RoR: Forum

So the essence of the difference between humans and animals is that humans can behave against their desires, and animals can't? Perhaps a nice way to say this is to say humans can choose their own goals, whereas typically animals can't.

This is good enough for me. Since humans can choose what goals to pursue, you then say any human pursuit is acceptable if it doesn't harm other people, right? What about cruelty towards animals? Is that perfectly aceptable? Perhaps some sicko gets pleasure out of skinning dogs alive. Is that okay?

Another point now, let's say somebody sees a person just about to walk across the road and a car is rapidly approaching. Let's say it is this person's judgement that the car will hit the person, but if they shout to warn the person it might be avoided. In this case, you would say it is perfectly acceptable to not interfere, by doing so you are harming nobody. Would you feel any motivation to shout, potentially averting the accident?

Or if you saw women's handbag get pinched, would you feel any motivation to apprehend the thief? It's no skin off your back if somenody's bag gets stolen; they should have been more careful. I'm just trying to understand Objectivist ethics at this point, in light of the attitude that any behaviour is acceptable if other's rights are observed.

Post 41

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 11:49am

Vertigo: Benevolence is considered by Objectivists to be a virtue. How about doing more reading before asking elementary questions?

Post 42

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:14pm

"I'm just trying to understand Objectivist ethics at this point, in light of the attitude that any behaviour is acceptable if other's rights are observed."

You are confusing politics with ethics. Be more careful.

Here's a clue : when you talk about good and evil, you should be using the word "value", not "right". If you use "right", that's because you're talking about politics.

Post 43

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:23pm

"So the essence of the difference between humans and animals is that humans can behave against their desires, and animals can't? Perhaps a nice way to say this is to say humans can choose their own goals, whereas typically animals can't"

Vertigo:
The two things you stated are not the same thing at all, and are not even equivalent.

1. "Acting against desires" could mean just about anything. (For example, if I 'want" to go outside, but sit here instead, that doesn't say anything about my capacity for rationality, or my capacity to choose my own goals.
A dog (yeah, I like dogs, what can I say), CAN be trained to 'act against his own desires" (in that he will 'stay' whether he really WANTS to move, or not, if you tell him to 'stay'.)

Now, the issue of "choosing one's own goals" is a totally different question, entirely. First, because those goals which you choose WILL be something which you 'desire'. You're making a potentially-fatal psychological mistake when you equate anything anybody "wants" with a mere 'desire" (or as Rand would have stated it, a 'whim'.)

So no, in answer to your question, 'choosing your own goals' is NOT simply a 'nicer way" of saying that you can go against your own desires.
If the only criteria for a moral life was to "goa against your own desires", then why adopt a moral code such as Objectivism (which explicitly states that "Man's happiness" -- INDIVIDUAL happiness, as opposed to 'collective' varieties), is the "ONLY moral purpose of one's life".?
"Life" is not merely a state of "just barely scraping along". As Aristotle so aptly pointed out, there IS a difference between "living and living well". ANY action must be judged WITHIN the context of whether it enriches an individual's life, or diminishes it --- and contrary to what SOME people on the board might assert (Firehammer comes to mind as one possibility), such enrichment CAN occur in other ways than simply 'maximal length of lifespan."
Consider: would even the most ardently "prudish" Objectivist suggest that 140 years of priggish, empty, boring "just doing te minimum to survive physically", would be prefferable to a SIXTY year lifespan which was full of experiences, relationships, problems to be solved, and things to learn? I don't tihnk so.

Vertigo, you have just hit on the essence of the only RATIONAL moral system which has ever been achieved: Even the Wiccans -- as much as I find them to be somewhat peculiar -- have realized it. As their "Rede' says: "if you harm none, do what you will."

The essence of personal morality is NOT whether a given action may take six minutes, a year, or even THIRTY years off of your 'potential lifespan", but whether WITHIN the context of YOUR LIFE (the sum total of everything you do, experience, and become), it is enriching. This is one of the reasons I have never found "veganism" to be attractive: it posits a level of 'bare sustenance' which, to be very honest, would not count as WORTH living.

Post 44

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:48pm

SamErica:
Is "gossiping" a benevolent acttivity? How about doing more THIKING before castigating Vertigo for asking what you consider 'elementary' (IE STUPID) questions? How is he going to LEARN anything, if he doesn't ask?

Vertigo:
In both of your examples, you miss a vital difference.

1. Yelling at somebody to maybe help them not get run over by a car is VERY different from actively interfering in someone's private activities.
Much as I like dogs, I find 'animal cruelty' laws to be a slippery slope phenomenon. "Send the guy to jail for skinning his dog", is NOT that much of a step away from "send the guy to jail for eating hamburger!"
Sometimes the choice is indeed between two undesirable outcomes. (IE, a legitimate government will not be able to outlaw 'drugs', because of the inevitable erosion of OTHER 'civil liberties' implicit in such actions. This will mean that we take the chance of having some people who OD, or become nonfunctional, or what have you. But the question is: is the 'cure' (government oversight of every area of your life) better than the "problem" (individuals doing what YOU consider 'misuse' of their freedom?)
I don't think so.

Now, in the case of a woman's purse being pinched, somebody's rights HAVE been violated (the woman's.) Helping somebody else to defend their rights (in this case, the right to her own property), is indeed of benefit -- but again, we run into the question "should the government stick a gun to your head, and COMPEL you to 'help?' No.

Also, none of these examples are appropriate to the homosexuality argument: what two (or three, or four) consenting adults do in the privacy of their OWN LIVES, is legally (and morally) no concern of anyone else. Notice I said CONSENTING.
If my neighbor consents to wear big adult-size diapers, and address his wife as "mommy", then that's no reason to break into his house because I think it's "irrational."

If I choose to eat fatty steak dinners because they are aesthetically pleasing (but maybe not as 'good for me' as bland tofu shakes, and brown rice), then that's NOT YOUR GODDAMN business. Complaining is fine, but the dividing line is: it's SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE, and if the 'solution' to the problem involves INITIATING FORCE, then it's simply not worth doing.

Now notice: INITIATION of force. That means STARTING something. In the case with the woman: if I run after the robber, tackle him to the ground, and bash his skull into the floor until he's unconsious, I have NOT 'initiated' force -- I have RETALIATED against force.
Likewise, if a rapist punches a woman, that is initiation of force. If a woman DEFENDS HERSELF against the rapist (to safeguard her right not to be coerced brutally, into unwanted sex), then it is 'self-defense'.

Think of any political or social 'problem', and then ask yourself one key question;

"Would the proposed 'solution' involve infringing the rights of those who have not themselves infringed OTHER'S rights?" If the answer is yes, then you're not faced with any 'problem' other than the fact that YOU want to intrude into others lives, immorally.

I hope I clarrified this somewhat. For better discussions of this, I'd suggest you start reading some Libertarian literature. (Libertarians have a slightly different take on it all, than standard Objectivists, and sometimes they explain things better.)

Thanks again, for the good question. Sorry, Hibbert, if my replying to someone's honest question was "monopolizing the board". I guess I'm just a "young punk" who doesn't know when to bow down, and genuflect in the presense of wisdom.

(You could have had an opportunity to explain what 'benevolence' IS, but you didn't bother. Your loss, Hibbert.)

Post 45

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:59pm

Franc:
Positing a 'dividing-iine' between ethics and politics is somewhat dangerous, because (as Rand so aptly stated), "Politics and the application of ethics to a 'society'" (That may be slightly garbled, but I'm not going to bother paging through six books just to look up ONE sentence!). Politics, and the concept of "rights" derive from the field of ethics, in that the 'rights of a government' are derived SOLELY from the "rights of it's citizens AS individuals", and THOSE rights derive from the correct values and ethics of man's life.

Ethical-political dichotomy is just another disastrous attempt at the 'mind/body' dichotomy, or the 'moral/practical' dichotomy. you should know better.

Post 46

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:00pm

I am getting mixed messages at this point. On the one hand, you say 'whether within the context of your life it is enriching'. I suppose it comes down to what you think enriches your life.

I have fundamental differences of opinion, with the people of this site and with the many things expressed in Atlas Shrugged. At this time I am not ready to jump in without being sure of it. I still get the impression that behind Objectivism's strong words and bold ideas there is a hidden leap of faith, things that don't compute. In response to questions about this I get told 'don't ask elementary questions'. Fine, I won't.

Unfortunately that is the only questions I have to ask.

Post 47

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:18pm

Oh well, I didn't your last two posts.

Let me just ask the pertinent and potentially stupid question. If benevolence is a virtue, which I did realise from importanceof philosophy.com, does Objectivism say you must be benevolent?

Or is it OK to never be benevolent ever, in Objectivism's terms. Because this is what it comes down to. SamErica made it sound like since it is a virtue you must do it.

Post 48

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:26pm

Vertigo:
PLEASE do not run off so fast! I (for one) am honestly trying to help you discover your own views and values. To be honest, I have some problems with Atlas Shrugged too, as well as with Rand. But by and large, Objectivism is (or seems to be) closer to my own values than many others. I'm rapidly learning that even HERE, unreasoning condemnations and elitist drivel abound. Don't take SamErica seriously: I know I don't. (grin)

Go read some of Joe Rowland's articles, on this site. He highlights the differences between a "duty-based" morality (which impels you toward virtues as something you 'must' do), and morality as a set of principles (which serve as generalized guidelines for living your life.)

I believe he posted 13 or fourteen articles discussing the application of the various Objectivist virtues, to an individual's life.

But no, Vertigo, please don't let SamErica bludgeon you into leaving.

Post 49

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:07pm

"Franc:
Positing a 'dividing-iine' between ethics and politics is somewhat dangerous, because (as Rand so aptly stated), "Politics and the application of ethics to a 'society'""

Yes, I agree. I'm talking conceptually here, not deductively. Small but significant difference. Ethics and politics are different levels of discourse.

"Ethical-political dichotomy is just another disastrous attempt at the 'mind/body' dichotomy, or the 'moral/practical' dichotomy. you should know better."

Tsk tsk Henry. I didn't say it was a dichotomy. That doesn't even make any sense. Dichotomy of what ? Human action ?

Post 50

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:45pm

True enough, politics and ethics ARE different levels of discourse, but they most definitely DO occupy the same 'conceptual hierarchy", if you know what I mean.

What I meant by "dichotomy" was: positing a fundamental dis-similarity between politics and ethics, in the same way as the "mind/body dichotomy" seeks to undermine the essential interconnects between mind and body.

Also true that I should have been clearer/gave you more credit. (I guess I'm just sorta getting used to the sort of 'argumentation' that goes on here, too often. Must remember that you are more capable.

Post 51

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:07pm

"True enough, politics and ethics ARE different levels of discourse, but they most definitely DO occupy the same 'conceptual hierarchy", if you know what I mean."

Yes.

"What I meant by "dichotomy" was: positing a fundamental dis-similarity between politics and ethics, in the same way as the "mind/body dichotomy" seeks to undermine the essential interconnects between mind and body."

I agree. All I'm saying is that talking about rights as the only defining factor of action is a confusion. Each level of discourse has its own conceptual structure.

"Also true that I should have been clearer/gave you more credit. (I guess I'm just sorta getting used to the sort of 'argumentation' that goes on here, too often. Must remember that you are more capable."

Yes, we tend to be more capable than it looks, it's just a question of being rigorous (^_____^)

Post 52

Monday, March 1, 2004 - 1:26pm

I think everyone studying Objectivism needs to study Aristotle first, it is clear by the topic of this forum that most of the " Objectivists" on this site do not even understand the law of identity. The thing that will destroy Objectivism are people who don't understand the fundamentals of the philosophy in the first place. Even though Leonard Peikoff is not the ideal Objectivist, he wrote a very good article called fact and value in response to Kelly and the Brandens which hit the problem with " Objectivists" right on the head. I think the article can be found at aynrand.org. There are so many articles and forums on this site that talk about issues Objectivism has already discussed, there is no need to dwell on small issues, most of the principles have already been established. Notice that Ayn never addressed an issue twice, she thought in principle. She would often explain, but she would not address questions like, Does Objectivism allow man to marry who he wants? Does Objectivism allow man to steal a loaf of bread when starving? The same goes for the gay issue, it is very critical for Objectivist newbies to study all aspects of Objectivism before posting questions.

Post 53

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 5:38pm

Well, I never would have thought I'd see it, but the post above mine is the first explicit example I've seen of the Fundamentalist Objectivist Church of Textual Inerrancy. Rand has said it all, and has never repeated herself. One must read everything she wrote before thinking. All questions have been answered, fully, and for all time.

The Great and Powerful OZ has Spoken!

Post 54

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 5:51pm

Ummm, I haven't read enough to comment on the actual thread, but did this guy just take a paragraph to call everyone a noob, while implying that the only rational reasons to comment in a thread are being Ayn Rand or possessing a sophisticated AI simulation of Ayn Rand in your head, so that you can think her thoughts in real time?

Post 55

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 6:23pm

*snort*

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 6:44pm

My only regret, (You'll understand once you've read the thread) is not having Reggie here to show him what the function of a few of my organs is.

Post 57

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:17am

Regi says, "The organs of the human body all have a specific natural functions. Man must discover what those functions are. Children, for example, frequently put small objects in their noses or ears, which must be removed, usually to their discomfort. This is not as dangerous as it is instructive, the minor pain is evidence that child has used these organs in way contrary to their nature."

I have learned to use laughter when reading things like this! I wonder if Regi has all of his organs properly figured out yet? I don't even want to think about which organ he put where to acquire the instructive minor pain to show him not to do that.

Post 58

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 11:06pm

The funny (really sad) thing with Regi's "natural function" argument is that it is absolutely biologically evolutionarily 100% wrong. Organs do not have set functions. The can be adapted to new uses. The first bird to fly was not a perverted dinosaur doing unnatural things with its wings. The first man to speak was not doing pervereted things with his lips. And why exactly do men have lips or nipples according to Regi? Ah, the idiocy....

Post 59

Friday, January 16, 2009 - 6:07pm