RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Altruism Against Freedom

Monday
February 6, 2006

Altruism Against Freedom by Joseph Rowlands

Politics is a branch of ethics. It is defined by the ethical system at its root. You can't just pick and choose ethical standards and political systems. Some are necessarily incompatible, and others are mutually reinforcing. The combination I want to focus on is the political system of liberty and the ethics of alt... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (372 messages)

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:39am

Michael,

I understand evasion. There is a dishonesty that lies at the heart of it. There are those who can twist a conversation around into as big a pretzel as they need to feel that they can claim some victory. Politicians do this all the time. You can't claim to be asking a clear moral question because you've shown no clear honesty in this debate. You haven't earned an answer. Go back and read all that has transpired on this thread and come clean with what you've said and I'll gladly answer your question. It's not evasion to give no answer to a dishonest intellectual oponent. You'll also find the answer to your question back in the context of this thread. You've lost, but you just don't see it. You don;t even know what you've lost. I'll await your evaluation of your work here.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/20, 10:40am)

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:13am

Ethan,

"Pay careful attention to the shifting or missing context"

In a discussion is it not valid to modify the context to clarify your meaning? How many times have various people on this site [including myself] used "Context, context, context.."] to clarify when a principle applies and when it doesn't? Michael has given a hypothetical for clarification, the context of which I believe every single person involved in this discussion would react the same. I don't think it is fair to ascribe DISHONESTY to MSK in this situation. I TRIED to clarify the context even further by asking [applied only to MSK's hypothetical]

"We believe in minimal government, that is, we give the power of the use of force over to agents of the government, by choice. If no agent is present, are there no actions we are morally required to take if we are witness to a crime?"

There is plenty of room for speculation about what would happen and what the law would be in a "perfect objectivist world". I tend to agree with you that ostracism is sufficient for people who refuse to act in emergency situations when their actions, at no risk to themselves, could save others, even strangers. But in MSK's hypothetical I believe ONLY a confirmed SOCIOPATH would refuse to act. There is room for introspection for everyone on all sides of this argument. It is a waste to continually attack MSK as some sort of irrational enemy of objectivism. He is not.

Mike E.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:23am

Mike E.

You asked:

In a discussion is it not valid to modify the context to clarify your meaning?

Absolutely. As long as you don't pretend that you haven't changed it, or insist that others earlier responses are somehow in the context of your new context. I've considered myself Michael's friend and have had many pleasant conversatins with him in the past. Even when I've disagreed with some of what he's said, I've not noticed the level of deception I'm seeing in this thread. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've gone back and read through the whole thing, so I think I've seen what I've seen.

As far as being an enemy of Objectivism. He says he's an Objectivist, but then acts as he has here. I'm not the gate-keeper of Objectivism to pronounce enemies and friends. I've spoken of finding allies in the fight for freedom in fact. What I am the gate-keeper of, is who I choose to deal with. I'll put up with a lot, but this type of dishonesty coupled with the sarcastic nastiness towards certain people? No. I don't think so. So as far as Objectivism goes, he can call himself whatever he likes. As far as Ethan goes, I say no to this type of thing. Dishonesty is at its heart a life hating thing.

I'm actually very sad about this.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/20, 11:25am)

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:32am

Mike Erickson wrote:

I believe ONLY a confirmed SOCIOPATH would refuse to act.

Why? I had to consult Merriam-Webster Online to chase through sociopath to psychopath to psychopathic and finally to psychopathy:

mental disorder; especially : extreme mental disorder marked usually by egocentric and antisocial activity

I hesitate to sit here and armchair diagnose mental disorders based on the highly unusual situation posed. More to the point, if a mental pathology only results in a person choosing not to feed a baby lost in the wilderness, rather than outright initiations of physical force, does that warrant his confinement in a mental ward? I find your reference to mental pathology puzzling.

EDIT:

Ethan wrote:

What I am the gate-keeper of, is who I choose to deal with. I'll put up with a lot, but this type of dishonesty coupled with the sarcastic nastiness towards certain people? No. I don't think so. ... I say no to this type of thing. Dishonesty is at its heart a life hating thing. ... I'm actually very sad about this.

So am I, Ethan. So am I.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/20, 11:37am)

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:45am

Ethan,

In the name of our friendship (if it still exists), I would like to clear up a small detail in your perception. About 98% to 99% of all of my posts on this thread are completely sincere. I rarely use sarcasm in life or in my writing. I outright lampoon something when I find it to be ridiculous - and I have been known to make a friendly poke in the ribs to those I like. But any sarcasm you perceived here comes from within you, not from within me (my intentions).

This is one of the problems of written Internet forums.

As to my purported "nastiness" or whatever, I do suggest that people read the past posts and see who called who names. It's all there and out in the open.

I just hit back sometimes - in essentials. I have found that people don't like that at all.

I also have tried to blow the lid off of some terrible thinking that I have seen. Just terrible. I can't make it any clearer than I did. Anybody who has eyes now can see how terrible it is and where the logic is bad.

I have found that people really really really don't like that.

So out of this nebulous thing of not knowing exactly what I've lost, I'll state one. I would regret the loss of your friendship - despite your errors in judgement right now. I cannot betray my mind, though.

Michael

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 1:00pm

Always wondered what male PMS was like - thanks, MSK.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 1:40pm

Mike Erickson -- you just got strung along by MSK's diversion because you think that it, by itself is an interesting question. What you don't see is that this has never been the true question being discussed in this thread. This is what I told MSK back in the middle of this thread in post 65 (because I knew this is exactly what he'd do) --

"And whatever you do, do not divert this into a discussion about whether helping a specific group of starving children is a decent thing to do. No one disagrees with that. This has never been the context of the discussion. This has always been a discussion about altruism, government action and coercion. I am warning you in advance because I know you will employ this petty move if I don't."

And this is exactly what he did (on several occasions and employing a multitude of diversions along the way). He has tried to manuver this thread into a discussion about decency and not legality which is what the conversation was about all along. He has attempted to argue that those who do not help children in need should be punished and compelled but that proposition was blown apart over and over again even when he resorts to the most outragous desert island scenario. (You can see examples of this from several of us including recent posts by : Myself (on at least 3 occasions, George Cordero and then AGAIN very clearly by Rick Pasotto.)

So MSK tries (like he did in his response to Rick in post 136) to smear us by making the outragous claim that we are supporters of baby starvation! Supposidly I (and others) have been arguing all along that allowing babies to starve is good! And it is THIS position that he has shifted to as a last resort. This is a common, crude, dishonest trick that works on a great number of people, but it isn't going to work here. MSK's shifts and smears are blatently obvious to people who expect clear, rational discourse.

The people who have been attacking MSK here are not his most ardent critics. These were MSK's best friends on ROR. This has not been a witch hunt.

- Jason

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 1:59pm

Jason,

Blah blah blah. You still don't get it.

Starving a child to death is murder. It is evil.

Obligating a man to share food with a starving child out in the wilderness is not altruism or statism. It is legal protection for the right-to-life of the citizen - the child - by taking into account who and what he is, and ditto for the adult.

Obviously, from examining the vehemence of the defense I have seen here of the SACRED RIGHT to deny a child food in the wilderness and starve him to death, this child's right to life really does need government protection.

But like I implied, no government will be needed if some evil SOB tries something like that near me.

btw - Any thoughts on the questions I asked, or you prefer to keep playing a dishonesty/evasion card? (That sure is easier, I kid you not.)

Michael

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 2:23pm

Michael:

I would still appreciate the clarification that I requested in post #155. thanks.
--
Jeff

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 3:53pm

Jeff,

A polite request all of a sudden? Sure. I'll be glad to answer. Let me do something I hate to do, but I think it will be useful here. I took your former post and will answer it point by point.

1. (YOU) ... there are untold numbers of children "starving in the wilderness" of Africa as we have this discussion. Like all of us, you are confronted by and aware of this because the facts are constantly reported on the news.

(ME) Correct.

2. (YOU) ... Based upon your own statements, if you are not working hard to earn as much as possible and then giving everything beyond what it takes to minimally keep yourself healthy, to starvation relief efforts,

(ME) Er... whazzit? Where did I ever say that tripe? You are obviously talking about somebody's ideas, certainly not mine..

3. (YOU) ... then, by your own criteria, are you yourself not "blanking out on the right-to-life of babies"?

(ME) Here we come to a critical point - but not by my criteria. That altruistic stuff is your stuff, not mine.

The right-to-life of human beings (which babies happen to be too) is only recognized in individual rights-based governments. The plight of starving kids living under inhumane regimes is a terrible tragedy. Through the lens of "right-to-life," I certainly recognize such a right for them. The government where they live does not. Thus if I were over there and encountered a man physically starving a kid in the jungle, I would serve his ass up on a palm leaf in a minute. Murder is murder anywhere in the world. I would not try to go through the government to punish him there, though.

Now, as I am here and all those tragic suffering children are over there on the other side of the world, the problem is extremely remote for any direct action that I could do. What I can do to not condone that stuff is support the overthrow of those ghastly governments - starting with cutting ties with them. (btw - I have been a real activist in life, helping make a real difference for the better in the real world, but not in Africa. That's another long story.)

So no, I am not blanking out the right-to-life of any of those babies. I just can't do very much about it from where I am at. To answer the unstated question, I have no obligation to either, other than something like an obligation to myself for a general call to decency.

4. (YOU) ... If you are not doing everything within your power to alleviate the suffering and provide for the survival of all babies in the world, how can you then proscribe some action be imposed upon others?

(ME) Once again, you are talking about somebody else's ideas. Not mine.

But to discuss, I do not wish to impose slavery on anybody. It is one thing to talk about servitude and quite another to be obligated to furnish the minimum requirements for survival to a young child in the wilderness in an emergency if you have enough for both to survive. The main points that need to be stressed are:

a. Emergencies are not normal conditions, thus life-based standards for them are different because of the reality they present.
b. One characteristic of an emergency is that it is temporary, thus when the emergency ends, the standards (and rights) for normal living kick back in.
c. The standard that defines all rights is life. When one life can have the "right" to determine the death of another life through purposeful negligence and denial of available basic survival resources, then all life-based rights lose meaning.
d. Starvation, like beating, is abuse (see Rand from before). It is abuse resulting in murder when it gets to an extreme case like I discussed.

I hope that makes my position clearer. I am not a collectivist, nor statist (I am a minarchist, I guess). I do believe that the proper function of a government is to protect individual rights. Since the world is a varied experience, I see nothing wrong for laws governing emergencies. In wartime, for instance, certain rights are suspended. This is necessary for the people in the nation to survive. These rights return with the return of peace.

So what is wrong with the same thing for feeding a kid stranded out in the woods? He is a citizen. His rights must be protected, too, not just those of the adult.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/20, 4:04pm)

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:00pm

Joe Rowlands,

Regarding your PopTart and Civil War example, you are analyzing two random particulars. The question you asked was about the connection to two branches of philosophy--esthetics and politics. Do you mean to say see no difference in the interrelationship between esthetics and politics compared with the relationship between two random particulars, such as a PopTart and the Civil War? Please, Joe, say it ain't so.

Your specific question asked: "what did esthetics have to do with politics", and I gave you a concrete example. Do you mean to say that the 1st Amendment is "very weak" and has only a "hypothetical" connection with esthetics? If so, Joe, ask yourself what the *effect* on art would be if there were no 1st Amendment? What would happen to the field of esthetics? In light of this, would you still be prepared to say that it is "weak"? Clearly, Rand sees the connection when she writes in answer to Chief Justice Berger's statement that the unprovable assumptions of Congress is NOT a sufficient reason to strike it down as unconstitutional:

It isn't? If it is not, then the imponderable aesthetic assumptions of government officials are entitled to invade the field of literature and art--as Mr. Burger's decision is inviting them to do.

Do you consider governmental officials invading the field of literature and art merely "hypothetical", Joe? Rand also ties this to free-will and altruism--making a broad analysis on many levels of philosophical generality, including epistemology, art, economics and politics. The whole article is a lesson in tying together the different philosophical threads to create a common fabric of philosophical analysis. She points out how the same underlying altruist/collectivist premises permeate economics and politics in such forms as antitrust.

Joe, why, pray, would Rand say that in order to define an objective standard for obscenity in art would one need a "formulation of an entire philosophic system"? Why would she say such a thing if branches of philosophy are totally self-contained, i.e. that esthetics has nothing to do with politics? And this in her analysis of a political decision!!! Is it because they have no more interrelationship than a PopTart and the Civil War? Please, Joe, say it ain't so.

And Joe, NO, this does NOT mean every branch is derived from politics. Obviously, one would first have to ask: why is a government based on the protection of individuals rights proper to man? What is the basis in reality that gives rise the concept of individual rights?

Also, why would Rand say that if you had the axioms, the rest of Objectivism would follow? Obviously this would not be true if the branches were to be treated as self-contained units and metaphysics and epistemology did not form the bedrock.

Michael

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:13pm

Jason, re: #166

What a wonderfully clear, concise assessment. Pure perfection.

Ethan, you're right, it's pointless.

This is the first time I've heard a self proclaimed Objectivist say that government should use the threat of force to compel someone to do good, transferring rights from one to another, specifically, a "starving child in the woods/wilderness."
One's right to be the normal asshole one usually is are hereby suspended under threat of prosecution or asswhooping if anyone should happen upon a "starving child in the woods/wilderness." All other parallels to this penalty are not to be confused with a "starving child in the woods/wilderness." Please refrain from using your mind in this discussion and concentrate only on the "starving child in the woods/wilderness."

The threat of force to compel the "good" is a new one to my understanding of Objectivism.

You and I both know if the Michael type of Objectivists in this country were elected to the legislative body, they'd never stop at this narrow "starving child in the woods" circumstance to justify threats of force to compel good. It would go very far, very fast, calling us "terrible" meanies all the way down to hell.
It's the classic guilt trip.

Gawd I miss Sarah House.... She's way more funny with this stuff than I am.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:17pm

Teresa,

Do forgive me, but murdering a child by starvation is a wee bit more than being an asshole.

Michael

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:35pm

Do forgive me, but murdering a child by starvation is a wee bit more than being an asshole.

Compelled through threat of force to do "good." Got it.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:46pm

Teresa,

Not "good." That's your broad strawdonkey.

"Survival in an emergency for a child."

Now you can get it.

Michael

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:55pm

Michael,

I prefer what you refer to when you say the words "murdering a child by starvation" to murdering or destroying productive men. Adults, children, babies, infants, dogs, cats, rocks, all do not have intrinsic value. Nothing has value intrinsically.

What do I expect the baby will do?
What do I expect the results of my actions to be?
What actions are in my best interest in order for my to live and enjoy my own life?

What do you propose the punishment be for men who do not lift a finger to save children that are starving in American forests?

Survival is an emergency for me. You are threatening my survival by proposing that its my duty to make sure others get what they need and that I should be punished if I do not make sure others get what they need.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:57pm

Not "good." That's your broad strawdonkey.

"Survival in an emergency for a child."

That's not "good," Michael? How far am I supposed to suspend my mind to judge this stuff?

Anyway you try to 'splain it, it's nothing more than government compulsion through threat of force to take some action, in this case, to do something good. Now you're saying it's not something good.

I think you're confused.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:59pm

Jason,

"The people who have been attacking MSK here are not his most ardent critics. These were MSK's best friends on ROR. This has not been a witch hunt."

I still consider Michael a friend. I think Michael has been trying to say something important and has been extremely frustrated trying to get his point across. Quoting Michael from post #19:

"..psychology does exist and an emotional spectrum is pre-wired into human brains. That is a fact. Philosophy does not change that wiring, it merely can discipline some of it, not even all of it. Much of man's nature came into existence long before conceptual volition evolved and it is still with us.

Obviously we disagree about whether this should be considered or not. To me, Objectivism is supposed to include a proper identification of man's nature, not ignore it."

This was in response to Joe's earlier post in which he said:

"When you come along and tell the good altruist that he has to accept his emotions and should act on them or he'll become neurotic, you just give him the excuse he needs to not realign his values and emotions. He'll be able to keep his altruism while pretending that it's in his self interest."

Here is the crux: Michael is arguing that our individual reactions to certain situations have nothing to do with a supposed "philosophy" of altruism. It's just normal human behavior. If you try to promote objectivism by using examples of "altruism" which fly in the face of peoples everyday experience and then call them "evil", well, then they're just going to turn away. You've accomplished exactly the opposite of what you set out to do. The true argument is about human nature. ANY philosophy that's going to "catch on" has to take into account mans true nature. Not the personal idiosyncrasies of the members of RoR, but the common traits of all humans. Else you'll never convince anyone besides the one or two thousand members of this website. "Activism" means selling to a market and knowing that market.

Michael sometimes overstates his case to try to make his point, but: "pathetic piece of shit".

I don't think so. THAT's pathetic.

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 5:02pm

I stand by that statement 1000% Mike.

- Jason

Monday, February 20, 2006 - 5:05pm

Dean,

Please review the example we were discussing and reflect on a concept Rand mentioned (but rarely fleshed out) called "species solidarity" (VOS, "The Ethics of Emergencies," p. 54.)

What you are discussing is not what I was.

Michael