Is evil rational?


moralist

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However, the prudent predator I had in mind is not particularly interested in the standards and values of his victims. For example, he might loot a devout Christian's bank account, and, instead of following the Third, Fourth and Fifth Commandments, he might go to a gambling den on Sunday, then come home and swear at his mother.

Or consider the predator who forges a check belonging to a vegetarian and then uses the proceeds to buy a steak dinner.

And, while I'm sure there are more than a few predators who are egoless, care far more about the well being of others than themselves, and devote their energies primarily to improving the condition of the less fortunate, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends.

Yes, I suppose there are predators who are quick to surrender their minds and become the unthinking servants of powerful masters. But what I had in mind was the lone wolf who answers to no higher authority.

That is what I meant by the prudent predator.

I've not made it clear, any type of predator (and I see no distinction for this "prudent" one) is not independent, by definition - so is at total odds with rational egoism, therefore is irrational and selfless. He depends on the existence of others' minds and output which he lives through and by -- without honest trade in return, it must be empasised. Altruism has, as a main consequence, the dutiful service to others, but this is not its only invidious aspect. Losing one's independent consciousness to any- and all- comers has to precede and facilitate that result.

"The lone wolf who answers to no higher authority" - but who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own.

(Despite superficial impressions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and even the most prudent predator can never escape being preyed upon as he preys upon others. For there will always be greater predators within that self inflicted hell.

Greg

And the greatest of the greatest--God?

Most people fantasize that God is to blame for hell... when He only allowed everyone the freedom to choose to do good or evil and to experience the consequences of what they do.

The reality is that hell is completely self inflicted by the consequences of our evil actions as everyone hands down the judgment and passes sentence on themselves by what they do.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... We the people do these things to and for ourselves. [Laissez Faire Law, p.37]

Wolf,

I have been on a private mission to discover why and how.

Rand's notion that philosophical principles are somewhat like puppet-master memes (if it were possible to personify them) looks fairly reasonable on the surface. Peikoff even based a whole book on how to judge the impact of these puppet-master memes on entire cultures with what he called the DIM hypothesis.

But there is only one problem. How do you get people to believe in crazy shit in the first place, then act on it?

It takes an awful lot of individuals to internalize a philosophical principle. This doesn't happen by trickle down epistemology.

I think I have discovered the answer. One fundamental characteristic of primates is that--in the lower part of their brains (which is the biggest portion physically--the vast majority of learning is by imitation. There are a lot of studies that show this to be true across all primates.

So how do you get people to imitate crazy shit without them being consciously aware of it?

Stories.

Stories talk to the lower part of the brain, they fix easily in memory, and once people get stories in their minds, they constantly imitate snippets of them. I know I catch myself doing this all the time.

There are other things that reinforce these inner stories like social proof (and its nasty cousin, peer pressure), celebrities (according to one study I read, even chimpanzees stare at pictures of the celebrity chimpanzees in their group :smile: ), etc., but the essence is story.

Stories are just as fundamental to epistemology as concepts are.

I recently came across a study where psychologists studied actual fact perception filtered through different core stories. I can't remember where, though. They found, under tightly controlled conditions, that when a fact disproved an element of a core story, the individual involved often ignored the fact to the point of not even remembering it later when quizzed about it. And when dubious information that reinforced the core story was presented as fact, the individual often accepted it as fact.

When Rand talked about people blanking out facts, she was talking about a refusal to think, evasion, and so on.

However, I believe it is more. It takes a special kind of thinking to check one's core story. That's different than checking a philosophical premise or a fact. So a blank-out is not just refusal to think about something. It might be at times, but I believe in general, it cuts deeper.

Here's a way to state the principle: So long as a person believes Story X is an accurate representation of reality, he will rearrange his perceptions of reality to fit that story.

For as much as I think about this, the more I am coming to the conclusion that no one is immune to experiencing the world through a core story. This is inherent to the human condition.

It's possible to change one's core story, but it's a bitch. That's probably one of the hardest tasks humans will ever perform when they manage to do it by sheer will.

However, they can be tricked into it without hardly any effort on their part through clever storytelling allied to covert manipulation of their mental heuristics (to use a Kahneman phrase for cognitive biases and shortcuts).

On another point, I think history keeps repeating itself because the lessons learned by one generation are pegged to core stories that the younger generation do not hold as dear. If the older people do not manage to pass the lesson down to the younger folks along with the core story, or if they do not find a way to embed the lesson in the core story of the younger generation (presuming they can even detect it), the younger folks will think the lesson is a form of stupidity of the elders. And there are many forms of ridiculing that lesson and the older core story from the perspective of the younger generation's core story.

The only way I see to keep people from doing, as you mentioned, bad things to themselves over and over is to inject stories into the culture that satisfy them as much as the core stories they carry in their heads and souls do.

Talk about a difficult thing to do!

But, when you think about it, what a great mission...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a way to state the principle: So long as a person believes Story X is an accurate representation of reality, he will rearrange his perceptions of reality to fit that story.

I totally agree. Our world view is reverse engineered from our chosen core story. And through direct personal experience of the consequences of our actions, we discover exactly how much our subjective view agrees with objective reality.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about a difficult thing to do!

But, when you think about it, what a great mission...

Michael

You wrote "It takes an awful lot of individuals to internalize a philosophical principle. This doesn't happen by trickle down epistemology."

That should win a brilliancy award.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is not a predator? If not, what's with all the meat eating?

--Brant

You know I'm referring to morality? :wink:

Greg

So was I. (You do know I will have my fun.)

--Brant

trying to get my evil up and running: the engine revs up pretty good, but the transmission won't engage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about a difficult thing to do!

But, when you think about it, what a great mission...

Michael

You wrote "It takes an awful lot of individuals to internalize a philosophical principle. This doesn't happen by trickle down epistemology."

That should win a brilliancy award.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sounds like trickle down to me.

--Brant

(does not apply to Michael's point)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of how a progressive group is getting it right in shaping the core story of the young.

Notice that the function is to embed the idea that we are global citizens of some kind of one-world organization, but also notice that one kid said he now believes his mom that things are much worse for others. I actually admire the guts of the progressive who left that part in.

The progressives are selectively choosing what they present to the young. That's how they shape the core story in the experience in the video. If reason-based individualists want to compete with that, they have to tell stories within the perspective of younger folks that resonate with them. Other young folks who live good lives and fight bad guys, but who are predominantly individualists.

Selective or not, this progressive approach is based on true stories. It's kids talking to kids. Guess who the young are going to believe when it comes to talking about values and principles, those in stories they heard from real people their age or those of an older person who talks about religious mythology or (on in our subcommunity) the actions of fictional characters in a book?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the prudent predator I had in mind is not particularly interested in the standards and values of his victims. For example, he might loot a devout Christian's bank account, and, instead of following the Third, Fourth and Fifth Commandments, he might go to a gambling den on Sunday, then come home and swear at his mother.

Or consider the predator who forges a check belonging to a vegetarian and then uses the proceeds to buy a steak dinner.

And, while I'm sure there are more than a few predators who are egoless, care far more about the well being of others than themselves, and devote their energies primarily to improving the condition of the less fortunate, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends.

Yes, I suppose there are predators who are quick to surrender their minds and become the unthinking servants of powerful masters. But what I had in mind was the lone wolf who answers to no higher authority.

That is what I meant by the prudent predator.

I've not made it clear, any type of predator (and I see no distinction for this "prudent" one) is not independent, by definition - so is at total odds with rational egoism, therefore is irrational and selfless. He depends on the existence of others' minds and output which he lives through and by -- without honest trade in return, it must be empasised. Altruism has, as a main consequence, the dutiful service to others, but this is not its only invidious aspect. Losing one's independent consciousness to any- and all- comers has to precede and facilitate that result.

"The lone wolf who answers to no higher authority" - but who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own.

(Despite superficial impressions).

By the same logic, we could say that a teacher, a chiropractor, a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker are not independent by definition. Their livelihoods would come to a swift end if their customers disappeared. They literally "depend on the existence of others' minds and output." But we could hardly call them irrational or selfless. Is there a member of this forum of independent minds who does not get at least one product from other human beings?

It is the same with the prudent predator. It is no more irrational or selfless for him to expect that within a community there will be marks for easy picking, than it is for the barber to expect that in a town there will always be hair to clip.

And why does rationality require honest trade in return? Merriam-Webster defines "rational" as "adjective \ˈrash-nəl, ˈra-shə-nəl\ : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly."

Why couldn't an intelligent con artist, burglar, or identity thief practice his profession, thinking clearly and acting on facts and reason (not on emotions or feelings)?

As for altruism, I realize there are predators who practice an "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" (Merriam-Webster). I've no doubt that Gallup polls of predators would show that they donate generously to United Way at the office.

However, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends.

You say, the person "who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own." If that is true, why hasn't the burglar who stole my television, audio system and CD/DVD collection returned them? Where is the evidence that he bowed to his victim's authority? Where is the evidence of his obedience to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are naturally at the center of our attentions so it's very hard to acquire good objectivity about our attitudes, proclivities, orientations, etc. compared to a disinterested observer. We can do hurtful things not because we are sociopaths, but because without feedback we missed out on knowing all the effects of what we are doing. That's why talking is so important in inter-human relationships. ("You know, George, you hurt and upset me yesterday when you called my Mother a 'bitch.' Why did you do that? Just because she is one? I don't want to hear that from you.")

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK and others,

I gave some thought to what you said about stories. I think you're right. Without the stories of Jesus, Noah, Abraham, and Adam -- poof -- no grip on the innocent (or anyone else). Bob could tell us stories about heroic Jews and the festivals inculcating their claim on the living. Hollywood has made an industry of simple stories: E.T., Rocky, Spartacus, Luke Skywalker, Perry Mason, Ghostbusters, and Babe The Pig. In the trade we call it a "hook."

My perspective is more puzzled than skeptical. I believe we have several useless, corrosive words in the language -- holy, eternal, paradox, faith, sacrament, etc -- and that progress consists of coining new terms like electron, neutron, genetic drift, cosmic ray. We're still groping to name some of our missing words.

Where is the word that expresses and explains the content of discovery when a child grasps for the first time that he or she is alive and life is an open road? What idea distinguishes between love of justice and romantic love? https://web.archive.org/web/20010205000700/http://www.wolfdevoon.com/Aspirant.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is not a predator? If not, what's with all the meat eating?

Human beings are the apex predator in the food chain. We capture and eat everything and anything meaty. We feast on the world by actively cutting, chewing and absorbing other creatures (and of course, everything vegetal). Like grizzlies.

That one connotation is foremost in my mind reading the arguments about 'prudent' predators. Before exploring how exactly prudence shows itself, even if we are perhaps the only species that has a cognitive behaviour called prudence, I think next of human predators who prey on fellow humans, who make a habit of killing fellow humans, who perhaps relish the infliction of harm, terror and even death on fellow humans.

In some of these outliers, these Gacys and BTKs and Zodiacs and Bundys, we find the most extreme examples of predatory behaviour by humans. In these cases we can mention prudence only by its absence, for the predators were caught, in most cases because of a lack of prudence in disposing of their corpses and in leaving forensic material.

One step down from remorseless sociopaths who torture and kill, we can find numerous examples of sadistic behaviour stopping short of death: those who are parasitic upon and thieve from fellow humans, who traffic in humans, who use brutality to extract 'protection,' benefits, bribes and sexual favours. These are no cheerful Ragnars hijacking an impersonal wealth, but conscience-free thugs bleeding other humans.

How and whether a human can be accurately identified as a predator thus depends for me on the qualities of the behaviour. Is the behaviour willfully harmful, does it show clearly a lack of empathy toward the victim of predation, does the behaviour show force or fraud and an utmost disregard for rights to security of the person? Does it show an illegal confinement, a violent tendency, a stark lack of fellow-feeling?

For a reading of the 'prudent' predator through a Randian lens, I can only think of a predator who leaves no marks, elicits no suspicion, disposes bodies secretly, who acts ruthlessly in his own interests alone.

That's an unsatisfactory reading, though. It pathologizes and makes almost a sub-species of this kind of predator. It blurs the boundaries between the awful (hateful violence) and the human.

Perhaps the most prudent predator of all is he who understands and can fake the humanity that he lacks, who can most deeply conceal his rapaciousness and disregard for others.

This would be a species of politician, probably.

...and even the most prudent predator can never escape being preyed upon as he preys upon others. For there will always be greater predators within that self inflicted hell.

And the greatest of the greatest--God?

Gods are the apex predators of the spirit world and the greatest gods are the greatest predators of all. They are subject to no punishment. They have lain waste to humans since they were invented, and they still threaten humans with horror beyond torture and death.

If they were prudent, they might have thought they might appear before a Higher Justice, but being make-believe, I think we can safely set aside realistic boundaries for these conceptual bags of air.

However, the prudent predator I had in mind is not particularly interested in the standards and values of his victims.

[...]

And, while I'm sure there are more than a few predators who are egoless, care far more about the well being of others than themselves, and devote their energies primarily to improving the condition of the less fortunate, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends.

I've not made it clear, any type of predator (and I see no distinction for this "prudent" one) is not independent, by definition - so is at total odds with rational egoism, therefore is irrational and selfless. He depends on the existence of others' minds and output which he lives through and by -- without honest trade in return, it must be empasised.

I can't imagine this human predator who devotes primary energies to improving the condition of the less fortunate -- except by including a sexual or financial angle. I can then imagine a teacher, a priest, a youth worker, in service to 'the unfortunate,' a person who cloaks abuse of power and molestation. Such was Gacy in his social work as a volunteer clown.

Tony's de-contextualized entity makes no sense to me. How can a human predator as I have described be 'selfless' ... when it seems psychologically more logical that a Bundy/Gacy has only tenuous emotional connections with other humans, whose entire ethos is devoted to slaking his thirsts, his hungers, his bloodlust, his deranged 'compulsion' to hurt and destroy other people.

Now it may be that as Tony lays it out -- by definition a predator (imprudent or not) cannot be rational. And that by definition an irrational person. And that an irrational person is by definition 'selfless.'

But I don't see the logical underpinnings for such a generalization; moreover, if the generalization is true, then Bundy/Gacy were 'selfless.' If this is so, I have no understanding of what that selflessness could mean.

Here is an example of how a progressive group is getting it right in shaping the core story of the young.

ourfellowhumans.jpg

Selective or not, this progressive approach is based on true stories. It's kids talking to kids. Guess who the young are going to believe when it comes to talking about values and principles, those in stories they heard from real people their age or those of an older person who talks about religious mythology or (on in our subcommunity) the actions of fictional characters in a book?

What an interesting video. Video conferencing as cross-cultural education. Peer to peer, sharing experiences, and inculcating understanding. I can forgive the naive/fascist progressive undertone and be quite impressed with what is actually happening -- exploiting communications technology to bring US/Western youth into contact with youth from other continents.

The particular group doing the video-conferencing is called the Global Nomads Group. The guy on the video above, Chris Plutte, says the aims of sharing 'cross-cultural stories' is to de-fang stereotypes and stigma -- and build empathy. My withered old socialist heart skips a beat, while my cynical atria spasm a bit at the favoured end: "positive social change."

Can I imagine a well-run and well funded Objectivish education effort that used the same media framework, with Randian outcomes as goals, as cultural trade item? Yes, but. Not under the ARI or TAS. Not yet. Not under the same media management.

[Tony says] the person "who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own." If that is true, why hasn't the burglar who stole my television, audio system and CD/DVD collection returned them? Where is the evidence that he bowed to his victim's authority? Where is the evidence of his obedience to me?

Yeah, it is not at all clear what real-world predator becomes 'obedient.' Harming or destroying other people makes him obedient to anti-social impulse or hateful motives in his own soul, I would say. In the case of a gang member whose very standing requires him to obey tribal/gang "law," maiming and killing when ordered, one could make a case that he is obeying an authority and not his own will -- but this would make him no more 'selfless' than anyone with a criminal code of honour, or anyone who must obey a chain of command to kill unlawfully. Being an outlaw, one could argue, might mean being outside normal 'straight' law -- and the community standards that enforce it and other behavioural norms -- but is an outlaw in a gang 'selfless' in the simple sense of the word?

Is the outlaw gang killer without regard for his own self, his own aggrandizement, his own possessions and his own ambitions?

I think not.

We are naturally at the center of our attentions so it's very hard to acquire good objectivity about out attitudes, proclivities, orientations, etc. compared to a disinterested observer. We can do hurtful things not because we are sociopaths, but because without feedback we missed out on knowing all the effects of what we are doing. That's why talking is so important in inter-human relationships. ("You know, George, you hurt and upset me yesterday when you called my Mother a 'bitch.' Why did you do that? Just because she is one? I don't want to hear that from you.")

Those are sweet and wise words. A sociopath is one whose 'conscience' cannot be formed, or one whose natural abilities to empathize are damaged or missing. It's not an inadvertently cruel person -- it is one who can only fake a rational interest in you (the prey, the sheep) to the extent necessary to get close enough to assault, rape or butcher.

All in all, a great discussion topic. A prudent predator could be someone who seems so normal, warm, friendly, interested, charming, that you let down your guard.

Perhaps a real predator is so far outside Objectivist boundaries of behaviour that normal Objectivish analysis fails. Vicious human animals with no regard for other human beings' lives or possessions or children or innocence -- are these also perhaps such an Other that they fall in Rand's separate categories, the morally subhuman, the missing link?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is not a predator? If not, what's with all the meat eating?

--Brant

And what we don't eat we either ride or wear.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is not a predator? If not, what's with all the meat eating?

--Brant

You know I'm referring to morality? :wink:

Greg

So was I. (You do know I will have my fun.)

--Brant

trying to get my evil up and running: the engine revs up pretty good, but the transmission won't engage

I'm ok with that. You did raise a point, and I'd like to raise another one.

There is a moral distinction between eating meat and cannibalism. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an interesting video. Video conferencing as cross-cultural education. Peer to peer, sharing experiences, and inculcating understanding. I can forgive the naive/fascist progressive undertone and be quite impressed with what is actually happening -- exploiting communications technology to bring US/Western youth into contact with youth from other continents.

The particular group doing the video-conferencing is called the Global Nomads Group. The guy on the video above, Chris Plutte, says the aims of sharing 'cross-cultural stories' is to de-fang stereotypes and stigma -- and build empathy. My withered old socialist heart skips a beat, while my cynical atria spasm a bit at the favoured end: "positive social change."

Can I imagine a well-run and well funded Objectivish education effort that used the same media framework, with Randian outcomes as goals, as cultural trade item? Yes, but. Not under the ARI or TAS. Not yet. Not under the same media management.

William,

You and I think so much alike at times, it's almost creepy. And I begin to believe there is no excuse for a culture that had us start at opposite ends thinking one was inherently the enemy of the other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an interesting video. Video conferencing as cross-cultural education. Peer to peer, sharing experiences, and inculcating understanding. I can forgive the naive/fascist progressive undertone and be quite impressed with what is actually happening -- exploiting communications technology to bring US/Western youth into contact with youth from other continents.

The particular group doing the video-conferencing is called the Global Nomads Group. The guy on the video above, Chris Plutte, says the aims of sharing 'cross-cultural stories' is to de-fang stereotypes and stigma -- and build empathy. My withered old socialist heart skips a beat, while my cynical atria spasm a bit at the favoured end: "positive social change."

Can I imagine a well-run and well funded Objectivish education effort that used the same media framework, with Randian outcomes as goals, as cultural trade item? Yes, but. Not under the ARI or TAS. Not yet. Not under the same media management.

William,

You and I think so much alike at times, it's almost creepy. And I begin to believe there is no excuse for a culture that had us start at opposite ends thinking one was inherently the enemy of the other.

Michael

Now that you've joined forces, resistance is futile.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so basically we need to come up with amazing powerful stories that serve 2 functions. To glorify and make heros out of individualists/capitalist people. The Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of the world. And we need to do it in such a way as to bypass critical thinking to embed it into youths impressionable heads that they have it in them to become the future innovators of the world.

Progressives definitely have a huge head start in vilifying these people. Stories of robber barons, greed, malice all tied into "social justice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so basically we need to come up with amazing powerful stories that serve 2 functions. To glorify and make heros out of individualists/capitalist people. The Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of the world. And we need to do it in such a way as to bypass critical thinking to embed it into youths impressionable heads that they have it in them to become the future innovators of the world.

Progressives definitely have a huge head start in vilifying these people. Stories of robber barons, greed, malice all tied into "social justice".

OMG, not Zuckerberg. Are you kidding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would go more for stories where people showed a great deal of character than darlings of the Internet and computers. I believe we are better served if we focus on inventors and rich folks that show strong character, even if they are religious.

For example, Glenn Beck periodically interviews a guy named Jon Huntsman (Sr.), who invented the Dixie Cup, fast food containers, plastic "pantyhose" egg cartons and all kinds of things. The guy is a Mormon and very wealthy. It is possible to look at his business practices while ignoring the religion. He is a paragon of rational productivity allied to integrity. He wrote a book called Winners Never Cheat: Even in Difficult Times.

If you want to tell the story of a great industrialist of character, that's a good story to tell.

But I wouldn't tell those kinds of stories to kids.

I would tell stories of kids to kids. Basic Bonding 101.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the prudent predator I had in mind is not particularly interested in the standards and values of his victims. For example, he might loot a devout Christian's bank account, and, instead of following the Third, Fourth and Fifth Commandments, he might go to a gambling den on Sunday, then come home and swear at his mother.

Or consider the predator who forges a check belonging to a vegetarian and then uses the proceeds to buy a steak dinner.

And, while I'm sure there are more than a few predators who are egoless, care far more about the well being of others than themselves, and devote their energies primarily to improving the condition of the less fortunate, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends.

Yes, I suppose there are predators who are quick to surrender their minds and become the unthinking servants of powerful masters. But what I had in mind was the lone wolf who answers to no higher authority.

That is what I meant by the prudent predator.

I've not made it clear, any type of predator (and I see no distinction for this "prudent" one) is not independent, by definition - so is at total odds with rational egoism, therefore is irrational and selfless. He depends on the existence of others' minds and output which he lives through and by -- without honest trade in return, it must be empasised. Altruism has, as a main consequence, the dutiful service to others, but this is not its only invidious aspect. Losing one's independent consciousness to any- and all- comers has to precede and facilitate that result.

"The lone wolf who answers to no higher authority" - but who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own.

(Despite superficial impressions).

By the same logic, we could say that a teacher, a chiropractor, a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker are not independent by definition. Their livelihoods would come to a swift end if their customers disappeared. They literally "depend on the existence of others' minds and output." But we could hardly call them irrational or selfless. Is there a member of this forum of independent minds who does not get at least one product from other human beings?

It is the same with the prudent predator. It is no more irrational or selfless for him to expect that within a community there will be marks for easy picking, than it is for the barber to expect that in a town there will always be hair to clip.

And why does rationality require honest trade in return? Merriam-Webster defines "rational" as "adjective \ˈrash-nəl, ˈra-shə-nəl\ : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly."

Why couldn't an intelligent con artist, burglar, or identity thief practice his profession, thinking clearly and acting on facts and reason (not on emotions or feelings)?

As for altruism, I realize there are predators who practice an "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" (Merriam-Webster). I've no doubt that Gallup polls of predators would show that they donate generously to United Way at the office.

However, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends.

You say, the person "who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own." If that is true, why hasn't the burglar who stole my television, audio system and CD/DVD collection returned them? Where is the evidence that he bowed to his victim's authority? Where is the evidence of his obedience to me?

Whew! Are we at cross purposes, or not? For all our common understanding of Rand's thought in novels and tracts, from egoism to Capitalism, it is still to be defined what rational, benevolent and selfish "trade" with others is?

Because "trade" takes many forms I think. All bearing the prerequisite of having something of value to trade in the first place: One's principles, one's productivity and material goods, honesty and integrity, friendship, affection, respect, MONEY, etc.etc. -- for their equal in another person or people.

A predator, prudent or not, brings nothing but his wants - and takes from whomever is most vulnerable. He might operate (just) within individual rights, but he can't be rationally moral. I've known such people, and whatever perceptions they give of confidence and self-esteem, and for all their wealth, they are never content and fulfilled. Greg expressed this. That person is waiting for someone else to take it away, any moment. Besides, they *know* that anyone close and intimate is there only for their wealth.

FF, it's odd what happens when discussions are centered exclusively on individual rights. It seems they turn on all that can or might go wrong (fence lines, private roads, predators, thieves, etc.) and get stuck here. Such debates (to me) outline a rather rigid society, more constraining to individuals, than liberating.

Begin at the 'right place', from individuals, those who pose not the least threat to their fellows, being independent, rational and self-respecting, and cause is properly followed by effect, again. Morality precedes rights. In this case the possibilities of human interplay are endlessly open and free. Two objectively moral persons can and would sort out any problem or conflict - without recourse to their individual rights- since of course they understand that each answers to the same reality. (Which is essential "rationality", btw.) It's purely against all those who'd restrict their actions, and predators who'd rip them off, that alone justifies and necessitates individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now