Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?

Rate this topic


Bobby66

Recommended Posts

READ THE LINK I GAVE YOU!

Well, that's quite a long and very extensive link. As I suppose, you've read it, could you give me a hint at where exactly in that book I can find the answer?

By the way, am I right that so far no country (including the U.S.) has ever applied full LFC? That could already explain something to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, that's quite a long and very extensive link. As I suppose, you've read it, could you give me a hint at where exactly in that book I can find the answer?

By the way, am I right that so far no country (including the U.S.) has ever applied full LFC? That could already explain something to me.

It's a long link because you have unwittingly asked a very complicated question. Nothing less will actually answer your question unless you take it on faith when I say "trust me, LFC is better for the poor." Which I sincerely hope you do NOT.

As for the second part, yes, you are right about that. True, full LFC has never existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Good point.  :D  :D  :D

Well, I wasn't really asking or saying whether the existence equality of opportunity matters.

It is just a presumption in LFC that I'd like to see proven.

That's fair enough, but I prefer to answer the important questions first. I think it's best to first decide if equality of opportunity matters BEFORE we attempt to look for it - that way it is less likely that personal biases will affect our judgement (I think some capitalists who vehemently insist that there is equality of opportunity do so because they desperately want it to be true - as if capitalism will somehow suffer a blow if it is shown to be a fiction. And likewise, many of those who insistently deny it probably do so out of a general dislike of capitalism).

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby, I appreciate your candor and diligency you have shown throughout this whole thread. Keep up the pertinent questions as they are making me strain me brain :(

And I don't know how to determine, whether the gain of jobs will outnumber their losses[in relation to technological advances].

Check out the history of any country who's recently adopted capitalism (or a semblance of)--this should be a good starting point.

I'm sorry I forgot to mention, that this woman had a better job (I think she was an accountant at a bank) before she got her children, and then, all of a sudden, she got fired and was forced to work as a street sweeper.

I want the full, uninhibited context. She all of the sudden got fired? She was forced to work as a street sweeper? She had the intelligence of an accountant and was relegated (how?) to streetsweeping?

Just imagining being born there into a poor family and under the circumstances we know, would reason really be of sufficient use to escape poverty?

Reason, in an obscure sense, is not omnipotent; it won't save you when surviving is an impossibility; it won't save you when you're caught behind bars being tortured by your assailants; and it won't save you as your plane crashes into a mountain.

But!! Reason is our only means of knowledge and thus our only hope. If a child is stuck in poverty, his only hope is to use his mind to its fullest extent and then make rational decisions based upon what he knows. (You could say he could hope for someone to bail him out, but it wouldn't be his hope, as he doesn't hold that power; instead, it could be regarded as a hope.)

What I think you are alluding to here with this whole poverty issue is the commonplace statement of, "Well what about the children!?"--as if the children would be better off in a mixed economy, or a statist-like government.

The child whose born into despicable poverty and who's parents are complete lunatics, is put into one helluva shitty position--which is definitely unfortunate. Reason may be able to save him, but he won't be receiving a proper education and will probably be too worried about his immediate survival before even pondering what's outside his little world. But the fact of the matter is, is that not everyone put into an unfortunate position can be "saved."

Under capitalism, charities would exist that would help this child out (assuming his parents made his existence knowable, etc.) Reason will always be his greatest aid, but as I said earlier, reason, in an obscure sense, is not omnipotent.

Because there are more people on this planet now than there were 100 years ago, and thus production went up, demanding more jobs. But that doesn't mean that the share of jobless people hasn't risen.

P: There are more people on this planet now than there were 100 years ago.

C: Production went up.

If there ar emore people on this planet now than 100 years ago, it doesn't necessarily follow that production has gone up b/c of hte population increase. However, I must ask you, if the population has been steadily increasing, how so? Just exactly what has made this increase possible? Just exactly what has made life expectancy sky-rocket in the last 100 years?

Also, Bobby, take this next example as you will, but my brother once said to me, "Under capitalism, who's going to become a janitor?" And I said, "I will, if there's enough demand." The beauty of capitalism is this: If no one wants to do a specific job, for whatever reason (like cleaning up shit all day), then there's a high demand for that job and thus it will pay high, regardless of the specifics of the job.

As a side note, you can't expect something miraculous to happen when you've cut both feet off of someone, chained their hands together, cut out both their eyeballs, and then asked, "how can reason save this person?" or "how will this person be able to survive" or "who will save them?" or "who will hire them?" If you earnestly do not see the reasons for why these questions cannot be asked in relation to reason's efficacy, then please state why.

How open a market without the ideas? And without the capital in the first place?

Get a loan. I'll assume you'll respond with, "no one will give her a loan b/c she's poor." Then I must ask you what the purposes of loans are. If I am a banker and she shows me a well-thought out, reasonable plan for making money, and if I can see she has determination and the perserverance to succeed, I will give her that loan; otherwise, she doesn't deserve it and is wasting my time.

Poverty isn't force of nature but simply a state you can be born into.

In this instance, I would consider poverty a force of nature, since the participant had absolutely no choice in the matter; however, participating in consistent and chronic poverty is a choice.

Even the fact that the demand for goods is infinite doesn't mean that ideas for new products are being evolved at at a pace fast enough to offer an opportunity for full occupation at all times, does it?

Now I must ask you to pick a side--or to tell me where you are at. Do you agree that technological advancements increase employment, or detract from it?

If I interpret you correctly, I agree with you in that stagnation does not produce jobs. That is to say, if we don't advance, if we don't produce, if we don't move ahead, there will be the jobless. But if we pretend that our society is doing the above, but they are not happening at a quick enough rate to create employment opportunities, can you come up with a superior alternative to the problem of employment w/o detracting from what we've already established?

Actually, it is the claim made by LFC that no one is forced to live under poverty, which implies that EVERYONE can find a well-paying job in the real world, doesn't it

No. It simply means that the government isn't regulating anything that would detract from an individual's ability to produce and what have you. The simple fact of the matter is, is that people willingly (the redundacny here is appropriate) make stupid choices, and capitalism is no guard against that. Under capitalism, you have the opportunity to go out and make something of yourself with your mind as your prime-mover, but if you use your mind incorrectly or do not view the facts as they are, then you may as well wind up in poverty.

If you asked any bum on the street if he'd rather be rich than poor, I'd bet my life they'd all say they'd rather be rich. But wishful thinking gets you nowhere. Simply b/c I want something doesn't mean I'll get it--I need to plan ahead, look at the facts, create goals, etc. in order to obtain that which I want.

They startet out at a time when there was real opportunity, competition not being as tough as it is today. Whether or not there is real opportunity for everyone today is one of the central question.

Is competetion really proportionately tougher? What do you mean by competetion being tough today? Can you give me an example?

I've known people who wished that many of the inventions we have today did not exist, so that they could create them and have the joy that comes from inventing such things. They think that if they were cavemen they'd be able to create fires, wheels, pulley systems, and other such "rudimentary" contrivances. But what they fail to realize is that knowledge is heirarchical--and an invention such as the wheel back in the BC's was probably as phenomenal and eccentric as the aircraft was in the 1900's.

I'd suggest you keep this in mind when referring to things while not considering proportions and mathematics. If I tell you 10 cloth makers in 1915 produced 10 cloths, and then in 1998, 100 cloth makers made 100 cloths, and you tell me that the production of cloths has risen--you'd be escaping an important fact of reality in relation to the concept "risen": that there are simply more cloth makers; the proportions are still the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I'm sorry I didn't post anything yesterday as I was eagerly watching the opening game of this years NFL season, completely disappointed with the Galaxy (No, I don't mean that NFL, just our little NFL Europe which, thanks to your clever investments, is now dominated by 5 of 6 teams from my country :D)

Well, let's start somewhere.

Check out the history of any country who's recently adopted capitalism (or a semblance of)--this should be a good starting point.

I know jobs have been gained in those countries. But how will things develop in the long run?

Reason, in an obscure sense, is not omnipotent; it won't save you when surviving is an impossibility; it won't save you when you're caught behind bars being tortured by your assailants; and it won't save you as your plane crashes into a mountain.

But!! Reason is our only means of knowledge and thus our only hope.  If a child is stuck in poverty, his only hope is to use his mind to its fullest extent and then make rational decisions based upon what he knows.  (You could say he could hope for someone to bail him out, but it wouldn't be his hope, as he doesn't hold that power; instead, it could be regarded as a hope.)

What I think you are alluding to here with this whole poverty issue is the commonplace statement of, "Well what about the children!?"--as if the children would be better off in a mixed economy, or a statist-like government.

The child whose born into despicable poverty and who's parents are complete lunatics, is put into one helluva shitty position--which is definitely unfortunate.  Reason may be able to save him, but he won't be receiving a proper education and will probably be too worried about his immediate survival before even pondering what's outside his little world.  But the fact of the matter is, is that not everyone put into an unfortunate position can be "saved."

Under capitalism, charities would exist that would help this child out (assuming his parents made his existence knowable, etc.)  Reason will always be his greatest aid, but as I said earlier, reason, in an obscure sense, is not omnipotent.

Well, if you're saying charities are also meant for those, and not only for the handicapped, I'll agree that reason is more likely to be a sufficient means to happiness under LFC for that group of individuals.

P: There are more people on this planet now than there were 100 years ago.

C: Production went up.

If there ar emore people on this planet now than 100 years ago, it doesn't necessarily follow that production has gone up b/c of hte population increase. However, I must ask you, if the population has been steadily increasing, how so? Just exactly what has made this increase possible? Just exactly what has made life expectancy sky-rocket in the last 100 years?

I'd suggest you keep this in mind when referring to things while not considering proportions and mathematics.  If I tell you 10 cloth makers in 1915 produced 10 cloths, and then in 1998, 100 cloth makers made 100 cloths, and you tell me that the production of cloths has risen--you'd be escaping an important fact of reality in relation to the concept "risen":  that there are simply more cloth makers; the proportions are still the same.

I think what you are referring to is productivity: The productivity in cloth making hasn't risen, as one cloth maker still produces only one cloth in a year. But production went up, because simply more cloths have been produced in 1998. Well, at least that's how we distinguish between "Produktivität" and "Produktion" in German. Maybe I've just mistranslated those terms into English.

That's why I said "production wen't up" in the last 100 years.

Life expectancy sky-rocketet mainly due to medical progress, forcing up the population.

As a side note, you can't expect something miraculous to happen when you've cut both feet off of someone, chained their hands together, cut out both their eyeballs, and then asked, "how can reason save this person?" or "how will this person be able to survive" or "who will save them?" or "who will hire them?" If you earnestly do not see the reasons for why these questions cannot be asked in relation to reason's efficacy, then please state why.

Well, I was considering such people the main target group for charity. And I surely didn't mean to include them in my question.

Get a loan.  I'll assume you'll respond with, "no one will give her a loan b/c she's poor."  Then I must ask you what the purposes of loans are.  If I am a banker and she shows me a well-thought out, reasonable plan for making money, and if I can see she has determination and the perserverance to succeed, I will give her that loan; otherwise, she doesn't deserve it and is wasting my time.

All right, capital may not be the main problem. But what about the ideas for something new? Can we take it for granted that every reasonable person is capable of coming up with such new ideas?

Now I must ask you to pick a side--or to tell me where you are at.  Do you agree that technological advancements increase employment, or detract from it?

Yes and no:

Technological advancements create new markets, new demand for new products (cell phones are a good example for today), and thus new jobs are created due to the need for new employees to produce these products.

But technological advancements also enable the head of a company to replace (that is to remove) a lot of workplaces by intelligent and more efficient robots/machines etc. and only few will be needed for maintenance of those machines.

You know, I can't really say to what extend jobs are created or lost, whether the balance is a positive or a negative one.

If I interpret you correctly, I agree with you in that stagnation does not produce jobs.    That is to say, if we don't advance, if we don't produce, if we don't move ahead, there will be the jobless.  But if we pretend that our society is doing the above, but they are not happening at a quick enough rate to create employment opportunities, can you come up with a superior alternative to the problem of employment w/o detracting from what we've already established?

I would never say that a company should be forced by law to employ someone for the sake of a job. That would be nothing but controlled economy as in communism and completely missing the point of labour, which is to produce goods, not to slow down productivity.

The right to life is the only thing that must be granted for every human being. And only if private charity fails here, we must reflect whether it is legal to force some fines on certain individuals to finance some support for those incapable of living their life.

Because when exactly should private charity fail? It will fail, only if certain wealthy individuals, who can afford it, don't give to charity, despite the fact that they would expect charity from people like themselves in an unfortunate, definitely hopeless situation. In other words, it will fail when people don't treat others the way they would expect to be treated, don't care for others the way they would want to be taken care of, and that is

When certain individuals have proven NOT TO VALUE LIFE and deserve to be treated accordingly.

The legal system must be changed if such a state of emergency occurs. Because a government that is to make sure the right to life is granted for every individual (this being the highest of all principles, a must-be-by-all-means) but may not enact force upon those who haven't initiated force is simply deadlocked in such a situation.

I'm not sure whether fines are really the right solution, but to me it seems to be the only system where the right to live is granted for everyone who values it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's just a train of thought.

Is competetion really proportionately tougher?  What do you mean by competetion being tough today?  Can you give me an example?

I've known people who wished that many of the inventions we have today did not exist, so that they could create them and have the joy that comes from inventing such things.  They think that if they were cavemen they'd be able to create fires, wheels, pulley systems, and other such "rudimentary" contrivances.  But what they fail to realize is that knowledge is heirarchical--and an invention such as the wheel back in the BC's was probably as phenomenal and eccentric as the aircraft was in the 1900's. 

Why is competition tougher today?

Well, people need to be much more qualified today to find a job than they had to be decades or centuries ago. Simple work (like assembling a device) is something that can be automated and rationalized to an ever growing degree. What the world will be looking for, is people who either have new ideas or come up with skills that outperform those of anything that can be automated, just because they are to complex.

So to find a job the skills required from you are much higher than ever. New products, new technologies may create jobs - for those who have the skills required. Who has the skills required, or let's say to what degree is everyone capable of aquirering the skills required, using his reason alone? Many will be simply unable, it's genetically determined. They will be forced to live under poverty, I would expect.

Edited by Bobby66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life expectancy sky-rocketet mainly due to medical progress, forcing up the population.

This is patently false. The population of Europe increased by THREE HUNDRED PERCENT in the nineteenth century, as opposed to a typical growth preceding that of THREE PERCENT per century.

Population growth of that kind is not caused by an increase in "life expectancy" (which is not fundamentally caused by medical progress, either). It is caused by an increase in availability of FOOD and other products. Food availability was increased by better production methods, better storage, better transportation, etc. Prior to the industrial revolution, starvation was a PERMANENT condition and threat to EVERYONE, and in non-industrial countries today it still IS.

All the medicine in the world will not hold off starvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Competition is not "tougher" today. Consider the difference in the amount of effort required (for someone in my particular job position, of having a below-average amount of education) between typing 5 wpm faster, and producing an extra bushel of wheat an acre on a farm 300 years ago. Think of what I can GET for improving my skills just that much now, as opposed to what a few extra bushels of wheat would buy me 300 years ago. (How large of a farm could I tend all by myself anyway, I wonder? That might only be one or two bushels.) I can buy for a dollar things that NO ONE could get for ANY amount of money 300 years ago.

Any time BEFORE that (except possibly in ancient Greece) there was no such thing as a free society, so "competition" as such did not exist . . . not as it does in a free market, between better-quality products and services. The only competition in the world THEN was between who had the bigger club, better friends, etc.

You might need more background to get to the top (possibly . . . look at the number of highly successful and VERY wealthy men with only a high-school education), but even acquiring that background today is much cheaper and easier than it was 300 years ago.

In a free society, there wouldn't be all the "nuclear-family-oriented" legislation we have in the U.S. today, either, so, if a poor child has two parents that are lunatics, he or she can be removed from those parents by ANYONE. (See other threads talking about what support children are properly entitled to, etc. All knowledge is interrelated.) There are usually MANY childless couples (or individuals) looking to adopt children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right to life is the only thing that must be granted for every human being. And only if private charity fails here, we must reflect whether it is legal to force some fines on certain individuals to finance some support for those incapable of living their life.

Because when exactly should private charity fail? It will fail, only if certain wealthy individuals, who can afford it, don't give to charity, despite the fact that they would expect charity from people like themselves in an unfortunate, definitely hopeless situation. In other words, it will fail when people don't treat others the way they would expect to be treated, don't care for others the way they would want to be taken care of, and that is

When certain individuals have proven NOT TO VALUE LIFE and deserve to be treated accordingly.

The legal system must be changed if such a state of emergency occurs. Because a government that is to make sure the right to life is granted for every individual (this being the highest of all principles, a must-be-by-all-means) but may not enact force upon those who haven't initiated force is simply deadlocked in such a situation.

I'm not sure whether fines are really the right solution, but to me it seems to be the only system where the right to live is granted for everyone who values it.

This is yet more B.S. NO ONE has the RIGHT to EXPECT CHARITY. Let me say that again:

NO ONE has the RIGHT to EXPECT CHARITY.

The right to life is NOT the right to have it provided for you by someone else. It means that NO ONE has the right to FORCEFULLY DEPRIVE you of life. If, through your own effort, you fail to support your own life, you have NO RIGHT to demand that SOMEONE ELSE sacrifice THEIR life, liberty, or property in order to support YOURS.

The government cannot "provide" anyone with support without depriving someone else of their property, liberty, or life. If you do not produce the means of your own support, SOMEONE has to produce it, and the government produces NOTHING, it is an agent of DESTRUCTION. Since men have the right to their own products (the right of property) you have no RIGHT to anything produced by anyone else, regardless of how much "excess" they have. Charity is and must be voluntary. The idea of a "fine" on people that choose not to give to charity is disgusting and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argh, b/c of the malfunctional quotation system, I will denote all of Bobby66's posts in BOLD/ITALICIZED writing. Also, I apologize for any grammatical errors...this quote thing is just annoying the hell out of me.

I know jobs have been gained in those countries. But how will things develop in the long run?

Why would the long run, in this instance, be any different than the short run? What makes you think it would be different? Please provide me with evidence that supports this assumption.

Well, if you're saying charities are also meant for those, and not only for the handicapped, I'll agree that reason is more likely to be a sufficient means to happiness under LFC for that group of individuals.

Why is the word "that" bolded? You speak as though reason only works for specific individuals. I really don't understand what you're getting at here, so please elaborate.

Also, charities are not considered a metaphysical--they don't necessarily exist. Charity depends on individuals who are willing to voluntarily spend their money in order to help support others (hopefully with the mind set that once the beneficiaries receive some help, they will be able to independently support themselves).

I think what you are referring to is productivity: The productivity in cloth making hasn't risen, as one cloth maker still produces only one cloth in a year. But production went up, because simply more cloths have been produced in 1998. Well, at least that's how we distinguish between "Produktivität" and "Produktion" in German. Maybe I've just mistranslated those terms into English.

Right. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page with this important differentiation.

Well, I was considering such people the main target group for charity. And I surely didn't mean to include them in my question.

"Such people," (i.e. those who are in irrevocable tragic situations) as you have referred to them here, are beyond charity. No intelligent individual will spend their money on someone who's impossible to save.

All right, capital may not be the main problem. But what about the ideas for something new? Can we take it for granted that every reasonable person is capable of coming up with such new ideas?

Any reasonable person can come up with "new" ideas...but I'm assuming when you said "ideas" you meant radically new technological advances, or simple inventions that are more productive and profitable than the old ones. Nevertheless, not all reasonable people can come up with these phenomenal ideas--but so what? Where does this tie into capitalism? How does it conflict with the ideas of capitalism? How does it prevent an individual from getting a job? If, somehow, any of those questions do conflict with capitalism (which they don't), what system would you suggest replace capitalism?

Yes and no:

Technological advancements create new markets, new demand for new products (cell phones are a good example for today), and thus new jobs are created due to the need for new employees to produce these products.

But technological advancements also enable the head of a company to replace (that is to remove) a lot of workplaces by intelligent and more efficient robots/machines etc. and only few will be needed for maintenance of those machines.

You know, I can't really say to what extend jobs are created or lost, whether the balance is a positive or a negative one.

Let me give you a simple argument, if this does not persuade you, then I suggest you read some history of capitalism in regard to your problem--and if that doesn't persuade you, I suggest you see a psychiatrist, b/c the facts will be right in front of your face but for some reason you fail to accept them.

So here's the argument:

A "job opening" presupposes production: Some sort of production must be occurring in order for their to be a job opening (else what would it mean to say there's a "job" for something when there's nothing to be done?). Thus, if new machines and technology increase production, then more job openings must be available.

But technological advancements also enable the head of a company to replace (that is to remove) a lot of workplaces by intelligent and more efficient robots/machines etc

Machines are not intelligent. And yes, it does allow for companies to get rid of obsolete workers and unproductive workers (in comparison with the new machines). But the problem is... ... ...Nothing. The workers who were fired you say...what about them? Yes, what about them? Should they be guaranteed a job by virtue of being human? What if they can't produce? Should someone be enslaved by their ineptitude? by their lack of energy? by them not being willing to learn new knowledge and apply new skills? I think not.

I would never say that a company should be forced by law to employ someone for the sake of a job. That would be nothing but controlled economy as in communism and completely missing the point of labour, which is to produce goods, not to slow down productivity.

Tell me Bobby, how does this passage fit with some of the ones you've typed above? Or should I say, does it fit?

The right to life is the only thing that must be granted for every human being. And only if private charity fails here, we must reflect whether it is legal to force some fines on certain individuals to finance some support for those incapable of living their life.

Once again, tell me if there's anything conflicting in this passage...possible the first sentence with the second?

If people are completely incapable of living their life...what good is charity?

I would never say that a company should be forced by law to employ someone for the sake of a job.......(few passages down the road)........And only if private charity fails here, we must reflect whether it is legal to force some fines on certain individuals to finance some support for those incapable of living their life.

?

It will fail, only if certain wealthy individuals, who can afford it, don't give to charity, despite the fact that they would expect charity from people like themselves in an unfortunate, definitely hopeless situation.

They (wealthy individuals) would expect it? How do you know?

Because when exactly should private charity fail? It will fail, only if certain wealthy individuals, who can afford it, don't give to charity, despite the fact that they would expect charity from people like themselves in an unfortunate, definitely hopeless situation. In other words, it will fail when people don't treat others the way they would expect to be treated, don't care for others the way they would want to be taken care of

You're simply speaking of slavery here in a roundabout way.

How can you say that the right to life is extremely important, and then go off and say that some individuals must be forced to spend their money on other individuals?

In any case, it's more of a tragety to take away an individual's right to their own wealth than it is for some individual to suffer b/c they haven't received...what you call as "their right to charity."

What the world will be looking for, is people who either have new ideas or come up with skills that outperform those of anything that can be automated, just because they are to complex.

Check your local newspaper, or whatever they have in Germany, and you'll find this NOT to be the case. There are plenty of jobs that require little skill. And, as I probably said earlier, who cares if competition is tougher? Is it a crime to have some skills in order to work?

So to find a job the skills required from you are much higher than ever.

Not necessarily. Some jobs require an individual to "push" a button (thanks to technology), rather than going through the tedious task of dividing 324234.26543634234/-235245.235325325 by hand. Technology makes it easier for some people to be employed.

In fact, I'll use your weird argumentation and say that if it wasn't for my handy-dandy calculator, I would not have passed high school. And, of course, if I didn't pass high school, I couldn't get a job....

Who has the skills required, or let's say to what degree is everyone capable of aquirering the skills required, using his reason alone? Many will be simply unable, it's genetically determined. They will be forced to live under poverty, I would expect.

What else would he use besides reason? Just exactly what is genetically determined? Show me a person who is unable to mop a floor, check out groceries, perform basic mathematics, move boxes all day, or any other simple task due to "genetic determination." (besides the mentally retarded).

Bobby, thinking can get quite complex and distracting if you do not have principles by which you follow (I'm still learning about this as we write).

If you know a principle (a basic fact of reality, as I'm defining it here) to be entirely true, like an individual having a right to his own life, then you simply apply that principle to situation X, and ask yourself, "Does this question or new idea about reality contradict with my established principle?" And if it does, then new idea or proposal should be rejected.

If you know that a man should have a right to his own life, then you ought to know that forcing his wealth into any field, endeavor, or charitable organization (regardless of the situation), is a crime--b/c it breaches the principle.

Peace,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby, if a person chooses not to give to charity or help others, does he still have the right to exist, i.e., can he still be considered moral?

Depends on what you call morality.

I don't know how objectivism defines morality. I would put it this way: Acting morally means acting according to ones values, i.e. acting in a way that whatever valuable is preserved, giving the highest value the highest priority. This makes morality something personal, because everybody has and discovers different values for himself in his pursuit of happiness.

If you own a ship, take it out to the sea and find a tiny island within the territory of your society where somebody from your society is stranded, helpless, alone, about to die of starvation, he has been forced there, and if you don't help him immediately, he will die... What would you do? Probably save him. What if you don't? Can you still consider yourself moral then or not?

Now if human life is my highest value and I wanna be able to claim that it is, I must make every efford to preserve it. Not doing so, allowing someone innocently helpless to die, despite knowing that with my help he would stay alive, would logically mean that human life in fact isn't my highest value. So if I didn't save that islander it would be automatically factual that I don't value human life on principle. I could no more claim that I do. It wouldn't be true. I couldn't complain about anyone who tried to kill me, because he wouldn't be destroying anything valuable to me, as my own life is just another human life, something I evidently don't value anyway and therefore something I can't expect anyone else to value. I repeat, this is how things are when I want to place my highest value on human life.

But if I just consider my own life as my highest value and the lifes of all the others worthless, well, then things will be quite simple. I will only have to care for myself, and I won't need to save that islander. But as a matter of fact, pronouncing the lifes of all the others worthless would be quite insatisfactory to me. Because how could I then expect others to value my life? There would be no reason why I should be valuable to them. I'd prefer also to value something (named X) that I believe can be generally accepted as a value, something everybody who knows X can value. Personally, this gives me a higher degree of happiness and content, and I'd find it hard to believe that it wouldn't to most others.

But back to charity: Not supplying some support to those who due to a handicap can't help themselves to survive would mean not to value human life, which I actually do value, and thus I would have to consider myself immoral, as I would anyone else who acts the same way so, based on this value.

But I'd guess that from an objectivist's point of view morality is defined in such a way that good is whatever supports human life and bad is whatever is in its way. But if morality in objectivism should be based on a highest value, in this case that would be human life. So this value must be kept to in the best way possible:

Taking 1000$ from a billionaire by far doesn't restrict the life of that billionaire in as much as it does support the life of an otherwise starving person, who didn't choose to starve. In this case the government would be doing nothing but to keep to the highest value agreed upon by the members of the society: human life. Case A, a billionaire who wouldn't miss those 1000$ and another person dying due to his handicap constitutes a higher betrayal of the value of human life than does case B, the same billionaire without those 1000$ and the same person kept alive.

If what I say isn't true, then I'd suppose that morality under objectivsm isn't truly based on values, is it?

Edited by Bobby66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many will be simply unable, it's genetically determined.

Judging from this statement and your signature, you are a determinist...

...Which means that you don't accept that volition is part of man's nature...

...Which means that you don't believe that reason is possible to man.

So I guess that answers your original question: you don't believe that reason has any bearing on the creation of wealth.

You, of course, are wrong about the answers to these questions and everything else you have typed in this thread.

If knowledge is what you seek, then reason is the only way to gain it. Suggest another way. Faith? Chance? Determinism?

You have delved into water that is way over your head and the solution to political problems will always be a mystery to you until you understand the true nature of reality (metaphysics), the nature of man, and how one knows what one knows (epistemology).

To examine the answers to these questions read: "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. Perhaps then you will start to understand how significantly wrong your current philosophy is. (Of course, you first have to accept that knowledge is possible).

-----------------

P.S. -- and I will try to put this as delicately as possible.

I had hoped that the idea of "genetic determinism" would have been completely discredited by now, and that German citizens in particular would reject such nonsense knowing which other historic German figure advocated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. -- and I will try to put this as delicately as possible.

I had hoped that the idea of "genetic determinism" would have been completely discredited by now, and that German citizens in particular would reject such nonsense knowing which other historic German figure advocated it.

I'm sorry, but you're missing my point. What I meant was that certain things are in fact genetically determined, that's simply what science tells us and which is generally accepted. There are genes that determine what kind of handicap we may have, how big we will grow and last but not least, what degree of intelligence we can maximally achieve. All this has been passed on to us through hereditary dispositions. Of course there are a lot of things that are not genetically predetermined, e.g. to what degree we decide to make use of our potentials.

I don't see why an objectivist should reject science. That wouldn't be honest. Rejecting facts just because they don't fit into the concept.

Besides, whatever that other historic German figure advocated, he surely didn't provide any solid scientific proof for any of his allegations, but merely stupid claims based on his wishful thinking. If he had resorted to science, he would actually have found a vast amount of contradictions to his own theories and we all could have been spared the worst cathastrophy in the history of mankind.

Edited by Bobby66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how objectivism defines morality. I would put it this way: Acting morally means acting according to ones values, i.e. acting in a way that whatever valuable is preserved, giving the highest value the highest priority. This makes morality something personal, because everybody has and discovers different values for himself in his pursuit of happiness.

It seems as though acting with integrity would be acting according to ones values--whereas acting morally would be doing what is right.

If you own a ship, take it out to the sea and find a tiny island within the territory of your society where somebody from your society is stranded, helpless, alone, about to die of starvation, he has been forced there, and if you don't help him immediately, he will die... What would you do? Probably save him. What if you don't? Can you still consider yourself moral then or not?

Do the benefits outweigh the risks? If so, then save him; if not, then don't save him.

But if I just consider my own life as my highest value and the lifes of all the others worthless, well, then things will be quite simple.

After reading THE FOUNTAINHEAD and THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS for the first time and at a decently young age, this was my first perception of Objectivism: Act as inconsiderate as possible and only care for yourself (in a non-contexual way)--if there are two apples on the table and you and one other person are in arm's reach of these apples, grab them both and horde them for yourself. If you hate traffic jams, buy a tank and solve the problem, don't "worry" about anyone else.

But in fact, Bobby, Objectivism doesn't consider the lives' of others as worthless, and I don't see how it could be in anyone's interest to see them as so.

But back to charity: Not supplying some support to those who due to a handicap can't help themselves to survive would mean not to value human life, which I actually do value, and thus I would have to consider myself immoral, as I would anyone else who acts the same way so, based on this value.

It's your wealth, you may spend it however you wish, but to force someone to spend their $ on someone else is absolutely disgusting, and far more of a perversion of "valuing" human life then not helping someone out. If no one has a right to what they earn, then we might as well all be dead--in which case charity won't be a problem.

Taking 1000$ from a billionaire by far doesn't restrict the life of that billionaire in as much as it does support the life of an otherwise starving person, who didn't choose to starve.

It's the principle that counts. That $1000 is rightfully owned by that billionaire. How can you say to someone, "Hey! Because you're rich, we're going to take your money." "Hey, Micheal Jordan, because you're a phenomenal athlete, were going to take away some of your talent and disperse it upon the less fortunate." "Hey, b/c you have two legs and that man over their has none, were going to cut one of yours off and give it to him." "Hey, b/c you eat 2000 calories per day, and that man only eats 200, were going to steal 900 of yours and give it to him."

F.C.O. (Forced Charity Organization) knocks on Mr. Billionaires door.

"Excuse me, Mr. Billionaire?"

"Yes?"

"We have 20 million people who are starving and need other assistance besides food, and, since you're excessively wealthy, and since it only costs about $1000 per person for the aid, we are going to take your money. But wait, before you object, don't worry--keep producing and doing whatever it is your doing that's magically making money appear out of thin air, b/c 20 million people will be saved b/c of you! And you'll only be "down," so to speak, $20,000,000,000, no biggie!"

If knowledge is what you seek, then reason is the only way to gain it. Suggest another way. Faith? Chance? Determinism?

And, if I may add, if knowledge is what you seek, you'll have to go beyond pain and pleasure too, ask any heroine addict.

There are genes that determine what kind of handicap we may have, how big we will grow and last but not least, what degree of intelligence we can maximally achieve.

I'm interested in this--where is the study that proves we are intellectually capped by virtue of genetics? I'd like to read and inspect it.

Nick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Failing to be a genius is not a handicap. I know quite a few people who are physically or mentally handicapped, some fairly severely, that nevertheless manage to make a living.

You have presented a false dichotomy with your "human life vs. my life" view of what constitutes ultimate value.

Objectivism states, first, that something doesn't have any value without the person that does the valuing. Thus, "human life" has no value in and of itself, except to the people that value their own lives.

The ultimate value of every man must be his own, personal, irreplaceable life, because if you do not live, you cannot value. Other people are only important as they create value for YOUR life. This is the Trader principle; the recognition that you must offer men, not threats or tears, but goods.

Morality doesn't consist of marginal emergencies where you must endlessly rescue men from their own helplessness and frailty. Frankly, decent people would be downright insulted if you announced that they couldn't take care of themselves and they must rely on you to help them.

Take care of your own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...[blah,blah,blah, really long post I had to skim]

Objectivism say your life is your highest value. And that you should do only what you think will selfishly benefit yourself without violating the rights of others. And that there is no intrinsic value in giving your values to complete strangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism say your life is your highest value. And that you should do only what you think will selfishly benefit yourself without violating the rights of others. And that there is no intrinsic value in giving your values to complete strangers.

All right, but let me put it this way: Every human being automatically strives for what makes him happiest, that's the nature of man, man's aim in life. And when exactly are we happiest? It's when we experience emotions as intensively pleasant as possible, and as few unpleasant emotions as neccessary, and all that as consistently as possible. This is defined as "quality of life".

No-one ever pursues any aim without a pleasant emotion being the result.

The most important goal and the most important cause of all human automatic controls are emotions. Human self-government doesn't essentially differ from that of chimps. The most important difference consists in a more rational control, as in refined intrigues. With it the intellect of several species of mammals including human beings has the function of acting as a mediator between desires (emotions) and of selecting which desires are satisfied to what extend and in which order. Never is thinking an end in itself, never does it occur without emotional motivation. Human thinking has quantitatively increased in comparison to animals and through it caused disadvantages in quality. That is to say, human beings think more intensively, more often and less intuitively than all mammals.

Nearly all human emotions result from satisfaction of impuls originally preservative of the species. The most important ones are: Eating, sexuality, personal hygiene, formation of ranking, game, movement, aggression, curiosity, inhibition of suicide, altruism, hunting, flight. All human circumscriptions for emotions and emotionally conditioned actions like "ambition", "love", "sense of honor", "greed", "noble-mindedness", "sense of decency", "helpfulness", "anger", "egoism" etc. go back to these impulses. They are mixtures (combinations) of emotions that are based on inborn basics and that also occur on primates.

Altruism in particular being one of the most intensively pleasant and enduring emotions if fully developed, it is advisable for everyone to fully develop and promote it, in order to support, that is to contribute to one's own quality of life. I would therefore rather approve of it than turning it down as something dangerous to life. ;-)

Edited by Bobby66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altruism in particular being one of the most intensively pleasant and enduring emotions if fully developed, it is advisable for everyone to fully develop and promote it, in order to support, that is to contribute to one's own quality of life. I would therefore rather approve of it than turning it down as something dangerous to life. ;-)

I don't have the time or patience to pick apart your posts like Nick is doing, but I couldn't let this paragraph slip by. What do you mean by altruism?

Do you mean:

a.) Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

or

b.) Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

?

What is your purpose for posting on this forum? You denounce communism but advocate socialism. For any productive conversation on an Objectivist forum, it would help if you at least had a rudimentary understanding of the Objectivist philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time or patience to pick apart your posts like Nick is doing, but I couldn't let this paragraph slip by.  What do you mean by altruism?

Do you mean:

a.) Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

or

b.) Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

?

You're talking as if altruism is incompatible to the happiness of the altruist, which I don't think. That's why neither a nor b can answer your question correctly.

By altruism I mean any behaviour that contributes to the welfare of others, motivated by the emotional reward to the altruist (pleasant feelings).

What is your purpose for posting on this forum?  You denounce communism but advocate socialism.  For any productive conversation on an Objectivist forum, it would help if you at least had a rudimentary understanding of the Objectivist philosophy.

Well, first of all I read through some ideas and claims that are supposed to advocate capitalism. But some of that claims seemed kind of impracticle to me. So I somehow had to "chew and digest" them in a forum. But the forum at capitalism.org won't be back before April 15th and its hard to find a good German forum about this (polititians in Germany don't even mention the word "capitalism" in any constructive way but refer to "market economy").

But I learned that capitalism is supposed to be based on Ayn Rand's objectivism. So I hoped to find some answers or at least arguments here, which I partly have.

At the same time I've been getting some closer insight into the Objectivist philosophy which I have discovered as very useful because it helps me understand the ideas behind captialism, not merely the economic theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking as if altruism is incompatible to the happiness of the altruist, which I don't think. That's why neither a nor b can answer your question correctly.

By altruism I mean any behaviour that contributes to the welfare of others, motivated by the emotional reward to the altruist (pleasant feelings).

I'm not talking "as if" anything. All I did was ask a question, specifically what your definition of altruism is. The two choices I gave you are the only two meanings of the word.

If you derive happiness from helping other people it's not really altruism; you a gaining a value in exchange for your charity. True altruism is the code of self-sacrifice, complete selflessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every human being automatically strives for what makes him happiest, that's the nature of man, man's aim in life.

Happiness ought to be man's aim in life, but in many cases it isn't. (Not everyone strives for the actions that will result in happiness--they may say they do, but if they sit on the couch all day eating potato chips and scratching themselves, it's fair to say they aren't pursuing that which will make them happy.)

Surely there are instances you can think of where someone performs an action that will definitely not lead to their happiness.

The most important goal and the most important cause of all human automatic controls are emotions.

The most important cause of all automatic controls of humans are emotions? What does this mean? What are automatic controls?

I suggest you find a German translated version of "Objectivisim: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.

There you will find that emotions are not means of cognition, nor means of guiding one's life. Why? B/c having an emotion towards something presupposes and understanding of how that certain something relates to your life. And how do you understand something? Through reason, NOT emotions.

I also do not wish to consider arguing with you further if we cannot stay on a specific topic: it's too hard jumping around. First we talked about reason's efficacy--which is a blatant form of concept stealing (you can't try to undermine reason w/o using reason). Then we jump to rights, altruism, and a watery-mesh of everything else.

So, to contine our aruging, please state explicitly and straighforwardly what your question is in regard to Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby66:

I want to be careful not to compare you to Hitler because that is an insult few in the history of man deserve. But I do want to show you how your argument is the same as his so that you may reevaluate your philosophy. Please take it in the benevolent manner in which it is intended.

Hitler used genetic determinism to deprive certain groups of individuals of their rights, you do the same.

He used genetics to determine who was good and who was evil and went about destroying the evil.

You use genetics to determine who is deserving of a sacrifice (the handicapped) and then you use ability to pay as the means to determine who will be sacrificed (the wealthy).

This is pure evil.

Does the phrase “from each according to their ability to each according to their need” ring a bell? In order to grasp the evil contained therein you must read Ayn Rand and understand the ideas that compose Objectivism: the only fully rational, completely integrated philosophy.

Rights are moral sanctions to positive action. They require that you take action in order to realize them. They require nothing of anyone else except that they leave you alone. The only way rights can be violated is by force and that is exactly what you propose.

And now I must warn you, with the following statement you have become an advocate of evil:

Altruism in particular being one of the most intensively pleasant and enduring emotions if fully developed, it is advisable for everyone to fully develop and promote it, in order to support, that is to contribute to one's own quality of life. I would therefore rather approve of it than turning it down as something dangerous to life. ;-)

This is the idea that is responsible for nearly every evil of scale in recorded human history and the idea which completely contradicts Objectivism.

Please read the forum rules, such advocacy is not allowed on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow,

What follows is intended for the edification of Objectivists for purposes of precision and clarity, to wit:

Since I regard all values as contextual and hierarchical, I would ultimately regard only one good as "intrinsic," in your sense of the term, namely: life.”

-- Ayn Rand, "Letters of Ayn Rand," p. 561

I am unsure if you intend to contradict it with this:

Thus, "human life" has no value in and of itself, except to the people that value their own lives. 

There was an excellent thread on this subject here though I am unable to locate it with the search function. I have some of it saved off-line and the above quote was taken from it.

Marc

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...