Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

[Xray]

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action?

The ability to feel empathy develops in humans at certain stage in brain maturation. Like all biopsycholical processes, it can be impaired though. Children who grow up in an environment not conducive to developing empathy (in war zones for example) will often have problems in that field.

Interesting also that children to whose behavior no limits have been set by overindulging caregivers will often show unempathic behavior too, thinking the world revolves around them and others are there to cater to their wishes.

Of what use is empathy, you asked. The ability to feel empathy helps us get along with each other.

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action?

You mean we should all go round feeling empathy for ... who? for what? , and feel all virtuous about it?

From the fact humans can feel empathy I do not derive that we "should" feel virtuous about it.

Your ethics of empathy must lead to duty (to usually some faceless persons). Duty is not "another issue altogether", but simple cause and effect of empathy.

Since I adhere to the "no ought from is" position, I would never think it is others' "duty" to feel empathy.

Aside from that, feelings cannot be coerced anyway.

Which leaves you at the mercy of those who want power over your mind and effort;

Being an empathetic person does not mean you are at the mercy of such persons.

On the contrary, empathy can lead people to stand up against powermongers, becoming the voice of those who cannot speak for themselves, e. g. as animal rights activists.

Before any thing else, it is a dishonest ethical system, since it's impossible to practise consistently.

An ethical system built on the principle of empathy is not made dishonest because conflicts may arise. These conflicts are part of existence itself. Being aware of them and reflecting on them is an ongoing process.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

[Replying to Michael M. Marotta]:

I expect you to eliminate your competition and then stand another 20 minutes telling me why you're right. I won't accept an ethics of rational self interest simply because I cannot prove altruism by the standards of reason. Egoism and self-interest will be proven and altruism will be disproven before I accept selfishness.

I wish we had another term for "altruism" since its use keeps causing so many misunderstandings.

For attacking the doctrine of altruism as a moral duty ("It is your duty to serve others first") is something else than a sine ira et studio analysis of man as a group being showing 'altruistic' behavior as e. g. in 'grooming' one's colleague by getting her a cup of coffee, in helping an elderly person across the street, etc.

On another thread, Ghs addressed this point:

As other OL members have pointed out, what biologists call "altruism" is not what Rand -- who adopted the precise meaning assigned to "altruism" by Auguste Comte, the man who coined the word -- meant by "altruism." Again and again, Rand states that "altruism" is the "ethical theory" according to which "self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (Introduction to VOS.) Thus, as both Comte and Rand conceived "altruism," it is a theory of moral duty .

So Comte and Rand assigned the same meaning to "altruism". conceiving of it as doctrine.

The difference being that Rand attacked it as a doctrine of moral duty while Comte praised the "vivre pour autrui" (live for others).

Comte later even developed a "positivist religion":

http://www.radicalac...positivists.htm

"This new religion had as its object the cult of the Great Being (humanity, made up of all men, past, present, and future), the Great Medium (world-space), and the Great Fetish (the earth)." (end quote)

Edited April 16, 2011 by Xray

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

An ethical system built on the principle of empathy is not made dishonest because conflicts may arise. These conflicts are part of existence itself. Being aware of them and reflecting on them is an ongoing process.

End quote

And she quoted:

Comte later even developed a "positivist religion": "This new religion had as its object the cult of the Great Being (humanity, made up of all men, past, present, and future), the Great Medium (world-space), and the Great Fetish (the earth)." (end quote)

End quote

Empathy as a guiding principle? I have always liked the American Indian hunter who says a little prayer for the food animal he has just slain. Whether the reverence for all life is part of a system of ethics like a sense of Karma, or it is a sliding scale of value to humans, these empathic principles require rational feelings, and it can be taught.

We Objectivists call it benevolence, and it is a secondary virtue and not a guiding principle. By itself, empathy is just out there. It requires a code to be of benefit to those who bestow it. The recipient may not be *worthy* of any special treatment, but benevolence is common courtesy extended by a few degrees.

Stopping to aid a stranded motorist, toys for tots at Christmas, food baskets, and rooting for someone to make it in time for their departure is a virtue.

Empathy is not altruism. Saint Francis and Christianity, it is not, despite cute stories like this one from Wikipedia:

It is said that, one day, while Francis was traveling with some companions, they happened upon a place in the road where birds filled the trees on either side. Francis told his companions to "wait for me while I go to preach to my sisters the birds". The birds surrounded him, intrigued by the power of his voice, and not one of them flew away. The variety of birds are a metaphor for the nations of the world.

End quote

Horse manure.

Rooting for the “bad guys” or the zombies is not empathy either.

Peter Taylor

[anthony]

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action?

The ability to feel empathy develops in humans at certain stage in brain maturation. Like all biopsycholical processes, it can be impaired though. Children who grow up in an environment not conducive to developing empathy (in war zones for example) will often have problems in that field.

Interesting also that children to whose behavior no limits have been set by overindulging caregivers will often show unempathic behavior too, thinking the world revolves around them and others are there to cater to their wishes.

Of what use is empathy, you asked. The ability to feel empathy helps us get along with each other.

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action?

You mean we should all go round feeling empathy for ... who? for what? , and feel all virtuous about it?

From the fact humans can feel empathy I do not derive that we "should" feel virtuous about it.

Your ethics of empathy must lead to duty (to usually some faceless persons). Duty is not "another issue altogether", but simple cause and effect of empathy.

Since I adhere to the "no ought from is" position, I would never think it is others' "duty" to feel empathy.

Aside from that, feelings cannot be coerced anyway.

Which leaves you at the mercy of those who want power over your mind and effort;

Being an empathetic person does not mean you are at the mercy of such persons.

On the contrary, empathy can lead people to stand up against powermongers, becoming the voice of those who cannot speak for themselves, e. g. as animal rights activists.

Before any thing else, it is a dishonest ethical system, since it's impossible to practise consistently.

An ethical system built on the principle of empathy is not made dishonest because conflicts may arise. These conflicts are part of existence itself. Being aware of them and reflecting on them is an ongoing process.

[anthony]

.

Before any thing else, it is a dishonest ethical system, since it's impossible to practise consistently.

An ethical system built on the principle of empathy is not made dishonest because conflicts may arise. These conflicts are part of existence itself. Being aware of them and reflecting on them is an ongoing process.

You ever play poker, Xray?

(If not, good - you're not very good at it.)

I tell you what, I'm going to call your bet, and raise you everything I've got.

IOW, I match your empathy, and put the whole Objectivist morality on top of it.

Careful, I'm not bluffing. B)

I've got the 'goods' here.

Really, I suggest you fold that pathetic hand you're holding...we've all got empathy cards, the strength is in the rest of the hand.

Go on, toss 'em in. ;)

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

I've got the 'goods' here.

End quote

Someone has beaten Xray to “the book of empathy,” Whynot.

Peter

From: The Christian Science Monitor:

A "secular Bible" draws readers, controversy

"The Good Book" – intended to serve as a secular Bible – focuses on ethics but not religion.

By Marjorie Kehe / April 15, 2011

"The Good Book: A Humanist Bible" is British academic A.C. Grayling’s effort to codify human ethics without making any reference to deity. The book is also a red-hot bestseller, reaching the top of Amazon's bestseller list and heating up online discussion boards just as the Easter season approaches.

What Grayling has done is to blend together thousands of texts from hundreds of different authors, collections, and traditions – a compilation which he calls “distillations of the wisdom and experience of humankind.” Grayling, who is an atheist, says his intent was to craft a book of ethics by relying on the wisdom of philosophers and writers rather than that of prophets and apostles.

"The Good Book" also includes a secular version of the

Ten Commandments: "Love well, seek the good in all things, harm no others, think for yourself, take responsibility, respect nature, do your utmost, be informed, be kind, be courageous: at least, sincerely try."

[Xray]

You ever play poker, Xray?

(If not, good - you're not very good at it.)

A while ago, a friend tried to introduce me to Texas Hold'em poker; I immediately realized I'm not good at it because I'm not enough of a risk taker. That is, I did not bluff when I should have done so and therefore was easy game for seasoned bluffers. I enjoyed the atmosphere though.

I have always loved the scenes in the Westerns when it's showdown time in the saloon and one opponent asks the other to put his cards on the table ...

There has been a veritable poker boom here in Germany in the recent years. Poker tournaments are shown on TV, supermarkets offer poker kits, etc.

But here in our philosophy cyber-tertulia, we don't have the strain to bluff that you have in poker. Instead we can walk step by step through a subject, examine, analyze etc.

I tell you what, I'm going to call your bet, and raise you everything I've got.

No problem though if you want a little card game atmosphere, so I'll go along with it.

Question: Am I now an "altruist" because I put your interest before my own here? ;)

So okay, go ahead and raise it.

IOW, I match your empathy, and put the whole Objectivist morality on top of it.

Careful, I'm not bluffing. B)

I'm certain that you are not bluffing. I never had the impression you were a bluffer.

So you put the whole Objectivist morality on top of my empathy. Okay.

I'm now interested in knowing to what degree the Objectivist morality includes empathy toward e. g. workers in the Third World who work in sweatshops run by capitalist firms who pay them a mere pittance in wages, or who are being paid way to little for their produce (like e.g. coffee).

Your turn.

I've got the 'goods' here.

Let's examine with concrete examples whether they stand up to testing.

Really, I suggest you fold that pathetic hand you're holding...we've all got empathy cards, the strength is in the rest of the hand.

You cannot know what I have in the rest the hand.

Go on, toss 'em in. ;)

I would certainly fold if I thought the hand was weak. Remember I'm no risk taker. ;)

Edited April 17, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

You ever play poker, Xray?

(If not, good - you're not very good at it.)

A while ago, a friend tried to introduce me to Texas Hold'em poker; I immediately realized I'm not good at it because I'm not enough of a risk taker. That is, I did not bluff when I should have done so and therefore was easy game for seasoned bluffers. I enjoyed the atmosphere though.

Ahh, yes, good game isn't it? It's also boomed here. But funny, when I played poker (and Hold'em) seriously it was the pre-boom period. Now I've become bored with it and never play.

Thr risk-taking aspect is simple Maths, of risk against reward; it's a basic skill easily learned.

The high skill element is reading the opposition - that's how I became a good 'psychologizer' .

Because poker is a game of relative (card) values, any sort of hand can win - but one has to gauge the 'any sort' the other guy's got.

The best advice I ever heard, was: play each hand as if the other guy's cards are face up and showing, and yours are a complete unknown to him. It sorta makes sense, and is a very effective strategy.

See you at the 'table', and remember: bluff won't beat a top hand!!

Tony

[Peter]

Xray told Tony about her ethics of empathy:

I would certainly fold if the hand were weak. Remember I'm no risk taker. ;)

End quote

Is your hand weak? It depends on how you look at it.

Angela (Xray) wrote:

An ethical system built on the principle of empathy is not made dishonest because conflicts may arise. These conflicts are part of existence itself. Being aware of them and reflecting on them is an ongoing process.

End quote

Empathy as an ethical system does not rationally extend beyond the family. Empathy is naturally felt for the welfare of oneself and one’s family, and after that empathy is a luxury. Empathy for non-family members can result in less empathy for ones own, because if this value is bestowed on strangers, it lessens the amount of empathy and time available for your own loved ones. Your heart may be big, but time is limited.

Xray’s “awareness of and reflection on conflicts arising from split feelings of empathy” is different from respecting the rights of others, and establishing a system to ensure the rights of yourself and others. It is a floating abstraction. It is not conceptual thinking. It is a passive process and cannot be a fundamental principle. It is whim worshiping Anarchy unless enforced.

If empathy is enforced, as it usually is, it requires authority. How would this empathy be demonstrated? Would a roomful of people be required to say, “Ah” when viewing that which needs empathy, like the downtrodden or little puppies? NO. A forced demonstration of empathy requires sacrifice from someone and then that stolen value is given to others. It is another form of Altruism. It would instantly lead to Statism.

Do conflicts of empathy worry you, Angela? Fear not for I hear the sound of marching boots. Are you ready for another cult of personality, fraulein? Ready for a stadium filled with empathy?

Sieg Heil, Xray! Sieg Heil!

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Would you be so empathetic to outline the structure of your "argument" presented in your post # 34.

The general assumption the middle premise and the conclusion.

Thanks.

Adam

[william.scherk]

Sieg Heil, Xray! Sieg Heil!

Peter Taylor

Bad form, Peter. Please edit out those remarks and the preceding remarks about jackboots and (Nuremberg) stadium.

[Brant Gaede]

Uncalled for. Completely wrong.

--Brant

[Peter]

Sadam wrote:

Would you be so empathetic to outline the structure of your "argument" presented in your post # 34.

The general assumption the middle premise and the conclusion.

end quote

No.

Peter

[Peter]

william.scherk wrote:

Bad form, Peter. Please edit out those remarks and the preceding remarks about jackboots and (Nuremberg) stadium.

end quote

William, I think my remarks brought together the issues raised in a logical, natural progression. I was not only empathetic, I felt bad, at some level that a person could be so unintentionally (giving them the benefit of the doubt) evil.

Empathy? Where's your empathy for the Jews who died during the Holocost? Want to see its likes again? Just be empathetic - be altruistic - follow the emotional leader - and enforce *the good.*

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Uncalled for. Completely wrong.

end quote

I have not gotten malevolent, senile or grumpy, Brant.

Remember the topic of this thread? Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

Empathy from Merriam Webster:

1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

end quote

Seeing the trend of discussion from Xray’s supporters, I will rephrase the topic to: Why does an Epistemology of emotion, and whim worship with no standard of value, lead to an ethics of self-sacrifice and selfLESSness?.

Good intentions IF meant to be good, built upon false or destructive premises render the outcome bad. Rand built her evidence against statism starting with the philosophies that it is built upon, while understanding its historical causation too. Ayn lived through The Russian Revolution.

Without an explanation from Xray, citing just what positive concepts or people she has empathy for, the objective reader must take her at her word and *know* that Angela has sympathy for the devil, empathy for Der Fuhrer, and a desire to destroy *thinking* discussion and replace it with *feelings,*

Or the objective reader might wonder if Angela is too naïve or unthinking to understand. If she wants her primary principle to be empathy she must be empathetic to the maniac, to the skinhead, and to the abusive drunk, while simultaneously being empathetic to *the good,* the heroic, and the sensible. There is no reason to cut some slack to this potentially destructive principle.

As I started to put the bits of Xray’s guiding principle “empathy” together that Italian video that someone linked with the refrain, “Oh yeah,” came to mind. The video shows horrible scenes from WWII. I don’t know Italian but those nightmarish scenes stick with me. Oh, Yeah. (was it Ninth Doctor who linked it? Engle?)

Unquestioned empathy is not rational or objective. It is evil. Once a person has been given he opportunity to *understand* this an Objectivist should pass moral judgment.

I suggest all of Xray's supporters go see Atlas Shrugged until you get it.

Phooey! Shame on you.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Any logic of your position, Peter, is vitiated qua discussion and ratiocination, by the way you addressed her. I'm not her supporter.

--Brant

[anthony]

Peter,

I'm with you all the way, when it comes to the process from empathy to altruism to terrible acts.

You have out-lined it most rationally - and coincidentally I have said similar, simultaneously on another thread.

I can't stand Xray's ethics, but I will have to back her on this: that what happened in the past in her country has as little to do with her as apartheid and me in my country.

Notwithstanding her collectivist, progressive, slant, she is only one of millions who believed they were doing right when they went from fascism to socialism.

(Although anybody on an O'ist forum should have understood by now that those are one and the same.)

Anyhow, Peter, with the reference to the Holocaust, I think you've argued from the general principle to the specific person, wrongly and unjustly here.

Tony

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Any logic of your position, Peter, is vitiated qua discussion and ratiocination, by the way you addressed her. I'm not her supporter.

End quote

Brant, my tone was appropriate to my train of thought. Remember, IF she is not a troll and she IS who she says she is, she is a German, kindergarten teacher, who has been on this web site for months, and has primarily argued for altruism. If reading Atlas Shrugged had a negative impact on her, just how *civil* should my tone be?

Should her guiding principle *empathy* be left as a floating abstraction? No, my friend, and I could throw a dozen of your letters in your face, where you went on tirades against evil ideas.

I do differentiate as does BB between evil doers and evil thinkers; and between naïve views and consciously evil views. And I agree with Ayn Rand that we should never fail to pass moral judgment. At some point, after seeing the evidence, you must refute *empathy* as strongly as it deserves.

Tony wrote:

Anyhow, Peter, with the reference to the Holocaust, I think you've argued from the general principle to the specific person, wrongly and unjustly here.

End quote

Tony, if a person from South Africa started talking about empathy or altruism as a guiding principle I would jump to the same conclusion.

***Anyone, easily offended do not read the following.***

This may be beside the point, but I buy Roger Whitacres’ albums (he is from Kenya but now lives in England) and I was fascinated how the white Kenyans pronounce their country’s name “Keenya” while black Africans insist it be pronounced, “Kenya.” I watched a video of Roger back in his home neighborhood, and I think that for him at least he sees whites as genetically superior, not as a white supremacist but simply from a lifetime of living in Africa. The whites there are predominantly pro-market and individual rights, while the blacks *seemed to be* primarily Marxist in orientation, at least when that video was shot.

***Finished being naughty***

Empathy as a political principle is altruism and no matter what name this rose is called, as a guiding principle, it still stinks. My reference to the Holocaust was a rhetorical device and if she comes back to refute me, and explains that she is not a neo-nazi, I will apologize to her. Then if she is dealing with us in good faith, she will rethink her position.

It just reached 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Is that about 32 Celcius? I am going jogging.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Empathy as a political principle is altruism and no matter what name this rose is called, as a guiding principle, it still stinks. My reference to the Holocaust was a rhetorical device and if she comes back to refute me, and explains that she is not a neo-nazi, I will apologize to her. Then if she is dealing with us in good faith, she will rethink her position.

If you know she might not be a Nazi you shouldn't have all but said the contrary to begin with. She's been here two years and I've been on her case since day one.

--Brant

my Dad was a crypto-Nazi so I know what that's like

[Xray]

Empathy as an ethical system does not rationally extend beyond the family.

Oh, an ethical system based on empathy does extend beyond the family.

I use it all the time in my work with children. Also with strangers. I can give you an example from this morning:

I was very much in a hurry because I was already late for a computer course I had to attend. At the last minute, I caught the streetcar and had just sat down breathlessly when I saw a big wallet lying next to my seat, the type of wallet containg everything: passport credit cards, money.

The streetcar was already in motion when another passenger pointed to a man running after it and waving his hands in excitement: the man who had just lost the wallet.

There was quite a distance to the next stop and the man was soon left behind, out of sight.

Being in a hurry myself, I could just have gone to the streetcar driver and hand him the passenger's wallet. But I thought "Who knows when the man will get the wallet back; the driver will have to deposit it at the lost property section first, maybe this will happen as late as the evening." I decided to get off at the next station, went back and soon saw the man come running in my direction. I waved the wallet, went toward him and handed it over to him. He gladly said thank you so very much. I was very late for my computer course on that day but the higher value was to me that the man get his wallet back at once. All the time I was driven by the thought: "What would I want if this had happended to me?" and then acted on it.

That is a simple example of empathy for a fellow human's situation.

Since each of us employs empathy in countless situations, I don't understand your strong emotional reaction against an ethics based on empathy.

Empathy is naturally felt for the welfare of oneself and one’s family, and after that empathy is a luxury. Empathy for non-family members can result in less empathy for ones own, because if this value is bestowed on strangers, it lessens the amount of empathy and time available for your own loved ones. Your heart may be big, but time is limited.

I could not work in my job if I didn't feel empathy. It lies at the root of everything I do in my work with children from multinational and multicultural backgrounds.

Using the Golden Rule with the children works excellently in most cases.

Xray’s “awareness of and reflection on conflicts arising from split feelings of empathy” is different from respecting the rights of others, and establishing a system to ensure the rights of yourself and others.

The Declaration of Human Rights is a great example of rights being based on the empathy principle.

It is a floating abstraction. It is not conceptual thinking.

Empathy is a concept.

It is a passive process and cannot be a fundamental principle. It is whim worshiping Anarchy unless enforced.

It is a mentally active process.

If empathy is enforced, as it usually is, it requires authority.

Empathy cannot be enforced. The effectiveness of empathy does not lie in the application of force.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

Brant wrote:

Uncalled for. Completely wrong.

end quote

I have not gotten malevolent, senile or grumpy, Brant.

Remember the topic of this thread? Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

Empathy from Merriam Webster:

1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

end quote

Seeing the trend of discussion from Xray’s supporters, I will rephrase the topic to: Why does an Epistemology of emotion, and whim worship with no standard of value, lead to an ethics of self-sacrifice and selfLESSness?.

Good intentions IF meant to be good, built upon false or destructive premises render the outcome bad. Rand built her evidence against statism starting with the philosophies that it is built upon, while understanding its historical causation too. Ayn lived through The Russian Revolution.

Without an explanation from Xray, citing just what positive concepts or people she has empathy for, the objective reader must take her at her word and *know* that Angela has sympathy for the devil, empathy for Der Fuhrer, and a desire to destroy *thinking* discussion and replace it with *feelings,*

Or the objective reader might wonder if Angela is too naïve or unthinking to understand. If she wants her primary principle to be empathy she must be empathetic to the maniac, to the skinhead, and to the abusive drunk, while simultaneously being empathetic to *the good,* the heroic, and the sensible. There is no reason to cut some slack to this potentially destructive principle.

As I started to put the bits of Xray’s guiding principle “empathy” together that Italian video that someone linked with the refrain, “Oh yeah,” came to mind. The video shows horrible scenes from WWII. I don’t know Italian but those nightmarish scenes stick with me. Oh, Yeah. (was it Ninth Doctor who linked it? Engle?)

Unquestioned empathy is not rational or objective. It is evil. Once a person has been given he opportunity to *understand* this an Objectivist should pass moral judgment.

I suggest all of Xray's supporters go see Atlas Shrugged until you get it.

Phooey! Shame on you.

Peter Taylor

Your "rhetorical device" in advancing of your argument (which it didn't) was the most egregiously offensive statement I have ever seen on this forum and it genuinely shocked me. It didn't shock me into agreement with you, either, though your argument may have validity - I haven't been following this thread.

You should apologize.

Edited April 18, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Peter]

XRAY wrote:

Oh, an ethical system based on empathy does extend beyond the family.

Earlier XRAY wrote:

This is a value judgment I don't share. For it reveals an attitude of non-empathy and revenge for those who don't happen to share one's own values . . . Imo Atlas Shrugged is basically a huge revenge phantasy put in writing.

And earlier, XRAY also wrote about Atlas Shrugged:

Rand's both elitist and wooden thinking here is hard to bear. The litmus test can easily be done if you visualize instead of John Galt going on strike for years, garbage men in NYC going on strike for a mere month.

End quotes

I answered at that time:

That’s not equivalent at any level. But it is funny! Wooden thinking and a wooden heart equals Objectivism? That is a new perspective, from The Mother Teresa School of Poverty and Penance. The Judas, “kiss of death,” to Ayn bearing her cross.

She and I have been at this before. OH NO YA DON’T. Not again, you’re not Angela. You’re Anna the hive queen trying to spread your *bliss.*

And XRAY just wrote:

Empathy cannot be enforced. The effectiveness of empathy does not lie in the application of force.

End quote

Tell that to the celebrating North Korean people cheering and sobbing for their “Dear Fearless Leader,” on his birthday.

Daunce wrote:

It didn't shock me into agreement with you, either, though your argument may have validity - I haven't been following this thread . . . You should apologize.

End quote

Daunce, I am waiting for her to talk about her primary principle, *empathy.* Empathy is good. It leads to cooperation and peace. It leads to compassion for animals. I also experience the empathy she describes but it is not an overriding principle. She is quite capable of writing O’ist geek speak.

Non-Initiation of Force is an overriding principle. The Rights of Humans is an overriding, primary principle. Empathy as part of a political document is a roadmap to totalitarianism. Does she feel empathy for the “first rebel” Satan? Serial killers? Poor misunderstood Adolf and Mao? Nicolai Lenin and Uncle Joe? Without knowing if XRAY’s empathy is all inclusive it is dumb and dangerous.

My argument was Rand’s argument which I will let you re-read for yourself. Even my over the top presentation which could have been better written, was much like Rand’s condemnations of floating concepts and altruism, especially as presented in Atlas Shrugged. Angela is merely exchanging the word empathy for altruism.

Ayn saw Altruism (and not just might makes right) as the usual rationale for establishing Statist and Ultra-Nationalistic Governments AND justification for the worst atrocities of those Totalitarian Governments. The Soviet Union and Communist China all used Altruism as their excuse to create a supposed classless state but with a informal ‘monarchy’ in charge, just as American Liberal/Progressives see themselves as the ultimate ruling elite. Communism destroyed Ayn’s family. And The Soviet Union’s nukes could have destroyed Truth, Justice and the American Way, and our trusted, equal ally, Canada.

Nazi Germany used Altruism to foster Nationalism and Der Fuhrer. Do it for the fuhrer. Do it for the Fatherland. Do it for the Race. Do it for the little children. Just do it, or die.

So, an apology will be forthcoming, I reckon when, “The hills are alive with the sound of music . . .”

Peter Taylor

Notes:

From Merriam Webster, Altruism.

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Altruism: What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. . .

End quotes

[caroljane]

Peter, your sound of music is tuned to a different drummer from my comment.

When you "rhetorically devised" that Angela was a Nazi at heart, because of her stated arguments, you tainted me and anyone who agrees with her with the swastika brush. You may as well as call me Mrs Eichmann, - after all, Canada excluded Jewish immigrants, thereby condemning so many to certain death. This happened before I was born, or you, or Angela. Your allusions are and were untenable and

offensive. Once again, you should rescind them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sadam wrote:

Peter,

Good Lord!

Now that's disagreement!

Michael

[Selene]

Sadam wrote:

Peter,

Good Lord!

Now that's disagreement!

Michael

I thought it was almost clever myself.