tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post8968556074062843419..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand & Human Nature 4Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-667254412280002302011-08-28T09:04:11.490-07:002011-08-28T09:04:11.490-07:00@J. Goard: I believe I identified the action that...@J. Goard: I believe I identified the action that would maximize my personal wealth and happiness, which is the only proper utility function.<br /><br />What are these words "right" and "morally" and "hero" that you use?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29343727719650060492011-08-28T02:26:28.161-07:002011-08-28T02:26:28.161-07:00@Ken:
Your last comment doesn't address wheth...@Ken:<br /><br />Your last comment doesn't address whether pushing the man would be the right thing to do. Given the same practical calculations you describe, one could argue that another bystander who pushes the fat man is morally akin to someone who rushes into a burning building to save strangers, whereas you are akin to someone watching thew building burn from across the street. The former threat is legal action and social stigma, the latter mortal danger from fire, but in both cases the active party would be a hero and yourself a coward.J. Goardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91693450518153302952011-08-27T16:32:38.382-07:002011-08-27T16:32:38.382-07:00Perhaps the answer is that there is no answer that...Perhaps the answer is that there is no answer that will not leave you feeling unclean. There are situations where all choices are bad and anything you do will upset your peace of mind. The nature of the universe and human nature is such that we should not expect that there will always be a choice available that will preserve our peace of mind.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66804231177209098902011-08-27T07:45:21.201-07:002011-08-27T07:45:21.201-07:00As a rational actor, I should do nothing. Pushing...As a rational actor, I should do nothing. Pushing the man over the edge is a crime, and I could also be sued in civil court by his survivors. Doing nothing is not a crime, and I would certainly win any civil suit by the relatives of the five people killed, who in any case would be targeting the deeper pockets of the trolley company.<br /><br />(I feel curiously unclean.)Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73761726502979342482011-08-25T04:46:15.010-07:002011-08-25T04:46:15.010-07:00Honestly, this is what happens when you have a sys...Honestly, this is what happens when you have a system that doesn't take love and compassion into account as a fundamental motivator of mankind. Rationality is fine, but without a motive besides pleasure seeking and self-aggrandizement, it serves an amoral master.<br /><br />Of course Rand would disagree with me, calling me amoral for inflicting a system of morality on a human. Yet I've learned that there are far greater things a person can do than just make himself into one of Rand's übermensches.Ian Bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02411010411008594212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17078056171144677552011-08-21T19:03:15.678-07:002011-08-21T19:03:15.678-07:00First one thing. There really is resistance in a h...First one thing. There really is resistance in a human being to actually killing another human being which more easily manifests itself when killing someone with one's bare hands than would when using a device like a trolley switch, or a gun for that matter. (And even less so when using something that doesn't let you even see the 'enemy' like a battleship, or an airplane.(I imagine that using mines or bombs that you simply place then walk away have even less psychological consequences.)) The book <i>On Killing</i> goes into this in some detail.<br /><br />About the Trolley problem proper, pulling the lever (Or pushing the guy over the ledge) is probably the correct answer, but most people simply won't do it because there is a difference between actually killing someone and letting someone die. By correct answer I don't want anyone to get the idea that it is a good answer, because it is not, it is a bad answer, but probably the least bad answer.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.friesian.com/machiav.htm" rel="nofollow">This website</a> talks about moral dilemmas from the point of view of Machiavellian statecraft. The argument that can be extracted is that a politician is someone who society pays to actually pull the lever when it needs to be pulled.Wellsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54455143189967238172011-08-20T09:11:09.634-07:002011-08-20T09:11:09.634-07:00Actually it's not all that much of a coinciden...<i>Actually it's not all that much of a coincidence, since this is just the latest in a series of similar articles, all based on the recent research on how our brains and minds work.</i><br /><br />This is very true. The shift away from the old classical model (the conscious mind discovering truth via logic) has been far more dramatic and sweeping than I could have ever imagined when, in the early 90s, I first began to suspect there was something wrong with Rand's "reason." And what started as a few lone voices in the 50s and 60s (e.g., Polanyi, Oakeshott) has turned into a deafening chorus, backed by reams of scientific evidence. If you believe in science, if you believe in experience, you can't really believe that Rand's model of cognition and the emotions accords with reality. It's just not credible any more, even as speculation. You might as well speculate that the earth is flat or that Gremlins created and infest the universe; for Rand's view is not a jot more credible.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32404997944551403822011-08-18T08:58:34.515-07:002011-08-18T08:58:34.515-07:00....Rand's ex cathedra pronouncements declarin...<i>....Rand's ex cathedra pronouncements declaring emotions to be caused by subconscious premises.</i><br /><br />So she wanted it to be logic all the way down? But research more and more shows that it's emotion and impulse all the way up, with the rational part of the mind often reduced to coming up with post-hoc narratives to explain what you just did.<br /><br />Coincidentally, cracked.com today had an article on "ways your brain can malfunction" (http://www.cracked.com/article_19369_the-6-most-mind-blowing-ways-your-brain-can-malfunction.html). Actually it's not all that much of a coincidence, since this is just the latest in a <i>series</i> of similar articles, all based on the recent research on how our brains and minds work.Kennoreply@blogger.com