nastiness abounds

[sjw]

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

So the moral isn't the practical?

Shayne

so much for Ayn Rand?

Shayne:

What it isn't, "the moral," is a magic wand that makes the practical automatically clear as the best path.

Adam

A is A.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

So the moral isn't the practical?

Shayne

so much for Ayn Rand?

Maybe I should keep my humor and seriousness separate--not mix them up. It's not an argument for limited government, of course. But my first sentence is quite true.

--Brant

[anthony]

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

So the moral isn't the practical?

Shayne

so much for Ayn Rand?

Shayne:

What it isn't, "the moral," is a magic wand that makes the practical automatically clear as the best path.

Adam

Adam,

I notice now your listed interest/talent in poetry. This is nicely put. I assume 'moral/practical' is meant in the affirmative(?)

Shayne,

Back to 'Civilisation':

(Man free from men.)

That other poet, AR, put it like this, as you know:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

If one gives her a pass on that(imo) over-used "savages", and focuses on "privacy", and "setting man free from men", this definition and explication is hard to top. All elements are implicitly united in it - rational egoism, individual rights and minimal government (and voluntarism).

By this definition, civilization is in a sorry state in a world where you are everybody's business, as they are your's.

Our material welfare, our spiritual welfare, are becoming more and more public. Coercion - not only to come to the material aid of people you don't know, and aren't interested in knowing - but also to CARE about them, is what many people I've seen consider the height of 'civilisation.' This is not merely the enforcement by State we are familiar with, but social enforcement by fellow humans.

Tony

[Selene]

To some extent rights' violations work like vaccinations against tyranny. Hence, the best governments' will still violate rights to some extent and piss people off to some extent but How About That As the Best Argument for MINARCHY?!!

--Brant

so much for anarchy

So the moral isn't the practical?

Shayne

so much for Ayn Rand?

Shayne:

What it isn't, "the moral," is a magic wand that makes the practical automatically clear as the best path.

Adam

Adam,

I notice now your listed interest/talent in poetry. This is nicely put. I assume 'moral/practical' is meant in the affirmative(?)

Shayne,

Back to 'Civilisation':

(Man free from men.)

That other poet, AR, put it like this, as you know:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

If one gives her a pass on that(imo) over-used "savages", and focuses on "privacy", and "setting man free from men", this definition and explication is hard to top. All elements are implicitly united in it - rational egoism, individual rights and minimal government (and voluntarism).

By this definition, civilization is in a sorry state in a world where you are everybody's business, as they are your's.

Our material welfare, our spiritual welfare, are becoming more and more public. Coercion - not only to come to the material aid of people you don't know, and aren't interested in knowing - but also to CARE about them, is what many people I've seen consider the height of 'civilisation.' This is not merely the enforcement by State we are familiar with, but social enforcement by fellow humans.

Tony

Tony:

Thanks. Yes it was meant in the affirmative, my point is that, historically, what is "considered practical by the culture at that time," is not necessarily moral.

As to Ayn's privacy standard, it makes sense. Heinlein stated that when the state passes laws to protect privacy, you know that you have no privacy at all.

This is now available and there is no privacy anymore. When the networking computers are truly networked to every security camera, street camera, and personal phone, etc. it will truly be over as far as privacy is concerned:

How to Enable Iris Retina Eye Scan And Facial Recognition with BioLock App On Android Smartphones

How to Enable Iris Retina Eye Scan And Facial Recognition with BioLock App On HTC, Nexus One, Motorla, Android Smartphones

. Smartphones are one of the latest technology breakthrough that been introduced to us. Nowadays smartphones are so common that have become one of the must have important personal digital companion in consumer space. However, there are still security concern related to loss or stolen confidential data resided in the mobile device. If you are Android users, the recently announced BioLock apps with biometric recognition feature could be your great solution to prevent loss or stolen confidential data.

source here

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne,

Back to 'Civilisation':

(Man free from men.)

That other poet, AR, put it like this, as you know:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

If one gives her a pass on that(imo) over-used "savages", and focuses on "privacy", and "setting man free from men", this definition and explication is hard to top. All elements are implicitly united in it - rational egoism, individual rights and minimal government (and voluntarism).

By this definition, civilization is in a sorry state in a world where you are everybody's business, as they are your's.

Our material welfare, our spiritual welfare, are becoming more and more public. Coercion - not only to come to the material aid of people you don't know, and aren't interested in knowing - but also to CARE about them, is what many people I've seen consider the height of 'civilisation.' This is not merely the enforcement by State we are familiar with, but social enforcement by fellow humans.

Tony

Rand was focused a bit too much here on her ethic of egoism so I think she didn't quite hit the mark. I agree with the "man free from man" part, but that's more precisely put as "man doesn't violate his fellow man's individual rights." The deepest cause of a proper civilization are individual rights in general being respected; there's nothing special about "privacy." If you take a bunch of humans, somehow institute a consistent respect for individual rights, all the other good things people associate with the term will naturally arise, including privacy where appropriate.

Shayne

[Xray]

So the moral isn't the practical?

Indeed it isn't. Basically, "moral" and "practical" exist independently from each other.

While in some cases there can be a connection (e. g. monogamy as a moral ideal is quite practical for a modern society), equating moral with practical in all cases would be fallacious.

Practical is about getting things done effectively; it says nothing about what one wants to achieve.

Since "practical" is a purely operational term, imo it does not make much sense using it in an ethics discussion.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

If your society tends to establish the systematic protection of individual rights, then you are building a proper civilization; if your society tends to establish the systematic violation of individual rights, then what you are building is a human farm. In today's societies, we do both to some degree. It doesn't matter nearly as much whether you believe we have more of one or more of the other, what matters is that you always fight for the first and against the second. (Objectivists don't do this because they support all of Ayn Rand's ideas, including her wrong ones e.g. on patents).

Shayne

[sjw]

So the moral isn't the practical?

Indeed it isn't. Basically, "moral" and "practical" exist independently from each other.

Give me an example of a "practical" action that is immoral and I will give you an example of where you're haven't a clue what Ayn Rand meant by one or the other or both terms.

Shayne

[Xray]

So the moral isn't the practical?

Indeed it isn't. Basically, "moral" and "practical" exist independently from each other.

Give me an example of a "practical" action that is immoral and I will give you an example of where you're haven't a clue what Ayn Rand meant by one or the other or both terms.

Just a few examples out of many:

It is practical but immoral for a bank robber to open the safe with a suitable tool.

It was practical but immoral for the Old Romans to keep the masses entertained in the circenses by gory spectacles.

It is practical but immoral for big companies to make huge profits from child labor.

My position is that "practical" is a purely operational, not a moral term.

Let's see whether what Ayn Rand said about practical can poke a hole in it.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

There exist plenty. E. g. it is practical but immoral for a bank robber to open the safe with a suitable tool.

It's not immoral for a bank robber to take the actions that constitute robbing a bank?

Shayne

[anthony]

Rand was focused a bit too much here on her ethic of egoism so I think she didn't quite hit the mark. I agree with the "man free from man" part, but that's more precisely put as "man doesn't violate his fellow man's individual rights." The deepest cause of a proper civilization are individual rights in general being respected; there's nothing special about "privacy." If you take a bunch of humans, somehow institute a consistent respect for individual rights, all the other good things people associate with the term will naturally arise, including privacy where appropriate.

Shayne

It's extremely odd to me that you should give individual rights their due emphasis, and at the same time downplay "her ethic of egoism". You've got the cart before the horse, I think.

Egoism is fundamental.

That could be why privacy is nothing special for you.

But then I've never believed 'privacy' in Rand's sense to only mean the physical. It is possible to get stuck on 'rights' to the detriment of rational egoism.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

So the moral isn't the practical?

Indeed it isn't. Basically, "moral" and "practical" exist independently from each other.

While in some cases there can be a connection (e. g. monogamy as a moral ideal is quite practical for a modern society), equating moral with practical in all cases would be fallacious.

Practical is about getting things done effectively; it says nothing about what one wants to achieve.

Since "practical" is a purely operational term, imo it does not make much sense using it in an ethics discussion.

All you are saying is the two words have different meanings. You are thus making the same mistake Rand did but on the other side of the coin. It's dogmatic. The inter-relationship between moral and practical is complex but is in one sense reducible to doing the best and right thing. The simplicity of a phony morality of selfishness bifurcates a real human being from his social needs. The actual morality of rational self-interest does not, but can be elaborated on many different ways. Metaphorically it can be practical to rob a bank even if you shoot yourself in the foot and have to hobble to your getaway vehicle of choice. You now have more money but you are paying a price on several levels, some of which you may not be aware of. In stir for ten years you'll have a lot of time to figure out how it really wasn't moral and practical if you can come with the necessary intellectual energy.

--Brant

[sjw]

It's extremely odd to me that you should give individual rights their due emphasis, and at the same time downplay "her ethic of egoism". You've got the cart before the horse, I think.

Egoism is fundamental.

That could be why privacy is nothing special for you.

But then I've never believed 'privacy' in Rand's sense to only mean the physical. It is possible to get stuck on 'rights' to the detriment of rational egoism.

Tony

I didn't say privacy was "nothing special"; I say that individual rights are the proper fundamental here. "Privacy" is merely a derivative of various fundamental rights. E.g., property rights keep people out of your home.

In a certain very narrow sense egoism is implicit in rights (the prerogative of an individual to take any action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same puts the individual at the center), but the full morality of egoism is superfluous to rights and therefore harmful to bring forward in their defense. A Christian can embrace rights fully and consistently, while not actually being a true egoist. It is detrimental to waste energy insisting about egoism when the "low hanging fruit" here is to unify around individual rights.

Shayne

[Xray]

There exist plenty. E. g. it is practical but immoral for a bank robber to open the safe with a suitable tool.

It's not immoral for a bank robber to take the actions that constitute robbing a bank?

The example was not about the bank robber's (immoral) decision to rob a bank and the deed as such, it was about the practical (= operational) value of the tool used.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

There exist plenty. E. g. it is practical but immoral for a bank robber to open the safe with a suitable tool.

It's not immoral for a bank robber to take the actions that constitute robbing a bank?

The example was not about the bank robber's (immoral) decision to rob a bank and the deed as such, it was about the practical (= operational) value of the tool used.

So you're arbitrarily changing the sense of the word "practical" here and declaring it to be so. It's a waste of time to argue with you, go read Rand, this time with the attitude of a grownup instead of a teenager who likes to quibble and argue for the sake of quibbling and arguing.

Shayne

[Xray]

There exist plenty. E. g. it is practical but immoral for a bank robber to open the safe with a suitable tool.

It's not immoral for a bank robber to take the actions that constitute robbing a bank?

The example was not about the bank robber's (immoral) decision to rob a bank and the deed as such, it was about the practical (= operational) value of the tool used.

So you're arbitrarily changing the sense of the word "practical" here and declaring it to be so. It's a waste of time to argue with you, go read Rand, this time with the attitude of a grownup instead of a teenager who likes to quibble and argue for the sake of quibbling and arguing.

Shayne

No cop-out, please. Your "Go read Rand" is no argument.

Instead, let's stick to specifics.

You had written: "Give me an example of a "practical" action that is immoral and I will give you an example of where you're haven't a clue what Ayn Rand meant by one or the other or both terms." (sjw)

As I said before, my postition is that the term practical is of purely operational, not of moral value, and all examples provided by me are consistent with my premise.

And as I also said in response to one of your posts: "Let's see whether what Ayn Rand said about practical can poke a hole in it."

Your turn.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

It's extremely odd to me that you should give individual rights their due emphasis, and at the same time downplay "her ethic of egoism". You've got the cart before the horse, I think.

Egoism is fundamental.

That could be why privacy is nothing special for you.

But then I've never believed 'privacy' in Rand's sense to only mean the physical. It is possible to get stuck on 'rights' to the detriment of rational egoism.

Tony

I didn't say privacy was "nothing special"; I say that individual rights are the proper fundamental here. "Privacy" is merely a derivative of various fundamental rights. E.g., property rights keep people out of your home.

In a certain very narrow sense egoism is implicit in rights (the prerogative of an individual to take any action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same puts the individual at the center), but the full morality of egoism is superfluous to rights and therefore harmful to bring forward in their defense. A Christian can embrace rights fully and consistently, while not actually being a true egoist. It is detrimental to waste energy insisting about egoism when the "low hanging fruit" here is to unify around individual rights.

Shayne

I'd happily take that - ie, individual rights as a floating abstraction, unsupported by morality - in the absence of anything better. To do so would be consequentialist,or pragmatic, though.

However, for rights to "stick" in the long run (practically) there would have to be more. Aren't you arguing against the moral and the practical dichotomy on this same thread.

Look at it this way: if everyone lived as Aristotle ("I have gained this from philosophy, that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law") we, Christians, atheists, libertarians or whoever, would have not the slightest need of individual rights.

They'd be superfluous.

(I am referring exclusively to 'men to men', and assuming for now that government would not pose a threat.)

In such a society, every individual would behave responsibly and rationally, always aware of the limitations upon their actions - without "fear of the law."

OK, it is idealistic, but it is worth aiming for.

Rather than "a very narrow sense [where] egoism is implicit in rights" egoism is the over-riding precursor to individual rights.

Tony

[anthony]

{double post}

Edited August 1, 2011 by whYNOT

[sjw]

I'd happily take that - ie, individual rights as a floating abstraction, unsupported by morality

Stop being presumptuous. I never said morality was irrelevant. Of course it is relevant -- we have to agree that we OUGHT not violate rights before they can be respected. The point is that the whole of morality is not relevant to a discussion of rights. We need only a narrow aspect of Rand's egoism, which is not itself properly called "egoism" in the first place and that Rand did not create and that is a common-denominator that can underlie other moral views.

Of course, you're probably not going to be able to properly grasp what I'm saying, because if you did, you'd see how wrong Rand was and you'd not be Objectivist anymore.

Shayne

[sjw]

No cop-out, please. Your "Go read Rand" is no argument.

I'm not inclined to restate what Rand already stated very well. What are you doing in this forum?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Most human action is based on choices and choices are based on the fact that because they are choices and thus free will is involved each choice is moral or immoral. Practicality is only one aspect of choosing albeit an important one, but its category is subsidiary to the general morality of life and living and choosing. What's the right thing to do? Why? How do I do it? What is the cost? Is the cost too high? Is there another practical alternative? Thus we can say the moral is the practical is rational. Or: It's moral to earn a living by trade, but I can't do it--it's not practical--because I robbed that bank, got arrested, convicted and am now in prison. Ergo: the moral is not the practical, for me.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

No cop-out, please. Your "Go read Rand" is no argument.

I'm not inclined to restate what Rand already stated very well. What are you doing in this forum?

Shayne

Traducing human nature.

--Brant

[anthony]

I'd happily take that - ie, individual rights as a floating abstraction, unsupported by morality

Stop being presumptuous. I never said morality was irrelevant. Of course it is relevant -- we have to agree that we OUGHT not violate rights before they can be respected. The point is that the whole of morality is not relevant to a discussion of rights. We need only a narrow aspect of Rand's egoism, which is not itself properly called "egoism" in the first place and that Rand did not create and that is a common-denominator that can underlie other moral views.

Of course, you're probably not going to be able to properly grasp what I'm saying, because if you did, you'd see how wrong Rand was and you'd not be Objectivist anymore.

Shayne

Nope. I'm well aware of what you wrote, and to quote you: "I say that individual rights are the proper fundamental here".

It seems you are shifting the degree of ethics/morality components with each post.

Egoism is not only relevant, it is major. Whoever "created" the word is irrelevant.

Contrary to your statement - each of us OUGHT to reason that due to his nature, and that of Man, he can only live as a rational egoist.

After which - and derived from it - it is right that he grants others the same respect, and therefore individual rights.

If not for my sake, as I couldn't grasp it anyway , but for the sake of those who can, go ahead and prove Rand wrong.

Tony

[sjw]

Nope. I'm well aware of what you wrote, and to quote you: "I say that individual rights are the proper fundamental here".

It seems you are shifting the degree of ethics/morality components with each post.

That was speaking to your statements about privacy (i.e. rights are fundamental privacy is derivative), not about morality. Go back and read the context and tell me who misread. I think you rather grossly dropped context, and then to add insult to injury, you accuse me of being inconsistent. I'm not all that motivate to educate someone like that...

Shayne

[Xray]

No cop-out, please. Your "Go read Rand" is no argument.

I'm not inclined to restate what Rand already stated very well. What are you doing in this forum?

Shayne

The fact that a philosopher states something about X doesn't necessarily mean that the philosopher is correct about X.

If you want, we can go into a detailed analysis of what Rand wrote about the moral-practical dichotomy and I'll demonstrate to you how confused her argumentation is.

But before going there, I'll again remind you of the burden of proof you have not met so far.

I asked you to demonstrate whether what Ayn Rand said about practical can poke a hole into my position which sees the term 'practical' as of purely operational value.

If you can't meet the burden of proof here, this is no surprise.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Xray