john42t

The answer is yes, just look at the way rational men treat irrational (non-human) animals. The reason why Rand didn't cover the question was that she had unrealistic expectations of the degree of rationality in human beings. I bet she thought covering it suggests a level of importance it doesn't deserve. All she ever said to the question of "how to deal with irrational" people was "find the rational". It's probably the right answer as advice for a good life, but I don't think it's the whole answer technically speaking.

In theory that could reduce the sacrifice demanded of her. Still, I doubt that you will be able to reduce it to a negligible level: The toughest price she pays might not even be the health part, but the social harm done by an irrational social conservative climate that believes the child owns her. If there is an option to bring the child out of her without a health risk (and the bill payed by the foster parents presumably) and either anonymously or the Zeitgeist does no longer condemn such an action - then I'd say a law against abortion would approach zero in its degree of injustice. I'd like to say something else in this context: Individual rights don't equate "treated nicely/being loved" or anything like that. In a way it's probably even the opposite. Here's an example of a thing that is treated very nicely and is often loved but is rightless: The house cat. Here's an example of a thing that is treated like crap and is often despised but has rights: The successful entrepreneur. There's plenty of other reasons why the killing of (born) babies can be outlawed, there is no need to have this based on individual rights (not the baby's rights anyway). I find it important to make that disctinction because consistency matters. This argument is the only one that doesn't appeal to feelings and doesn't involve arbitrary compromise.

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe. I think we can disregard the hypothetical case of no legal system existing when we speak of morality in our modern world. Depends on what you call legal system. There's lots of pretty lawless places in the world. Depending on where you draw the line, it might be a majority of mankind not living under legal systems. Also, most legal systems are unjust - which amounts to the same thing for the sake of this argument. In so far that's your reward, I don't object to the rule. But then it's phrased in a misleading way. But they want to be appreciated for different reasons by different people than you might. Sexual preference differs vastly and what is attractive to one woman is harassment to the next. You don't know in advance. I remember having said to a salesclerk that this "schlecker radio" (an pseudo-talk-radio program produced for the chain store) must be annoying when you have to listen to it all day. I was really horrified by the idea of working there. She just answered that it's often very interesting. Of course no way in hell it would ever be interesting to me. People are different.

I think "nuts" is not the right word. She was naive and gave the average human being way too much credit (which is ironic given the kind of criticism she received).

If the mother has the choice it means the child has no rights. It's really either-or. "Rights" of a dependent can ultimately only ever be positive rights, since even the right to life for a dependent means: someone is forced to provide. In this case, the mother.

That's not the point at all. They have no rights because their lives depend on a another human being. Individual rights are grounded in the fact that human beings need to exercise their independent judgement freely to live as such - but that obviously doesn't apply to unborn children and babies. As far as born babies are concerned, the same argument applies, but in this case letting the child live is not necessarily linked to a sacrifice (there are places that take care of orphans) - so it's not so much of an issue. I can't quote Rand on this, I know this argument only from a narrative in "Goddess of the Market" and I'm aware that the ARI gives a different (and in my opinion wrong) justification for the pro-life stance. If someone knows a quotation by Rand herself I'd be interested.

That's funny. Where did she write this?

How true. Myself, I struggled with this for some time. The problem is psychological I believe. Many people (like myself) come to Objectivism from a more idealist/altruist background and it's someone difficult to let go of that. I would compare it with the difference between realizing that smoking is bad for you and actually quitting. Only that in this case the drug becomes the activity of spreading the message that one ought to quit - a delicious paradox. It's a real contradiction for everyone that can't make money with spreading the message, and who can do that?

I didn't believe you did advocate it or would do looting and mooching after I suggested it. I was merely using a rethorical device. And I agree with that. Band worms are successful. Not sure what this has to do with human beings though. I agree on this as well. I think biology is way too high-level (kin selection, gene, etc.) for this to have a chance to be possible, as I personally would apply the label "ethics" only to concepts of a much more fundamental nature (happiness, self-interest, collaboration, etc). So ethics can't be built on biology the way I define the words, but then again there is no agreement on the exact definitions. What I do is to extend insights of ethics *to* biology and find interesting analogies. For example, I observe that my long term happiness correlates to some extent with the success of my genes. In no way I derive ethics from that. EDIT: Just thought about this a bit more. If ethics is derived from that, it would probably imply a duty to procreate (to spread copies of one's genes). I'd even go as far as explictly rejecting this particular result of such an ethics.

I suppose we're talking about criminal activity? If so, then: In the presence of a legal system, the rule is unecessary as punishment by the law will be a deterrent also. In the absence of a legal system the rule puts those who obey it at a disadvantage. So the rule is at best useless and at worst harmful to the individual that obeys it. In no case the rule is practical for the pursuit of one's own happiness. Which means it doesn't work at all. And if we're not talking about criminal activity but in fact all sorts of behavior: What about the many cases in which others want or don't want done to them totally different things than myself? Which, of course, I rarely have proper knowledge about.

That some people win in the lottery doesn't mean it's a good strategy. Success depends on luck and on average you lose. That's they way with the mystics also. EDIT: Of course people who play lottery in the hope of winning it actually really are mystics themselves.

For some time. Maybe for ages even, but their success depends on ideology. This is the age of the internet and that's why I believe they've lost. In the long run, they will be on the wrong side - they will be poor, lonely and dysfunctional when all the selfish leave them. They won't have the intellectual leadership any more to prevent this by force. Eventually, this will drive most of them to rationality again. If so, they will accept a lower life standard and less social status, but become productive. If you believe I'm wrong and the way of the parasite is the way to go, feel free to do so. Become a looter and moocher, go ahead (Mikee will shout at you, but not me). I believe that I'm right and that eventually you'll see that it was a bad choice *for yourself*. I thought so before I read Rand. Now I see morality as the fitting program for a human being as a life form who's primary tool of survival is his mind - in his *own* interest as an individual, not for the sake of his peers. To say that you shouldn't loot because it harms others is altruism. You shouldn't loot because it's a short-sighted strategy. I can't agree with the biological analogy. If e. g. the all members of society are regarded as equal before the law, would you call that egalitarianism/collectivism too? If I take this to mean the ideology that is concerned with the ideal of everyone being equal before the law, then yes. The German idealist tradition is full of that.

Right. Of course that's a very obvious characteristic I didn't really think of. My curiosity is whether the early Christian belief was fundamentally about the concern of the souls of others, not only for missionaries, but every believer. There is at least some collectivist trait in early Christianity, but I don't know how far it went and whether it's actually rooted in theology or merely a practical consequence of an irrational ideology.

That's fascinating. How strong was that aspect and what are your sources?

Two separate cases apply: A) First, rational people will stop enabling the irrational. An extremely painted example would be Hank Rearden dropping the support for his family. Milder cases are happening every time all over the world. They do this for selfish reasons. B) Those of the irrational who chose to engage in violent activities will be treated as criminals. Again for selfish reasons. Note that I put "freedom" in quotes: I played on the fact that the majority either intends no exact meaning or refers to the freedom of the criminal when using this word. Egalitarianism surely is collectivism.

I agree with this posting completely, it explains very well what I meant to bring up or twice in this thread. I would also add that part of this effect is due to the individuals circumstance: It's less difficult to convince somebody that capitalism is good when he desires to show everyone what he's up to, it's more difficult if that person feels impotent.

Example: I studied maths in Germany. I did it through the German educational system for free on a state university. There is limited possibility to do otherwise, there is almost no private sector in academia in Germany. I did feel like a parasite (also before reading Rand), but I thought I'd "pay society back". But I no longer believe in the concept of society - the value I received was stolen. I don't believe my action were immoral, at least not for the reason that the value I received was stolen. Now I suppose I could give the state a pile of cash to make up for it, but why? To make people like you like me?

Isn't this what I said? The whole point of the human ego is to prevent you from doing it - to prevent you from becoming dependent.

Now that I think about it, I agree with this sentiment.

I don't have time right now (it's Thanksgiving here in the US) and may not have much time for the rest of the weekend. Manichaeism was similar to Zoroastrianism in terms of the conflict between good and evil. In Christianity if you're good you go to heaven, evil hell. Zoroastrianism has a cosmic conflict, and you have to take a side, and evil can win, meaning the cosmos can go to hell, and you're part of making sure it doesn't (or does). Could be better. It would depend a lot on what is considered the good. What has been their stance on ursury and what social group was attracted to the ideology? Those are the first questions I ask to figure out how to classify it Unfortunately, it's difficult with ancient ideologies where I lack the frame of reference. Take any time you need, but if you could elaborate on this or the religion's content, I'm interested.

I have no problems understanding Rand when she's using these words. Rational people can agree on definitions.

I don't know. What are the unique characteristics of Manichaeism? The answer to that question should be crucial for the speculation about what would have happened. I glanced at the Wikipedia article, but I couldn't find anything that allows me an easy categorization.

I'd rather wait until Phil has made his full case, otherwise I'm going to prematurely derail his thread. You mentioned Manichaeism. If Manichaeism had taken over rather than Christianity, would that be different? (I don't know anything about the religion.)

Correct. It's only immoral in so far you become *dependent* on welfare (don't work on a profession), or in so far as you lose the ability to pride yourself into not having taken any money. I consider the first reason much more important.

I hope you don't want to insinuate that I said anything about a species/tribal competition to exist.