The Prudent Predator argument

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

Retract this statement.

It doesn’t matter. He was suicidal at the time and not dead. Therefore you were wrong.

Thank you for clarifying matters. We now know that the world is divided not between rational beings and dead beings, but between rational beings and beings who are trying to become dead.

By that measure, Hillary Clinton is a rational being.

[blackdiamond]

Freddy,

What I said was that you can scientifically determine the nature of man. What you do after that follows logically, if you began with the premise of existence.

So, what you want to know is how to scientifcally determine the nature of man? Well, this is a long process that yields man's body of knowledge, but i can give you an example of a part of this process. we can know (scientifically) that a man needs certain types of food to survive. A rational man, according to our philosophy, will eat such healthy foods because his scientifically-determined nature (qua man) demands so. Now, if another philosopher comes up and says, "man should not eat nice, healthy foods because this only feeds his sinful desires, it's the nature of a real man to keep away from such foods," only one of us is right according to the nature of man, and therefore only one of us has a way that promotes man's existence AS MAN, and the other one does not. Objectively, the way of the other "philosopher" in my example is a path to death, therefore a path of non-existence, and something in his nature will react with pain as part of the mechanism to tell him that this is the path of death. Death might not be his conscious goal, but that's the path of his actions. Will a person who does not eat any healthy foods in order to punish his sinful body be as happy as the one who freely eats nice, tasty healthy food? Now, we might even find one man who ate no healthy food living a longer life, but so what? This does not change the scientific facts about his body's needs and it's state. The path of death is evil even if it lasts longer, it is just longer torture of himself. What's the point of living with a long headache your entire life because you have neglected the facts of your nature.

Existence exists (or just "existence") is the metaphysical fact on which the ethical standard, existence qua man, is built.

In the same way that healthy food can be determined scientifically as a value from the nature of man's body, other *more important* values can be discovered as well, and their contradiction can also be rejected. Man is not just body, he is also mind. Just as we can scientifically determine the nature of man's body and his needs, we can also scientifically discover the nature of man's mind and what it requires, thus rejecting any philosophy that contradicts those facts. It is the discovery of those higher facts that this web site is dedicated to, thus adding to the body of human knowledge.

The mechanism that indicates to a man that the needs of his survival qua man are being met or not continue to work even at this higher level, which is why we can objectively know that a man can be happy or not happy depending on his choices. Just as i do not need to ask a man who has commited himself to bad food if he is experiencing the pain or pleasure aspect of this mechanism, i do not need to know if the man whose other higher values (qua man) are not met is experiencing even WORSE pain.

Thus, just because a man's needs are met (qua man) at a lower level does not mean he is happy, as you keep insisting about the looter, because higher needs might not be met.

Do you understand this or do you still want to keep going back to the same disproved point (existence qua man says nothing because anyone can say his code of ethics is about existence qua man and you can't prove him wrong from your standard, etc etc)? If it has not been disproved, please show exactly why not, do not just quote one little part that you might prove to be inaccurate and then dismiss the rest of the post. Don't.

(edit: made one sentence comprehensible).

Edited March 28, 2007 by blackdiamond

[Inspector]

Thank you for clarifying matters. We now know that the world is divided not between rational beings and dead beings, but between rational beings and beings who are trying to become dead.

By that measure, Hillary Clinton is a rational being.

Correction: by that measure, Hillary Clinton is a being who is trying to become dead.

This makes it very easy for us to determine whether or not an individual is a rational being. If that individual has not intentionally killed himself, i.e. if he is alive, then he must be a rational being, as seen in step one above.

Retract this statement.

[Freddy]

So, what you want to know is how to scientifcally determine the nature of man? Well, this is a long process that yields man's body of knowledge, but i can give you an example of a part of this process. we can know (scientifically) that a man needs certain types of food to survive.

Science tells us that certain food are optimal for our continued existence, I would certainly agree with that. Now, what if the optimal food to this end was a tasteless nutrition slurry? Point is, science can give us facts but science does not give us the moral evaluation of those facts. Science can tell us that a tasteless nutrionsslury is optimal for continued existence, but science dosn't tell us that we therefore ought to eat this. What you need is a valuepremise, and in this case your premise is that man ought to secure his continued existence. Only when you have this premise you can make an evaluation of the nutritionslury. And according to this premise, you ought to eat the slurry. To avoid this you might further add that man qua man also need pleasure while he eats, thus he therefore ought to trade a little existence for a little pleasure and so forth. The problem is where you get your value premises from. The science above doesn't give them to you as I have shown.

The mechanism that indicates to a man that the needs of his survival qua man are being met or not continue to work even at this higher level, which is why we can objectively know that a man can be happy or not happy depending on his choices. Just as i do not need to ask a man who has commited himself to bad food if he is experiencing the pain or pleasure aspect of this mechanism, i do not need to know if the man whose other higher values (qua man) are not met is experiencing even WORSE pain.

And the question you need to answer is how you derive those qua man values. The needs your talking about, what are they needswith respect to? What is the scientific standard for determining whether something is according to qua man? It seems that you are claiming that it is happiness, but that isn't consistent with Rand who claimed that happiness was a result if you followed the qua man code, but it wasn't the standard of this code, thus the standard must be derived independent of any talk about happiness. And you cannot use continued existence as your standard either because you have already conceded that this won't give you the conclusions you want. And finally, rationality isn't a standard of itself, see my initial disussion with KendallJ in this thread. So I still don't see how you derive the content of your man qua man standard.

Suppose I assert that a man cannot be truly happy unless he have kids, because having kids is a natural end as seen in nature. How would you prove this assertion wrong (or right)?

[softwareNerd]

Suppose I assert that a man cannot be truly happy unless he have kids, because having kids is a natural end as seen in nature. How would you prove this assertion wrong (or right)?

You would have to study men, across history and see if this were true.

[blackdiamond]

Science tells us that certain food are optimal for our continued existence, I would certainly agree with that. Now, what if the optimal food to this end was a tasteless nutrition slurry? Point is, science can give us facts but science does not give us the moral evaluation of those facts. Science can tell us that a tasteless nutrionsslury is optimal for continued existence, but science dosn't tell us that we therefore ought to eat this. What you need is a valuepremise, and in this case your premise is that man ought to secure his continued existence. Only when you have this premise you can make an evaluation of the nutritionslury. And according to this premise, you ought to eat the slurry. To avoid this you might further add that man qua man also need pleasure while he eats, thus he therefore ought to trade a little existence for a little pleasure and so forth. The problem is where you get your value premises from. The science above doesn't give them to you as I have shown.

I'm not sure i understand your slurry example. By 'tasteless' I assume you mean it gives no pleasure, but not that it actually tastes really bad? well, we have a practical example: water is one. Vegetables for children, too. Tasteless but necessary for health according to our nature, so we take it, and we force our children to take their vegetables. It would be irrational to decide not to take water and vegetables.

And also, when we get sick we actually take very bitter pills in order to get well (or even painful injections). Using science, we can learn what is leading our bodies to death, and because we have the value premise of life (existence), we simply take the pill that restores life, even if it is bitter. Some religions deny medication for their children and they continue in pain and many times, die; we judge these as evil. it's that simple. Even if there was one who didn't die, this is still a path of evil because it's a choice of death. Man qua man.

But what if the best food that we needed to eat every day was actually bitter like very bitter medicine (eg chloroquine)? is that what you are asking?

It can't ever be. I won't tell you why; you have to think about that for yourself. (I don't answer impossible scenarios).

I should also mention that, using REASON, man is able to make his food even tastier than the state in which he finds it, which is why we can add spices to vegetables and orange juice to water. It comes from the ability of his consciousness to integrate. This is why reason is his highest value!

I WILL ANSWER THE REST OF YOUR QUESTIONS BELOW. MY ANSWERS ARE IN UPPER CASE, AND YOUR WORDS IN LOWER CASE, NATURALLY!

And the question you need to answer is how you derive those qua man values. The needs your talking about, what are they needs with respect to? MAN'S EXISTENCE.

What is the scientific standard for determining whether something is according to qua man? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CERTAIN KIND OF "NUTRIENT" ( E.G. BETWEEN AMMONIUM NITRATE OR CARBOHYDRATE) IS ACCORDING TO "QUA MAN"?

It seems that you are claiming that it is happiness, but that isn't consistent with Rand who claimed that happiness was a result if you followed the qua man code, but it wasn't the standard of this code, thus the standard must be derived independent of any talk about happiness. I HAVE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM

Rationality isn't a standard of itself, see my initial disussion with KendallJ in this thread. I HAVE SAID NO SUCH THING.

Suppose I assert that a man cannot be truly happy unless he have kids, because having kids is a natural end as seen in nature. How would you prove this assertion wrong (or right)?

SUPPOSE I SAID A MAN CAN NOT BE HAPPY UNLESS HE HAS HAIR BECAUSE HAVING HAIR IS A NATURAL END AS SEEN IN NATURE. HOW WOULD YOU PROVE THIS ASSERTION WRONG?

Freddy, this is still taking us nowhere because you are not taking the time to understand what I (and others here) are saying. You keep making the same wrong assumptions based on your preconceived ideas about Objectivism, and you keep asking questions that contain those mistaken premises. Remove CONTINUED (or LONG) existence from your mind right now; it is only a RESULT of living life qua man, not a cause, so it cannot be a standard. It's the same way that HAPPINESS is a result, not a cause, and therefore not a standard. Exact same way. Think about that before you reply.

I hope this helps.

[hunterrose]

How do you prove that a person with values X ought (or ought not) do behavior Y?

By showing that Behavior Y increases (or decreases) the probability of Value(s) X.

Sorry it took so long to get back to the board.

I believe you at one point in time said something along the lines of your motivation for posting was to help create a stronger case for ethics by critiquing Objectivism's argument. My reason for asking the last question was that I don't think one can determine oughts if there are no action that are correct/incorrect in principle. Case in point, how does one objectively determine that Y increases probability of X? And more important, with what basis would you say that a person shouldn't have done something that decreased the probability of X if it, despite the odds, succeeds in obtaining X?

You end up with the horrendous problems of how do you calculate what volitional men are going (or likely) to do, and basing oughts not on what works, but on what was likely to have worked.

As for the original question about looting/self-destruction, (and I might have said this before) I think you're reading too much into it. I rather doubt that Rand meant that every crook is going to be caught by the authorities. I think her point was more along the lines of saying "putting a gun to your head and shooting is self-destructive". It's possible that the gun might malfunction or that the bullets you were told were real were actually fakes or someone put a metal plate in your head while you were sleeping, and if you're to be a stickler, you could thus say that such an action, any action, isn't necessarily self-destructive. But then you'd have to grasp at straws to justify not doing this or that Mission Impossible, because hey, it might just end up beneficial against all odds...

I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) an idea that looting isn't always self-destructive. But you're IMO quite wrong that no behaviors are beneficial/detrimental outside of concrete, particular instances. For example, painting fences is not a detrimental behavior (outside of sacrificing greater values) regardless of whatever coincidental actions other people take as a response to my painting. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to say that looting isn't necessarily detrimental just because Keystone Cops can't investigate their way out of a paper bag. If there is an objective standard for determining whether a behavior is beneficial/self-destructive, you can't base it on statistical responses of others.

You give some food for thought. I'm going to read through the rest of this thread and see what else I've missed.

Nice avatar, blackdiamond

[blackdiamond]

Nice avatar, blackdiamond

Yeah, just thought it was about time a brother put on some bling around this place!

Thanks.

[Moebius]

Wow. As much as I like Objectivist values, romantically speaking, I have the exact same questions as Gary regarding the Objectivist premises regarding predation.

It seems like living as man qua man really comes down to living according to Rand's (subjective) opinion of what a "man" is. There really hasn't been a very convincing explanation as to why respecting the rights of others lead to ultimate unhappiness of the predator, or why productivity and self-esteem necessarily has be the most important values to a man's survival. Or even why a predator must by definition have a low self-esteem.

A man that stands in a production line cutting out small holes all day, every day, is certainly productive. Does he necessarily have a higher self-esteem than say, the Sultan of Brunei? And why is it rationally wrong if a man chooses money, power, or status over self-esteem? Because it's going to lead to his long term unhappiness? Why?

[blackdiamond]

Moebius,

I truly doubt that any Objectivist will engage you in that debate right now. But who knows ...

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Sorry it took so long to get back to the board.

I believe you at one point in time said something along the lines of your motivation for posting was to help create a stronger case for ethics by critiquing Objectivism’s argument. My reason for asking the last question was that I don’t think one can determine oughts if there are no action that are correct/incorrect in principle. Case in point, how does one objectively determine that Y increases probability of X? And more important, with what basis would you say that a person shouldn\'t have done something that decreased the probability of X if it, despite the odds, succeeds in obtaining X?

Yes, but how do we arrive at a standard for determining what is correct or incorrect in principle? By a system of ethics, of course. Yet Rand’s ethics involves a logical gap. It starts with the premise that one’s life is one’s standard of values, and then goes on to prohibit looting without showing that looting is necessarily harmful to the looter’s self-interest.

You end up with the horrendous problems of how do you calculate what volitional men are going (or likely) to do, and basing oughts not on what works, but on what was likely to have worked.

But when you say “what works,” do you mean 100% of the time? As in 2 + 2 = 4, 100% of the time? Or do you mean what works in the vast majority of cases? If it is the former, then I do not know of any human behavior that has a 100% success rate. If it is the latter, then we are indeed discussing what is likely to work.

As for the original question about looting/self-destruction, (and I might have said this before) I think you’re reading too much into it. I rather doubt that Rand meant that every crook is going to be caught by the authorities. I think her point was more along the lines of saying “putting a gun to your head and shooting is self-destructive”. It’s possible that the gun might malfunction or that the bullets you were told were real were actually fakes or someone put a metal plate in your head while you were sleeping, and if you’re to be a stickler, you could thus say that such an action, any action, isn’t necessarily self-destructive. But then you’d have to grasp at straws to justify not doing this or that Mission Impossible, because hey, it might just end up beneficial against all odds...

I don’t follow you at all. You say that Rand did not mean that every crook would be caught by the authorities. And then you say that her point was putting a gun to one’s head is self-destructive. I do not have access to data concerning what percentage of people who shoot themselves in the head die or suffer major brain injury. But my guess is that the percentage is much higher than the percentage of burglars, check forgers, and credit card thieves who go to prison.

But why do we need to compare firing a gun at one’s head to illegal looting? One can join the legal gang of U.S. looters that goes by the name “IRS” and face virtually no repercussions. The IRS rewards those who join its ranks with a generous salary, job security and numerous fringe benefits.

I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) an idea that looting isn’t always self-destructive. But you’re IMO quite wrong that no behaviors are beneficial/detrimental outside of concrete, particular instances. For example, painting fences is not a detrimental behavior (outside of sacrificing greater values) regardless of whatever coincidental actions other people take as a response to my painting.

Shall we compare the survival rate of people who painted “Hitler is a bastard” on the walls of buildings in Berlin, 1941 with that of those who pointed guns at their own heads and pulled the trigger?

Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to say that looting isn’t necessarily detrimental just because Keystone Cops can’t investigate their way out of a paper bag. If there is an objective standard for determining whether a behavior is beneficial/self-destructive, you can’t base it on statistical responses of others.

Why not? How do you arrive at an “objective standard for determining whether a behavior is beneficial/self-destructive” except by reference to objective reality? And if our standard is supposed to apply to all men, what do we say when exceptions keep cropping up? “Our standard applies to all men, including the ones it doesn’t apply to”?

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote

Correction: by that measure, Hillary Clinton is a being who is trying to become dead.

Evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to become dead? Did she steer the Staten Island ferry into a pier?

[Inspector]

Evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to become dead? Did she steer the Staten Island ferry into a pier?

She tried to socialize medicine. Living under socialized medicine is definitely a way to shorten the time before they bury you in the ground.

And Gary...

This makes it very easy for us to determine whether or not an individual is a rational being. If that individual has not intentionally killed himself, i.e. if he is alive, then he must be a rational being, as seen in step one above. Note, there is no third choice.

RETRACT THIS STATEMENT.

[hunterrose]

Rand’s ethics involves a logical gap. It starts with the premise that one’s life is one’s standard of values, and then goes on to prohibit looting without showing that looting is necessarily harmful to the looter’s self-interest.

Your premise is that M is someone's standard of value... and then goes on to prohibit acts that are less likely to obtain M... without showing that said acts are necessarily not going to obtain M? Is this also a "logical gap"?

Do you mean what works in the vast majority of cases? Then we are indeed discussing what is likely to work.

No, you would say that X ought not put his life savings into a lottery if there are other methods that are more likely to gain the same amount of money. If X does put everything into the lottery, and wins despite the "immoral" odds, is X immoral for doing what was less likely to work? Or moral for gaining his sought-after value?

But why do we need to compare firing a gun at one’s head to illegal looting?

If you don't agree that firing a gun at one's own head is destructive, how could I possibly convince you of something that isn't so obviously destructive like looting when you're not caught?

How do you arrive at an “objective standard for determining whether a behavior is beneficial/self-destructive” except by reference to objective reality?

You misunderstand me. We do look at the nature of the behavior to determine if it is beneficial/self-destructive. We do not look at ancillary factors that have nothing to do with the nature of the behavior in question.

E.g. I can get struck by lightning while tending a farm, but this is not something that must (or ought) be considered in determining whether farming is a beneficial/destructive behavior.

What do we say when exceptions keep cropping up?

Such as?

[Freddy]

And also, when we get sick we actually take very bitter pills in order to get well (or even painful injections). Using science, we can learn what is leading our bodies to death, and because we have the value premise of life (existence), we simply take the pill that restores life, even if it is bitter.

But that argument is exactly the problem. This thread is about why you ought not to extend your existence by methods Objectivist don't see fit. Do you deny that it is possible? As a realitycheck, concider the fact that most people in the western world live longer than Ayn Rand, falling far short of her standards. The value premise of existence gives you some conclusions you want and some that you don't want. What I'm asking is basically what the standard is for the conclusions you want?

MAN'S EXISTENCE.

And I find this extraordinary uninformative. Suppose someone says "Nature dictates that there is a rational color of preference for man existing as man", this statement makes an assertion and hints that there is some kind of backup for this assertion, but unless this backup is made explicit this statement is rather pointless. There is no way I can conclude from that stamemnt what this color may be. You can make all kinds of assertion of what is proper for man qua man, but in the end you need to declare some method or standard or criteria so that persons independent of you could sort out the implications for them selfs. The only substantial criteria you have been given is that man ought to secure his continued existence, but you are not willing to accept the consequences of this assertion (ie. that it would be perfectly moral to extend your existence at someone elses expense).

WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CERTAIN KIND OF "NUTRIENT" ( E.G. BETWEEN AMMONIUM NITRATE OR CARBOHYDRATE) IS ACCORDING TO "QUA MAN"?

Longevity. A criteria you have said you are not commited to in ethics.

SUPPOSE I SAID A MAN CAN NOT BE HAPPY UNLESS HE HAS HAIR BECAUSE HAVING HAIR IS A NATURAL END AS SEEN IN NATURE. HOW WOULD YOU PROVE THIS ASSERTION WRONG?

Is that an appeal to intuition?

Remove CONTINUED (or LONG) existence from your mind right now; it is only a RESULT of living life qua man, not a cause[..]

This is not consistent with the rest of your reply, you said "[..]and because we have the value premise of life (existence)[...]", that is what it is to live qua man is derived (at least in part) in relation to what best serve our continued existence, otherwise you value premise would be pointless.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Freddy

[Moebius]

Moebius,

I truly doubt that any Objectivist will engage you in that debate right now. But who knows ...

Why not? I thought that's basic the question we're already talking about. The fact that there seems to be a missing step in logic of the Objectivist view on "life". That is, life as "that which is required for the organism's survival" is NOT equivalent in any way to "the life proper to a rational being". To go from one to the other, there needs to be some sort of rational justification which is apparently lacking.

And anyway, what does "the life proper to a rational being" mean? To say that moral is founded on what is "proper" implies a set of moral values. Thus to use it as the basic premise from which to derive a further set of moral values makes the argument logically circular.

[Seeker]

That is, life as "that which is required for the organism's survival" is NOT equivalent in any way to "the life proper to a rational being". To go from one to the other, there needs to be some sort of rational justification which is apparently lacking.

Except that it isn't. We know exactly what it is and that it is glaringly evident throughout Objectivism. It is, the observation of the fact that reason is man's basic means of survival (not "ought to be" -- "is") . We need only recall Rand's definition of man as "rational animal" (emphasis here on "rational") to know exactly the essential distinguishing characteristic that she had in mind in speaking of "man qua man".

Also, a conclusion of what is "proper", in the sense of characteristic or fitting, rests on facts about man's existence. That we may derive ought from that which is does not imply a circularity but rather the solution to the very problem of how to derive oughts.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Seeker

[Inspector]

Why not?

Because of the context of this thread and the subjectivist/pragmatists that have argued in it. I think if you started your own thread, and asked your own questions, you might get better results.

[Freddy]

Except that it isn't. We know exactly what it is and that it is glaringly evident throughout Objectivism. It is, the observation of the fact that reason is man's basic means of survival (not "ought to be" -- "is")[...]

This is the basic premise of the thread, no one is arguing against it. The roblem is that this premise clearly states that survival is the goal and that the brain is a means to this end, and unless you attach a special meaing to the concept survival (and existence and life and death), this premise will imply a lot of stuff not compatible with Objectivsm. A person using his brain to extend his existence on someone elses expense, how is that violating the premise above? It's clearly not.

[Moebius]

Except that it isn't. We know exactly what it is and that it is glaringly evident throughout Objectivism. It is, the observation of the fact that reason is man's basic means of survival (not "ought to be" -- "is") . We need only recall Rand's definition of man as "rational animal" (emphasis here on "rational") to know exactly the essential distinguishing characteristic that she had in mind in speaking of "man qua man".

Also, a conclusion of what is "proper", in the sense of characteristic or fitting, rests on facts about man's existence. That we may derive ought from that which is does not imply a circularity but rather the solution to the very problem of how to derive oughts.

Okay, so a man is a rational animal, because he has no claws or teeth, and therefore must use reason to survive. I can dig that. Although I might add that even animals that do have claws or teeth have strategies in terms of hunting that is learned and not born with. So even animals have a limited problem solving capability.

The point is, given that a man is a "rational animal" whose highest value is his life (no disagreement here), how does it follow that there is a proper way for a rational animal to survive? Because there is two different standard of survival that Rand uses here: In saying that man is a rational animal that uses reason to "survival", she's talking about physical survival; In saying that a rational man survives as man qua man, she's talking about survival according to a preconceived definition of how a man ought to live (which includes not looting -- the whole point of this discussion).

Again, it comes down to the fact that there seems to be a logical link missing between "man is a rational animal" and "man qua man".

[Maarten]

But man qua man means man as a rational animal. There shouldn't be any discussion about this point, any more than that it doesn't make sense to debate whether fish can live on land instead of in the seas. If you want to argue something, argue that it is rational to loot. In other words, the debate should be about what constitutes being rational, not about whether or not being rational is the same as living as man qua man.

[hunterrose]

There is a fundamental alternative of existence or non existence for each indivudal, implying that survival is the ultimate value for each individual.

What do you say this is Rand's implication?

How does it follow that there is a proper way for a rational animal to survive?

Causality, I suppose.

Doesn't it follow that every goal requires a specific (i.e. proper) course of action?

[blackdiamond]

This is not consistent with the rest of your reply, you said "[..]and because we have the value premise of life (existence)[...]", that is what it is to live qua man is derived (at least in part) in relation to what best serve our continued existence, otherwise you value premise would be pointless.

When you, as a moral person, take medicine to continue living, it is not because you value existence per se, but the existence of your life as such (which means you value existence, but mot devoid of the context of your own life). And this life is *your* life *as a man*.

Now, what is confusing you is what your life "as a man" is and how this is derived. I have explained it and you seem to either ignore it or miss it: it is a life of (pursuing and keeping) those values that make you COMPETENT to survive your environment, taking your nature into account. Your nature IS NOT THE OBJECTIVIST VALUES (that would indeed be circular reasoning). Your nature is something you can only determine scientifically (by observation, as SN said above), and your environment is something you can also perceive. This process of attaining such competence gives you great happiness and joy, not momentarily but eternally, and this makes you love your life even more, and motivates you to work even more towards getting (and keeping) such "values".

Before i continue the discussion with you, tell me if you can follow this analogy:

Imagine you are a proud owner of a very nice sports car. One day it breaks down and you decide to fix it. One method of fixing it will involve it continuing as a car, but it will no longer be a fast (sports) car; it will just be a "normal" average car. Another method will involve it continuing as a sports car, except it might have a shorter lifespan. You will still choose the second method (I presume) because that is what restores it to its state of existence qua sports car, the only state that gave you pride and joy as the owner.

I don't know how you can fail to see that there is no contradiction, and no logical gap in this reasoning.

So, when you are faced with choices of how to fix the car, you must keep in mind that it is a sports car, not just a car (this is where "qua man" IS informative). Looting can make the car continue working, but not as a sports car. The sports car has got certain "values" that enable it to be so competent to face the road, some things that make it much more competent than the normal car, and riding it makes it much more enjoyable than riding a normal car, even if the normal car might last longer. The "values" that make it thus competent, that makes it "qua" sports car, are engineered into it, by taking scientific facts (about its materials, and the road) into account.

"Continued existence" only makes sense if it is existence as a sports car, which is why *continued* existence is not the standard, but existence "qua sports car" is. I don't know why you can't understand this, as your last post continues to show.

For the benefit of those young students of Objectivism that might read this thread and get confused by the continuing evasions, let me continue my analogy to properly explain the fallacy of the looter nonsense.

A looter is like a ("sports")car that is "fixed" in such a way that it will only run when chained to other cars and pulled on the road by them. It can go fast, but only when the car it's tied to decides to go fast; if all the other cars decide to rest (which means there is no car to chain it to), it will not move even if it wants to, because it is incompetent to face the road on its own. It has no "independence", it has no "(productive) power" of its own on the road. It is totally dependent on the power of the other cars for it to experience speed or high speed. Now Freddy, can you be happy to own such a "sports" car? if not, why not? Could it be that you value independence? if you do, why do you think you do? Why do all human societies want political independence instead of being colonies of other societies?

As a realitycheck, concider the fact that most people in the western world live longer than Ayn Rand, falling far short of her standards.

No matter how many normal cars lived longer than this ferrari, it was a still a ferrari, baby! We are discussing it now, and not those other "most" cars, because it was such a powerful and beautiful car that fascinated so many people, living completely by the power of its own engine, winning so many formula1 races while chained to no other cars as it drove at full speed all the way!

I'd rather own such a car for seventy five years than your average car for 90 years. No, forget that: i would rather own such a car for one day than your chained car for a thousand years!

[edit: added last paragraph for a bit of rhetorical effect!]

Edited April 1, 2007 by blackdiamond

[Inspector]

I'd rather own such a car for seventy five years than your average car for 90 years. No, forget that: i would rather own such a car for one day than your chained car for a thousand years!

And now you see why I don't like public transportation, LOL!

[Freddy]

Now, what is confusing you is what your life "as a man" is and how this is derived. I have explained it and you seem to either ignore it or miss it: it is a life of (pursuing and keeping) those values that make you COMPETENT to survive your environment, taking your nature into account.

And again, survival is the goal and survival means continued existence. And you exist if you pass my test.

I'd rather own such a car for seventy five years than your average car for 90 years. No, forget that: i would rather own such a car for one day than your chained car for a thousand years!

And how does that make you a competent survivor? If your goal is to survive and you know you are exhibitng a life style that shortens your lifespan, then you are an incompetent and irrational survivor, which according to your own argument will make you unhappy.

Imagine you are a proud owner of a very nice sports car. One day it breaks down and you decide to fix it. One method of fixing it will involve it continuing as a car, but it will no longer be a fast (sports) car; it will just be a "normal" average car. Another method will involve it continuing as a sports car, except it might have a shorter lifespan. You will still choose the second method (I presume) because that is what restores it to its state of existence qua sports car, the only state that gave you pride and joy as the owner.

Now you are driving at something completely different.What you are saying here is that that man can exhibit different lifestyles with different expected lifespans. A sportscar may be an analogy for the lifestyle you subjectively prefer, and this lifestyle may be coupled with an expected lifespan. But there are other lifestyles as well, SUV:s, veteran cars, Big Foots, family cars and so on. This disussion is about which car (=lifestyle) you ought to choose. I don't see how this analogy contributes to the issue at hand. What does this analogy have to do with survival? If you are a dictator (=Big foot) then you have to survive as a dictator if you still want to be a dictator.