bmacwilliam

I was wondering when this was going to start. Bob doesn't have the ability to persuade by reason, nor to explain very much without fudging all over the place. Look at how dismally he has done on this thread. So he goes back to kindergarten when he knows he's lost an argument. Michael The problem is that the argument is a carry-over from the other thread. "Bob doesn't have the ability to persuade by reason," So I assume you mean: "I refuse to address the problem because I actually know the underlying argument is a textbook, logic 101 fallacy, as Bob has clearly shown, so I'll resort to name-calling instead." Then... you're right! Bob

But you can't expect he'll drink it if you tell him its water but give him horseshit.

1.) Short answer - your own. 2.) Yes. Usually no.

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

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

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.

John, If you're saying that you have no justification for being angry, but are indeed angry then it is you that is clearly stating that you made a mistake no? Here's another way to look at it. a) Your relative shows up at your door on a cold winter's night and you feed him and give him a warm place to sleep. You have "committed" altruism but done the right thing. 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. Bob

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

Now this is amusing... I've shown you clear contradictory facts but you "pretend" that it's me who is pounding the square peg of facts in to the round hole of principle. Not going to fly. The factual question below still stands: "What is it? Let the child die (and that's morally OK), or admit that the 'proper' code and the 'evil' code conclude the same thing?" C'mon fact boy, put up or shut up. Bob

It was the relative who did the investing, not me. Now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, do you withdraw your characterization as stupid/erroneous? John, If you gave your relative money with no strings attached or expectations of repayment, you have no basis for being angry. If you gave the money (especially an amount that was important for you not to lose) without some type of collateral or other protection, then that was a mistake. I don't see the issue here. We all make mistakes no? Even I do - a few years ago I thought I was wrong about something. Bob

I'm sure the readers will be eternally grateful that you'll be letting them decide for themselves. How ever-so-kind of you.

Adam, Yes, you've hit on the crux of it. Thank you for this. I'm not arguing with the definition per se, but rather that she manipulates through definitions to force the false dichotomy. (Michael can't seem to get a grip on this) Let me try to think of an analogy... OK, let's look at something that's harmful. Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer. Instead of realizing that there are gentle blows, deadly blows, and everything else inbetween, Rand defines hitting yourself in the head with a hammer as "hitting yourself in the head with a hammer at supersonic speeds". Guess what, hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is therefore "death as the standard of value". Yep, sure is. But... what about that time you gently tap yourself on the head with the hammer to scratch an itch? Or to squish the poisonous spider that landed on your head? There is probably a better analogy. Drug dosage is probably better. A proper dose and it saves your life, injecting a gallon and you're dead. But I don't define 'taking a drug' as injecting a gallon in order to dishonestly 'prove' a point that all drugs are bad. Rand, in my opinion, quite clearly does this. ******************************************************* "If this is established as the dominant social philosophy, it is one quick step to imposing that "duty" by law with punishment for violations." ******************************************************* DING, DING, DING !!! You win the prize! Damn straight, this is the implication. And clearly we have this situation now. Taxes are, in a very real sense, "mandatory charity" There's a contradiction in terms there, but I'm just agreeing with your "duty" by law implication. See, I don't think this is a problem. A 10% tax is the "proper dose" arguably, whereas the situation now is more like a sledgehammer to the head if you forgive me for mixing metaphors. It's a matter of degree for me. But look at the political implications you quite clearly point out if Randroids admit that her altruism argument is a fraud. That's exactly what I'm saying. Bob

Strong the Randroid force in this one is. Twisted by the Dark Side young whYNOT has become. " It is forced by guilt, not chosen." Wrong. Unless there was no choice, it was chosen. The choice may be motivated by something you disapprove of, but it was chosen. But lets run with the mother and hat story. "Sacrifice is inherently dishonest, and self-indulgent. It is more about 'yourself', than it is egoistical; it stems from non-value, not conscious value." Fine, so Either 1) It certainly looks like this is not something one should do right? So, let the child starve then. Or, 2) Totally change your moral framework, but actually come to the conclusion that you should do the exact same thing as the 'evil' moral code (feed the child)? Gotta pick one man, there are no contradictions in nature dude. What is it? Let the child die (and that's OK), or admit that the 'proper' code and the 'evil' code conclude the same thing? See the corner she painted herself into here? Bob

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

I said no such thing. I merely said I gave a lot of money to a person I didn't like and that hatred was the result. I didn't talk about a "transaction" or an "investment". I talked about a sacrifice. What prompted you to call this stupid? What prompts you now to call this an error? Where, exactly, is the error? Isn't it moral to suffer for someone else? No John, you talked about investment. You wrote: "I once gave a close relative of mine my savings for some property investment." ??

The animadversion (great word) comes from a strong belief in what Rand was trying to do, coupled with a strong aversion or offense to what I can only describe as corruption. I do not believe her corruption was accidental. I believe she was too smart not to be deliberately manipulative. She defends reality as the final or ultimate judge of correctness of her ideas, yet too many of her ideas quite obviously fail the reality test. She goes to great lengths to obscure this. Her political motivations offend me. This is different than her political position. She defends her politics through ethics and ultimately bases it all on reality. But the reality test is failed over and over again along the way. To say that I owe no duty whatsoever to my fellow man because I just don't care about him is actually fine with me - or at least honest. To say that any sense of duty is evil, the ethics of death, the destroyer of lives blah blah blah, is just bullshit - a false dichotomy. It does not fit with reality, period. I think she just didn't have the courage to say that she didn't care at all about other people. Instead she tried to derive this as acceptable. Remember this is the person that tried to convice her husband that it was a good idea that she bang someone else. Her morality is offensive and there are many more examples of this type of moral pathology. If any non-zero amount of altruism is of value, then so is the ability to criticize would-be pure egoists, and she couldn't have that now could she? Just think about what now happens if this is true (if only hypothetically). Bob

Bob, I'm asking again: Why was, in your opinion, giving money to that relative a bad idea? Stupid, even? It was an error. Maybe it was an error that was obvious or maybe it wasn't obvious. However, if it was a real estate transaction and you had no protection or collateral for at least some of your investment, then it was a bad decision. Bob

Mixed altruism/rational selfishness, in ethics. That's the same principle behind 'mixed economy' (half control, and a half freedom) , or 'mixed epistemology' (half rationality, and half instinct). It's a skeptical and agnostic position. Cold water with hot water is lukewarm. One foot on the brake, and the other on the gas, will get one nowhere. Playing it safe, sitting on the fence. Altruism defines this era's cynical zeitgeist that places high morality on a person paying a substantial price for something - way beyond its obvious value. (If it don't hurt enough, then you don't mean it.) It has no place in the economy, in a healthy society, or in loving relationships. Tony I guess I missed this one when it was originally posted. This attitude is nicely illustrative of the blind embrace of a principle, while simultaneously completely dismissing reality. Randian selfishness good, Randian altruism bad. Totally obvious false dichotomy. The reality of many, many systems is that balance is the key. Sugar to a starving man will save his life. Sugar as exclusive diet will kill him before long. A drug may save your life. Too much of the same drug and you're dead. All altruism and you'll be miserable. All selfishness and you'll also be miserable. Like...duh... It's your ill-conceived aversion to a mixed economy that fuels your obstinence to an obvious reality problem. "It has no place in the economy, in a healthy society, or in loving relationships." If you honestly think that action by you that is solely intended to benefit your partner has NO part in loving relationships, you either never had one, never will have one, or both. Bob

Oh rubbish. Self-righteousness, and all. Do you really believe that there don't exist mothers who secretly WOULD prefer to buy the hat? But, reluctantly, dutifully, and in a SELF-SACRIFICIAL manner, will buy food for the child, anyway? And probably resent him for it? You're not seeing how Rand screwed this up. This item is rather revealing how messed up her altruism nonsense really is. Her point over and over again is that self-sacrificial behaviour is the worst evil. Here she criticizes the woman who would save the child. If the child isn't worth much to the mother, then she acts altruistically when she buys the food. But wait a minute, her act saved the child. Should she have acted out of a sense of duty? If no, the child dies, if yes, then duty/altruism is sometimes good. She can't have it both ways. Bob

Tony, this is clearly fallacious. It couldn't be clearer. The conclusion is included in "According to C". That is called 'begging the question'. Look it up. BobIf one agrees with the 3 definitions, the conclusion is consistent, and non-contradictory. Value, and non-value mix like a little cyanide in your soup. "is consistent, and non-contradictory" is not relevant. The conclusion is included in the premises. This is fallacious - not (necessarily) wrong or contradictory. I don't think you know what a fallacy is. Bob

Now here is what Bob reads (going from his criticism and belligerence): "If a man accepts biological altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance)..." If it was a snake, it would have bit him right there in his own post, but I think he just doesn't see it. Michael Michael, I don't know who you think you're fooling with this - not me. You have to separate the arguments. Yes, biological altruism leads to different conclusions, this much is true. That's not the issue. The issue is Rand's altruism leads to these conclusions: (Her words) " If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake" Bullshit. Bull-frigging-shit. It might be for his own sake, or it might be purely for her sake depending on the man. I want my wife to be financially secure if I die for her sake, and her sake alone. Another man may want to enjoy her security while he's alive or whatever, so be it, but I don't. I don't want her to worry about money if I die for HER sake alone. I would also like to hope she'd marry another man that loves her if I die - for HER sake alone. Rand calls this absurd? Bite me. "If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty" That's just psychotic... See the difference?? It's Rand's goofy conclusions that I'm focusing on. "Goofy" is a mild term. Rand's morality deeply offends me on a number of levels.

Tony, this is clearly fallacious. It couldn't be clearer. The conclusion is included in "According to C". That is called 'begging the question'. Look it up. Bob

Again, you are spectacularly brilliant at missing the point. I am clear on Rand's definition. What I take exception to, is the blatantly obvious fact that she utililizes a twisted definition so she can conclude that there is absolutely no value in helping others, that charity is morally neutral at best. She simply goes to great and nonsensical lengths to remove any and all virtue of service to others. In fact, she states your acceptance of altruism is connected to your degeneracy in proportion. She wrote: (Virtue of Selfishness) "If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help." and more utter and complete nonsense. This is just bullshit. Worse than bullshit - politically motivated bullshit - the worst kind. Bob

So it's a misunderstanding. You call my behavior stupid, altruism is something else for you, got it. You agree with me that it was wrong to give this relative money. That basically means we're in agreement, all we're fighting about is definitions. Now that we got that sorted, we can both laugh about it and relax. There's no real conflict. Right? Michael's nonsense aside, what I was getting at was that regardless of whether your act was altruistic or not, it was a dumb thing to do. Some altruistic acts are going to be a bad idea, just like some selfish acts will be a bad idea. However not all altruistic acts are bad. The point was don't throw all atruism into the "bad idea" pile because you did something dumb. It's not the same thing. That's my point. Bob

This is classic 'begging the question' fallacy. You define anything that is of value to you is a selfish value - " Anybody you value is a selfish value." Therefore, there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO to act altruistically toward this person. This assumes the conclusion in the 'premises' of your argument which is fallacious reasoning. Again, nonsense. Bob