atlashead

Sexual Ethics

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, anthony said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Maybe "the bully" threw things off course - when Rand's example was businessmen being party to their own victimhood and demise by permitting, acquiescing to (thanks, Ellen) and effectively condoning actions, supported with their own money, which were antagonistic to the ideas of capitalism. Actions they HAD to know about, or certainly make it their business to find out, initially. Therefore, they couldn't have been innocent victims.

I get it, how Rand says it and how she says it works.

4 hours ago, anthony said:

And one can expand the principle and on Rand's example. E.g. I think President Trump (and the electorate he appealed to) has a grasp of sanction of the victim. His push back has been singularly against it. No longer, he's saying and implying by his actions, do Americans have to accept and condone (in guilt) their own downfall, by any people and nations who might - and some, definitely - have motives costly or inimical to the USA's interests. (Enough, wrong place for that. ;))

Ha, I actually had this example in my head yesterday, minus the nations part, but with the same conclusion :)

Share this post


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

It's not about penalising and punishing those immoral, if perhaps the sanction definition has been confusing, the only concern is to not help them in any way, from the get-go.

The 3,000 year old I Ching indicates a similar approach, Tony.

"Thus the superior man keeps the inferior man at a distance, Not angrily but with reserve."

In this context, "superior" doesn't mean a person who feels they're better than another... but rather moral as measured by an objective standard greater than ourselves which we are powerless to alter.

Greg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, merjet said:

Sanction of the victim is not used in the excerpt of Galt's speech here, which refers to business people supporting universities, but it is the Lexicon category.

The excerpt about businessmen in the Lexicon under the heading "Sanction of the Victim" is not from Galt's Speech, and it is not by Ayn Rand.  

It's from an article called "The Sanction of the Victims" which appeared in The Objectivist Forum, April 1982.  I'm getting the attribution from the hardcover of the Lexicon.  Probably the article was by Harry Binswanger, although other people besides Binswanger did write for TOF. I can't get the "look inside" feature on the Amazon page to work.  I ordered the book and will check to see if the article was by Binswanger or by someone else.

Ellen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 31, 2017 at 2:59 PM, KorbenDallas said:

I checked my 1828 Webster, 1966 Random House Unabridged, and my OED before posting about it earlier.  Sanction is a positive, conscious action, Rand doesn't always use it that way.   edit:  by positive, I mean philosophical positive, existence/non-existence

Well, that doesn't tell  me which of the two meanings you're thinking of.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The excerpt about businessmen in the Lexicon under the heading "Sanction of the Victim" is not from Galt's Speech, and it is not by Ayn Rand.  

Yes and no. It is not from Galt's Speech (my oops), but it is by Ayn Rand. She wrote the article in 1981 and delivered it as a speech in New Orleans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, merjet said:

Yes and no. It is not from Galt's Speech (my oops), but it is by Ayn Rand. She wrote the article in 1981 and delivered it as a speech in New Orleans. 

So was that Rand's last speech and Binswanger reprinted it in the April 1982 TOF?

(The book I was referring to above is The Voice of Reason, which contains mostly essays by Rand but also some by others.)

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:
On 1/31/2017 at 2:59 PM, KorbenDallas said:

I checked my 1828 Webster, 1966 Random House Unabridged, and my OED before posting about it earlier.  Sanction is a positive, conscious action, Rand doesn't always use it that way.   edit:  by positive, I mean philosophical positive, existence/non-existence

Well, that doesn't tell  me which of the two meanings you're thinking of.

Ellen

Because that wasn't your question.

Share this post


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

So was that Rand's last speech and Binswanger reprinted it in the April 1982 TOF?

(The book I was referring to above is The Voice of Reason, which contains mostly essays by Rand but also some by others.)

Ellen

Yes, and published again in The Voice of Reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/02/01 at 8:34 AM, moralist said:

The 3,000 year old I Ching indicates a similar approach, Tony.

"Thus the superior man keeps the inferior man at a distance, Not angrily but with reserve."

In this context, "superior" doesn't mean a person who feels they're better than another... but rather moral as measured by an objective standard greater than ourselves which we are powerless to alter.

Greg

 

 

"Attention" matters a lot. What is important is, initially, not allowing to a person with dishonest, corrupt, etc. ideas, any more than one moment of one's attention. Otherwise one is conferring one's personal value upon them, thereby granting them "sanction". It's like with children when there's one being a pushy brat, an adult will tell the others to just ignore him. Works like a charm, he stops when the attention ends. Any wrong needs the oxygen of someone's (preferably an honest and rational individual) implicit or explicit time and approval in order to flourish. Imagine a fanatical radical who has a rally, and no -one turns up? He and his cause is as good as dead. With a grown up, we all know there are many ways to dismiss, cut down obnoxious and immoral words or deeds with a minimal effort. A facial expression may do it, or walking away, or simply the one word: "No", and no further explanation. Of course the wider source of "evil" and its subsequent acts have to be vocally and uncompromisingly challenged more comprehensively. But it shouldn't become one's life's work to slay Dragons, I think. Your own self-interested life is too valuable to sacrifice to the worst of people.

Share this post


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

"Attention" matters a lot. What is important is, initially, not allowing to a person with dishonest, corrupt, etc. ideas, any more than one moment of one's attention. Otherwise one is conferring one's personal value upon them, thereby granting them "sanction". It's like with children when there's one being a pushy brat, an adult will tell the others to just ignore him. Works like a charm, he stops when the attention ends. Any wrong needs the oxygen of someone's (preferably an honest and rational individual) implicit or explicit time and approval in order to flourish. Imagine a fanatical radical who has a rally, and no -one turns up? He and his cause is as good as dead. With a grown up, we all know there are many ways to dismiss, cut down obnoxious and immoral words or deeds with a minimal effort. A facial expression may do it, or walking away, or simply the one word: "No", and no further explanation. Of course the wider source of "evil" and its subsequent acts have to be vocally and uncompromisingly challenged more comprehensively. But it shouldn't become one's life's work to slay Dragons, I think. Your own self-interested life is too valuable to sacrifice to the worst of people.

This is so on target, Tony. nodder.gif

There are people who need to feed upon the energy of the emotional reactions of others in order to justify their evil acts. So the proper response isn't actually ignoring them, because it's always good to be aware of what people are up to... but rather is not reacting emotionally to what you observe. 

No matter how you choose to respond to evil people... it's proper as long as they can't upset you emotionally... because whatever upsets you controls you.

Greg

Share this post


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

Blame the victim, folks.  Evil is impotent, if it got to you, it's your own damn fault.

That is absolutely true in America today.

You can't blame the darkness when it's your responsibility to shine the light.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/02/02 at 10:57 PM, moralist said:

This is so on target, Tony. nodder.gif

There are people who need to feed upon the energy of the emotional reactions of others in order to justify their evil acts. So the proper response isn't actually ignoring them, because it's always good to be aware of what people are up to... but rather is not reacting emotionally to what you observe. 

No matter how you choose to respond to evil people... it's proper as long as they can't upset you emotionally... because whatever upsets you controls you.

Greg

Greg, I wouldn't go over board with "the energy of emotional reactions" - True, how one responds, by which visible emotional manner one shows (or coldly does not) how you consider and assess a person and his actions, counts. But this is only the outside, superficial display of your opinion of him. Of course he will grab onto and be encouraged by your physical expression if it looks favorable. However, deep down he needs and wants *you*. That's your reputation, your good opinion, your convictions and your virtue, and therefore, your mind. Whatever makes Greg, Greg. I suggest to forget for a moment everything you know about altruism, and it being about charity, donating to and helping others, and loving your neighbor "as much as thyself". (At least and importantly, Christians understand that there is a 'self', and at least also that one should "love" oneself prior to loving others! Not so, many secularists). Charity and those things are small fry in the Objectivist view of altruism and all it entails. Simply, charity is fine when preceded with a value you personally perceived; and loving others, we well know, comes with varying strengths of your appreciation (love) for certain individuals whom you actually know.

Altruism though, is the *loss of selfhood* to some high degree -- by a person who will end up one who can't give and cannot love. Since the altruist has given up much of his own mind in favor of any and all others' minds, in general - so, he desperately needs increasingly to have others' approval, sanction and acceptance, in order to function and feel righteous for a few minutes about what he is doing --and to justify his existence. He needs to exist "through" you and every 'other', basically. Unfortunately "altruism" in its totality isn't always taken over seriously here by more than a handful, then again little attention is paid to the 'soul' - as O'ists mean it - and one's self, and one's mind or convictions. But perhaps you get the picture of the wrongs and damage - to oneself mainly and to start with, before to others - which follow when one abandons one's 'self'? It suffices for you to have seen what it means for a man to give up his pride in himself. I'm sure you have. And more, for him to lose his individual judgment. You don't have to be Objectivist to have seen it and to recognize its consequences, I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 1, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

The excerpt about businessmen in the Lexicon under the heading "Sanction of the Victim" is not from Galt's Speech, and it is not by Ayn Rand.  

It's from an article called "The Sanction of the Victims" which appeared in The Objectivist Forum, April 1982.  I'm getting the attribution from the hardcover of the Lexicon.  Probably the article was by Harry Binswanger, although other people besides Binswanger did write for TOF. I can't get the "look inside" feature on the Amazon page to work.  I ordered the book and will check to see if the article was by Binswanger or by someone else.

Ellen

 

On February 1, 2017 at 4:42 PM, merjet said:

Yes and no. It is not from Galt's Speech (my oops), but it is by Ayn Rand. She wrote the article in 1981 and delivered it as a speech in New Orleans. 

As Merlin corrected, "The Sanction of the Victims" is by Ayn Rand.

I bought The Voice of Reason, which includes that speech.  I started a separate thread featuring a particular quote ("a president capable of saying it" - "it" being a passage from Galt's Speech) here.

Ellen 

Share this post


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

Greg, I wouldn't go over board with "the energy of emotional reactions" - True, how one responds, by which visible emotional manner one shows (or coldly does not) how you consider and assess a person and his actions, counts. But this is only the outside, superficial display of your opinion of him. Of course he will grab onto and be encouraged by your physical expression if it looks favorable. However, deep down he needs and wants *you*. That's your reputation, your good opinion, your convictions and your virtue, and therefore, your mind. Whatever makes Greg, Greg. I suggest to forget for a moment everything you know about altruism, and it being about charity, donating to and helping others, and loving your neighbor "as much as thyself". (At least and importantly, Christians understand that there is a 'self', and at least also that one should "love" oneself prior to loving others! Not so, many secularists). Charity and those things are small fry in the Objectivist view of altruism and all it entails. Simply, charity is fine when preceded with a value you personally perceived; and loving others, we well know, comes with varying strengths of your appreciation (love) for certain individuals whom you actually know.

Altruism though, is the *loss of selfhood* to some high degree -- by a person who will end up one who can't give and cannot love. Since the altruist has given up much of his own mind in favor of any and all others' minds, in general - so, he desperately needs increasingly to have others' approval, sanction and acceptance, in order to function and feel righteous for a few minutes about what he is doing --and to justify his existence. He needs to exist "through" you and every 'other', basically. Unfortunately "altruism" in its totality isn't always taken over seriously here by more than a handful, then again little attention is paid to the 'soul' - as O'ists mean it - and one's self, and one's mind or convictions. But perhaps you get the picture of the wrongs and damage - to oneself mainly and to start with, before to others - which follow when one abandons one's 'self'? It suffices for you to have seen what it means for a man to give up his pride in himself. I'm sure you have. And more, for him to lose his individual judgment. You don't have to be Objectivist to have seen it and to recognize its consequences, I reckon.

You're right, Tony. Emotional energy is just one factor. We're on the same page concerning altruism. Real altruism doesn't involve self sacrifice. It's a win/win situation where all involved parties personally benefit by becoming better people.

Love your neighbor as yourself is not a command. It is an equation of objective reality that no one can violate. 

Love Yourself = Love Others

Love is simply doing what's morally right. nodder.gif

Greg

Share this post


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

You're right, Tony. Emotional energy is just one factor. We're on the same page concerning altruism. Real altruism doesn't involve self sacrifice. It's a win/win situation where all involved parties personally benefit by becoming better people.

Love your neighbor as yourself is not a command. It is an equation of objective reality that no one can violate. 

Love Yourself = Love Others

Love is simply doing what's morally right. nodder.gif

Greg

Greg,

You will have to admit, it is an idiosynchratic description of altruism you have there. I can almost agree.

I'm afraid altruism, ideologically, is only and has only been, of giving up a *higher* value to a *lesser* (or dis-value).

Otherwise, what's its point? That every action must be for value-profit? heh, too easy. Rather we suffer in sacrifice. Now, THAT means something.

If your idea of altruism is so radically different, why then call it "altruism"?

Share this post


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

Greg,

You will have to admit, it is an idiosynchratic description of altruism you have there. I can almost agree.

I'm afraid altruism, ideologically, is only and has only been, of giving up a *higher* value to a *lesser* (or dis-value).

Otherwise, what's its point? That every action must be for value-profit? heh, too easy. Rather we suffer in sacrifice. Now, THAT means something.

If your idea of altruism is so radically different, why then call it "altruism"?

Giving up a "higher" value to a "lesser" value is the higher value...

...but you're not actually giving up anything. You're fulfilling your true purpose which makes you a better person.

And that's the only real gain in life.

 

 

Greg

Share this post


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

Giving up a "higher" value to a "lesser" value is the higher value...

...but you're not actually giving up anything. You're fulfilling your true purpose which makes you a better person.

And that's the only real gain in life.

 

 

Greg

Easily giving up one's value indicates it was of no or little value. A true value, one doesn't surrender for anything. (Think, of your life first, and carry on from there).

Allowing that all one's values are not equal, one makes them hierarchical.

Share this post


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

Easily giving up one's value indicates it was of no or little value.

How easy it is depends on much a person loves what's right. And that's an acquired taste which develops over a lifetime...

...as it isn't a locus, but rather a vector. 

 

Greg

Share this post


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

How easy it is depends on much a person loves what's right. And that's an acquired taste which develops over a lifetime...

...as it isn't a locus, but rather a vector. 

 

Greg

But to love "what's right" and true - is a virtue and a value, a high one. Rationality. No other values held can conflict with it, nor can it be sacrificed to them.

Your vector must be heading to some locus, am I correct? :)

Share this post


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

Your vector must be heading to some locus, am I correct? :)

It's more of a horizon toward which you are constantly moving, yet never arrive. :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/02/05 at 10:08 PM, moralist said:

Giving up a "higher" value to a "lesser" value is the higher value...

...but you're not actually giving up anything. You're fulfilling your true purpose which makes you a better person.

And that's the only real gain in life.

 

 

Greg

You can't continue giving up 'higher' to 'lower'. You know as well as I do, that your resources are finite: you will run out. Eventually, your good will runs out also, when giving and helping becomes expected of you, the norm. Those helped are not being done any favours in the long run either, since altruism creates a dependency or addiction, from which only few will regain independence. Go on giving far enough, and you'll have only contempt for all people, all whom you feel you are forced to serve; and even further, you will become impoverished, and end up needing support and charity yourself. So, spiritually and materially one has sacrificed oneself, from beginning to the end, and that's the immorality of it. No then - it doesn't make one "a better person". Bitter, yes. And as secondary, look wider and one sees that 'other-ism' is always involved in how a society breaks apart.

Wherever one sees anyone taking up the slack - in any way -  for other people on a constant basis, there is altruism.

I don't think you know the true meaning of altruism/sacrifice/self-sacrifice, Greg. Like many, you will give and help somewhere within your limits, but comes a point you'll go (which no "altruist" admits to) - no further. To call that altruism is a pole apart from what self-sacrifice actually is. It's the polar difference between *wanting to* and *having to*, and so, that often used but critical word, choice.

As one example, which is only the most visible tip of the iceberg, the State. It doesn't strike me that you have much time for Government in your life, and rightly so I think. Consider then, that any government today is in the business of unchosen charity -- sacrifice. A political party gets into power by promises of supplying things to a major portion of the voting bloc and then makes it happen by force -- sacrificially taking freedoms and wealth from others. Which boils down to taking their minds. States all work that way today, it's only a question of degree. Think about it and you'll see that what you find most obnoxious about the State, is that it is not only trying to regulate/control how you earn your living, but making you sacrifice part of your income and your freedom to choose what you want done with your money. You have your own nearest and dearest to sustain, and some other people or causes you think are of merit, at times - i.e. your own chosen values - not all those of unchosen, unknown people.

It's why Rand wrote, simply: "...man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions". Then, he can do as he pleases with his gains - to promote his rational values, properly.

Christians I think would do well to drop the word "altruism", and replace it with "voluntary charity". Not many of them clearly, are expected to or actually will 'self-sacrifice'. They didn't originate it but part-mistakenly adopted it from Comte's conception, I think. (They practice 'altruism'  today as nothing like Comte's decree that every child is born into a lifetime of debt, of an immediate, perpetual service to others). The biggest altruists now are on the secular left.

I don't expect though, that they will cease to consider it a major virtue.

Share this post


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

You can't continue giving up 'higher' to 'lower'. You know as well as I do, that your resources are finite: you will run out. Eventually, your good will runs out also, when giving and helping becomes expected of you, the norm. Those helped are not being done any favours in the long run either, since altruism creates a dependency or addiction, from which only few will regain independence. Go on giving far enough, and you'll have only contempt for all people, all whom you feel you are forced to serve; and even further, you will become impoverished, and end up needing support and charity yourself. So, spiritually and materially one has sacrificed oneself, from beginning to the end, and that's the immorality of it. No then - it doesn't make one "a better person". Bitter, yes. And as secondary, look wider and one sees that 'other-ism' is always involved in how a society breaks apart.

Wherever one sees anyone taking up the slack - in any way -  for other people on a constant basis, there is altruism.

I don't think you know the true meaning of altruism/sacrifice/self-sacrifice, Greg. Like many, you will give and help somewhere within your limits, but comes a point you'll go (which no "altruist" admits to) - no further. To call that altruism is a pole apart from what self-sacrifice actually is. It's the polar difference between *wanting to* and *having to*, and so, that often used but critical word, choice.

As one example, which is only the most visible tip of the iceberg, the State. It doesn't strike me that you have much time for Government in your life, and rightly so I think. Consider then, that any government today is in the business of unchosen charity -- sacrifice. A political party gets into power by promises of supplying things to a major portion of the voting bloc and then makes it happen by force -- sacrificially taking freedoms and wealth from others. Which boils down to taking their minds. States all work that way today, it's only a question of degree. Think about it and you'll see that what you find most obnoxious about the State, is that it is not only trying to regulate/control how you earn your living, but making you sacrifice part of your income and your freedom to choose what you want done with your money. You have your own nearest and dearest to sustain, and some other people or causes you think are of merit, at times - i.e. your own chosen values - not all those of unchosen, unknown people.

It's why Rand wrote, simply: "...man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions". Then, he can do as he pleases with his gains - to promote his rational values, properly.

Christians I think would do well to drop the word "altruism", and replace it with "voluntary charity". None of them clearly are expected to or actually will 'self-sacrifice'. (Not anything like Comte's decree that every child is born into a lifetime of debt, of an immediate, perpetual service to others).

I don't expect though, that they will cease to consider it a major virtue.

Tony, I'm very discriminating in choosing when where how and who I help, because a very specific propriety has to be observed for it to be morally right.

I fully understand what you're saying about how the government "helps". I'm not the government. I never give the unearned to the undeserving. I'm a sovereign private autonomous American citizen who is free to do as I see fit.

Here is a principle I'm not certain you'll get, but it's worth repeating because I've stated it here more than once.

To the degree that I do what's morally right...

...to that same degree the government leaves me alone to enjoy my life...

...because it answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do.

Tony, those aren't just empty words... they actually WORK.  nodder.gif

And I understand that you have no idea of how much my cup overflows. There's no self sacrifice involved. I receive way more than I could ever give.

Greg

Share this post


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

Tony, I'm very discriminating in choosing when where how and who I help, because a very specific propriety has to be observed for it to be morally right.

I fully understand what you're saying about how the government "helps". I'm not the government. I never give the unearned to the undeserving. I'm a sovereign private autonomous American citizen who is free to do as I see fit.

Here is a principle I'm not certain you'll get, but it's worth repeating because I've stated it here more than once.

To the degree that I do what's morally right...

...to that same degree the government leaves me alone to enjoy my life...

...because it answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do.

Tony, those aren't just empty words... they actually WORK.  nodder.gif

And I understand that you have no idea of how much my cup overflows. There's no self sacrifice involved. I receive way more than I could ever give.

Greg

Quite simple, as you say there is no sacrifice involved in your life(as giver or taker) and as I must read what you express, you are in fact a practitioner of rational self-interest. Bet you didn't realise...

(it's only that we've been taught that it is moralistic to "self-sacrifice" and to be "altruistic"- to consistently put anyone elses' needs above one's own. And all the more moralistic it will be, some say, if you don't in the least care (see value) for those unfortunates. It can't be followed through enough and for everyone in need, so this ends up more of an exhibition to show one's cheap superiority to others and an invalid way to feel good about oneself and derive superficial self-esteem, while burying one's guilt for a while).

Share this post


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

Quite simple, as you say there is no sacrifice involved in your life(as giver or taker) and as I must read what you express, you are in fact a practitioner of rational self-interest. Bet you didn't realise...

(it's only that we've been taught that it is moralistic to "self-sacrifice" and to be "altruistic"- to consistently put anyone elses' needs above one's own. And all the more moralistic it will be, some say, if you don't in the least care (see value) for those unfortunates. It can't be followed through enough and for everyone in need, so this ends up more of an exhibition to show one's cheap superiority to others and an invalid way to feel good about oneself and derive superficial self-esteem, while burying one's guilt for a while).

Your description of phony compassion is spot on, Tony.

Just as Capitalist business transactions are always win/win where both parties involved profit from it... moral interactions are also always win/win where both parties involved become better people. The latter being the only real purpose in life, everything else serves it.

Greg

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...