Defense de fumer

[bmacwilliam]

Is there an objective ethics foundation here, and if so which is it - life or liberty?

I see. Reading the whole body of work, I think it makes sense to look at man qua man in full context, a specific time and place. Objectivism doesn't provide categorical imperatives about smoking or drinking or forum posting (like LDS does, for instance). On another thread I blew raspberries at guys who claimed to be 100% honest, brave, clean and reverent. Yes, obviously it's desirable to not smoke cigarettes, just as it's desirable to never compromise, go on strike, invent a new metal alloy, be born rich, etc. We don't get everything we want in life.

W.

Excellent! Well put. I agree with most of this.

Once we start making any claims of an objective nature wrt ethics, it gets messy in a big hurry. People slip into different ethical foundations or reference frames depending on the topic. Politics is a bad one for this.

"Objectivism doesn't provide categorical imperatives about smoking "

Not quite - I'd say the following...

"Objectivism CANNOT provide categorical imperatives about smoking " - because it will contradict other categorical imperatives - like life as the standard of value.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Is there an objective ethics foundation here, and if so which is it - life or liberty?

I see. Reading the whole body of work, I think it makes sense to look at man qua man in full context, a specific time and place. Objectivism doesn't provide categorical imperatives about smoking or drinking or forum posting (like LDS does, for instance). On another thread I blew raspberries at guys who claimed to be 100% honest, brave, clean and reverent. Yes, obviously it's desirable to not smoke cigarettes, just as it's desirable to never compromise, go on strike, invent a new metal alloy, be born rich, etc. We don't get everything we want in life.

W.

Excellent! Well put. I agree with most of this.

Once we start making any claims of an objective nature wrt ethics, it gets messy in a big hurry. People slip into different ethical foundations or reference frames depending on the topic. Politics is a bad one for this.

"Objectivism doesn't provide categorical imperatives about smoking "

Not quite - I'd say the following...

"Objectivism CANNOT provide categorical imperatives about smoking " - because it will contradict other categorical imperatives - like life as the standard of value.

Bob

Okay, bring on the categorical imperatives as such.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

... because it will contradict other categorical imperatives - like life as the standard of value.

Bob

Please don't be a doofus. Standards are units of measurement. They're not arbitrary because standards have to be rationally related to the thing being measured. Life of man qua man is the received Objectivist standard of value. How much life with dignity and purpose (how many units) varies with each man's potential and historical context. I know it's subtle, and I'm not going any further with this because you aren't interested in good faith discussion. Have a nice day.

B)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Standards are units of measurement. They're not arbitrary because standards have to be rationally related to the thing being measured.

Wolf,

Man, is it a relief to read someone else say this kind of thing when discussing Rand!

If one point ever had to be mentioned as THE ONE that is consistently misunderstood and/or misrepresented about her ideas, I woud say that this is it. In most of the cases I have read, when it has not been explicit, it has been at the root of the error.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Please don't be a doofus. Standards are units of measurement. They're not arbitrary because standards have to be rationally related to the thing being measured. Life of man qua man is the received Objectivist standard of value. How much life with dignity and purpose (how many units) varies with each man's potential and historical context. I know it's subtle, and I'm not going any further with this because you aren't interested in good faith discussion. Have a nice day.

In the game of chess the standard of move-legality is not a quantity. It is conformance to a set of rules.

Standards need not be related to measurement. For example one of the standards of being Pope is being male. Being male and being female is not a numerical matter at all. There is no unit of maleness or unite of femininity. One is either male or not. One is either female or not. There is no rational way of saying X is twice as male as Y.

Ba'al Chatzarf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Standards need not be related to measurement.

Too easy, Bob. Throw some Godel at me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

See what I mean? Not only did Bob get the measurement idea wrong (in the manner I meant it), he went off on a tangent and completely left the realm of Rand's ideas.

They always do stuff like that, then later claim that Rand was all wrong.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

... because it will contradict other categorical imperatives - like life as the standard of value.

Bob

Please don't be a doofus. Standards are units of measurement. They're not arbitrary because standards have to be rationally related to the thing being measured. Life of man qua man is the received Objectivist standard of value. How much life with dignity and purpose (how many units) varies with each man's potential and historical context. I know it's subtle, and I'm not going any further with this because you aren't interested in good faith discussion. Have a nice day.

B)

In good faith - seriously explain this...

"Yes, obviously it's desirable to not smoke cigarettes"

Why?

Or more importantly why the soft language, why does this not have the same moral imperative as non-initiation of force?

I am honestly waiting for an explanation for this. Here's the way I see it. I think the life as man qua man thing is a sham. Smoking can very easily be assailed as anti life, and quite rationally and consistently so. Choosing to smoke is choosing not to think, not to live life as man qua man and in a very concrete way is choosing death. Are you going to apply man qua man in a logically consistent way, or just in an emotional or politically consistent way?

Why then, seriously, is it only "desirable to not smoke" and not immoral?

Bob

Edited January 23, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I don't want to argue the smoking thing, but your interpretation of "man qua man" is as if it were one of the 10 Commandments (and a fudged one at that), not a measurement. You treat it as a category handed down from above or something like that.

That is the part you get wrong about Rand.

If you understood that, you would understand that volition is a fundamental human characteristic and that values pertaining to volition are more important than smoking or almost any other specific activity as a value.

btw - I fully agree with you about the dangers of smoking, although I do not understand why you deny that people enjoy it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Incidentally, in Objectivism, as I understand it, undesirable or immoral can be applied to smoking, depending on the context.

But you have to understand the measurement thing first. And to start from scratch in addition to undoing misconceptions, that is a LONG conversation.

Michael

[sjw]

Smoking can very easily be assailed as anti life, and quite rationally and consistently so. Choosing to smoke is choosing not to think, not to live life as man qua man and in a very concrete way is choosing death. Are you going to apply man qua man in a logically consistent way, or just in an emotional or politically consistent way?

There is no evidence that smoking in moderation is harmful to a healthy person.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Smoking can very easily be assailed as anti life, and quite rationally and consistently so. Choosing to smoke is choosing not to think, not to live life as man qua man and in a very concrete way is choosing death. Are you going to apply man qua man in a logically consistent way, or just in an emotional or politically consistent way?

There is no evidence that smoking in moderation is harmful to a healthy person.

Shayne

A non-smoker living in L.A. probably breaths in more toxic do do than a five cigarette a day smoker does in the middle of Kansas. The air we breath contains some toxic and particulate matter independent of smoking.

Living in L.A. is anti-life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

I don't want to argue the smoking thing, but your interpretation of "man qua man" is as if it were one of the 10 Commandments (and a fudged one at that), not a measurement. You treat it as a category handed down from above or something like that.

That is the part you get wrong about Rand.

If you understood that, you would understand that volition is a fundamental human characteristic and that values pertaining to volition are more important than smoking or almost any other specific activity as a value.

btw - I fully agree with you about the dangers of smoking, although I do not understand why you deny that people enjoy it.

Michael

I don't agree with that. Where do you get the notion that volition can trump an anti-life act? When and where can anti-life be a moral choice? Emergencies? There's only a couple of situations as I have read it and smoking ain't one of em. I understand volition perfectly well. But when does volition give you a free pass to be immoral?

"although I do not understand why you deny that people enjoy it."

You're not reading properly. I cleary explained that enjoyment is hedonistic in the sense that short term pleasure is chosen over long-term harm.

"Incidentally, in Objectivism, as I understand it, undesirable or immoral can be applied to smoking, depending on the context. "

As I understand it

"Incidentally, in Objectivism, as I understand it, undesirable or immoral can be applied to smoking, INDEPENDENT OF the context."

Nobody has even begun to attempt to give me a reason why this in incorrect. Enlighten me. Tell me how,according to Objectivism, smoking CAN EVER be a morally positive or even neutral act?

Bob

Edited January 23, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

Smoking can very easily be assailed as anti life, and quite rationally and consistently so. Choosing to smoke is choosing not to think, not to live life as man qua man and in a very concrete way is choosing death. Are you going to apply man qua man in a logically consistent way, or just in an emotional or politically consistent way?

There is no evidence that smoking in moderation is harmful to a healthy person.

Shayne

Good luck.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Smoking can very easily be assailed as anti life, and quite rationally and consistently so. Choosing to smoke is choosing not to think, not to live life as man qua man and in a very concrete way is choosing death. Are you going to apply man qua man in a logically consistent way, or just in an emotional or politically consistent way?

There is no evidence that smoking in moderation is harmful to a healthy person.

Shayne

A non-smoker living in L.A. probably breaths in more toxic do do than a five cigarette a day smoker does in the middle of Kansas. The air we breath contains some toxic and particulate matter independent of smoking.

Living in L.A. is anti-life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's possible that exposure to some air pollution energizes the body's defenses against said pollution and other contaminants one may encounter. Don't ask for my evidence. I think the principle is in a process called hormensis. Background radiation is good for you and if you live at a high altitude and get more of it you'll be statistically less likely to get cancer.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nobody has even begun to attempt to give me a reason why this in incorrect. Enlighten me. Tell me how,according to Objectivism, smoking CAN EVER be a morally positive or even neutral act?

Bob,

I tried. You won't even look at the idea.

If you are truly interested, try to understand the concept of standards of measurement (ordinal measurement).

If you only want to preach, stay where you are.

I'm done for now. I don't argue against preaching. I merely register disagreement.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Smoking can very easily be assailed as anti life, and quite rationally and consistently so. Choosing to smoke is choosing not to think, not to live life as man qua man and in a very concrete way is choosing death. Are you going to apply man qua man in a logically consistent way, or just in an emotional or politically consistent way?

There is no evidence that smoking in moderation is harmful to a healthy person.

Shayne

You're serious? What colour is the sky in your reality?

Bob

[Laure]

Oh God, what a civil place this is.

OK, Bob, here's the thing. Your chance of getting cancer or some other horrible disease from smoking is positive, but something less than 100%, correct? Some people enjoy smoking, for whatever reason.

My chance of getting food poisoning from eating raw cookie dough is positive, but something less than 100%. I enjoy eating raw cookie dough on occasion.

My chance of dying in a car accident in my little 1800-pound Honda CRX is positive, but something less than 100%. It is also significantly more likely than dying in a car accident in, let's say, a Volvo, weighing twice as much, and having airbags and other advanced safety features. But I enjoy driving my CRX.

I favor a society in which I can decide for myself if various behaviors are worth the risk, to me, rather than to have the government tell me that a certain behavior is too risky for me to engage in, or too risky for a business to provide me with.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Laure

[BaalChatzaf]

I favor a society in which I can decide for myself if various behaviors are worth the risk, to me, rather than to have the government tell me that a certain behavior is too risky for me to engage in, or too risky for a business to provide me with.

Amen! We all have to strike a balance between living with joy (and accepting some risks) or hunkering down to maximize the number of days between birth and death. I don't consider the latter choice really living. It is more like death avoiding. One thing peeves me no end; when others make a judgment about how much risk -I- should take. That is purely my business. This is permissible for parents with regard to their children whose risk-judgment is underdeveloped but intolerable when applied to adults.

My time is mine. My body is mine. My energy is mine. They are mine to use and dispose. The only constraint I will accept is to pay due regard to other people's rights and liberties. That is fair. I generally hold off judging others, except when there is a safety concern regarding me and mine. If someone else is doing something that imposes no hazard on me and mine or disturbs the peace, then I simply pay that someone no mind or little mind. What is his is his and what is mine is mine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 23, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, I just deleted Bob Mac's last post and placed him on moderation. I am tired of telling grown-ups that "lying sack of shit" (his eloquent expression) and other similar outbursts are not for OL. I don't see him interested in changing his behavior.

We all blurt (to use Pekoff's phrase), and some of us are more abrasive than others, but there's a limit. Mac crossed it.

Michael