nastiness abounds

[sjw]

If you can't meet the burden of proof here, this is no surprise.

Exactly how much inanity does one have the "burden" of answering? I mean, if someone comes saying that what you say is wrong, and you start trying to explain, and then you find out that the person is not only confused on a given level, but many other levels below that, how far does one's "burden" of carrying the ignorant slob go?

I presume you were born with two eyes and a brain just like me, you can read Ayn Rand as well as I can. Besides, I think Brant is already making more effort than you deserve to carry your lazy ignorant ass up the mountain, I see no need to pitch in.

Shayne

[anthony]

A scenario made in heaven for Shayne.

Arguing on two fronts, simultaneously - then, to get his mental juices really flowing, one opposing Rand, and the other supportive!

Really funny.

(Shayne, I retreat, but with my forces in good order.)

[Brant Gaede]

If you can't meet the burden of proof here, this is no surprise.

Exactly how much inanity does one have the "burden" of answering? I mean, if someone comes saying that what you say is wrong, and you start trying to explain, and then you find out that the person is not only confused on a given level, but many other levels below that, how far does one's "burden" of carrying the ignorant slob go?

I presume you were born with two eyes and a brain just like me, you can read Ayn Rand as well as I can. Besides, I think Brant is already making more effort than you deserve to carry your lazy ignorant ass up the mountain, I see no need to pitch in.

Shayne

Help me! Please, help me!

--Brant

sob! I can't do it alone!

[Brant Gaede]

BRANT SHRUGS

?

[sjw]

BRANT SHRUGS

?

[sjw]

A scenario made in heaven for Shayne.

Arguing on two fronts, simultaneously - then, to get his mental juices really flowing, one opposing Rand, and the other supportive!

Really funny.

(Shayne, I retreat, but with my forces in good order.)

The value of holding reason as an absolute and the insight that the moral is the practical are perhaps Ayn Rand's greatest philosophical insights, and in fact are intimately interrelated. They are also very closely related to being capable of seeing her errors -- if you don't take her seriously about these two values, then you're just an Ayn Rand fan, not up to the task of criticizing her.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Just agree with him. He'll like that.

rde

[anthony]

Just agree with him. He'll like that.

rde

No! Don't even think it!

There's nothing Shayne will find more unforgiveable than agreement.

It's the stimulus, you see.

Which is why he's always confrontational.

Some may find him rude, but he is not vindictive, I believe.

Actually, he's probably a nice guy.

(Now, I'll get it.) B)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's something about Shayne not many people see.

He's got a really big heart.

Michael

[caroljane]

There's something about Shayne not many people see.

He's got a really big heart.

Michael

And a lot of irrefutable reasons for why he chooses to have it.

[Rich Engle]

J.G. Bennett: If you know you have an unpleasant nature and dislike people, this is no obstacle to work.

I think he most likely is big-hearted. Letting it out the box a little more often might be good.

He's a good writer, too.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Xray]

Most human action is based on choices and choices are based on the fact that because they are choices and thus free will is involved each choice is moral or immoral.

There exist enough choices where what one choses is no moral choice.

Also, equating the practical with the moral leaves out e. g. all those cases where people are prepared to suffer immense hardships in the fight for their moral ideals.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Most human action is based on choices and choices are based on the fact that because they are choices and thus free will is involved each choice is moral or immoral.

There exist enough choices where what one choses is no moral choice.

Also, equating the practical with the moral leaves out e. g. all those cases where people are prepared to suffer immense hardships in the fight for their moral ideals.

Every choice is moral. But which morality are you meaning?

Also, the practical means that which works - not necessarily that which is easiest.

[Brant Gaede]

Most human action is based on choices and choices are based on the fact that because they are choices and thus free will is involved each choice is moral or immoral.

There exist enough choices where what one choses is no moral choice.

Also, equating the practical with the moral leaves out e. g. all those cases where people are prepared to suffer immense hardships in the fight for their moral ideals.

Oh those are moral choices too, but you aren't necessarily aware of the implicit morality. It doesn't have to slap you up side the face. I don't see how "immense hardships" are necessarily impractical dealings.

I don't like how you bite a little bit off what I wrote as if what you chew on represents the whole.

--Brant

[Xray]

A scenario made in heaven for Shayne.

Arguing on two fronts, simultaneously - then, to get his mental juices really flowing, one opposing Rand, and the other supportive!

Really funny.

Shayne's getting little frazzled though it seems, for he is becoming increasingly 'snappish'.

"lazy ignorant ass" - tsk tsk, now that's not gentleman-like, Mr. Shayne. As if he wanted to refute my claim that humans have become more civilized with evidence indicating the contrary.

Every choice is moral.

The choice between chocolate and strawberry ice cream is moral?

The choice to become a dental technician?

I can't undersand how the myth of "every choice is a moral choice" is still being bought.

It is true that choices can be regarded as moral/immoral given a specfic context, but it is just no true that every choice is moral.

Every choice is moral. But which morality are you meaning?

This is not an easy question to answer because moral standards, like everythig else, are subject to permanent change. But there exist certain fundamental values modern democratic states have agreed on, listed in the Declaration of Human Rights; I think many would agree that a violation of these rights can be considered as immoral.

Also, the practical means that which works - not necessarily that which is easiest.

But if the practical is that which works to achieve a goal, suppose the goal is immoral, then equating 'practical' with 'moral' makes no sense.

That was my point: the practical is 'that which works'; it is a purely operational term.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Every choice is moral.

The choice between chocolate and strawberry ice cream is moral?

The choice to become a dental technician?

I can't undersand how the myth of "every choice is a moral choice" is still being bought.

It is true that choices can be regarded as moral/immoral given a specfic context, but it is just no true that every choice is moral.

Also, the practical means that which works - not necessarily that which is easiest.

But if the practical is that which works to achieve a goal, supose the goal is immoral, then equating the practical with moral makes no sense.

That was my point: the practical is 'that which works'; it is a purely operational term.

Back to those strawmen, again, eh?

Remember, this is a philosophy forum - a philosophical 'choice' is that which a person makes founded upon his morality, not on his stomach. His career? yes of course choosing, say, dental hygiene is an expression of his morality.

"...with productive achievement as his noblest activity..."

Second, it is an Objectivist philosophical forum, which recognizes no split between moral and practical.

Simply, yes: the moral is that which furthers his life in toto, and the practical is that which works to further his...etc.

Third, you conveniently sliced-and-diced out one sentence of mine. I asked "But which morality are you meaning?"

Please clarify, as objectively as possible your own conflicting ethics.

[caroljane]

I can't undersand how the myth of "every choice is a moral choice" is still being bought.

You can't? Have you never checked out the Q&A's from Piekoff and Hsieh, or read some of the questions on Oonline? Mythology arises from archetypes....

[Brant Gaede]

The choice between chocolate and strawberry ice cream is moral?

You betcha. Not for one or the other but for the choosing. Morality and choice are bound up tighter than a drum. (Is this the way you segue away from moral-practical?)

--Brant

[Xray]

Back to those strawmen, again, eh?

Where is the strawman?

Remember, this is a philosophy forum - a philosophical 'choice' is that which a person makes founded upon his morality, not on his stomach.

The philosophical choice on my part lies in examining whether philosophical premises stand up to scrutiny.

His career? yes of course choosing, say, dental hygiene is an expression of his morality.

Then it is really no surprise that people in all seriousness ask Peikoff whether they are morally allowed to eat vanilla ice cream.

"...with productive achievement as his noblest activity..."

Second, it is an Objectivist philosophical forum, which recognizes no split between moral and practical.

All very well, but what is the Objectivist answer to the example I gave:

But if the practical is that which works to achieve a goal, suppose the goal is immoral, then equating practical with moral makes no sense.

As an Objectivist, you would then also have to call "impractical" all those procedures which don't further Objectivist moral ideals, even if these procedures are very effective and make many people happy.

Simply, yes: the moral is that which furthers his life in toto, and the practical is that which works to further his...etc.

To what degree does this include the well-being of others? Does e. g. the capitalist profiting from child labor "further his life in toto"?

Third, you conveniently sliced-and-diced out one sentence of mine. I asked "But which morality are you meaning?"

I've already answered that. See above. I was editing while you posted.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

[To Shayne]:

Before we proceed, it's your turn now to provide 'your' definion of civility.

Still waiting.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's something about Shayne not many people see.

He's got a really big heart.

Michael

And a lot of irrefutable reasons for why he chooses to have it.

Carol Jane,

LOL...

You do have to look, that's for sure...

Think of a really grumpy dog who is always barking and snipping, but if an intruder comes near you threatening harm for real, he will be all over the intruder. (That is... heh... right before he snarls at you to stop your irrational deranged bizarre whining. )

This is hard to see on the Internet, since real damage is hard to come by. But I once saw him put up a forum for a person who got painfully conflicted over a nasty clash on the old SoloHQ and whose feelings were really hurt. It was my understanding that he was not close friends with that person when he did that.

I look at actions and words to judge people. I am of the school that believes actions speak louder than words on the really important stuff. I think Shayne would be a great neighbor.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think Shayne would be a great neighbor, too, Michael--if he didn't know who I was.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I think Shayne would be a great neighbor, too, Michael--if he didn't know who I was.

--Brant

Whoever he thought you were, I hope he would check out that contraption in your garage!

[sjw]

Yes Xray, frazzled is the word, I've been busy, and you test my patience. Your "operational" sense of "practical" is entirely missing the point and has nothing to do with Rand's sense. In Rand's sense, something is only practical when taken in the context of the whole of your life. An action that is out of place, that clashes and undermines the others, that doesn't fit, is impractical in her book, and she is quite right think that way, indeed, as I said that is one of her greatest lessons. If you missed out on that then you missed absolutely everything. Let's say you were trying to repair a leak in your water pipes -- with poisonous lead. In your sense, it's quite practical for the narrow goal of fixing the leak; in Rand's, it's not practical since you use that pipe to send water to the tap to drink. Your sense of the term is utterly worthless. The methodology that makes you define worthless terms is also utterly worthless.

Thanks for the compliments Michael, Rich, Tony... Did I miss someone? Brant? What was that about?

Michael and Tony are probably right, you might like me better in person than you do in abstract discussion... but not necessarily. I've occasionally met someone who wanted to throttle me. One of my former bosses told me, with a big grin on his face, "You don't suffer fools, do you?" He and I got along great, because he didn't either. Best boss I ever had. But one time a vendor came by, a man a few decades older than I was, and he was telling us how this or that worked, and something didn't make sense so I asked him to clarify, he said words that didn't so I asked for more clarification, until his face turned bright red and he exploded right there in front of me. Until that point I was oblivious that he was trying to evade -- he hadn't a clue how it worked. I thought he was just fumbling around not communicating well. He started lecturing me about how many more years of experience he had than me etc. etc. My coworker later said that she thought he was going to kill me. We didn't end up buying anything from that particular vendor.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the compliments Michael, Rich, Tony... Did I miss someone? Brant? What was that about?

Shayne

I restrict intellectual discussions to the Internet. If I were your neighbor it would all spill over. I could say the same about Ghs et al.

--Brant