tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post7302225220346070495..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand's Ethics, Part 15Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24060021889249737482012-12-05T12:21:23.297-08:002012-12-05T12:21:23.297-08:00very nice articles.. i love your blogg. godbless y...very nice articles.. i love your blogg. godbless you friendss..Download Aplikasi Software Dan Gadget Terbaruhttp://www.wafinela.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14871433403886532402009-07-16T19:36:57.812-07:002009-07-16T19:36:57.812-07:00Xray wrote: By subjective in "subjective"...Xray wrote: <i>By subjective in "subjective" values I mean connected to the personal (subjective) interests/motives of the individual attributing value to this or that.<br /><br />Rand:<br />"'Value' is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.<br />"The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the<br />question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity<br />capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative.<br />Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."<br /><br />Imo this is of the few times Rand got her premises right.</i><br /><br />Certainly, she got it right because she stated the blatantly obvious in this case.<br /><br />I think the alleged objectivity of Rand's moral theory derives from the biological basis concerning an animal's primary means of survival. This means of survival can be conceptualized thus defined. Man is not an exception to this rule, thus the human species can be objectively conceptualized and defined. Conceptualization ("epistemology"), which is defined as identification and integration of the facts of reality (in this case, the facts of man's fundamental reality) forms the objective basis for her morality.<br /><br />If the basis for her morality is objective, then it no longer matters whether anybody makes the pre-moral choice to define his morality in terms of the principle of man's life. It is just as objective as anything else, and lacking this knowledge can be considered evasive, an unquestionable evil, or a simple cognitive error. <br /><br />Thus, the question of making a pre-moral choice, which has been batted around for two or three decades now, fails.<br /><br />Anyway, I don't consider epistemology, which often for the Randroids boils down to the mere use of logic, to be an objectifying grounds for argument. There is an implicit teleological argument sorely needed here. The Randroids think that identifying and integrating ("logic") are the entire secret to objectivity, when in fact objectivity itself begs a further grounds outside of itself.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39636903590862452142009-07-16T19:08:15.884-07:002009-07-16T19:08:15.884-07:00Xray:
Yes, that's the quote, although it appe...Xray:<br /><br />Yes, that's the quote, although it appears to be Barbara paraphrasing Rand.<br /><br />The thing really puzzling me is the inconsistency of Rand's overall view of women. On the one hand she would only view woman in relationship to man, on the other hand the woman is on an equal footing socially, and I presume, metaphysically, as you can see by her heroines. Yet even Dagny Taggart, when she is at the top of her game, finds that there is a man who is far more advanced than she is and at whose feet she can worship.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23065265948690657522009-07-16T16:44:50.339-07:002009-07-16T16:44:50.339-07:00Cavewight wrote:
"I would agree only not in...Cavewight wrote: <br /><br />"I would agree only not in your psychological terms. I would also agree in that none of these values are *intrinsic* to the objects being valued, to put it more technically. They do not possess any intrinsic value outside of any reference to a valuer."<br />(end quote)<br /><br />Correct. So this would be a common basis here for the discussion. <br /><br />"However, that in itself does not prove values are subjective (which I take to mean "wholly within the mind"). Because it is likewise the case that the ability to value could not exist without some reason for valuing, valuing does not occur in a vacuum, and that reason must be a priori to the act itself."<br />(end quote)<br /><br />This is of course correct. By "subjective", I don't mean 'existing only in the mind of a person' like e g. a Fata Morgana or some fantasy unconnected to reality. <br />By subjective in "subjective" values I mean connected to the personal (subjective) interests/motives of the individual attributing value to this or that. <br /><br />Rand: <br />"'Value' is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.<br />"The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the<br />question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity<br />capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative.<br />Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."<br /><br />Imo this is of the few times Rand got her premises right.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17495121614634262302009-07-16T12:20:25.163-07:002009-07-16T12:20:25.163-07:00Cavewight wrote:
"Xray:
I found the cite ...Cavewight wrote: <br /><br />"Xray:<br /><br />I found the cite you requested, I originally read it in Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand probably around page 18. <br /><br />Branden detractors will doubt the veracity of Barbara's quote. However, given Rand's statements about a female president, the quote doesn't sound too far off the mark concerning Rand's beliefs about women." <br />(end quote) <br /><br />Cavewight, I looked at page 18, in B. Branden's book and it says there: <br />"Man, she would say, is defined by his relationship to reality - woman, by her relationship to man."<br />(end quote)<br /><br />Is that the quote you meant?Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55725117513454420302009-07-15T18:44:16.751-07:002009-07-15T18:44:16.751-07:00So What's Wrong with the Sensible Knave?
(A s...<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=c608zB8Vv_UC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=kant+objective+values&source=bl&ots=GWtNjUHtCi&sig=gkFtN_y-5mSEQ4j1y3JDLAVum40&hl=en&ei=-YReStb8EYy4M7-4tK4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1" rel="nofollow">So What's Wrong with the Sensible Knave?</a><br /><br />(A start on answering the question "why values are objective.")Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-59896747025247150182009-07-15T11:53:08.463-07:002009-07-15T11:53:08.463-07:00Xray wrote: - for values can't be be anything ...Xray wrote: <i>- for values can't be be anything but subjective.</i><br /><br />Why?Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73413659659741662022009-07-15T11:11:50.223-07:002009-07-15T11:11:50.223-07:00Xray:
I found the cite you requested, I originall...Xray:<br /><br />I found the cite you requested, I originally read it in Barbara Branden's <i>The Passion of Ayn Rand</i> probably around page 18. <br /><br />Branden detractors will doubt the veracity of Barbara's quote. However, given Rand's statements about a female president, the quote doesn't sound too far off the mark concerning Rand's beliefs about women.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-28930206513165037952009-07-15T11:06:24.269-07:002009-07-15T11:06:24.269-07:00Xray wrote: Do you think Kant helped her with his ...Xray wrote: <i>Do you think Kant helped her with his advice? He may have come across as cold and unfeeling to her imo.<br />Is it true that Kant showed Maria's very personal letter to other people, making mocking remarks aboutit?</i><br /><br />I'll provide the cite you requested later. I thought Kant's first response to von Herbert anyway was beautifully written and well-thought out. What Kant could not have known, however, was that she was mentally ill. And really, there is no philosophical respite for that sort of thing.<br /><br />Eventually Kant discovered that Maria's problem was more fundamental than his philosophy could provide help for, and so he sent a package to one of his friends containing her letters with the words "A Warning" written on the package.<br /><br />But all I'm saying is that his responses to her were never chauvinistic, he treated her as an equal until he discovered her true problem, and then he ended the conversation.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61148446834998411252009-07-15T10:50:56.982-07:002009-07-15T10:50:56.982-07:00Xray wrote: No values can be forced upon anyone, l...Xray wrote: <i>No values can be forced upon anyone, let alone by nature. This is technically impossible since "value" presupposes the mental act of attributing value by a consciuos and volitinal entity.<br />This excludes nature as an agent.</i><br /><br />I would agree only not in your psychological terms. I would also agree in that none of these values are *intrinsic* to the objects being valued, to put it more technically. They do not possess any intrinsic value outside of any reference to a valuer.<br /><br />However, that in itself does not prove values are subjective (which I take to mean "wholly within the mind"). Because it is likewise the case that the ability to value could not exist without some reason for valuing, valuing does not occur in a vacuum, and that reason must be a priori to the act itself.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10195188763164460632009-07-15T08:00:40.419-07:002009-07-15T08:00:40.419-07:00Cavewight wrote:
"But there is a reason why...Cavewight wrote: <br /><br />"But there is a reason why those values exist, and this reason can be objectively defined. In general, each person is pursuing universality. In general, each person (even Hitler) is pursuing the idea of Humanity (albeit in a demented fashion). And since this is an intersubjective trait, common to fascists, Jews, and everybody else, you would then have to agree that it is objective even if the particulars differ for every single individual."<br />(end quote)<br /><br />The objective aspect lies in the fact that every individual is an entity subjectively attributing value to this or that. <br /><br />As to your claim of each person pursuing humanity, it does not apply to e.g. a nihilist. <br /><br />"As for not extending Humanity to women, that would certainly be Rand who thought that 'a man is defined by his relationship to the universe, a woman by her relationship to a man.'" <br />(end quote) <br /><br />Cavewight, could you please give me the exact source of that statement by Rand? TIA. <br /><br />Rand was actually something like a male chauvinist. This is also obvious in her novels. <br /> <br />"And Kant did not advise Maria von Herbert to do anything more than obey the rational command to duty -not duty to a husband, but duty to moral reason." (end quote)<br /><br />I just did a quick scan on Wikipedia which offers a good overview. <br />That was a most interesting correspondence between Kant and Maria von Herbert!<br />I was deeply moved by that poor woman's personal torment (my guess is she had had a lover before and held the info back from the man who then, as he found out, chose to end the relationship). <br /><br />Do you think Kant helped her with his advice? He may have come across as cold and unfeeling to her imo. <br />Is it true that Kant showed Maria's very personal letter to other people, making mocking remarks aboutit?Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13100349105121727622009-07-15T07:19:17.111-07:002009-07-15T07:19:17.111-07:00"Even if Hitler had to rationalize humanity a..."Even if Hitler had to rationalize humanity according to the needs of his racist views, he still worked from an idea which is objectively definable even if his application of that idea was not objective."<br />(end quote)<br /><br />It is important to be very clear about the use of the term "objective", to avoid mixing up the levels where it is applied. <br /><br />One can of course objectvely describe the various values held by a person. <br />For example it is an objective fact (objective in connection with "fact" is actually redundant and used by me as mere emphasis here)that Ayn Rand's objectvist ethics holds "man's life as the standard of life". This fact can be checked out it TVOS, p. 27.<br /><br />So in a scientific approach, one <br />can objectively define and describe each of Hitler's proclaimed values and virtues in detail. <br /> <br />But all description of values (whatever they may be), does not make ANY of those values one iota more objective - for values can't be be anything but subjective. <br /><br />There also exists no absolute "good" or "bad". To say "good" or "bad" is to say 'suited to individual purpose'. <br />Good/bad refers to the objective evaluation of means chosen in respect to a subjectively chosen end. <br /><br />Example: A bucket of water dropped on fire is "good" when the chosen goal is to extinguish the fire, but "bad" when the goal is to keep the fire burning.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82253603328111601222009-07-15T03:42:39.632-07:002009-07-15T03:42:39.632-07:00Xray:
>But the truth is that NO ONE can actuall...Xray:<br />>But the truth is that NO ONE can actually force another person to psychologically accept one's values as values of their own.<br /><br />The situation is this: the (partial) subjectivity of ethics is an essential part of it. That is to say, the is/ought problem isn't a bug, *it's a feature*!Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45062963676445420962009-07-15T03:25:50.361-07:002009-07-15T03:25:50.361-07:00Caverwight wrote:
"Xray wrote: The erroneo...Caverwight wrote: <br /><br />"Xray wrote: The erroneous belief in the existence of "objective" values is based on the failure to realize that the term, "to value" means "attributing value"; and that whatever is subject to being valued is also subject to being disvalued."<br /><br />Cavewight: "Yet there is a distinction between "to value" and the noun "value." Even if some values are forced upon us by nature, you can still choose not to value them - however, those values are still objective." (end quote)<br /><br /><br />Cavewight, <br />The distinction is merely syntactical, not semantical. <br />The linguistic technical term is "conversion", referring to the fact that words can change classes (from verb to noun or vice versa) without alteration of the audio-visual symbol. <br />The English language is particularly rich in those conversions. <br />Therefore the noun "value" is just a shortcut of language, presupposing the act of attributing value. <br /><br />Some random examples from many: <br />to draft/a draft; to drag - a drag; to dream - a dream; to bend -a bend; to slide - a slide; to love - love (noun); to value - value (noun); to hate - hate (noun), and many more.<br /><br />"Even if some values are forced upon us by nature, you can still choose not to value them - however, those values are still objective." (end quote)<br /><br />No values can be forced upon anyone, let alone by nature. <br />This is technically impossible since "value" presupposes the mental act of attributing value by a consciuos and volitinal entity. <br />This excludes nature as an agent. <br /><br />As for human beings and their values - it is true that people, (especially when propagating ideologies), can TRY to force their personal values and beliefs as alleged "objective" values upon others. <br /><br />Some examples: "the dictature of the proletariat"; "eating meat is objectively immoral because an animal has to die for it"; "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", the Old Roman saying for soldiers sent into battle; in the Bible, eating from the tree of knowledge was considered as an objective non-value to the point of being considered a crime because it violated the the supreme authority's (god's), command. <br /><br />But the truth is that NO ONE can actually force another person to psychologically accept one's values as values of their own. A person may outwardly comply when forced, but "valuing" is an inner mental process implying free choice of mind.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42261149570554180562009-07-14T09:30:57.448-07:002009-07-14T09:30:57.448-07:00Xray wrote: The erroneous belief in the existence ...Xray wrote: <i>The erroneous belief in the existence of "objective" values is based on the failure to realize that the term, "to value" means "attributing value"; and that whatever is subject to being valued is also subject to being disvalued.</i><br /><br />Yet there is a distinction between "to value" and the noun "value." Even if some values are forced upon us by nature, you can still choose not to value them - however, those values are still objective.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81708108309321375982009-07-14T09:09:21.367-07:002009-07-14T09:09:21.367-07:00Xray wrote: As for Kant's idea of what constit...Xray wrote: <i>As for Kant's idea of what constitutes "Humanity", this in turn was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment Age. But don’t believe his idea of “humanity” was extended to the female part of the population.</i><br /><br />Your example of Olympe de Gouges doesn't say anything about Kant's views of women. Most of Kant's views on women can be found in his work "Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime," if you really want to know. However, I do know that Kant was not in favor of guillotining people simply for holding certain views. The philosophers of the time at least were (mostly) products of the Enlightenment even if the people were not, and perhaps never will be.<br /><br />As for not extending Humanity to women, that would certainly be Rand who thought that "a man is defined by his relationship to the universe, a woman by her relationship to a man." And Kant did not advise Maria von Herbert to do anything more than obey the rational command to duty - not duty to a husband, but duty to moral reason. <br /><br />Xray wrote: <i>I used the drastic Hitler example to demonstrate that most philosophical recommendations like e. g. the CI are subjective value judgements too, with the author using his own idea of "humanity" as the backdrop.</i><br /><br />Even if Hitler had to rationalize humanity according to the needs of his racist views, he still worked from an idea which is objectively definable even if his application of that idea was not objective. The subjective application of a concept does not thereby reduce it to subjectivity. That is still begging the question, as it relies on an objective ground of the concept as any basis for subjectifying it, that is, filtering it through one's own peculiar biases. Your argument thus defeats itself, as everybody works from a common ground but comes up with a different practical solution. The common ground is not thereby affected, it is, indeed, a priori (i.e., universal and necessary) to the very effort at subjectifying it. <br /><br />And on a more humorous note,<br />Xtra Laj wrote:<br />"Don't lose any sleep over it. Cavewight is an Kantivist. For him, Kant can say no wrong." (end quote)<br /><br />Xtra is always looking for labels to pin on people so he can find their weak spot. He spent some time trying to find out if I was a "this-ist" or a "that-ist" - as if this were important to the arguments at hand. But labeling is just ad hominem and thus easily dismissed. Arguments stand or fall on their own, this has nothing to do with ideologies.<br /><br />As for whether Kant can do no wrong, many critics have pointed out Kant's weaker arguments. And anyway it would be quite anti-Critical to consider Kant to be some kind of perfect deity, it would be against both the letter and the spirit of Critique.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-26750191328176923082009-07-14T09:07:15.402-07:002009-07-14T09:07:15.402-07:00Xray wrote: Here we have it again: what precisely ...Xray wrote: <i>Here we have it again: what precisely IS "Humanity" in the eyes of the person(s) propagating it?</i><br />Words have definitions, in this I agree with the Objectivists. "Humanity" is objectively definable as you can see at the page I cited: <i>Our ‘Humanity’ is that collection of features that make us distinctively human, and these include capacities to engage in self-directed rational behavior and to adopt and pursue our own ends, and any other capacities necessarily connected with these.</i> Not so "floating" after all, nor subjective.<br /><br />Xray wrote: <br /><i>Notice something via this drastic example? The rub is that people's individual ideas of what they would WANT as "universal law" DIFFER enormously.<br />For Hitler, it was getting the world free of "vermin", as he called those persons who did not fit his racist ideal. That was the "maxim" in accordance with which he acted.</i><br /><br />The CI consists of a number of tests, not just that one. A maxim may pass one test and fail all the rest. And anyway, I have read parts of Mein Kampf and found Hitler's arguments (he doesn't rant, he actually does try to sound reasonable) to be quite wanting. Of course they are based in racism, racism is not just evil it is also illogical, and moreover, anti-Kantian.<br /><br />Xray wrote: <i>what do you think their idea of "humanity" and “justice” would be? What answers would one get from them?</i><br /><br />The people in your example often 'define' abstractions on a personal level where they understand things intuitively, on the basis of imminent need, or on the basis of experience. <br /><br />But there is a reason why those values exist, and this reason can be objectively defined. In general, each person is pursuing universality. In general, each person (even Hitler) is pursuing the idea of Humanity (albeit in a demented fashion). And since this is an intersubjective trait, common to fascists, Jews, and everybody else, you would then have to agree that it is objective even if the particulars differ for every single individual.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-18597935800800584842009-07-14T07:43:34.631-07:002009-07-14T07:43:34.631-07:00Erratum: Forgot to put D. Barnes' comment in q...Erratum: Forgot to put D. Barnes' comment in quotes, sorry: <br /><br />Daniel Barnes: <br />"If you like you can visualise Objectivism as a house of cards, only inverted and resting on a single, wavering card. This itself kept in place by a great deal of huffing and puffing...;-)"<br />(end quote)<br /><br />Very apt comparison! :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-48981056527213680532009-07-14T07:39:50.301-07:002009-07-14T07:39:50.301-07:00Cavewight wrote:
"Daniel:
Xray is saying th...Cavewight wrote: <br /><br />"Daniel:<br />Xray is saying that Rand's moral theory is based in a fallacy found in her theory of epistemology. But he [I'm a 'she'] doesn't go into detail, and I myself am not certain which epistemological fallacy her moral theory is founded upon." (end quote)<br /><br />Cavewight,<br />One of Rand's epistemological fallacies is her belief that "objective" values exist. I have tried to get into detail n my past posts; I can demonstrate it with more examples if you wish - I like to use concrete examples often, since they can often serve to illustrate the point better than mere theoretical elaborations. <br /><br />The erroneous belief in the existence of "objective" values is based on the failure to realize that the term, "to value" means <br />"attributing value"; and that whatever is subject to being valued is also subject to being disvalued.<br /><br />Daniel Barnes wrote: <br /><br />"Hi X-Ray,<br /><br />This is correct, I suppose, in that if you had to select one of Objectivism's many fallacies as being fundamental, you could choose this one - especially as Rand herself made her epistemology fundamental to all of Objectivism. She even grandiosely refers to herself as an "epistemologist". What makes this even nicer is that her epistemology is easily the most feeble part of her writing - a ramshackle concoction of word games, faulty logic, misunderstood problems, unwitting contradictions, handwaving, vague yet forcefully expressed assertions, and random insults. In fact it's almost a kind of madness." (end quote)<br /><br />Hi Daniel, <br /><br />Indeed, when one reads Rand's work, her muddled teminology is baffling. <br />She often uses terms contrary to their meaning, and in addition, contradicts her own terms. <br />For instance, in TVOS, she points out that values can only be attributed by a valuer in the face of an alternative, and in another passage she writes about plants seeking values (!). <br />This and many other examples of the stuff she wrote her work comes close to the confused ramblings of madwoman. <br /><br />If you like you can visualise Objectivism as a house of cards, only inverted and resting on a single, wavering card. This itself kept in place by a great deal of huffing and puffing...;-)<br /><br />Very apt comparison! :-)Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25980267228081293912009-07-14T06:47:21.493-07:002009-07-14T06:47:21.493-07:00Xtra Laj wrote:
"Don't lose any sleep ov...Xtra Laj wrote: <br />"Don't lose any sleep over it. Cavewight is an Kantivist. For him, Kant can say no wrong." (end quote)<br /><br />No problem. :)<br />Debating with someone holding an opposing view on certain issues keeps me on my toes and offers the opportunity to continually (re)check my own premises.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19212332511057447762009-07-14T06:23:00.151-07:002009-07-14T06:23:00.151-07:00Part II
Cavewight wrote:
“And what really was m...Part II<br /><br />Cavewight wrote: <br />“And what really was my point? I quoted you a line from that page (which contains a really good article on the subject of Kantian philosophy) stating that the CI of Humanity is objective. But you gave no response that I can see." <br /><br />"[Morally], Humanity is an objective end, because it is an end that every rational being must have insofar as she is rational. Hence, it limits what I am morally permitted to do when I pursue my positive and subjective negative ends." (end quote)<br /><br />Here we have it again: what precisely IS "Humanity" in the eyes of the person(s) propagating it? Such terms remain floating abstractions unless the skeleton is filled with flesh by getting the propagators to put their philosophical/ideological cards on the table. THAT'S where it starts getting interesting. <br />Suppose one asked, let's say, a Marxist, a militant muslim, an Objectivist, an advocate of abortion, a Jehova's witness, a biologist in a genetic research program, a business owner letting children work for him in a third world sweat shop - what do you think their idea of "humanity" and “justice” would be? What answers would one get from them? <br /><br />"Rand hated Kant because every religion needs a Satan. She even cast the entire history of philosophy in terms of Good vs. Evil as if it were one of her novels." (end quote)<br /><br />Well said. Objectivism is indeed a religion. It has all the traits: Goddess cult worship, many blind followers uncritically believing as gospel every word which came from the goddess’s mouth, High Priests, and also schisms among the followers (e. g. Kelley vs. Peikoff) as to what the "right" Objectivist “faith”.is. And it IS a faith, no question. <br /><br />"I didn't actually mention Rawls, that was part of a quote." (end quote) <br />I knew it was a quote (from a very very useful site)." :)<br /> <br />"I have seen no evidence that Rand understood Rawls or his work which she condemned ("A Theory of Justice") as evil." (end quote)<br /><br />Since Rand adhered to some personal ideal of “man” as "superman" towering above the others, it would explain her disdain of theories like John Rawls's.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11767247069753257812009-07-14T06:16:17.827-07:002009-07-14T06:16:17.827-07:00Answer to Cavewight in two parts due to limitation...Answer to Cavewight in two parts due to limitation of characters. <br /><br />Part I: <br />"Xray:<br />It is inevitable in these threads that someone will mention Hitler, it is just a matter of finding out who will be the first." (end quote)<br /><br />In a discussion on ethics, it is to be expected that a character like Hitler will be mentioned at some point.<br /><br />"And if you understand the CI, you will know immediately that none of Hitler's actions can even remotely be justified by the CI of Humanity. But we're talking about universalizability here, in which a moral agent tries to intuit a world in which there is the imperfect duty upon all, as a law of nature, to murder others to attain the goal of absolute statism. I'm afraid civilization would not stand for long if one had no choice but to murder others who (you believe) stand in your way, and neither would the CI, so the moral maxim of murdering others to achieve your goals is self-defeating." (end quote)<br /><br />I used the drastic Hitler example to demonstrate that most philosophical recommendations like e. g. the CI are subjective value judgements too, with the author using his own idea of "humanity" as the backdrop.<br /><br />Hitler simply denied the so-called "non-arians" the status of humans by arbitrarily categorizing them as "sub-humans". <br />Therefore Hitler's idea of "humanity" would of course vastly have differed from Kant’s - for all the “non-arians” and his ideological enemies would have had no right to be treated as humans.<br /><br />But Hitler was such a cruel monster, one might add. Too extreme a case. <br />Then let's look at others: for example, the Old Greek philosophers. Has any of them ever gotten the idea that their slaves had the same ‘human’ rights as their masters? <br /><br />As for Kant's idea of what constitutes "Humanity", this in turn was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment Age. But don’t believe his idea of “humanity” was extended to the female part of the population. In the French Revolution, Olympe de Gouges was guillotinized for demanding equal rights for women, and women were forbidden every political activity. <br />So much for ”egalité”. <br /><br />“Liberty”, “Freedom” “Humanity” "Justice” are all empty word shells filled with whatever sense people individually project into them.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37277205089785850202009-07-14T01:27:04.500-07:002009-07-14T01:27:04.500-07:00Xray,
Notice something via this drastic example? ...Xray,<br /><br /><b>Notice something via this drastic example? The rub is that people's individual ideas of what they would WANT as "universal law" DIFFER enormously.<br />For Hitler, it was getting the world free of "vermin", as he called those persons who did not fit his racist ideal. That was the "maxim" in accordance with which he acted.</b><br /><br />Quite a few of us on this website have pointed this out to Cavewight, Greg especially with his channeling of Pareto. In fact, there is an extended critique of Kant posted by Pareto that shows that the CI as it is gives very little moral guidance and is a comforting rationalization of anyone's practical ethics. All you have to do is add enough qualifiers and you get to a situation where the rub is whether you really agree or disagree that this or that person is vermin etc., which the CI can never resolve in the first place.<br /><br />Don't lose any sleep over it. Cavewight is an Kantivist. For him, Kant can say no wrong.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34816942104409299692009-07-13T15:02:54.520-07:002009-07-13T15:02:54.520-07:00Daniel:
Xray is saying that Rand's moral theor...Daniel:<br />Xray is saying that Rand's moral theory is based in a fallacy found in her theory of epistemology. But he doesn't go into detail, and I myself am not certain which epistemological fallacy her moral theory is founded upon.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-43027776623361100002009-07-13T14:52:37.144-07:002009-07-13T14:52:37.144-07:00Xray:
It is inevitable in these threads that someo...Xray:<br />It is inevitable in these threads that someone will mention Hitler, it is just a matter of finding out who will be the first.<br /><br />And if you understand the CI, you will know immediately that none of Hitler's actions can even remotely be justified by the CI of Humanity. But we're talking about universalizability here, in which a moral agent tries to intuit a world in which there is the imperfect duty upon all, as a law of nature, to murder others to attain the goal of absolute statism. I'm afraid civilization would not stand for long if one had no choice but to murder others who (you believe) stand in your way, and neither would the CI, so the moral maxim of murdering others to achieve your goals is self-defeating.<br /><br />And what really was my point? I quoted you a line from that page (which contains a really good article on the subject of Kantian philosophy) stating that the CI of Humanity is objective. But you gave no response that I can see. Here it is again:<br /><i>[Morally], Humanity is an objective end, because it is an end that every rational being must have insofar as she is rational. Hence, it limits what I am morally permitted to do when I pursue my positive and subjective negative ends.</i><br /><br />Rand hated Kant because every religion needs a Satan. She even cast the entire history of philosophy in terms of Good vs. Evil as if it were one of her novels.<br /><br />I didn't actually mention Rawls, that was part of a quote. I have seen no evidence that Rand understood Rawls or his work which she condemned ("A Theory of Justice") as evil.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.com