Please rationally support this decision

[Brant Gaede]

What I know of Mao is based primarily on Philip Short's definitive biography.

...which is your interpretation of someone else's writings filtered through your own values.

Greg

Which are? You are only presuming to know. I too presume to know Francisco's values. My presumption is they are good and yours is they are bad. I do argue with him, here and there, about this and that. I don't tell him when I agree with him his values are good hence his arguments are valid and pat him on the head and give him a biscuit. When I disagree I don't do what you do either.

--Brant

[moralist]

Which are?

Frank has stated that people who do evil ~can~ live comfortably with it.

You are only presuming to know. I too presume to know Francisco's values. My presumption is they are good and yours is they are bad.

...and each of our opinions are equally subjective. I would never claim that my opinion is objective, only that it is drawn from reading Frank's own words. I'm ok with people having different opinions, Brant. I stated mine and you stated yours. :smile:Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

What I know of Mao is based primarily on Philip Short's definitive biography.

...which is your interpretation of someone else's writings filtered through your own values.

Greg

And your position is that Mao did not live in comfort? And that knowledge is based on direct experience with the gentleman?

[Brant Gaede]

Which are?

Frank has stated that people who do evil ~can~ live comfortably with it.

You are only presuming to know. I too presume to know Francisco's values. My presumption is they are good and yours is they are bad.

...and each of our opinions are equally subjective. I would never claim that my opinion is objective, only that it is drawn from reading Frank's own words. I'm ok with people having different opinions, Brant. I stated mine and you stated yours.

Greg

I accept subjective applied to any of your opinions, but not mine. Objective to me is reality congruence and subjective is reality up in the air. That is why you ostensibly don't argue, never mind the constant sub rosa, for arguing is arguing for an objective understanding. You don't argue for your generalization about subjective, you merely state it, time and time again. Contrarily you can't argue against the objective apropos this discussion, you can only state it or ask me to "prove" my position, but you aren't entitled to any proof from the all inclusive subjective context. The only proof you ever acknowledge is the one that literally slaps you in the face. I call this the "Ouch!" philosophy.

--Brant

did Francisco say he was comfortable with evil people being comfortable?

[moralist]

Frank writes:

And your position is that Mao did not live in comfort? And that knowledge is based on direct experience with the gentleman?

My view is filtered through my own values, just as yours is filtered through yours. And you have again revealed your own creepy values by regarding an evil mass murderer as being a "gentleman".

You're sick, Frank.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

I accept subjective applied to any of your opinions, but not mine.

You're certainly free to hold that subjective opinion, Brant.

I don't hold the fantasy that any subjective being is capable of objectivity. While they can subjectively agree or disagree with objective reality... they cannot be it.

How each of our lives unfolds is the only accurate marker of the degree of each of our own subjective agreement or disagreement with objective reality.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

I accept subjective applied to any of your opinions, but not mine.

You're certainly free to hold that subjective opinion, Brant.

I don't hold the fantasy that any subjective being is capable of objectivity. While they can subjectively agree or disagree with objective reality... they cannot be it.

How each of our lives unfolds is the only accurate marker of the degree of each of our own subjective agreement or disagreement with objective reality.

Greg

WTF does agreeing have to do with being (as any necessary consequence)?

The whole point of logic and logical proofs is objectification. It's the front and only door to the scientific method. Knowledge is on a continuum from almost absolute to almost fanciful. "Almost absolute" is only lip service to the principle of the tentativeness of any knowledge. We are "almost" sure an electrical spark in a can of oxygen and gasoline vapors will go BANG! You, however, are more than sure about your notions of subjectivity to the point of claiming absolute (objective) knowledge about it. You are hanging yourself on the contradiction--fortunately only a metaphor even if you wake up screaming after dreaming of your being lynched*.

--Brant

*I'd cry too if it happened to you

*let us know if my nefarious scheme results in any nightmares

[Dglgmut]

Yet Mao's life shows, among many other things, that at least one person in history did advance his career and build wealth and power through cheating, lying, stealing, murdering. It upends your bald assertion about crime never paying. And as for payoffs, for every successful actress in Hollywood there are a thousand would-be stars. But the existence of overwhelming numbers of failed hopefuls does nothing to prove the claim that being a successful actress is never in one's interest.

Do you not think that at least his relationships suffered the more evil he committed? You assume that some people can, for example, snatch a cell phone without losing any sleep--but aren't they creating or reinforcing an image of themselves that they will then either project onto others or hold in contrast to others with stronger principles than themselves and feel, "If they only knew who I really was they would not want anything to do with me." And obviously there are degrees depending on the acts and how many.

You cannot judge yourself by different standards than you judge others. If you can get along with a phone thief, then you would probably steal a phone yourself if you knew you'd get away with it. Such low expectations of others implies a certain level of contempt for humanity that likely starts with oneself--informed by one's thoughts and actions.

I don't think it is revealing to envy Mao's standard of living, however, to envy Mao in full context, putting those comforts above the need for self-esteem (independence), would betray a twisted mind. To be fixated on the values gained without concideration for the values lost is irrational.

Would I steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family? I think it is rational and I would not judge someone poorly for doing so. You have to weigh both sides and there is not a universal answer to every ethical dilemma.

[moralist]

Dglgmut writes:

Do you not think that at least his relationships suffered the more evil he committed?

Indeed they did. Mao's evil got his wife executed...

...but according to Frank, his hero lived comfortably with that.

You cannot judge yourself by different standards than you judge others.

Bingo.

This is an accurate indication of people's values... their judgment of others.

What Frank's statement that Mao can live comfortably with doing evil says

is that Frank believes that he can live comfortably getting away with doing evil.

I don't share his view or his values, because in my opinion, no one escapes the inexorable consequential pain of doing evil right here and now in this world.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

My view is filtered through my own values, just as yours is filtered through yours. And you have again revealed your own creepy values by regarding an evil mass murderer as being a "gentleman".

You're sick, Frank.

Greg

Nope. My preference for the color green is not going to lead me to see red as green at a traffic light.

Similarly, my preference for laissez-faire capitalism is not going to prevent me from understanding why certain people stand to benefit from a communist dictatorship.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Yet Mao's life shows, among many other things, that at least one person in history did advance his career and build wealth and power through cheating, lying, stealing, murdering. It upends your bald assertion about crime never paying. And as for payoffs, for every successful actress in Hollywood there are a thousand would-be stars. But the existence of overwhelming numbers of failed hopefuls does nothing to prove the claim that being a successful actress is never in one's interest.

Do you not think that at least his relationships suffered the more evil he committed? You assume that some people can, for example, snatch a cell phone without losing any sleep--but aren't they creating or reinforcing an image of themselves that they will then either project onto others or hold in contrast to others with stronger principles than themselves and feel, "If they only knew who I really was they would not want anything to do with me." And obviously there are degrees depending on the acts and how many.

You cannot judge yourself by different standards than you judge others. If you can get along with a phone thief, then you would probably steal a phone yourself if you knew you'd get away with it. Such low expectations of others implies a certain level of contempt for humanity that likely starts with oneself--informed by one's thoughts and actions.

I don't think it is revealing to envy Mao's standard of living, however, to envy Mao in full context, putting those comforts above the need for self-esteem (independence), would betray a twisted mind. To be fixated on the values gained without concideration for the values lost is irrational.

Would I steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family? I think it is rational and I would not judge someone poorly for doing so. You have to weigh both sides and there is not a universal answer to every ethical dilemma.

Let's start with your last paragraph:

Would I steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family? I think it is rational and I would not judge someone poorly for doing so. You have to weigh both sides and there is not a universal answer to every ethical dilemma.

Now let's do a comparison of cases:

Case 1. For some people the good of the family outweighs the value of respect for others' property. For Citizen A, full stomachs at his kitchen table matter more than the baker having a full inventory. Citizen A tells himself the baker won't feel the loss too badly, and the bread will make a big difference in the lives of his wife and son. Citizen A could be described as "fixated on the values gained without consideration for the values lost," but, most importantly, in his mind he did not trade a higher value for a lower value.

Case 2. Citizen B values owning a cell phone above the right of the owner to keep that device. Citizen B tells himself the rightful owner won't feel the loss too badly, and the new phone will make a big difference in B's ability to apply for and get a job. In his mind B did not trade a higher value for a lower value.

But what about principles? Well, the principle of necessary theft has already been established in the first case. We are now left to ask, where is the "scientific" or "objective" level of need that would allow 1 but disallow 2?

Furthermore, there is no reason we must conclude that either man suffered the loss of relationships for the evil committed.

As for getting along with the phone thief, that's another issue. My purpose here is to show that respect for others' property does not in any automatic or "universal" way (to use your word) follow from Rand's first principles. (There may, however, be excellent reasons to respect others' property that are not detailed in Rand's philosophy.)

[Brant Gaede]

Yesterday I asked a friend to get me a loaf of bread; today I'm paying for it.

--Brant

I only steal from banks (Pen and Clyde)

[moralist]

Frank writes:

Similarly, my preference for laissez-faire capitalism is not going to prevent me from understanding why certain people stand to benefit from a communist dictatorship.

Just as you call a mass murderer a "gentleman", your blind spot is again revealed by your use of the word "benefit". Your only measure of benefit is wealth, and not what a person becomes by doing evil. This is why you don't see what you are.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Yesterday I asked a friend to get me a loaf of bread; today I'm paying for it.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a loaf today."

--Wimpy

[Francisco Ferrer]

Frank writes:

Similarly, my preference for laissez-faire capitalism is not going to prevent me from understanding why certain people stand to benefit from a communist dictatorship.

Just as you call a mass murderer a "gentleman", your blind spot is again revealed by your use of the word "benefit". Your only measure of benefit is wealth, and not what a person becomes by doing evil. This is why you don't see what you are.

Greg

Never said wealth was the only form of benefit. The owner of the self is the only one in the position to evaluate what constitutes a benefit. The biography I referenced supports the idea that Mao was satisfied with his life. Feel free to submit any relevant data that proves otherwise.

[Brant Gaede]

Frank writes:

Similarly, my preference for laissez-faire capitalism is not going to prevent me from understanding why certain people stand to benefit from a communist dictatorship.

Just as you call a mass murderer a "gentleman", your blind spot is again revealed by your use of the word "benefit". Your only measure of benefit is wealth, and not what a person becomes by doing evil. This is why you don't see what you are.

Greg

He was being sardonic. It works for communist mass murderers, barely, not Nazi. I personally never want to even look at Chinese money with that face on it, much less put it in my wallet and buy stuff with it. It took a Nixon to go to China and shake that bastard's hand and do it with a smile.

--Brant

another reason, there are many, I'm not qualified to be El Presidente de los Estados Unidos

[Dglgmut]

Case 2. Citizen B values owning a cell phone above the right of the owner to keep that device. Citizen B tells himself the rightful owner won't feel the loss too badly, and the new phone will make a big difference in B's ability to apply for and get a job. In his mind B did not trade a higher value for a lower value.

But what about principles? Well, the principle of necessary theft has already been established in the first case. We are now left to ask, where is the "scientific" or "objective" level of need that would allow 1 but disallow 2?

Who said values were objective? Even if all values were subjective, the rational person is the one who goes through the mental effort to weigh his values before acting. If Citizen B comes to the conclusion that owning a cell phone is more important than not violating the rights of another person, then he has either been hasty (irrational) or is crazy (his values are naturally off). No human being is the exact same, and so there must be some room for subjectivism in ethics, but it would marginal if relevant at all.

Furthermore, there is no reason we must conclude that either man suffered the loss of relationships for the evil committed.

As for getting along with the phone thief, that's another issue. My purpose here is to show that respect for others' property does not in any automatic or "universal" way (to use your word) follow from Rand's first principles. (There may, however, be excellent reasons to respect others' property that are not detailed in Rand's philosophy.)

There is no reason to conclude his relationships suffered if he had no shame. In such a case, he is a psychopath, which he must have been. But we're talking about what he did in terms of sane people ethics.

It's not respect for others' property, it's respect for property. If you think property rights are good for people to have, and you would prefer these rights for the society you want to live in, then you certainly want and expect others to respect these rights as well. Only if you assume people do not respect property rights do you now give yourself permission to join in in the disrespect--this is the mindset one has who can get along with the phone thief. Otherwise, like I said, your relationships will suffer--because either you are open and honest about how you are a hypocrite, or you have to constantly lie. I think the freedom to be honest is a huge value for most people whether they know it or not.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Case 2. Citizen B values owning a cell phone above the right of the owner to keep that device. Citizen B tells himself the rightful owner won't feel the loss too badly, and the new phone will make a big difference in B's ability to apply for and get a job. In his mind B did not trade a higher value for a lower value.

But what about principles? Well, the principle of necessary theft has already been established in the first case. We are now left to ask, where is the "scientific" or "objective" level of need that would allow 1 but disallow 2?

Who said values were objective?

And for that matter who said that principles are objective? You wrote that the cell phone thief was "creating or reinforcing an image of themselves that they will then either project onto others or hold in contrast to others with stronger principles than themselves." Why must the thief necessarily see the principles of others as being stronger?

Even if all values were subjective, the rational person is the one who goes through the mental effort to weigh his values before acting. If Citizen B comes to the conclusion that owning a cell phone is more important than not violating the rights of another person, then he has either been hasty (irrational) or is crazy (his values are naturally off). No human being is the exact same, and so there must be some room for subjectivism in ethics, but it would marginal if relevant at all.

Yes, there is enough room for subjectivism in ethics to fit a phone thief who regards owning a cell phone as more important than not violating the rights of another person.

Furthermore, there is no reason we must conclude that either man suffered the loss of relationships for the evil committed.

As for getting along with the phone thief, that's another issue. My purpose here is to show that respect for others' property does not in any automatic or "universal" way (to use your word) follow from Rand's first principles. (There may, however, be excellent reasons to respect others' property that are not detailed in Rand's philosophy.)

There is no reason to conclude his relationships suffered if he had no shame. In such a case, he is a psychopath, which he must have been. But we're talking about what he did in terms of sane people ethics.

If a man is strong in his belief that feeding his family is more important that respecting the property rights of the baker, then it unlikely that he will feel shame. We can say the same thing about the phone thief and his needs. You may apply the word "psychopath" to one, both or neither. Bear in mind that "psychopath" typically refers to a continuous aspect of personality, something we haven't seen in either case that we've examined.

It's not respect for others' property, it's respect for property.

The phone thief and the bread thief do not respect others' property. But they do respect property. They both like the feeling that owning property brings.

If you think property rights are good for people to have, and you would prefer these rights for the society you want to live in, then you certainly want and expect others to respect these rights as well.

Yes, if I am a baker, I do not want anyone stealing my bread, even someone with a starving family.

Only if you assume people do not respect property rights do you now give yourself permission to join in in the disrespect--this is the mindset one has who can get along with the phone thief. Otherwise, like I said, your relationships will suffer--because either you are open and honest about how you are a hypocrite, or you have to constantly lie. I think the freedom to be honest is a huge value for most people whether they know it or not.

We would then have to say that the man who stole the bread for his starving family assumed people did not respect property rights and gave himself permission to join in in the disrespect.

To say that his relationships will necessarily suffer requires proof, something which at some point you may wish to provide.

[anthony]

The owner of the self is the only one in the position to evaluate what constitutes a benefit.

I always get quite amused by this 'self-ownership' notion.

Is it like owning a slave?

"You are my body--and I get to tell you where to go, what to do, when to work, when to play, what I can take out of you and what I can put in!"

(Um, mind-body split?).

It is all rather "Duh!" as I see it. Self-evident. Though I do appreciate its thrust is socio-political, to ensure that no other person or agency can possess or control one's own person.

But FF- one thing I'm unsure of, do property rights derive from this 'self-ownership' - or does 'self'-property derive from property rights? Chicken or egg?

It's the ambivalence that occurs when property rights are seen as a code of morality, in itself, as you've represented - and that leads to your version of "self-interest" which is (seems) *whatever works for me for this moment* (and also doesn't offend others' property rights).

[Dglgmut]

And for that matter who said that principles are objective? You wrote that the cell phone thief was "creating or reinforcing an image of themselves that they will then either project onto others or hold in contrast to others with stronger principles than themselves." Why must the thief necessarily see the principles of others as being stronger?

Principles and values are largely objective as all human beings are largely the same, and to the extent that they are different by nature they will have to customize those principles and values.

I never said the thief thinks everyone else has stronger principles, I said that when he does encounter people who he sees as having stronger principles--those that he values in others, meaning that he would rather surround himself with people who have these principles than those who do not--then he will have the burden of hiding his own depravity.

I can't prove anything about Mao's relationships. And if he's a psychopath what does it matter? I'm saying that if you behave like a person you would not want anything to do with, then of course you are not going to be able to sustain mutually beneficial relationships unless you are constantly covering up your shortcomings.

If I was a baker, and someone stole a loaf of bread from me to keep their family alive, I'd understand. If your principles would not allow you to forgive such a small and circumstantial transgression then I think your principles are out of wack.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I always get quite amused by this 'self-ownership' notion.

Is it like owning a slave?

Tony,

Heh.

I wonder what the title deed of self-ownership looks like. And where would one register such a thing?

Also, what is the average market value of a self?

Can one sell oneself to someone else, transfer the deed, and buy another self?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A birth certificate?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A birth certificate?

--Brant

Brant,

Can I buy yours?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A birth certificate?

--Brant

Brant,

Can I buy yours?

Michael

You can't afford it.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

The owner of the self is the only one in the position to evaluate what constitutes a benefit.

I always get quite amused by this 'self-ownership' notion.

Is it like owning a slave?

No because, given that we have a right only to our own bodies, we cannot assert ownership over someone else. Self-ownership and slavery are logical contradictions.

"You are my body--and I get to tell you where to go, what to do, when to work, when to play, what I can take out of you and what I can put in!"

(Um, mind-body split?).

If you reject the idea of a mind body-split, then you would have to object to a person selling her own blood or organs or hair.

It is all rather "Duh!" as I see it. Self-evident. Though I do appreciate its thrust is socio-political, to ensure that no other person or agency can possess or control one's own person.

But FF- one thing I'm unsure of, do property rights derive from this 'self-ownership' - or does 'self'-property derive from property rights? Chicken or egg?

Following Locke, one acquires the right to property in nature by mixing his body (labor) with it. Self-ownership before real estate ownership.

It's the ambivalence that occurs when property rights are seen as a code of morality, in itself, as you've represented - and that leads to your version of "self-interest" which is (seems) *whatever works for me for this moment* (and also doesn't offend others' property rights).

"Whatever works for me" is not my philosophy. Apparently you have never encountered a person who presents a position he does not necessarily agree with in order to show a weakness in another's thinking.