Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, moralist said:

Oh, not at all. :smile:

I'm totally fine with expressing my view and demonstrating how it contrasts to your view, with the full understanding that they are both totally antithetical and irreconcilable.

Greg

Greg can't do ratiocination so he implicitly proselytizes. He wants us to find Jesus.

--Brant

which he's likely to deny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, moralist said:

No, Bob. 

"Do whatever you want" is a value held by immoral perverts.

 

Greg

I do whatever I want.  I am very careful in and about my wants.  So whatever I do is what I want to do or choose to do.  

I am very careful about my choices although I sometimes make mistakes.  Very careful.  I recall only one or two regrets in the last 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:
17 hours ago, moralist said:

No, Bob. 

"Do whatever you want" is a value held by immoral perverts.

Greg

The assumption is that one doesn't give careful consideration in identifying one's wants and just acts reactively congruent with one's feelings. I want to kill someone. Wait a minute! That's wrong! I no longer want to kill that person.

--Brant

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I could have been clearer, I suppose.

By "it," I meant the work, whether title, book, or TV show (which, btw, is called "The Mystic Warrior"). In other words, rewritten, the line would read: "They made a TV series out of this book, too, but every time that work comes up, book or TV, controversy swirls."

Michael

 

I understood this from the first post.  BIA activity, Native American activism, and Native American awareness was going on around the time the book was released.  Humanizing efforts were common around the time as part of a larger initiative, and some were valid, some invalid, some in between those extremes.  The inference I drew lay beyond this, as related to my previous post, but if there wasn't one, as I said I wasn't worried about it :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Individual rights are part of ethics and morality and are the justification for rights. Rights are right actions respecting other people and other people respecting you.

--Brant

It was particularly non-initiation of force as "ethics", I objected to. That notion is tantamount to some guy stating "I never beat my wife, therefore I am good". What is the injunction of NIOF, I think, but the front line of defence against potential transgressors? Backing that are individual rights, the moral system (I think not in itself a code of morality, either) also founded on the primary, "man's right to life". And since life requires self-generated acts to its own end, directly follows from it the right of an individual's unimpeded freedom of action.

The issue can vary on how and where one places the emphasis within individual rights. I've thought that some seem to look on those rights overmuch as *a restriction* on one's own actions regarding others ("I must not do this, I can't do that"). Stressing the proper aspect, it is (in the Oist scheme of things) rather *a liberation* of one's own actions, free from other people's and government's intrusions.

Best expressed as "And who is going to stop me?!"

Of course, coming from Ayn Rand, we know that's one thing; coming from a hoodlum or terrorist, entirely another.

The rational, selfishly moral person, by definition, hasn't the slightest inkling of infringing on others' rights/initiating force, since she/he has solid convictions in man's right to life and freedom to act (and the hierarchical rationale from metaphysics to ethics, behind those.)

For the rationally selfish: What ought I do? - in pursuit of one's life and values in reality - would carry through without contradiction, to: What ought I do among other people? People and "reality" are one and the same reality after all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Greg can't do ratiocination so he implicitly proselytizes. He wants us to find Jesus.

--Brant

which he's likely to deny

I want everyone including me to get exactly what they deserve... and what do you know?... they already do. :wink:

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 5:33 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I do whatever I want.  I am very careful in and about my wants.  

If you are very careful about your wants... it can only mean that you don't always do what you want...

...and that's good. :smile:

And remember that immoral pervert's rule was:

Do what thou wilt shall be the WHOLE of the law.

That is NOT for decent people because what they want is NOT the whole of the law they live by... as you just indicated with your comment. Being mindful of your own choices clearly indicates that something else is in operation besides just doing what you want.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

It was particularly non-initiation of force as "ethics", I objected to. That notion is tantamount to some guy stating "I never beat my wife, therefore I am good". What is the injunction of NIOF, I think, but the front line of defence against potential transgressors? Backing that are individual rights, the moral system (I think not in itself a code of morality, either) also founded on the primary, "man's right to life". And since life requires self-generated acts to its own end, directly follows the right of an individual's unimpeded freedom of action.

The issue can vary on how and where one places the emphasis within individual rights. I've thought that some seem to look on those rights overmuch as *a restriction* on one's own actions regarding others ("I must not do this, I can't do that"). Stressing the proper aspect, it is (in the Oist scheme of things) rather *a liberation* of one's own actions, free from other people's and government's intrusions.

Best expressed as "And who is going to stop me?!"

Of course, coming from Ayn Rand, we know that's one thing; coming from a hoodlum or terrorist, entirely another. The rational, selfishly moral person, by definition, hasn't the slightest inkling of infringing on others' rights/initiating force, since she/he has solid convictions in man's right to life, and freedom to act (and the hierarchical rationale from metaphysics to ethics, behind those.)

For the rationally selfish: What ought I do? (in pursuit of one's life and values in reality) would carry through without contradiction, to: What ought I do among other people? People and "reality" are one and the same reality after all.

 

"'I never beat my wife, therefore I am good'" is a non-sequitur. You need a logically valid example to support the rest of your statement.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

"'I never beat my wife, therefore I am good'" is a non-sequitur. You need a logically valid example to support the rest of your statement.

--Brant

There IS a non-sequitur: not initiating force ... as a system of ethics. Illogical and invalid, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, anthony said:

There IS a non-sequitur: not initiating force ... as a system of ethics. Illogical and invalid, of course.

No one has claimed that not initiating force is a "system of ethics."

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2016 at 6:04 PM, merjet said:

Which form?

- One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
- One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).
- What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).  Link.

The second form far outranks the others in my opinion.

 

 

I think the first is meant to contain the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Samson Corwell said:

I think the first is meant to contain the second.

I agree. Like all moral truths, it's double edged and cuts both ways.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/02/19 at 11:11 PM, Jonathan said:

No one has claimed that not initiating force is a "system of ethics."

J

A bit worse, it was 'suggested', that NIOF is a part of Rand's ethics. Which as consequence, if it were so, 'ethical non-force' would gain priority as concept above personal freedom; but it is one's freedom to act (according to one's own ethics) independent of the coercion of other individuals, 'groups' or governments, that has to be the total purpose of NIOF.

"Force", then would then become a frozen abstraction (a mystical one, I suppose) and lead to one very probable conclusion, the belief in 'ethical' pacifism.

NO force, 'good', ANY force, 'bad'.

As we know, in two contexts, force is necessary and moral: Self-defence - by the individual or state. Retaliation - only by state (committed by an individual, a primitive vengeance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, anthony said:

A bit worse, it was 'suggested', that NIOF is a part of Rand's ethics. Which as consequence, if it were so, 'ethical non-force' would gain priority as concept above personal freedom; but it is one's freedom to act (according to one's own ethics) independent of the coercion of other individuals, 'groups' or governments, that has to be the total purpose of NIOF.

"Force", then would then become a frozen abstraction (a mystical one, I suppose) and lead to one very probable conclusion, the belief in 'ethical' pacifism.

NO force, 'good', ANY force, 'bad'.

As we know, in two contexts, force is necessary and moral: Self-defence - by the individual or state. Retaliation - only by state (committed by an individual, a primitive vengeance).

Rand said "rights are a moral concept . . . . " (VOS) Thus morality is a bridge between right actions for self and right actions to others. The basic principles of the philosophy are not autonomous constructs, but are logically integrated and justified accordingly. Your argument is top-down libertarian. Rand argues up to and into the politics. If you start with the metaphysics, then epistemology, then ethics and finally politics, each is foundational to what follows. Pull out one and what's above falls down. NIOF is justified by the ethics. So justified the next question is how does this work politically? One answer was the creation of the United States. That's where the (practical) "system" is. But morality is much more than what that NIOF system deals with. Regardless, NIOF's not to be hacked out of morality because it's also in the politics.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 4:57 AM, Brant Gaede said:

 He wants us to find Jesus.

You don't find Jesus.

Jesus finds you. :laugh:

aaff4703_zpsio0qolhh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rand said "rights are a moral concept . . . . " (VOS) Thus morality is a bridge between right actions for self and right actions to others. The basic principles of the philosophy are not autonomous constructs, but are logically integrated and justified accordingly. Your argument is top-down libertarian. Rand argues up to and into the politics. If you start with the metaphysics, then epistemology, then ethics and finally politics, each is foundational to what follows. Pull out one and what's above falls down. NIOF is justified by the ethics. So justified the next question is how does this work politically? One answer was the creation of the United States. That's where the (practical) "system" is. But morality is much more than what that NIOF system deals with. Regardless, NIOF's not to be hacked out of morality because it's also in the politics.

--Brant

I haven't hacked anything out of morality. Rather I have tried to expand its reach.

I think one must discern carefully between "the bridge" and the morality.

wrt Objectivists, there is already a morality we know well, called rational selfishness and I can't see any rationally-selfish moral guidance in 'NOT' doing something, like not initiating force on an other.. For the O'ist NIOF is a given built-in, presupposing the "rational" part: concerning the nature of life, values, freedom, etc for man (all men).

Of course individual rights are "moral", by description. They, as concept and in practice, act objectively and morally in order to serve and protect the moral. "Right actions to others", as you say, are rooted rationally, and much more deeply than an imperative, NIOF.

And of course the large majority are not O'ists but also people who have their own morals and must have freedom to act on those - unless they initiate force. It is to the whole of society at large that Rand made the warning of not initiating force, it seems clear. (Even and including other countries).

Laws, for instance are likewise "a moral concept". But you can't assure me that they are in themselves 'a code of morality' for what one ought to do for furtherance of one's life.

"individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." (The "means", having a moral purpose, not the morality per se).

Opposite completely to "top-down libertarian" -- I have been throughout arguing for Objectivist 'bottom up morality' that 'informs' a political system. AR: "Every political system is based on some code of ethics". (Which can as well be altruism-collectivism as in the past and often in the present. It's very clear today how many do derive their morals from bad politics - less in the USA than elsewhere: 'Deification' of the State).

NIOF as "ethics" from which one tries to derive and deduce one's moral actions, is also cart in front of horse and a mystical abstraction. This, may or may not be libertarian - I'm unsure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/02/18 at 6:27 AM, Brant Gaede said:

My take is the first "man" is a man and the second the concept "man." It's the relationship of the particular to the universal and therefore a general objectification of morality and related valuing. (Is to ought?)

--Brant

I've seen it also said by two knowledgeable Objectivists: "MY life is the standard of value". I think this is a fundamental error which will be carried through into the morality of rational selfishness, and then into the concept of individual rights.

Conversely, it must be "Man's life", not "mine", nor the life of any individual. So we get (for one example) from Rand : "Man has to be man by choice--and it is the task of ethics to teach him how to live like man"..

There has to be an objective standard for an objective morality to rest on, and that is the concept, "man" - while, one's own life and self as "the standard of value" is subjective and circular.

Rather, one's life is *the source* of value and *the capacity* to value.

And "reciprocity" then may become considered the mainstay of individual rights, when the basic error is consistently followed through. I think it's only a secondary aspect. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

I've seen it also said by two knowledgeable Objectivists: "MY life is the standard of value".

Yeah, there's a flaw in that view, Tony.

I rather say: "MY life is the result of a standard of value."

I use how my own life unfolds as the result of my actions as the final judge of the quality of values I choose to live by.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/02/26 at 2:49 AM, moralist said:

Yeah, there's a flaw in that view, Tony.

I rather say: "MY life is the result of a standard of value."

I use how my own life unfolds as the result of my actions as the final judge of the quality of values I choose to live by.

 

Greg

Yes Greg, as far as that I agree, and if you claim once again you arrived at the conviction "subjectively" - since we are "subjective" beings - and without having done any reasoning - since thought and judgment ("intellectualizing") gets in our way - I'll have to metaphorically strangle you for your self-contradiction. ;) The outcomes in one's life I'd say are indirectly the result of holding a primary standard of value - and directly, of one's reality-based principles and virtues (standards plural) which one derives from that ultimate standard in reality, "man's life", to further and enrich the ultimate value, his own life. You'll pose another ultimate standard above reality and man's life, and it is on our metaphysics we will once more diverge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2016 at 5:49 PM, moralist said:

Yeah, there's a flaw in that view, Tony.

I rather say: "MY life is the result of a standard of value."

I use how my own life unfolds as the result of my actions as the final judge of the quality of values I choose to live by.

Greg

Somewhat better than saying that my life is the standard of your valuing. That's totalitarian.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Somewhat better than saying that my life is the standard of your valuing. That's totalitarian.

--Brant

Absolutely, Brant. :smile:

 

Each of our own lives is the sole judge with the power to render the final verdict on the quality of the values we live by.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

...if you claim once again you arrived at the conviction "subjectively" - since we are "subjective" beings - and without having done any reasoning...

Oh, everyone does lots of reasoning, Tony... it's just all subjective. :laugh:

 

Greg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Subjective reasoning" makes no more sense than "objective reasoning." Reasoning is reasoning and how well you reason is the main consideration. To say it's all subjective is to say I've got my reasoning and you've got yours and I'm not going to explain or justify mine. To say it's objective is to say it's good and true or the emperor crowns himself.

So, Greg, you're telling Ayn Rand to shove it absent you subjectively agreeing with her on this or that. It's cherry picking. Try this: "subjective rationality." It means the same nothing thing, but hasn't got the bling.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Subjective reasoning" makes no more sense than "objective reasoning." Reasoning is reasoning and how well you reason is the main consideration. To say it's all subjective is to say I've got my reasoning and you've got yours and I'm not going to explain or justify mine. To say it's objective is to say it's good and true or the emperor crowns himself.

So, Greg, you're telling Ayn Rand to shove it absent you subjectively agreeing with her on this or that. It's cherry picking. Try this: "subjective rationality." It means the same nothing thing, but hasn't got the bling.

--Brant

What you say holds true... but only for those who believe that there is no objective moral standard greater than themselves. For them, morality is purely a matter of "objective" personal opinion.

I hold another view... that I can only subjectively agree or disagree with the objective moral standard greater than myself... but I can never be it... nor can I change it.

 

Greg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, why not just say agree or disagree instead of larding on "subjectively"? You seem only to want people interested to know your opinion without any real explanation for it. "Objective moral standard greater than myself" is only good for that, not the particulars.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...