Would it be moral?

[Xray]

Considering the distinction between morality and ethics, I think that these are ethical issues.

The problem with the terms morality and ethics is that are often used interchangeably.

I use "ethics" more often (but not always) in the sense of moral philosophy, where it is reflected about moral standards, their change etc.

In TVOS, imo Rand makes no clear distinction between the two terms either.

It is true that every human society has its moral standards, but what do we make of the fact that these standards have changed? If you feel more comfortable using "ethical" instead of moral here, no problem on my part - I don't think the terminology is that important here.

I stated as succinctly as I could why I differentiate the terms "ethical" and "moral" in this post.

George H. Smith's comments there regarding the terminology:

The Latin moralis is how Cicero, Seneca, and other Roman philosophers translated the Greek ethikos. The current meaning of "ethics" is largely indebted to the title of Aristotle's major work on the subject, Nicomachean Ethics, which was probably named after Aristotle's son and pupil, Nicomachus

In Book Two of that work, Aristotle writes:

"Moral goodness...is the result of habit, from which it has actually got its name, being a slight modification of the word ethos. (Penguin Classics ed., p. 91). In a footnote to this passage, the translator notes that ethos can mean either "character" or "custom"; both meanings "show different grades of the same root eth-." (In Book One, the translator notes that Aristotle sometimes uses "ethics" to mean "fine and just things.")

I don't recall seeing before the distinction that you draw between "morality" (personal) and "ethics" (social), though I am not opposed to stipulative definitions that help to clarify our thinking, so long as those definitions fall roughly within the parameters of conventional usage.

In English, "morality" and "ethics" are not really parallel terms. Ethics is the study of morality. Hence "ethics" means the same thing as "moral philosophy." and we often use "moral principles" and "ethical principles" to mean the same thing. This usage is consistent with the fact that "morality" derives from the Latin translation of the Greek word for "ethics."

Ghs

Scarlet is avoiding choice; the avoidance of choice is not a choice.

As for avoiding to choose, it is also a choice: the choice not to decide on an issue.

As for Scarlett, she always knew what she wanted and acted accordingly.

By her frequently used phrase "Tomorrow is another day" she conveyed that, in her personal hierarchy of values, the issue in question was not important enough to deserve real consideration on her part.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Do you claim that morality is subjective? On a law enforcement board I visit there is a discussion of an 8-year old girl in Afghanistan who was used to carry a bomb. How many votes make that moral? If it is immoral - and I believe it is - then it can never be ethical.

There exists a wide gamut of "moralities", like moralities of various religions, of different societies, etc.

I personally avoid using the term "morality" when it comes to my own code of ethical values: I feel too uncomfortable with the term. For with "morality", I connote too strongly something like 'self-righteous moralizing' (the reason being that I was born into the Catholic religion and attended a morally rigid nun's school from ages 10 to 17).

A for the term "subjective" - using it can cause misunderstandings with Objectivists who interpret "subjective" as something exclusively negative, as Ayn Rand did when she wrote: "The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional". (Ayn Rand).

http://aynrandlexico...bjectivism.html

Morality addresses the issue of moral values.

Since Ayn Rand never attributed to the subjective a productive place in her philosophy, Objectivists tend to misinterpret the statement 'moral values are subjective'.

But subjective and objective are epistemological, not ethical categories.

Therefore the statement "moral values are subjective" merely acknowledges the fact that it is human individuals which attribute value to this or that. It says nothing about the nature of those values.

And if you read Rand's own elaborations on values, she herself stresses this point: "of value to whom and for what?" she states in TVOS, p. 16). Something becomes of value in respect to an individual's personal goal.

Value is defined as "that which one acts to gain or keep" (ibid). This acknowledges that values are the result of personal choice; it says nothing about what what kind of values these are.

In an ethics discussion, these choices are examined.

Instead of using the (unproductive imo) opposition of "subjective" vs "objective" in an ethics discussion, I work with the empathy principle (pathocentric ethics) in combination with the Golden Rule.

In medicine, where the fundamental principle is "primum nil nocere" (First, do no harm") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere

The principle of pathocentric ethics is 'First, don't cause suffering'.

In the example you mentioned above, where the 8-year-old girl was used to carry bombs this principle is violated. Those who use the child for this purpose show no empathy for the suffering of the child. Pathocentric ethics is on the side of the victims. It is the voice speaking up for the 'sacrificial animal' Rand mentioned so often in her work. It speaks up for those who, for a variety of reasons, can't speak for themselves; those who are imprisoned and tortured by dictatorial regimes or terrorist groups. A few days ago, I watched a truly nightmarish TV special about the abduction (and six-year long captivity) of Ingrid Betancourt by Columbian FARC guerrilleros. The atrocities commited by individuals against their fellow human beings are indescribable.

But despite all that, what can be observed is a constant movement in ethics toward more empathy with the victims. For past times were even more cruel in that respect. Who for example cared about the gladiators' and slaves' dignity of life in Ancient Rome?

Also interesting to note: once a certain stage of ethical (pathocentric) awareness has been reached, there is no going back. That is, we won't suddenly think of introducing slavery again. Ethical awareness sems to evolve as we evolve.

A mere survival ethics which positions life as the highest value is not enough. For humans can survive under all kinds of conditions. It is the quality of the life which counts, and to avoid suffering wherever possible is an integral part of the quality of life.

On the other hand, moral actions may be unethical. For instance, we have a case here where a master's candidate in counseling refused to counsel gays. As a Christian, she excused herself. She did not counsel them against their lifestyle, she merely withdrew. She was expelled from her academic program. She sued. Her action was moral, but not ethical, because she joined a program whose code of ethics mandates that she counsel the clients who come to her without prejudice.

This is a case where a person's own moral code clashed with an ethical code differing from her own. This got the person in a moral conflict that she resolved by positioning her own moral code as the higher value. The other party could claim breach of contract because joining the program implied working without moral prejudice.

What was the outcome of the lawsuit?

Edited July 2, 2011 by Xray

[syrakusos]

Thanks for your reply. It is a problem knowing where along the Objectivist/Objectivism axes we place each other. I agree with you that objective-subjective are epistemological terms. They also have ethical meanings because of that. I do not believe that every subjective perception is wrong; neither is every subjective choice. My wife and I often label colors differently - not the primaries, but the commercial creations such as Caribbean blue and desert rose; sometimes though blue and green when something bluish is greenish. She loves going to restaurants; I tolerate them at best. Subjective values are not necessarily evil.

I had two classes in ethics, one in college, the other at university; and, basically, using any of the proposed theories, you can justify whatever you want. In Atlas, John Galt would have killed himself rather than let Dagny become a prisoner of the State. In The Fountainhead, Roark says that we are approaching the kind of world in which he cannot permit himself to live. Superficially self-sacrificial, those were intended as statements of objective value. Absolutism, formalism, objectivism, subjectivism. consequentialism, deontology, feminism, empathy, relativism, are all broad avenues, so wide that you can make your way against the flow or across it.

Take empathy. You claim that the Taliban murderers who made an 8-year old girl carry their bomb lacked empathy for her. Perhaps they suffered greatly. You do not know one way or the other. Perhaps they weighed the suffering and felt that it was better that one child should die quickly and painlessly than that others should suffer more and longer under the heel of the infidels. Taking out the police checkpoint was the better choice. An Objectivist could have her carry out such an attack by being sure that she understood the consequences, believed in the cause, and rationally chose to refuse to live under a military occupation by mystics and collectivists. Those Objectivists would be the ones pointing to Ayn Rand's claim that the decision to launch a nuclear strike against the USSR should not be influenced by the presence there of some "non-communist blobs." They would nuke Teheran on the theory that the innocent victims are the victims not of their action but of the evil government targeted by their weapon. If one man holds another hostage while committing a crime, and the police kill the hostage, that death was morally attributed to the man, not to the police.

If you were the incident commander for that bank robbery gone bad, your empathy would demand that you work to find the outcome that rescues the hostage and brings the perpetrator to trial. (Mine would as well.) To me, it is objective ethics that frames my thinking. Perhaps Immanuel Kant would come to the same conclusion for different reasons. Even if this were in the USSR - supposedly a brutal police state - we could want to avoid damage to the building which belongs to the people, rescue the hostage, as all workers are valuable, and still bring this poor deluded perpetrator to a sanitarium to be cured and returned to productive labor. Philosophically, we could talk of the thesis of the robbery the antithesis of our response and the synthesis of a good outcome for all.

So, I can see a lot of sides at once.

That said, I choose to frame my life with objectivism because it offers the best tool set for solving the most problems with the best outcomes. But that is a methodology of rational-empiricism, not an alphabetized list of quotations from a dozen books by the same author.

Take the bank robbery gone bad. Empathy could say to let the robber go. Take the money. Release the hostage. We promise not to shoot. Just walk out and walk away. No one gets hurt. The bank is insured. The money is replaceable. No harm, no foul.

But wait a minute... What would be the consequence of that? Do you have no empathy for the people who will be harmed now that kidnapping is the road to wealth?

What if the perpetrator is irrational - as how rational could he be in the first place? - and the negotiations are not going well? How does the incident commander on the scene make the right choices?

Even with a small-o, objectivism is rational-empiricism, the scientific method, the best formalized method for making decisions. Capital-O Objectivism has much to commend it, but, is only a subset of small-o objectivism.

About the Christian woman who refused to counsel gays --

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday's ruling, according to Julea Ward's attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views

"Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality," By Todd Starnes, Published July 28, 2010: FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/#ixzz1QxATOvdk

I believe that the school was wrong. The root of the problem was in how it was framed. The student claimed a religious exception. The school could not allow that. But if she had only said, "I do not feel competent in this matter," the program would have had to acquiesce. The code of ethics for counselors runs 18 pages and only outlines the ways to consider problems. Broadly speaking, for these people, there are no absolutes: their profession is rooted in relativistic humanitarianism. They want to help everyone with everything without being judgmental. This is a typical class exercise: If a 14-year old girl came to you and said that she wants to commit suicide, what do you do? Do you counsel her as an adult? Do you notify her parents? Do you alert the authorities? Do you call for a doctor? There is no way to know. Every case is different. And if you cannot handle this - and you might not - you can call in someone else who can. And that is all that Julea Ward asked. The school refused. Again, they could not allow her to use religion as a reason for absenting herself; and they could not allow anyone to distance themselves from gays. LGBT is politically huge at EMU. But there are many issues in life that any counselor can admit to incompetence with. That, too, is part of the professionalism.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[BaalChatzaf]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

arrrrghhh! avast there matey. Of course it would be alright until you got blown out of the water. Do you think one pirate ship, even captained by a smart pirate could stand up to a squadron of destroyers or aircraft from a nearby carrier?

If the Kreigesmarine which was run by very smart Germans could not survive. And before the Kreigesmarine was wiped out it sunk millions of tons of allied shipping, including warships. One pirate, no matter how smart can not survive out there unless he was using Galt's machine to make an invisibility cloak.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 2, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

News Flash............................see headline below..........

ATLAS SHRUGGED WAS FICTION!

[Xray]

Angela,

Do you believe the ethical evolvement towards empathy had everything to do with the relaxing of certain stupid 'mores' and prejudices?

Tony,

I think it runs deeper than that. Take the abolition of slavery for example. Slavery is more than "stupid mores and silly prejudices" - it is a merciless exploitation of human beings by their fellow men.

You do know that they can easily be dismissed by rational morality, don't you?

If it is only about 'stupid mores and prejudices', rational arguments against them are justified, no question. Rationality covers lot of grund in ethics, no question.

But when it comes to atrocities, refuting them on rational grounds only is not enough.

But you contradict yourself. Somewhere else you stated that the world is in a mess; here, that empathy will bring us out of it.

There is no contradiction. Reaching a future stage in ethical development is a process which takes a lot of time. One has to think in a large time frame here.

But imo the evolvement toward more empathy cannot be stopped. The signs are everywhere.

For example, more and more dicatorships are beginning to crumble because people protest against those power-hungy cliques robbing them of their freedom.

Have you not considered that you have the cause and effect reversed?

There are no indicators that empathy got the world into a mess. It is the lack of empathy which lies at the root of atrocities committed against human beings (and animals, bullfights are an example).

Instead of leaving this otherwise fine instinct to each person's volition, it has been forced on the world, by guilt where necessary.

One cannot enforce empathy.

An orgy of empathy (real, or faked) has got us in the mess.

You don't believe me? Visit South Africa, and see first-hand the progression of politically correct 'empathy', to 'human rights', to widespread 'entitlement', and to savagery. (Xenophobic killings, as one example.)

Xenophobic killings indicate that those who commit them have not yet reached a stage where they feel empathy for those not belonging to their group, their "tribe", etc. This is not surprising - for these countries have not historically gone through any Age of Enlightenment.

And after political oppression through dictatorships/authoritarian regimes has ceased, those old structures are still there.

Please understand, it is one thing to live in a wealthy European country with mixed economy, the checks and balances of State contra a powerful industry, a solid work ethic, with stoical, self-disciplined and reasonably self-responsible citizens ... and preach empathy. It probably makes one feel ever so moral.

I don't live in a cocoon, Tony. I'm confronted with these isues in my work all the time. For many of my pupils come from war zones or families who had to flee from their countries because they were persecuted.

It was actually the confrontation with persons from such different cultural, social and religious backgrounds which got me so interested in ethics: for I simply had to find a 'common denominator' as a basis for my professional ethics as a teacher of the young. That's why I know how well the Golden Rule works: because I use it all the time. I also know from experience that it is possible to develop the human capacity to feel empathy from a tender and delicate plant to a fuller bloom (instead of brutally crushing it as it is done in societies where e. g. 'hatred of the enemy' is hammered into the susceptible souls of children).

I'm far from seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, but then I never lose hope, and small steps are still steps toward a goal.

I'll address your comments about the disaster in Greece in a separate post.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Angela,

Do you believe the ethical evolvement towards empathy had everything to do with the relaxing of certain stupid 'mores' and prejudices?

Tony,

I think it runs deeper than that. Take the abolition of slavery for example. Slavery is more than "stupid mores and silly prejudices" - it is a merciless exploitation of human beings by their fellow men.

You do know that they can easily be dismissed by rational morality, don't you?

If it is only about 'stupid mores and prejudices', rational arguments against them are justified, no question. Rationality covers lot of grund in ethics, no question.

But when it comes to atrocities, refuting them on rational grounds only is not enough.

But you contradict yourself. Somewhere else you stated that the world is in a mess; here, that empathy will bring us out of it.

There is no contradiction. Reaching a future stage in ethical development is a process which takes a lot of time. One has to think in a large time frame here.

But imo the evolvement toward more empathy cannot be stopped. The signs are everywhere.

For example, more and more dicatorships are beginning to crumble because people protest against those power-hungy cliques robbing them of their freedom.

Have you not considered that you have the cause and effect reversed?

There are no indicators that empathy got the world into a mess. It is the lack of empathy which lies at the root of atrocities committed against human beings (and animals, bullfights are an example).

Instead of leaving this otherwise fine instinct to each person's volition, it has been forced on the world, by guilt where necessary.

One cannot enforce empathy.

An orgy of empathy (real, or faked) has got us in the mess.

You don't believe me? Visit South Africa, and see first-hand the progression of politically correct 'empathy', to 'human rights', to widespread 'entitlement', and to savagery. (Xenophobic killings, as one example.)

Xenophobic killings indicate that those who commit them have not yet reached a stage where they feel empathy for those not belonging to their group, their "tribe", etc. This is not surprising - for these countries have not historically gone through any Age of Enlightenment.

And after political oppression through dictatorships/authoritarian regimes has ceased, those old structures are still there.

Please understand, it is one thing to live in a wealthy European country with mixed economy, the checks and balances of State contra a powerful industry, a solid work ethic, with stoical, self-disciplined and reasonably self-responsible citizens ... and preach empathy. It probably makes one feel ever so moral.

I don't live in a cocoon, Tony. I'm confronted with these isues in my work all the time. For many of my pupils come from war zones or families who had to flee from their countries because they were persecuted.

It was actually the confrontation with persons from such different cultural, social and religious backgrounds which got me so interested in ethics: for I simply had to find a 'common denominator' as a basis for my professional ethics as a teacher of the young. That's why I know how well the Golden Rule works: because I use it all the time. I also know from experience that it is possible to develop the human capacity to feel empathy from a tender and delicate plant to a fuller bloom (instead of brutally crushing it as it is done in societies where e. g. 'hatred of the enemy' is hammered into the susceptible souls of children).

I'm far from seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, but then I never lose hope, and small steps are still steps toward a goal.

I'll address your comments about the disaster in Greece in a separate post.

Angela,

OK, I believe that you are sincere. There are some who preach compassion and empathy expecting to be only the recipient of others' empathy, and never the giver. I'm sure you've known such people.

I definitely don't agree with you that ethics is a collective effort that grows with time; morality begins and ends with each individual. History shows that we are not necessarily getting better. What I think you are referring to is the general zeitgeist in a narrow time and place. Are you certain we have seen the last of slavery?

Anyhow, this is an interesting topic on its own.

Getting back to empathy/compassion: what's the big deal?

Surely it's self-evident that we all (short of sociopaths) possess it, to a greater or lesser degree?

i.e., it is 'natural'. It's also 'natural' that Man has two legs.

(I certainly appreciate and value empathy, for it is one way - not the only, or most important - I stay grounded in humanity. My metaphorical legs.)

If one starts with the definition of Man as "rational animal" - I think, the perfect definition - it all falls into place.

One may then view Man as a hierarchical being, or a 'continuum' as I like to see it, containing all elements from his animal physicality, to his tribal past, to his psychology and self-consciousness, and his reasoning mind.

All of which are knowable by observation and introspection, and all ideally non-contradictory.

Somewhere along the continuum's axis lies empathy - but so then does bigotry, for example.

(Could they have evolved together, for the same utility, which was protection of and identification with our ancestral tribal family? I wouldn't know, but it seems likely.)

The point I'm trying to make is the impossibility (essentially the immorality, Objectively speaking) of creating a virtue from a natural instinct. Ad absurdum, one may as well turn bigotry into a virtue. How do you discern the difference? How does one separate, reduce the one, elevate the other? To do so would involve the rational, goal-directed mind. I maintain that both instincts - if practised as doctrines - hold other people as the standard of one's life; despite that one is vaguely and unreliably benevolent, and the other fearful and hatefully malevolent.

Comparably - deliberate, rationally-developed benevolence is a sustainable and dependable, true, virtue.

Tony

[Xray]

Angela,

OK, I believe that you are sincere. There are some who preach compassion and empathy expecting to be only the recipient of others' empathy, and never the giver. I'm sure you've known such people.

Sure I have, Tony. They are those who, should one ever get the idea to ask them for help at some time, decline. Those chronic "takers" are almost always emotionally immature individuals who deplete one's energy.

If there is no harmonious balance between giving and taking, problems will arise.

The recent disaster in Greece is a drastic example. The Damocles sword of state bankruptcy has finally come down.

But greed coupled with financial irresponsibility is by no means limited to incompetent governments.

Often, the state steps in for damage control if huge firms are careening toward bankruptcy, with thousands of employees in danger of losing their jobs.

I definitely don't agree with you that ethics is a collective effort that grows with time; morality begins and ends with each individual.

I don't think the tendency toward more empathy is the result of a "collective effort" actually. It is more the result of a socio-cultural evolvement many individuals have gone through.

History shows that we are not necessarily getting better.

We are getting more aware of the suffering of others, I think. Just imagine how incredibly callous the people in Ancient Rome were to those who were thrown to the lions in the arena.

What I think you are referring to is the general zeitgeist in a narrow time and place. Are you certain we have seen the last of slavery?

Yes. At least in modern civilized countries.

I can't imagine anyone in these countries suddenly getting the idea of introducing slavery again.

Anyhow, this is an interesting topic on its own.

Yes it is. For it is about human ethical evolvement.

If one starts with the definition of Man as "rational animal" - I think, the perfect definition - it all falls into place.

One may then view Man as a hierarchical being, or a 'continuum' as I like to see it, containing all elements from his animal physicality, to his tribal past, to his psychology and self-consciousness, and his reasoning mind.

All of which are knowable by observation and introspection, and all ideally non-contradictory.

Somewhere along the continuum's axis lies empathy - but so then does bigotry, for example.

(Could they have evolved together, for the same utility, which was protection of and identification with our ancestral tribal family? I wouldn't know, but it seems likely.)

These excellent points you have raised show the complexity of the issue.

For to pretend that certain impulses (like e.g. tribal thinking) don't exist would produce a false picture of man's psycho-biological make-up, and an ethics based on false premises cannot work.

The point I'm trying to make is the impossibility (essentially the immorality, Objectively speaking) of creating a virtue from a natural instinct.

I completely agree with you here. Natural instincts are 'ethically neutral', so to speak. They simply exist to ensure an organism's survival and procreation.

Which is why imo an ethics based solely on man's need for survival is not enough.

Ad absurdum, one may as well turn bigotry into a virtue. How do you discern the difference? How does one separate, reduce the one, elevate the other? To do so would involve the rational, goal-directed mind. I maintain that both instincts - if practised as doctrines - hold other people as the standard of one's life; despite that one is vaguely and unreliably benevolent, and the other fearful and hatefully malevolent.

Good points. I'm reluctant though to use the term "virtue" and "vice" in an ethics discussion. I know this sounds paradoxical, but I always have the impulse to 'get rid' of those terms (blame it on my religious socialization; 'virtue' and 'vice' are connotatively very loaded in my mind).

But then I don't know which other terms could replace them ...

Edited July 4, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Xray has ever been to an American football game and she actually thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.

--Brant

[Xray]

I don't think Xray has ever been to an American football game and she actually thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.

--Brant

Is it that bad?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

I don't think Xray has ever been to an American football game and she actually thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.

--Brant

Is it that bad?

Blood and gore, mortal combat and the roar of the plebeian crowd. And the victorious gladiators collect fat purses.

In case this sounds superior, I'm a rugby fan.

(But what's with all the ad breaks?)

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't think Xray has ever been to an American football game and she actually thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.

--Brant

Is it that bad?

Blood and gore, mortal combat and the roar of the plebeian crowd. And the victorious gladiators collect fat purses.

In case this sounds superior, I'm a rugby fan.

(But what's with all the ad breaks?)

It is said that soccer is a game invented by gentlemen and played by hoodlums. Rugby is a game invented by hoodlums and played by gentlemen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Angela,

I just don't know. That we have differing premises is an understatement. B)

At the very least, did I make my point that adhering to a rationally selfish morality does not preclude having empathy? Or acting upon it?

Look, I think this was a sense of life choice that was made in each person as sub-consciously, as it was also conscious: do I accept other people as the measure of my ethics, or do I develop objective, individualist, standards?

Especially and moreso, when Man's inhumanity to men is doubtless the result of subjective, tribal and partial standards? There's Objectivist compassion for you.

To aim to be 'righteous', or to aim to be 'right', that is the question.

Tony

Edited July 5, 2011 by whYNOT

[Xray]

Angela,

I just don't know. That we have differing premises is an understatement. B)

That's right. B)

But then an exchange about differing premises can also be quite productive.

At the very least, did I make my point that adhering to a rationally selfish morality does not preclude having empathy? Or acting upon it?

You definitely made your point, Tony. Meanwhile I must say that I like the term 'rational selfishness' better than I did before.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Xray has ever been to an American football game and she actually thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.

--Brant

Is it that bad?

Blood and gore, mortal combat and the roar of the plebeian crowd. And the victorious gladiators collect fat purses.

In case this sounds superior, I'm a rugby fan.

(But what's with all the ad breaks?)

It is said that soccer is a game invented by gentlemen and played by hoodlums. Rugby is a game invented by hoodlums and played by gentlemen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'll take Australian football.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I don't think Xray has ever been to an American football game and she actually thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.

--Brant

Is it that bad?

Blood and gore, mortal combat and the roar of the plebeian crowd. And the victorious gladiators collect fat purses.

In case this sounds superior, I'm a rugby fan.

(But what's with all the ad breaks?)

It is said that soccer is a game invented by gentlemen and played by hoodlums. Rugby is a game invented by hoodlums and played by gentlemen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'll take Australian football.

--Brant

Try it on skates, gentlemen and hoodlums both. Then you'll have a game.

[CSpeciale]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Not yet. I just finished reading The Fountainhead today. I thought the Objectivist philosophy was interesting so I decided to find an online forums to see how the "followers" act.

Anyway, from what I learned, that if you want an Objectivist's point of view on your question, then your answer should go along the lines of: Think for yourself.

It appears you're looking for the approval or consent of your fellow objectivists. I thought the philosophy was based on the idea that you do what YOU want. I mean... if you DID want the opinion of others just so you could see what they thought, then I guess that doesn't necessarily contradict the concept. But if you were to base your decision off the thoughts of these people... then you're in the wrong forum. Go hang out with the altruists.

[Selene]

Think for yourself.

I thought the philosophy was based on the idea that you do what YOU want.

Christopher:

Welcome to OL.

Of the two thoughts that you voiced, one is certainly in line with the Objectivist philosophy as enunciated by it's founder Ayn.

The second is certainly not.

Adam

[CSpeciale]

Think for yourself.

I thought the philosophy was based on the idea that you do what YOU want.

Christopher:

Welcome to OL.

Of the two thoughts that you voiced, one is certainly in line with the Objectivist philosophy as enunciated by it's founder Ayn.

The second is certainly not.

Adam

Thank you for the welcoming. Care to elaborate for me on my second thought? Or should I just read Atlas Shrugged and answer the question myself, do you think? ;D

[Selene]

Think for yourself.

I thought the philosophy was based on the idea that you do what YOU want.

Christopher:

Welcome to OL.

Of the two thoughts that you voiced, one is certainly in line with the Objectivist philosophy as enunciated by it's founder Ayn.

The second is certainly not.

Adam

Thank you for the welcoming. Care to elaborate for me on my second thought? Or should I just read Atlas Shrugged and answer the question myself, do you think? ;D

Lol. No, I would never make providing my opinion as conditional on a person reading Atlas. Ayn would certainly deny that her philosophy would condone "doing what you want," if, for example, you wanted to initiate force and take her property.

Are you a student? Working slave for the state? Entrepreneur?

Also, you should be aware that OL is not a "rigid," tow the Objectivist line forum. Many here are not Objectivists, but most treasure what Ayn created in terms of concepts and thought.

Adam

[caroljane]

Also, you should be aware that OL is not a "rigid," tow the Objectivist line....

Adam

Adam, dear friend, I can't take this one anymore, it is not just you but many others and obviously a common encroachment on common English spelling, and everyone knows English spelling is crazy anyway, but even so --

It's "toe" the line, not tow it.

Sorry!

Carol

[Selene]

Also, you should be aware that OL is not a "rigid," tow the Objectivist line....

Adam

Adam, dear friend, I can't take this one anymore, it is not just you but many others and obviously a common encroachment on common English spelling, and everyone knows English spelling is crazy anyway, but even so --

It's "toe" the line, not tow it.

Sorry!

Carol

ouch you are quite correct!

"Toe the Line," NOT "Tow the Line"

by Tina Blue

August 14, 2003

I saw it again today, this time in a comment on an article on a political website. It referred to reporters who mindlessly "tow the administration's line."

Um, that should be "toe the line."

A lot of people who don't know the origin of the phrase picture someone pulling a rope, cord, or some other "line"--"tow the line"--as a way of working for whomever the "line" belongs to. Thus, if the administration has a "line"--i.e., a "party line"--then those who side with the administration help to pull it ("tow" it) along.

Wrong.

The phrase "toe the line" is equivalent to "toe the mark," both of which mean to conform to a rule or a standard. The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002; ed. by Glynnis Chantrell) says, "The idiom toe the line from an athletics analogy originated in the early 19th century" (514).

The specific sport referred to is foot-racing, where the competitors must keep their feet behind a "line" or on a "mark" at the start of the race--as in "On your mark, get set, go!"

So one who "toes the line" is one who does not allow his foot to stray over the line. In other words, one who does not stray beyond a rigidly defined boundary.

[CSpeciale]

Lol. No, I would never make providing my opinion as conditional on a person reading Atlas. Ayn would certainly deny that her philosophy would condone "doing what you want," if, for example, you wanted to initiate force and take her property.

Are you a student? Working slave for the state? Entrepreneur?

Also, you should be aware that OL is not a "rigid," tow the Objectivist line forum. Many here are not Objectivists, but most treasure what Ayn created in terms of concepts and thought.

Adam

I understand.

I'm an upcoming-senior into high school, and the only actual work I do besides my own personal novel-writing is the back line of Mcdonalds.

[Selene]

Carol:

This clearly qualifies you for the annual Jeff Riggenbach Award for the Anti Phil Coates Memorial Schoolmarm Correction of Grammar trophy!

[caroljane]

Also, you should be aware that OL is not a "rigid," tow the Objectivist line....

Adam

Adam, dear friend, I can't take this one anymore, it is not just you but many others and obviously a common encroachment on common English spelling, and everyone knows English spelling is crazy anyway, but even so --

It's "toe" the line, not tow it.

Sorry!

Carol

ouch you are quite correct!

"Toe the Line," NOT "Tow the Line"

by Tina Blue

August 14, 2003

I saw it again today, this time in a comment on an article on a political website. It referred to reporters who mindlessly "tow the administration's line."

Um, that should be "toe the line."

A lot of people who don't know the origin of the phrase picture someone pulling a rope, cord, or some other "line"--"tow the line"--as a way of working for whomever the "line" belongs to. Thus, if the administration has a "line"--i.e., a "party line"--then those who side with the administration help to pull it ("tow" it) along.

Wrong.

The phrase "toe the line" is equivalent to "toe the mark," both of which mean to conform to a rule or a standard. The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002; ed. by Glynnis Chantrell) says, "The idiom toe the line from an athletics analogy originated in the early 19th century" (514).

The specific sport referred to is foot-racing, where the competitors must keep their feet behind a "line" or on a "mark" at the start of the race--as in "On your mark, get set, go!"

So one who "toes the line" is one who does not allow his foot to stray over the line. In other words, one who does not stray beyond a rigidly defined boundary.

Snap. I just posted this not especially about spelling, but because here the meaning of the metaphor is changed,: "toe the line" is "keep your nose clean"; Tow the line is, "Tote dat bale."