergency room to suffering in general).

I would like to know if you would give compassion to a person who has lived having at his core-belief mysticism to guide him, that very mysticism having caused his dire need. Mysticism being either a theist or secular one. In other words: a self inflicted suffering through irrational belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the biggest help you can give is to instill rational thinking into the people who suffer.

I totally agree.

I would like to know if you would give compassion to a person who has lived having at his core-belief mysticism to guide him, that very mysticism having caused his dire need. Mysticism being either a theist or secular one. In other words: a self inflicted suffering through irrational belief.

If it was this person's first time, I would pity the person for being a fool and hope he learns from his experiences. Perhaps even lend advice if it feels appropriate. Otherwise, if it was a chronic problem, I wouldn't associate with the person for my own safety. But in both cases, the consequences are the result of his own actions and lack of critical thinking so it's his responsibility to own the consequences of his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. I'm glad you understand my position and I commend you for your intellectual honesty. I personally don't see my morality as a command because ultimately how one acts is a choice. It's more like asking oneself in a situation: "If I was in his shoes knowing what I know about myself right now, would I want me to act?"

But that is exactly the wrong question. Of course the person in need will want you to act. And his want will be irrespective of whether he caused his own need through sloth, carelessness, addiction or any of a host of self-made emergencies.

The question you aught to ask is "Being in my own shoes, knowing myself, do I want to act." The answer may be the exact same, but the selfless starting point of your initial question eliminates rational choice and creates a purely emotional reaction to the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, if I witnessed a person get shot and just stood and watched dispassionately with a cell phone in my pocket (after the assailant fled) as the person bled to death, I'd consider that immoral.

What's your point? Has anyone here said they would do such a thing? No. You're so contorted in floating abstractions that you aren't even making logical sense anymore. Just because you remove your label of "moral" and "immoral" doesn't necessarily follow that everyone starts behaving like discompassionate sadists. You're using a false dichotomy. I don't know anyone on this forum who would behave in the way you suggest. YOUR problem is that you can't fathom people behaving KINDLY simply via their own rationality. You are hellbent on placing your labels of "moral" and "immoral" all over your floating abstractions. Reminds me of those classic 1940s images of luggage with stickers from every conceivable country slapped on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree.

If it was this person's first time, I would pity the person for being a fool and hope he learns from his experiences. Perhaps even lend advice if it feels appropriate. Otherwise, if it was a chronic problem, I wouldn't associate with the person for my own safety. But in both cases, the consequences are the result of his own actions and lack of critical thinking so it's his responsibility to own the consequences of his actions.

Here is what Rand has to say:

Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

Understand this one, it is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...