About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, November 4, 2010 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Stephen.

I hope the critics in "Author Meets Critics: Gary Chartier’s Economic Justice and Natural Law " do a good job of bringing Chartier's feet to the fire. Specifically, I hope they address these quotes from him:

I emphasize that property rights are, from a natural law perspective, limited rather than absolute.

I take that quote to mean that individual (property) rights are not absolutes -- which is a wrong way to think about rights.

I suggest that the principles of practical reasonableness generate norms of justice in distribution, and elaborate several such norms. I maintain that these norms help to determine what counts as fairness in pricing, and I argue that, in light of these requirements, each of us has some responsibility to use wealth to support valuable projects or to assist other people ...

I take that quote as referring to 'distributive justice' or 'economic equality' or 'social justice' -- all wrong goals for humans on earth. The idea that there is "fairness in pricing" is juvenile and the idea that we have moral responsibility to use our earned wealth to assist others directly or indirectly -- by supporting projects that they happen to value (even if we don't, ourselves, value those projects) -- is outright evil.

I hope the critics -- which include Rasmussen and Den Uyl -- take Chartier to task for this socialist thinking.

I argue that employment discrimination is inconsistent with the Golden Rule.

First off, the vacuous Golden Rule isn't part of natural law theory (as Chartier obviously thinks). Instead, it is a part of non-cognitive (sentiment based) ethics. It involves nothing other than asking what it is that you want -- or, more directly, of how you want to be treated -- and, without any rational evaluation, using that wanted behavior as a moral standard for evaluating actions (including actions of others).

Secondly, to use the Golden Rule rationally (which nobody, to my knowledge, ever does), you would have to get into the shoes of the moral actor you are evaluating. You would have to ask yourself, in the discrimination example above: "how would I, with the personal and impersonal experiences of this employer, treat the subject of employment discrimination?" If you can't bring yourself to get into the shoes of the person that you are attempting to morally evaluate -- then you cannot use the Golden Rule rationally.

I suggest that the principles of practical reasonableness can at least sometimes justify reassigning property rights ...

Ugh. This sounds like the crazy reasoning of Ronald Coase. I wonder if these people ever realize what happens when they give the government power to "reassign" property (e.g., USSR, Red China, etc.).

I defend a basic income scheme and communal support for universal health care as reasonable, if not necessary, developments of natural law theory’s norms of justice.

Double-ugh. The "right" to the time, energy, wealth or talent of others (e.g., "universal health care") is preposterous.

I argue that a just system of collective bargaining would allow workers in less-developed communities to compete in the global marketplace without being, as they frequently are at present, exploited.

That's as Marxian as thinking ever gets.

... poverty relief, sweatshops, worker participation in decision-making in investor-governed firms, and the reassignment of property titles are exercises in non-ideal theory: they concern “the justice that becomes relevant when there have been breakdowns in” justice or when market processes fail to provide a desired level of economic security.

But the purpose of a market (a competitive environment of willful risk-taking) isn't to provide a guarantee of economic security. Nothing on earth can provide this childish "return-to-the-womb" level of security.

... property rules that leave untouched the results of large-scale past (and present) expropriation by the powerful; subsidies that redirect the money of poor and working-class people toward corporate boondoggles; the essentially automatic availability of the corporate form, offering entity status and limited liability in both tort and contract;8 laws that impede the activities of unions; and pat ents that allow pharmaceutical companies to extract monopoly profits ...

Is Chartier referring to reparations for Native and African Americans when he says that property rules should be altered in order to accomodate large-scale past expropriation? It seems so. Does Chartier know that when he decries "limited liability" that he is, alternatively, championing unlimited (i.e., supra-retributive) liability? It seems so.

When they are intelligently planned, wealth transfers can help to address the problem of poverty at the margins.

Where is the evidence for this?

... to alter the allocation of power in our communities and offer ordinary people long-term economic freedom and well being.
Contradiction. Economic freedom for "ordinary people" but not for really, really productive people.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/04, 5:58pm)


Post 1

Thursday, November 4, 2010 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Several familiar names on the schedule.  Not only Rasmussen and Den Uyl but also Klein, Salmieri and Lennox are all Objectivists.

Post 2

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The 2011 Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association will be April 20th through 23rd in San Diego at the Hilton Bayfront Hotel.

The session of the Ayn Rand Society will be April 23rd (6:00–8:00 p.m.). The topic will be Rand and Punishment. The speakers will be David Boonin* and Irfan Khawaja. The session will be chaired by George Sher.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The APA general sessions will include a symposium on Uncommon Virtues: Creativity, Productivity, and Pride. The speakers will be Christine Swanton and Allan Gotthelf. The commentators will be Helen Cullyer and Gregory Salmieri. This session will be April 22nd (1:00–4:00 p.m.).

Pride as a Virtue: Learning from Aristotle and Ayn Rand – Allan Gotthelf
ABSTRACT
In this paper I discuss pride as a trait of character and a principle of action. I draw significantly on the analyses by Aristotle and Rand, and endorse and defend their shared thesis that pride is a central moral virtue. In the course of this defense I will explore the value of self-esteem to a human life, and the connection between the virtue of pride and this value of self-esteem. That will position us to examine the roots of the historically frequent attack on pride as a great vice. I will conclude with a brief account of the way in which pride is a precondition both of Aristotelian character-friendship and a genuine romantic love.

Virtues of Creativity and Productivity, Moral Theory, and Human Nature – Christine Swanton
ABSTRACT
In this paper I show the centrality of virtuous creativity and productivity in a life of virtue. Certain tendencies in moral theory have downplayed the distinction between action and production as ethically central, including Aristotle’s distinction between action and production, and his relegating the latter to secondary status. Drawing on insights of Nietzsche, Rand, and the philosopher-psychologist Otto Rank, who was greatly influenced by Nietzsche and for whom creativity is central to self-love and thereby healthy love of other, I show that the creative productive life is central to human nature and the healthy development of the self. However, not all creativity is virtuous: some forms of what Rank calls “creative will” are unproductive, destructive, and expressive of self-contempt. An account of creative and productive virtues is required for what might be called an “ethics of creativity.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes for first: a, b
Notes for second: c, d
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two other general sessions have subjects intersecting Allan Gotthelf’s subject:

A colloquium on Friendship on April 23rd (4:00–6:00 p.m.) comprises the following two papers, with comments from Noell Birondo and John Anders.

Aristotle on the Conditional Final Value of Friends – Matthew Walker
ABSTRACT
Aristotle’s account of the value of friends generates what I call the instrumentality problem: Can Aristotle simultaneously (i) argue that friends possess sufficient final value as to be essential constituents of the happy life, yet (ii) appeal to the utility of friends for eliciting self-awareness as part of his case for (i)? In this paper, I argue that Aristotle’s account of friendship can respond to the instrumentality problem. By adopting a key distinction of Christine Korsgaard’s, I argue for a reading of Aristotle according to which the value of friends for their own sakes—the “final” or “end” value of friends—is (in part) conditional upon their usefulness in eliciting self-awareness. On this reading, Aristole’s account can reasonably appeal to the utility of friends, but in a way that does not reduce their value to that utility.

Friendship and Enlightenment in Kant – Brian Watkins
ABSTRACT
Kant claims, on the one hand, that friendship is a privileged site for self-disclosure while, on the other hand, he warns that friends should not become excessively familiar with each other. Some have argued that this tension is a result of the difference between the kind of friendship Kant thinks we can achieve and the ideal. By contrast, I argue that, for Kant we have achieved the best kind of friendship not when we find someone with whom to share everything, but, instead, when we find someone with whom we can discuss those things that are actually worth revealing, namely, what we think when we think for ourselves. In other words, the best kind of friends are those who feel free to use their reason and participate together in what Kant calls enlightenment.

A colloquium on Aristotle’s Ethics on April 20th (1:00–4:00 p.m.) includes the following paper, with comments from Corinne Gartner.

Self-Love in the Aristotelian Ethics – Jerry Green
ABSTRACT
The Nicomachean Ethics is nearly universally given pride of place in Aristotle’s ethical corpus. I argue there is at least one topic in Aristotle’s ethics where this is a mistake. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents self-love as the paradigm form of friendship, using it to explain how love of others occurs and why it is an important component of eudaimonia. But self-love has some theoretical problems, one of which is that it cannot be reciprocated the way Aristotle argues friendship requires. In the Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle addresses this worry, and uses it to motivate a modified view from that of the Nicomachean Ethics this change is difficult to explain if the Nicomachean Ethics were Aristotle’s last word on the subject, but makes perfect sense if the Eudemian Ethics were the revised version. This suggests we should follow Aristotle in turning to the Eudemian Ethics for Aristotle’s considered view.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 2/08, 7:40am)


Post 3

Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Central Division 2011
Minneapolis Hilton Hotel
March 30 – April 2

30th /1:10–2:10 p.m.
Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics
Fabrizio Cariani – “Mathematical Induction and Explanatory Value in Mathematics”
    ABSTRACT
    Marc Lange recently argued* that almost all proofs by mathematical induction fail to provide explanations of their conclusions. His arguments turn on showing that for each argument by mathematical induction X, there is another argument Y, for the same conclusion such that (i) X and Y have the same claim to be considered the explanation of the conclusion and (ii) X and Y cannot both explain the conclusion. I argue that Lange’s argument turns on ignoring several ways in which arguments can come to have different explanatory values. Once those are appreciated, (i) fails in a number of interesting cases. However, I do not take the moral to be that mathematical inductions are explanatory. Rather, I conclude by sketching a view on which there is no uniform answer to the question whether mathematical inductions explain their conclusions.

30th /2:20–5:20 p.m.
String Theory for Philosophers
Jeffrey Harvey*
Dean Rickles*


30th /6:30–7:30 p.m.
Sartre Circle
Matthew Eshleman – “On Sartre and the Law of Identity”

(From SB: “Being is itself. . . . / . . . Being is not a connection with itself. It is itself. . . . Being is in itself. / . . . Being is what it is. This statement is in appearance strictly analytical. Actually it is far from being reduced to that principle of identity which is the unconditioned principle of all analytical judgments. First the formula designates a particular region of being, that of being in-itself. We shall see that the being of for-itself is defined, on the contrary, as being what it is not and not being what it is. The question here then is of a regional principle and is as such synthetical. Furthermore it is necessary to oppose this formula—being in-itself is what it is—to that which designates the being of consciousness [a being for-itself]. The latter in fact, as we shall see, has to be what it is. / . . . Being in itself is. This means that being can neither be derived from the possible nor reduced to the necessary. Necessity concerns the connection between ideal propositions but not that of existents. . . . Being-in-itself is never either possible or impossible. It is. . . . Consciousness absolutely cannot derive being from anything. . . .” —Being and Nothingness, Introduction – VI, Hazel Barnes, translator.)


1st /9:00–10:00 a.m.
Kantian Ethics
Mavis Biss – “Perfect Duties to Oneself and Latitude of Choice: A Question of Morality or Purduence?”
    ABSTRACT
    In this paper I focus on Kant’s presentation of perfect duties to oneself as a moral being in the Doctrine of Virtue (Tugendlehre) of the Metaphysics of Morals in order to argue that the ambiguity and ambivalence in Kant’s account of latitude of choice with respect to duties of virtue calls his straightforward division between morality and prudence into question. According to the prudential latitude model, the kind of action one does to fulfill ethical duties is a moral choice, while the degree of action is a prudential choice. Kant does not clearly outline which duties fit this model, nor is it clear whether his position makes good sense of the boundary between morality and prudence given his concern with moral self-preservation and cultivation. I draw on Barbara Herman’s work* to explain the tension between Kant’s view of obligatory ends and his treatment of the prudential latitude view [related].

2nd /9:00–10:00 a.m.
Saving Lives
Vanessa Carbonell – “Sacrifice and Moral Obligation”
    ABSTRACT
    One way of delineating the boundary between obligation and supererogation is by appealing to the notion of sacrifice. An action cannot be obligatory, we seem to think, if it involves too much of a sacrifice. But if sacrifice is to play so important a role in our moral theory—that is, the role of absolving us of moral obligations—then surely we need a precise account of just what sacrifice is. In this paper, I argue that the notion of sacrifice that could properly play this role is one that is objective rather than subjective, normative rather than descriptive, and subject to a constraint of public intelligibility. A sacrifice, I argue, is a gross loss of well being, where well being is defined agent-neutrally. My account preserves our intuition that not just anything can count as a sacrifice, while nevertheless explaining unusual cases.

2nd /2:15–5:15 p.m.
Philosophy of Perception
Richard Kenneth Atkins* – “Perceptual Normativity and Accuracy”
    ABSTRACT
    The accuracy intuition—that a perception is good if, and only if, it is accurate—can be cashed out either propositionally or representationally. The propositional understanding is correct. The representational understanding is not, but reflection on why it’s not reveals that perceptual normativity is a kind of successfulness.
Kristjan Laasik – “Towards Solving Alva Noë’s Problem of Perceptual Presence”*

Jason P. Leddington – “What We Hear”
    ABSTRACT
    Following Berkeley, contemporary philosophers of perception typically endorse the view that the only immediate objects of hearing are sounds, In this case, we hear things only in virtue of hearing the sounds that they make. This paper argues that careful attention to features of auditory phenomenology should lead us to reject this view as a throwback to an otherwise discredited empiricism. Instead, we should embrace the view that we hear sound-producing events in hearing the sounds that they make, just as we see things in seeing the colors that they have. Pace Berkeley, the auditory experience of a sound source is not mediated by the experience of a sound any more than the visual experience of an object is mediated by an experience of its color [cf. Kelley 1986, 160–62; Smith 2002, 144].



(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 2/24, 9:47am)


Post 4

Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"A sacrifice, I argue, is a gross loss of well being, where well being is defined agent-neutrally." There is a bit of Objectivism. :)

Post 5

Friday, October 14, 2011 - 3:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The 2011 Eastern Division Meeting of the APA will be December 27th through 30th in DC at the Marriott Wardman Park.

The session of the Ayn Rand Society will be on the topic The Philosophical Basis of the Separation of Church and State: Theory and History. The speakers will be Onkar Ghate (Ayn Rand Institute) and Mark McGarvie (University of Richmond). Prof. McGarvie is the author of One Nation under Law: America’s Early National Struggles to Separate Church and State.

The ARS session will be December 28th from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. Earlier that day, from 11:15 a.m. to 1:15 p.m, there will be an APA session on Sports, Values, and Society. Tara Smith will speak on “Sport and the Value of Valuing – What Are We Cheering?” Scott Scheall will comment. Shawn Klein will speak on “Internal and External Values: Does Commercialism Corrupt Sport?” Jason Walker will comment.


Post 6

Sunday, March 4, 2012 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

ARS at APA Eastern in D.C. on Dec. 28, 2011
Mark McGarvie gave a splendid tour of the emergence of the idea of separation between public and private realms and emergence of the political value liberty of conscience. The tour continued through the winning of that idea and that value in the U.S. Constitution. Prof. McGarvie is working on a book on the intellectual and legal arguments that arose in the twentieth century to challenge the founders’ ideal of an individualistic and secular society.

In arguing for unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, Rand explained that she was advocating “a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church” (OE 37). In his paper, Onkar Ghate set out what he takes to be the philosophical reasons, according with Rand’s philosophy, for the separation of church and state. This Dr. Ghate did by recounting the Locke-Madison-Jefferson account and by gleaning the essential aspects he thinks concordant with Rand. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics were all brought to bear. Nice work. He concluded by indicating the main vein to mine for understanding what Rand meant by saying that the same reasons support the separation of economics and state. That Randian vein is: production comes from thought.

ARS – 2012 Pacific
The session of the Ayn Rand Society will be from 7:00 to 10:00 pm on April 5 at the Westin Seattle. Travis Norsen will speak on “Concepts and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge: The Case of Temperature.” James Lennox and Hasok Chang will comment on Dr. Norsen’s paper. Prof. Chang is in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University. He is the author of Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress (2004). The session will be chaired by Allan Gotthelf.

ARS – 2012 Eastern
The APA Eastern Division Meeting will be Dec 27–30 in Atlanta at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis. The topic of the ARS session will be “The Moral Basis of Capitalism: Adam Smith and Ayn Rand.” Speakers will be James Otteson* and Yaron Brook. The session will be chaired by Tara Smith.

ARS – 2013 Pacific
The APA Pacific Division Meeting will be Mar 24–27 in San Francisco. The hotel has not been announced; in recent years it has been at the Westin St. Francis. The topic of the ARS session will be (title provisional) “Capitalism, Limited Government, and Morality.” The speaker will be Michael Huemer, and the commentator will be Harry Binswanger.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, March 4, 2012 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What about at night? Do they sing "The Philosophers Drinking Song"? Is there a lot of bed-hopping as conquests fall to easy logic and situational ethics? It would seem to be at once impossible and real opportunity for a waiter or waitress to clean up: "You think you ordered a shrimp cocktail for $9.95 but semantically, I accepted that as equivalent to the salmon dinner for $29.95, so here is a picture of a salmon run at Klamath and your bill." At the bar you could put a few drops of ethanol on breadcrumbs and call it "beer" ... and get all the servers to agree with you that by consensus, this is "beer." And if they argue - how dare they - just say that semantic problems are inarguable. Or you could note where they sat last night and serve their food to that table now and make them prove the existence of time. Or serve them nothing, but insist that in the future you will have served them what they ordered now and they will see that when they look back into the past later.

Bring a tray of food and when you ask. "Who had the brisque?" give it to someone else and say that identity is an illusion.

So, what actually happens at these meetings? Do people actually act normal and ignore their formal philosophies?


Post 8

Sunday, March 4, 2012 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A real mad-hatter's tea party...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, March 4, 2012 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Reading the synopsis Stephen kindly supplied, I'd say that they are doing what you're not... taking ideas seriously.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, March 4, 2012 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

Please be more specific regarding your critical attitude. In post 0, I myself was critical but I made it obvious as to why. I offered concrete examples. What is it about this thread that makes you think that these philosophers are all a bunch of modernized characters in some kind of a new-age, existentialist version of Alice In Wonderland?

Was it something they said?

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, March 5, 2012 - 11:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Humorless stalinists...


[still more waggish comments removed]

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/06, 4:21am)


Post 12

Thursday, March 8, 2012 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, Michael. *lol*  Your jokes remind me of a story an old friend told me. She took two or three mathematicians out to dinner (she was interviewing them for an article), and not one was willing to figure out what the tip should be when the bill came.   They all laughed about it. I'm still laughing about it.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, March 8, 2012 - 11:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is it about this thread that makes you think that these philosophers are all a bunch of modernized characters in some kind of a new-age, existentialist version of Alice In Wonderland?
I don't think that's quite it, Ed. It looks to me more like the way former anarchists need to ridicule what they can't be the center of, or be actively destroying. I see it as using a pretense of humor as a way to attack... but an attack without giving up deniability - "Who me? Attack? Don't be silly, I'm just making jokes, you humorless Stalinists."

But, let's all just laugh, I mean, after all, why would anyone mind being called a Stalinist?

Post 14

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OMG. Attack? Really? The only person I see consistently attacked around here is Michael.

Post 15

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, yes, I've noticed that you don't see his attacks.

Post 16

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All I see is that you don't "get" him, Steve.

Post 17

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clearly one of us doesn't "get" him.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 9:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why do you automatically think the worst in everything he says?  I don't get that.  So Mike made a joke about a group of deep thinkers. Big deal. It was funny, but you insist, without proof, he has some sinister ulterior motive.  I can assure you, Michael doesn't have any sinister ulterior motives. You didn't even get his joke about being humorless, choosing to think the worst in that, too.   

I've about had it with RoR.  I can't stand it here anymore. I can't stand walking on egg shells around people who're all too anxious to think the worst of those they just don't like, never missing an opportunity to protest any perceived slight. I don't think you understand how abusive that is, Steve.   Michael makes some great contributions to the site, is crazy smart, super ambitious, charitable, productive, honest, funny has hell, contributes interesting content regularly, and all he gets for that is a bunch of insults from a guy who just doesn't like him. Having disagreements is fine. We disagree all the time, but to constantly, and constantly look to find fault in every single thing a member says is full blown bullying to me, and I'm done with it.  You don't have to comment on everything Mike says that subjectively rubs you the wrong way, Steve.  He isn't the enemy.

I'm always surprised when Michael doesn't defend himself, but I probably shouldn't be. He's a far better judge of what's worth arguing, and with whom, than I am.


Post 19

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 10:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok ok everyone kiss and make up now. I will even mail out a 1967 centennial cougar quarter( its canadian eh) hey Michael are they worth more than the silver? I have been hanging onto 8 of them for about 30 years now.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.