What objectivism truly is.


You are all Idiots!

Recommended Posts

Objectivism is basically You should not help someone unless it benefits you. According to your logic, Your parents should have abandoned you, as you were not beneficial to them. They lost resources to you, and yet you talk about benefitting yourself. Basically, it's all about me. ME ME ME ME.

For Everyone's sake, Just think a little bit about your "philosophy".(WITHOUT BIAS!)

objectivism_demotivator_by_party9999999-d37oj4i.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi, Jesus! Welcome. From your first name I am guessing you are from South or Central America. I've always wanted to visit there, travelling amongst the wonderful colourful people and spreading the Word of Truth.

Why didn't you come in on Meet and Greet? Tell us a little more about yourself.

Not sure what you mean by "you all". North America is pretty big, and I don't know about the rest of it. I just stay here where it is safe and we all agree with each other all the time and write fan letters to our fave ARI board members. But even here which is pretty small, there are four people who are not idiots. They don't post very much though. You'll probably never meet them.. they're a little scary actually.. all those brains... luckily we have Drs Piekoff and Hieh to think for us.. and now YOU!

Your photo is cute but you could maybe lose a little weight and you would be even cuter! Just a tip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again, hope you don't think I'm being forward...it's seldom that anybody as interesting as you comes to town. It is mostly guys here but I am a gal and so is my best friend who is a beautiful blonde. I am a fun brunette and we are both excited about meeting you.

We all fill out an Entry Survey here,, would you describe yourself as Loaded, Wealthy, Well Off, Comfortable, Employed, Poor, Broke or My Grandmother is Rolling in it and the Old Hag Can't Last Forever?

TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is basically You should not help someone unless it benefits you.

Ummmm... no. That's a very very short summary of one point Objectivism makes. But I don't think you understand what that point actually means, according to Objectivism. I'll get back to that later.

According to your logic, Your parents should have abandoned you, as you were not beneficial to them. They lost resources to you, and yet you talk about benefitting yourself.

"Benefit" in Objectivism means something far broader than, say, making money or acquiring resources. Yes, parents have to expend resources in having and raising children. But many parents would say they believe it was worth it! It gave them joy and psychological satisfaction. This is, objectively, a benefit! For those parents, the cost-benefit analysis was in favor of having a child!

Basically, it's all about me. ME ME ME ME.

"Me" is the ultimate end of Objectivist morality. It isn't the only relevant thing. Rand (and other egoists too, such as Benedict Spinoza and Aristotle) made the argument that the interests of others are part of your interests. Being a complete douchebag is not an effective business strategy in the long run. Going back to "having kids," a (proper) parent regards the interests of the child as part of their own interests.

You know, if you REALLY want to actually find out what Objectivism truly argues about benevolence, perhaps you should read Dr. David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence and actually study something before you make a shallow, sophomoric and frankly idiotic critique of a philosophical perspective you clearly don't have much understanding of.

Just think a little bit about your "philosophy".(WITHOUT BIAS!)

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Benefit" in Objectivism means something far broader than, say, making money or acquiring resources. Yes, parents have to expend resources in having and raising children. But many parents would say they believe it was worth it! It gave them joy and psychological satisfaction. This is, objectively, a benefit! For those parents, the cost-benefit analysis was in favor of having a child!

I think you're selectively invoking the praxeologically trivial case of 'benefit', and implicitly dismissing it in other cases.

If parents have children because it makes them 'feel better' and therefore this is a benefit, then the same logic must be applied to a perceived duty or more purely altruistic act. If the person actually had a choice, then they chose to do because it offers them some benefit (feeling better somehow) - however irrational that may seem to you . If you argue against this benefit, then you should also argue against the 'benefit' of children.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this guy riding some bandwagon with dust trailing explosively from spiked wagon wheels, driven by a... troll.

John, that video is spooky. At around 1:17, she mentions that good shook Japan by the shoulders (guessing this was from March timeframe?). That's some entrance for a benevolent diety to announce his presence by saying "I'm the one true god, and you're f'd!" And that she was near orgasmic at the thought that her prayers were answered in the form of a quake that killed thousands..!! Yeah, you can keep on walking down the street with your shit.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you argue against this benefit, then you should also argue against the 'benefit' of children.

I for one don't argue against this benefit.

To the degree that helping other is enjoyable for you, it's perfectly fine.

But then I think that has been said a thousand times already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, that video is spooky. At around 1:17, she mentions that good shook Japan by the shoulders (guessing this was from March timeframe?). That's some entrance for a benevolent diety to announce his presence by saying "I'm the one true god, and you're f'd!" And that she was near orgasmic at the thought that her prayers were answered in the form of a quake that killed thousands..!! Yeah, you can keep on walking down the street with your shit.

She's a conscious troll (and an atheist I believe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a conscious troll (and an atheist I believe).

Guess the joke's on me then... haha! If that's the case, she did a good job. I just looked at the embed, not any other things she might have posted to suggest she was trolling.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you argue against this benefit, then you should also argue against the 'benefit' of children.

I for one don't argue against this benefit.

To the degree that helping other is enjoyable for you, it's perfectly fine.

But then I think that has been said a thousand times already.

So therefore...

If you derive no enjoyment, the child starves. Anything else is Altruism. You don't see a problem with this?

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you derive no enjoyment, the child starves. Anything else is Altruism. You don't see a problem with this?

No. I don't live for someone else, not even if that means his death.

That would be stupid in your language and altruist in mine. Strange, I thought we settled this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you derive no enjoyment, the child starves. Anything else is Altruism. You don't see a problem with this?

No. I don't live for someone else, not even if that means his death.

That would be stupid in your language and altruist in mine. Strange, I thought we settled this...

Well not quite. In "my language", the refusal to help is an immoral choice, not a stupid or mistaken one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not quite. In "my language", the refusal to help is an immoral choice, not a stupid or mistaken one.

b) Your relative shows up and instead you give him your life savings and/or your own house. You have "committed" altruism, but have done the wrong thing.

Both your choices a) and b) qualify as help, yet b) is, according to you, wrong.

Why? Is there good help and bad help? Where's the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both your choices a) and b) qualify as help, yet b) is, according to you, wrong.

Why? Is there good help and bad help? Where's the difference?

Yes, that's a very good question. In my opinion that's THE critical question of this topic.

Like most drugs, the right amount saves your life while the wrong amount will kill you - same drug. Benefit is maximized somewhere in between.

Like profit, a company that sells it's product too cheaply will lose money, too expensive and not enough sales are generated and they will also lose money. Profit (benefit) is maximized somewhere in between.

Individual human achievment/happiness (benefit) is maximized somewhere between zero altruism (a) and complete (destructive) altruism (b).

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's a very good question. In my opinion that's THE critical question of this topic.

I couldn't agree more.

Individual human achievment/happiness (benefit) is maximized somewhere between zero altruism (a) and complete (destructive) altruism (b).

Two questions:

1. According to which standard/criteria should I choose the right amount?

2. Does it matter who benefits the altruism? Is a stranger as good as my child? If yes, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

As soon as you said you were 'altruistic' to those closest to you, I should have disengaged from this.

You've not learned, no, you refuse to learn, what "altruism" is - or egoism - or "value" - or romantic love - according to Objectivism. Those get brushed aside.

So you make your own private strawmen of o'ism, not seeing that your argument is the strawman.

In an argument in good faith, one should at least try for a moment to understand the other person's point of view, definitions, and so on. Then to see how consistent their position is, and whether it corresponds to facts - and only then compare with your own argument.

You show zero good faith, and refuse to accept the idea of rational value.

You like the idea of pain (sacrifice), when doing something for an esteemed one.

That shows everybody that your esteem is real, maybe. Including yourself.

I know what I want from someone who loves me, and it is her selfish choice of her value in me..

I would and I have stopped actions of duty for my benefit, if I've spotted them.

No hero - only an honest realist, who hates fakes.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

As soon as you said you were 'altruistic' to those closest to you, I should have disengaged from this.

You've not learned, no, you refuse to learn, what "altruism" is - or egoism - or "value" - or romantic love - according to Objectivism. Those get brushed aside.

So you make your own private strawmen of o'ism, not seeing that your argument is the strawman.

In an argument in good faith, one should at least try for a moment to understand the other person's point of view, definitions, and so on. Then to see how consistent their position is, and whether it corresponds to facts - and only then compare with your own argument.

You show zero good faith, and refuse to accept the idea of rational value.

You like the idea of pain (sacrifice), when doing something for an esteemed one.

That shows everybody that your esteem is real, maybe. Including yourself.

I know what I want from someone who loves me, and it is her selfish choice of her value in me..

I would and I have stopped actions of duty for my benefit, if I've spotted them.

No hero - only an honest realist, who hates fakes.

Tony

Go preach your 'good faith' nonsense to someone else. When you want to introduce fallacious arguments and hide behind them by calling them definitions, you can't tell me I'm arguing in 'bad faith'. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy, and you have to fix that first before you have even a beginning of a leg to stand on.

"and refuse to accept the idea of rational value."

Yes, because it includes the conclusion of your argument in the 'rational value' premise. That's called fallacious reasoning. Again, you need to look this up.

In other words, you're full of crap - in case you didn't understand what I'm saying.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now