tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3273587800151954260..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objective "Immoralist" of the WeekDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62472659613905231302008-07-29T22:20:00.000-07:002008-07-29T22:20:00.000-07:00___________________________________So Rand decides...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>So Rand decides what is moral or immoral for humanity? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>No, reason does. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements by <BR/><BR/>a process of logic - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Did you mean, "by a process of logic", Aristotelian logic? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Essentially yes. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>But is there anyone thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a volition of nature? <BR/><BR/>There is no difficulty in answsering this question on grounds both of<BR/><BR/>reason <BR/><BR/>and of fact.<BR/><BR/><BR/>For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. - Aristotle<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>He [Aristotle] does make definitive statements [on the righteousness of slavery], but I don't think they are <BR/><BR/>justified. - Michael Sutcliff<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Why do you think his[Aristotle's] arguments are not justified?<BR/><BR/>How did Aristotle arrive at his view of slavery?<BR/><BR/>Through the application of reason?<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>He[Aristotle] does make definitive statements [on the righteousness of slavery] but I don't think they are justified. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Because Aristotle didn't use <BR/><BR/>reason?<BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>I think what he[Aristotle]'s trying to get at [on slavery] is that even a human being who does not live according to reason can be legitimately kept as a slave, similar to a beast of burden. <BR/><BR/>This would have had some <BR/><BR/>relevance <BR/><BR/>in his[Aristotle's] day,... - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Relevance in moral sense (as you've defined)?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55354543144292422642008-07-29T04:34:00.000-07:002008-07-29T04:34:00.000-07:00I've found your article via Google. Your link can'...I've found your article via Google. Your link can't be copied directly for some reason.<BR/><BR/>From those few paragraphs I can't really see a consistent logical argument, it's more observations he has made of the world and discussion as he tries to make sense of what he sees. He does make definitive statements but I don't think they are justified. He's talking about 'soul' which I take refers to intellect and consciousness, which I don't think is a particularly developed perspective. Which is hardly surprising as I guess knowledge as we know it was still in its infancy.<BR/><BR/>I think what he's trying to get at is that even a human being who does not live according to reason can be legitimately kept as a slave, similar to a beast of burden. This would have had some relevance in his day, as plenty of humans were still living a tribal 'pack-animal' existence, and he was in the most enlightened society of it's day. So I guess it would be a natural question to ponder.<BR/><BR/>So, my take on it is that this is not a rational argument. My views on slavery are what I've articulated above. I also think my argument would have held true in his day as well, just that it would be harder to see that was the case considering the state of human development. Just like it would be harder to see how one day we would walk on the moon or talk to someone thousands of kilometres away.Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2366248003631151202008-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:00Red Grant,The web address you gave us, about Arist...Red Grant,<BR/><BR/>The web address you gave us, about Aristotle and Slavery doesn't seem to be working.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-74548493484417196402008-07-28T14:05:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:05:00.000-07:00http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl1302/distance_a...http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl1302/distance_arc/<BR/>las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>How do you think Aristotle arrived at his view on slavery?<BR/><BR/>Through the application of reason?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32017182717548697782008-07-28T06:38:00.000-07:002008-07-28T06:38:00.000-07:00No, Red, it doesn't. You and I both know that when...No, Red, it doesn't. You and I both know that when I agreed that Aristotelian logic, or rather traditional logic theory, was a sound basis for an objectivist to make decisions I wasn't endorsing everything else Aristotle may have said in toto. Why waste time playing games like this?<BR/><BR/>I'm not familiar with Aristotle's views on slavery and the link doesn't work so I can't examine the 'grounds of both reason and of fact'. I'll just talk out my own objectivist perspective on slavery, viz:<BR/><BR/>Between rational civilised beings there is no logical basis that can justify slavery. By removing the liberty of a rational being you are removing their ability to achieve their full potential, and hence the maximum contribution they can make to a society, and hence to your own existence. To clarify (and my apologies if I'm telling you to suck eggs), this is due to the fact that human kind maximises their utility through the application of creative genius, not through simple robotic labour. So in practical terms, this is one of the main reasons North Korea doesn't have substantial creative output and the USA does. Slavery also creates a state of conflict in which you will constantly need to defend yourself, hence you are reducing yourself to the law of the jungle and not achieving a state of peace whereby you can fully exercise your own creative genius to your own ends i.e. the purpose of establishing civil society. Exactly the same point but from a different angle is that slavery destabilises civil society by making it unclear who has freedom and what sort of enforcement can be used to eliminate freedom i.e. if some rational peaceful people have freedom, why don't all the others, (or violates the 'social contract' if you like but that's often a dirty expression in objectivist circles ;) ). Slavery also has an overhead that must be paid to maintain the slaves in submission and keep them in a useful form eg healthy, housed and fed, enforced social structures so they can collectively deliver productive work etc. This overhead must be delivered from your own productivity and is a 'base' activity or 'brutish' activity rather than 'enlightened' one to which you, as a civilised being, should be applying your intellect. In short, slavery does not sit with rational beings voluntarily cooperating to further their own ends through maximising their creative genius, i.e. civil society.<BR/><BR/>Can you imagine anything like brain surgery, or space travel, being achieved through a system of slavery? What about harnessing some slaves to write a great symphony? This extends right down the line. A conscripted defence force will not be as capable as a volunteer one. If people are forced into a particular career by social forces beyond their control they will not be as productive as if they chose their preferred career. People who have their freedom reduced will not feel the same allegiance to the values of that society compared to someone who feels their society maximises their freedom of choice and opportunity.<BR/><BR/>This wasn't something I got in the first instance myself. In the <I>The Fountainhead</I> Ayn Rand wrote 'A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends'. I didn't get what this fully meant until only a couple of years ago. It applies to all human relationships from marriage to slavery.Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30860220508960282562008-07-27T14:21:00.000-07:002008-07-27T14:21:00.000-07:00___________________________________So Rand decides...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>So Rand decides what is moral or immoral for humanity? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>No, reason does. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand,and form judgements by <BR/><BR/>a process of logic. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Did you mean, "by a process of logic", Aristotelian logic? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Essentially yes. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The following is an excerpt from Aristotle on Slavery:<BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>But is there anyone thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a volition of nature?<BR/><BR/><BR/>There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of <BR/><BR/>reason <BR/><BR/>and of fact.<BR/><BR/><BR/>For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. - Aristotle<BR/><BR/>http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl1302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe Slavery is <BR/><BR/>moral<BR/><BR/>in universally objectively valid way?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8119902036752328972008-07-26T23:24:00.000-07:002008-07-26T23:24:00.000-07:00Yes, Red, you found a different definition of 'rea...Yes, Red, you found a different definition of 'reason'. Well done. You know what I'm saying - we decide what is moral through the application of reason (as per my definition - which will then come up with a logical foundation for our moral basis as per your definition).<BR/><BR/>Now lets see if we can go anywhere with this!<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>Does this mean then you believe if one had the basis or motive (whatever they happen to be) for an action or conviction (whatever they happen to be), then: that action or conviction would be moral?</I><BR/><BR/>Well it's not <I>'whatever they happen to be'</I> when we're considering morality, is it Red? We're asking what constitutes a good life for a human like you, which tends to end up focussed on how you should interact with other humans.<BR/><BR/>So lets start with this basis: 1) you are alive, 2) you wish to stay alive, 3) you wish to live your life to the fullest and be happy, and 4) there are other people like you in which you will interact. Let me know what you think about this basis?<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>Who decides what is moral?</I><BR/><BR/>Every being that makes decisions according to reason derives an understanding of what is moral if they wish to survive and flourish. Ultimately, however, they are not determining what is moral - that is determined by the nature of their existence and reason.<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>What is morality</I><BR/><BR/>Since this seems to be your preferred source of definitions:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality" REL="nofollow">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality</A><BR/><BR/>I have no problems with these definitions.<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>and who decides who is moral?</I><BR/><BR/>As stated above, what is moral is determined by the nature of your existence and the universe in which you exist. However you understand what is moral through examining the nature of your existence and utilising reason.<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>Did you mean, by "a process of logic", Aristotelian logic?</I><BR/><BR/>Essentially yes. However, so we don't go down the 'my definition is better than your definition' path like we were beginning to with <I>'reason'</I>, lets just say the same logic that you use every day to survive and make decisions as to your happiness. That's unless you want to argue the nature of logic - but to be honest, I'm not interested in 50 or more posts on this topic. I want to defend objectivist morality on this site, so if you want to push the bounds of that then knock yourself out and I will try to give good answers to everything you ask.<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>I am. What is an ethical yardstick?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you serious with this? A scale with right on one end and wrong on the other for use in determining complex, nuanced, ethical questions - such that we can determine what is 'right' by which option is closest to the 'right' end of the scale.Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85209093662079010282008-07-26T12:50:00.000-07:002008-07-26T12:50:00.000-07:00Should have been:www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonShould have been:<BR/><BR/>www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90009519178713165352008-07-26T11:58:00.000-07:002008-07-26T11:58:00.000-07:00___________________________________Reason: The pow...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements by <BR/><BR/>a process of logic - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Did you mean, by "a process of logic", Aristotelian logic?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65187041889018635352008-07-26T11:50:00.000-07:002008-07-26T11:50:00.000-07:00___________________________________Reason - def. -...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Reason - def. - the basis or motive for an action or conviction - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Wrong definition of reason,.... - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Reason - def. - The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction - 1. www.freedictionary.com/reason<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The only entity that can be moral is an entity that has free will, i.e. has the ability to make a choice, and therefore can be<BR/><BR/>assessed to be .... - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>To be assessed by whom? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Everybody who wants to live a moral life. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Who decides what is moral?<BR/><BR/>What is morality?<BR/><BR/>and who decides who is moral?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>...can be assessed to be moral or immoral by this choice using an ethical yardstick. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Who decides what is an ethical yardstick? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>(I assume you are not actually asking what an ethical yardstick is... - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I am. What is an ethical yardstick?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56084457109595792702008-07-26T00:40:00.000-07:002008-07-26T00:40:00.000-07:00red grant: Reason - def. - the basis or motive for...red grant: <I>Reason - def. - the basis or motive for an action or conviction.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong definition of reason, Red. Which I suspect you know is actually the case, you slippery devil. Try this one on for size:<BR/><BR/>Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements by a process of logic.<BR/><BR/>(That definition comes from the dictionary widget that comes with Dashboard in MacOSX).Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19385612177379296842008-07-26T00:34:00.000-07:002008-07-26T00:34:00.000-07:00red grant: To be assessed by whom?Everybody who wa...red grant: <I>To be assessed by whom?</I><BR/><BR/>Everybody who wants to live a moral life.<BR/><BR/>red grant: <I>Who decides what is an ethical yardstick?</I><BR/><BR/>(I assume you are not actually asking what an ethical yardstick is, but rather how you get one.)<BR/><BR/>You do as an individual. But if you are sensible / moral you will do it according to reason, so it will be the same one that I and all other ethical people will end up deriving.Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39242027880926479902008-07-25T20:26:00.000-07:002008-07-25T20:26:00.000-07:00___________________________________The only entity...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The only entity that can be moral is an entity that has free will, i.e. has the ability to make a choice, and therefore can be <BR/><BR/>assessed to be.... - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>To be assessed by whom?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/>.....can be assessed to be moral or immoral by this choice using an <BR/><BR/>ethical yardstick. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Who decides what is an ethical yardstick?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64920272607355564242008-07-25T19:46:00.000-07:002008-07-25T19:46:00.000-07:00___________________________________So Rand decides...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>So Rand decides what is moral or immoral for humanity? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>No, reason does. - Michael Sutcliffe<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Reason - def. - the basis or motive for an action or conviction<BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe if one had the basis or motive (whatever they happen to be) for an action or conviction (whatever they happen to be), then:<BR/><BR/>that action or conviction would be moral?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6592734036542338462008-07-25T05:00:00.000-07:002008-07-25T05:00:00.000-07:00My comment in the post above:Sure, 'stupid' might ...My comment in the post above:<BR/><BR/><B>Sure, 'stupid' might be a different thing to 'moral' but 'stupid' can never be 'moral'.</B><BR/><BR/>should read<BR/><BR/><B>Sure, 'stupid' might be a different thing to 'immoral' but 'stupid' can bever be 'moral'.</B>Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11466997627205883342008-07-25T04:42:00.000-07:002008-07-25T04:42:00.000-07:00daniel barnes: That is, "stupid" is not the same a...daniel barnes: <I>That is, "stupid" is not the same as "immoral."</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, 'stupid' might be a different thing to 'moral' but 'stupid' can never be 'moral'. The only entity that can be moral is a an entity that has free will i.e. has the ability to make a <I>choice</I>, and therefore can be assessed to be moral or immoral by this <I>choice</I> using an ethical yardstick. The only way to make a choice with any meaning, or to apply an ethical yardstick with any meaning, is through the application of reason. An entity that is stupid is unable to be moral if we define 'stupid' as being unable to apply reason (which, I'm assuming, is the common-usage definition).<BR/><BR/>daniel barnes: <I>Your implication is that if someone chooses to be say a firefighter, air-sea rescuer, policeman etc they are stupid, as they risk their lives regularly and don't even get paid a billion dollars. But Rand's point is that they are immoral. Got the difference? And my point, following logically from Rand's position, is that Objectivists should therefore roundly denounce such professions,..........</I><BR/><BR/>I think we need to be a bit realistic about the risks firefighters or policemen take in their job. If we were to use Rand's example of 'risking your life for a stranger' we are implying taking a substantial amount of risk, perhaps akin to my example of russian roulette, which we could equate to a 1 in 6 chance of death.<BR/><BR/>I think we could both agree that 1 in 6 firefighters or policemen don't die on the job. In fact, the figure is probably a couple of orders of magnitude smaller. Furthermore, the firefighter or policeman is being compensated for his level of risk through his pay. If she/he feels this compensation is not satisfactory then they are free to leave their job and seek higher pay or lower risk elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>We all manage risk in our lives. Every single one of us, when we walk down the street, drive a car, cook with a pressure cooker etc etc. Pretty much all of the faculties of our survival or quality of life have risk involved, but still need to be provided by people interacting if we are going to get them through some form of society, i.e. social cooperation through a market. Which is fine, because some people take money for this risk like miners, or security guards, people who work with dangerous chemicals, pilots, soldiers etc. These people aren't immoral; they're providing those necessary functions for our survival and quality of life for some benefit to themselves in the form of a salary, and perhaps an exciting job that they enjoy.<BR/><BR/>Having spent my last 13 years in the military (including time on operations), I consider myself in this situation. I could probably earn more money in the private sector, but I enjoy the excitement and variety of my job and the pay is generally acceptable. Furthermore, perhaps like a policeman, there is the fact that I feel my job provides a benefit to my own survivial, quality of life and happiness above my pay and daily experiences. To use the policeman as an example, she/he may feel that taking violent offenders off the streets is good for her/him as a civilised person in the community, and this is an added benefit to her/him on top of her/his pay.<BR/><BR/>So, as an objectivist, I consider these professions completely moral. There's plenty of 'professions' I think are personal sacrifice by people who don't understand right from wrong. For example, I don't think I'd ever work as an aid-worker for people who I didn't think could ever end up providing for themselves. I'd never be a soldier or mercenary for a cause that supported an uncivilised regime. It'd be an unusual situation in which I'd practice as an engineer for free etc.<BR/><BR/>As an objectivist, I roundly denounce people who do these activities eg. aid-workers to hopeless communities, eco-terrorists or communist terrorist in some uncivilised land or doctors that sacrifice their professional careers to helping some shit village in Arsecrackistan, and I think the media celebrates them because it is confused and there are a lot of left-wing media people. And it makes for a good story, whereas something that is completely rational is rarely sensational.Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88687973029938803412008-07-25T03:48:00.000-07:002008-07-25T03:48:00.000-07:00MS:>You're not going to risk your life for ...MS:<BR/>>You're not going to risk your life for a billion dollars let alone an unknown value, and any rational person knows this is stupid. That's Ayn Rand's point.<BR/><BR/>MS, if you are going to get your head around this thread, you need to start by making a basic intellectual distinction.<BR/><BR/>That is, "stupid" is not the same as "immoral."<BR/>Your implication is that if someone chooses to be say a firefighter, air-sea rescuer, policeman etc they are <I>stupid</I>, as they risk their lives regularly and don't even get paid a billion dollars. But Rand's point is that they are <I>immoral</I>. Got the difference? And my point, following logically from Rand's position, is that Objectivists should therefore roundly <I>denounce</I> such professions, and the media's celebration of such acts. Yet they don't. Why, I wonder?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2121513460095795812008-07-25T03:47:00.000-07:002008-07-25T03:47:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14735153851558589482008-07-25T03:41:00.000-07:002008-07-25T03:41:00.000-07:00Red Grant: Indeed. I've asked the objectivsts univ...Red Grant: <I>Indeed. I've asked the objectivsts universally objectively valid definition of morality irrespective of time and place.<BR/><BR/>So far I couldn't get one.</I><BR/><BR/>I like it, Red, so let's run with it.<BR/><BR/>I should say that I consider myself an 'amateur' objectivist in that I'm not the most widely read person on Rand's writings (although it has been some years that I've considered myself an objectivist!), but I think I understand the philosophy to a fairly thorough extent.<BR/><BR/>So, starting off, I'll take it as given that we exist and that we should use reason to make all our decisions, and that reason is our epistemological basis.<BR/><BR/>So we're not wasting our time, I'll get your agreement that this is a good starting position?Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-76439022377735943262008-07-25T03:05:00.000-07:002008-07-25T03:05:00.000-07:00anonymous: No wonder she is such a comfort to her ...anonymous: <I>No wonder she is such a comfort to her worshipers.</I><BR/><BR/>You seem like the sort of person who needs a 'philosophy' that includes an afterlife and requires other people to protect you regardless of how stupid you may be. In other words, religion is probably more your thing!<BR/><BR/>Don't have the courage to live for yourself, mate?!Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40554772782602901702008-07-25T02:59:00.000-07:002008-07-25T02:59:00.000-07:00Red Grant: So Rand decides what is moral or immora...Red Grant: <I>So Rand decides what is moral or immoral for humanity?</I><BR/><BR/>No, reason does.Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3520045241530050742008-07-25T02:46:00.000-07:002008-07-25T02:46:00.000-07:00(There's been a lot of long posts arguing this one...(There's been a lot of long posts arguing this one out which would take over an hour for me to get my head around, so I'm going to start afresh with my own comments. Please excuse my laziness, I'll try to take a different angle to what everyone else seems to have done.)<BR/><BR/>Rand's point is quite simple. By 'stranger' she means 'unknown'. Therefore, you shouldn't risk your life, which is your most prized possession, for an unknown value. This is simply rational behaviour. For example, if I were to bet you a billion dollars to have one go at Russian roulette would you do it? I would argue a rational person shouldn't do it as, in this society, their lives are probably more than comfortable already, or even if they aren't comfortable there is a high probability that through the application of reason and their own labour they will become quite comfortable (and if they're an objectivist they'll also enjoy the journey!!!). So if, by my reasoning at least, you shouldn't do it then, are you going to do it if I say to you I'll give you a quantity of money between one hundred dollars and one billion dollars if you have one go at russian roulette. Of course you won't take my offer. You're not going to risk your life for a billion dollars let alone an unknown value, and any rational person knows this is stupid. That's Ayn Rand's point.<BR/><BR/>Now, would I save a child from a dog? Of course I would. The dog is unlikely to kill me in any instance. I live in a community of rational people and this child will almost certainly grow up to make a valuable contribution of some sort, even if it's just through their profession, to my community, and therefore to me! Furthermore, because my community is primarily moral, and if this child is from my community, then I could reasonably expect reciprocation in that another parent would save my child as they feel the same way about the value of my children.<BR/><BR/>Now, before I personally attack you people, let's lead in by getting a bit controversial! I've spent a bit of my time around aboriginal communities through growing up in country towns. Aborignals swim in water that a lot of other people wouldn't due to crocodiles. If I saw an aboriginal child being eaten by a crocodile, would I jump in to save him/her? Pretty much, no. If I saw an easy way to save him/her without risk to myself I would do it. But if it involves me getting into the water then I wouldn't do it (I'd still call 000 etc). Why, because what value is it that I'm risking my life for? He/she will be back here tomorrow, and it's probably more value to the community to say you shouldn't swim here because your kids will be eaten and your stupid 'spiritual' ceremony doesn't really protect them from crocodiles. Are you really suggesting that I should immerse myself in deep water with a high probability of crocs in order to save this child?<BR/><BR/>Now the good bit. In my personal experience it is the pathetic left-wing fairy boy who stands outside the burning building calling 000 on his mobile phone, while right-wing people of morals like myself are the ones running into the building doing the risky work saving people. Yet it is the pathetic left-wing fairy boy who ends up claiming the high moral ground through claiming that <I>other people</I> aren't doing enough for the community, and demanding government action that they be forced to do/give more for others who don't work as hard or take the risks that they do. Why is that?Michael Sutcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08660174432752623492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14834513421022768402008-07-24T20:57:00.000-07:002008-07-24T20:57:00.000-07:00Like Christ can turn water into wine Rand (may her...Like Christ can turn water into wine Rand (may her spirit touch us all) can turn cowardliness into heroism.<BR/><BR/>"Those are the moral heroes of an extreme emergency; their heart, their soul wish to save life, knowing its value, but their higher virtues assure them it is wrong to deny the reality that that person is dying and there is nothing to be done; that the sure value of their own life is of absolute worth" (john chapter who knows,verse who cares)<BR/><BR/>No wonder she is such a comfort to her worshipers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86961014247580510782008-07-23T06:27:00.000-07:002008-07-23T06:27:00.000-07:00___________________________________Rand made it cl...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Rand made it clear her definition of a "sacrifice" and that definition explains what is moral or immoral. - anon<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So Rand decides what is moral or immoral for humanity?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47542533098083011582008-07-22T21:43:00.000-07:002008-07-22T21:43:00.000-07:00Greg,"Try as they might, they will never convince ...Greg,<BR/><BR/>"Try as they might, they will never convince the majority of people that a person who risks their life to save a stranger is immoral. Such action always has and always will be praised, regardless of whatever kind of rationalizations can be devised against it. Anyone who believes the contrary simply doesn't have a clue about human nature."<BR/><BR/>That's why I called Rand's notion of the immorality of someone risking their life to save a stranger abhorrent. Truth be told I think if any objectivist started to honestly thinks this through, I think he might have to question his view of ethics. Especially if he started to imagine the stranger saved his life.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.com