Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Time To Fight The Real War

Rate this topic


TIA Daily

Recommended Posts

You can't say, "Yes, we're immoral, but we're less immoral than them so, therefore we can tell the what to do."

I don't understand your argument. Who is "we"? Do you mean every citizen of the U. S. (for example)? Do you mean the U. S. government?

The issue basically is self-interest. If a semi-corrupt policeman can help me destroy a fundamentally corrupt murderer, I am morally right to ask him to do so and to support him qua defender of my right to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The reason to classify by degree is to use that as a basis for action. One could argue about where to draw the lines, but the degree is something real. Wouldn't you grant that?
Dunno about Styles, but I would.

The issue basically is self-interest. If a semi-corrupt policeman can help me destroy a fundamentally corrupt murderer, I am morally right to ask him to do so and to support him qua defender of my right to life.
And is the distinction between "semi-corrupt" and "fundamentally corrupt" an objective one, or simply in the eye of the beholder?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And is the distinction between "semi-corrupt" and "fundamentally corrupt" an objective one, or simply in the eye of the beholder?

What do you mean by "simply in the eye of the beholder?"

In Objectivism, "objective" has two meanings:

- Metaphysical meaning: Existing in reality independent of consciousness.

- Epistemological meaning: An idea in the mind drawn logically from facts of reality.

The distinction I offered is objective in both senses -- that is, in its referent and in its derivation.

For anyone new to Objectivism, see Ayn Rand, "Objectivity," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 345, an excerpt from her article, "Who is the Final Authority in Ethics?" in the Feb. 1965 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter.

(Hunterrose, so that I will have a proper context for future discussion, if any: Are you an Objectivist?)

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "simply in the eye of the beholder?"
I simply meant whether "semi-corrupt" and "fundamentally corrupt" were objective or subjective terms. I fear that they may be subjective (or perhaps different terms for the same thing,) which is why I ask.

In Objectivism, "objective" has two meanings:

- Metaphysical meaning: Existing in reality independent of consciousness.

- Epistemological meaning: An idea in the mind drawn logically from facts of reality.

The distinction I offered is objective in both senses -- that is, in its referent and in its derivation.

It's that very distinction that I'm looking for. You've said that there exists an objective distinction between the two, but (unless I missed it in a prior post,) you haven't said what exactly that distinction is.

Are you an Objectivist?)
I like it a lot, but I'm not a true believer yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like that: in that degrees of evil are involved. In terms of scale, perhaps it's like comparing a petty thief to a murderer.

The reason to classify by degree is to use that as a basis for action. One could argue about where to draw the lines, but the degree is something real. Wouldn't you grant that?

Sure, I'll grant you that!!! But, then the question becomes, how immoral does a gov't have to be before it's "illegitimate?" I mean, heck, we've got both petty thieves AND murderers in our gov't...

I don't think that "less immoral" = "moral", and therefore should be a leg to stand on. Which may, very well, be one of the problems with how the world views us. Which is why I don't think that the legal argument and the philosophical argument should be combined. LEGALLY, they are a legit gov't. Plain and simple. Yes, they are immoral, and YES they are MORE immoral than us, but I don't think that's grounds for a judgement of illegitimacy in gov't. If that's the case, then ANY free-er (no matter how much so) nation than ourselves can call us illegitimate and have grounds to attack us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like that: in that degrees of evil are involved. In terms of scale, perhaps it's like comparing a petty thief to a murderer.

The reason to classify by degree is to use that as a basis for action. One could argue about where to draw the lines, but the degree is something real. Wouldn't you grant that?

I didn't get to edit my other post in time, so I wanted to add another point, too. While yes, there are certainly DEGREES to the morality between the two, if/when arrested, how many more RIGHTS does the petty thief have over the murderer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether a country's government has crossed the point of being legitimate is mostly of relevance to its own citizens. I'd say that Iran's is at a point where a citizen would be justified in undertaking an armed rebellion. On the other hand, if one considers a country like India, which is still pretty socialist, but so much more free compared to Iran, I would say that armed rebellion is not justified.

At this point, I would not be able to give you a way to measure the difference between (say) Iran and India, but there's a big difference that is observable.

In a previous post, you alluded to a government having been elected. That is only one aspect, and probably not primary. Primary is the question: to what extent does the government respect rights. Coupled with this, I think, would be the question of whether there is a non-violent way to bring about change.

There is a second scale by which one might measure a country, and that is by the degree to which it is friend or foe (with degrees in between). So, for instance, Zimbabwe might have an illegitimate government, but may not be a foe to the U.S.; it can be ignored. By this measure Iran is a major foe to the U.S. -- much more than Iraq ever was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunterrose, to help set a context, I asked whether you are an Objectivist. You responded:

I like it a lot, but I'm not a true believer yet.

Perhaps you misunderstood the question. I asked whether you are an Objectivist. I didn't ask whether you "like" it.

I will try again. Do you or do you not agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy as far as you have studied it?

Also, what do you mean by "true believer"? Are you deliberately using it in an offensive manner, echoing the title of Eric Hoffer's book, The True Believer -- which is about individuals who abandon independent judgment in order to qualify for membership in a movement?

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you misunderstood the question. I asked whether you are an Objectivist. I didn't ask whether you "like" it.

I will try again. Do you or do you not agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy as far as you have studied it?

I understood you, I just do not see what possible context you can glean from my answer. Plus I have a tendency to the oblique.

Nonetheless, to answer your question, I do not (every element, eh?)

Now, with your context set(?) you can offer a distinction between "semi-corrupt" and "fundamentally corrupt?"

I somewhat agree with softwareNerd [in seeing observable differences between nations,] I just question the nature of the groupings (e.g. these nations should be attacked, and those nations shouldn't.)

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...