The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[anthony]

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

[caroljane]

Of course not. I do not believe that justice is achieved by death.

What is your opinion of the elimination of John Dillinger? Or Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini?

Societal self-defence as they had proven themselves dangerous to society. To have tried them for past crimes, should have resulted in maximum penalty, thousand year sentences.

[PDS]

Nothing good could ever, ever have come from a killing so bad, so meaningless. But a least the riots predicted, have not erupted, to tear apart anyone's theories.

To the contrary, I believe the fact that riots haven't erupted has torn apart a theory or two.

[Mikee]

Progressivism explained:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/giving-till-it-hurts-an-interview-with-barbara-oakley#axzz2aOF9quD0

[anthony]

Excellent, Mikee. Where have I seen this before, the concept of the "same counterfeit coin" of the 'mystical intrinsicism -> secular skepticism' false dichotomy?

(Hm. Somebody remind me...)

B.Oakley says: "...we seem to have a biologically-based propensity for spirituality. If you throw away organized religion, it doesn't mean that the pull for spirituality just disappears. It simply shifts to something else. The central spiritual tenet of modern atheistic creeds seems to be that altruism is always good. Actually, modern atheistic, progressive thought often seems to share much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing..."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Progressivism explained:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/giving-till-it-hurts-an-interview-with-barbara-oakley#axzz2aOF9quD0

Mike,

I really like that interview with Barbara Oakley. I haven't read that nuanced a discussion of altruism in a long time. The things I have lived and studied align perfectly with her views.

Barbara Oakley's book, Pathological Altruism is a bit too pricey right now since it has just come out in hardback (a little under 50 bucks). But she has written some very interesting other books.

I'm going to look into her work.

Michael

[anthony]

Progressivism explained:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/giving-till-it-hurts-an-interview-with-barbara-oakley#axzz2aOF9quD0

A large part of what she says is reminiscent of Paul Mawdsley [sp?] and his input a while back at OL, on balancing egoism with empathy. A really fine fellow.

[Darrell Hougen]

There was a story about Barbara Oakley not too long ago in the Wall Street Journal, so she seems to be basking in the lime light right now, but who knows if the idea will gain any traction. It does seem as if progressivism is some sort of religion. Progressives and so called "liberals" seem to be impenetrable to logic and evidence. But, if someone like Oakley can convince people that altruism is sometimes pathological, there might be hope. On the other hand, I posted her WSJ article on my Facebook page and didn't get any response from my friends on the left.

Darrell

[anthony]

It's fine, Darrell, any time now Carol will weigh in with her report on the piece.

...

;)

[william.scherk]

There was a story about Barbara Oakley not too long ago in the Wall Street Journal,

Here's the Oakley article at the WSJ: Pathological Altruism: A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought. I her book on hold from my local library. It looks to be an interesting and challenging read. Not only that, but she sounds like a fascinating person from her biographical notes.

Here she is on Youtube with an interview from Red Ice Radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlZVt6JsiTs

so she seems to be basking in the lime light right now, but who knows if the idea will gain any traction. It does seem as if progressivism is some sort of religion.

I've been labeled a Progressive here a few times, which label implies I have been bathed or soaked in the gospel of Progressivism like a teabag, until the tannins have turned me into a dank Obama-brown, but I think it is an error to mix up the label with the thing, or to reduce a person to an attribute. It could be that this one attribute ('Progressivisticism') is far and away the most fundamental attribute of my personality, but this is unlikely, I think.

Progressives and so called "liberals" seem to be impenetrable to logic and evidence.

This may be true to some degree, but it makes me wonder how these afflicted persons manage to get through the week. Impenetrable to logic and evidence -- this suggest to me a person who has basic problems in getting out of bed and to work. As ever, illustrative examples of this general class of miscreants behaving as you predict would be helpful to discussion.

It should be clear that Oakley is not actually doing any work against so-called 'altruism' per se; as she notes in the Freeman interview (emphasis added):

The concept of pathological altruism doesn’t imply that altruism itself is problematic. Instead, this concept illustrates that both empathic emotion and rationality are important in truly attempting to perform an altruistic act.

This is actually pretty racy talk -- attempting to perform an altruistic act. I imagine an individual in full Objectivish lockdown (at a conference) attempting to perform such an act amongst his or her peers. Such a behaviour 'seems' to be something Not Quite Right -- at the least it is an act that needs relabeling, perhaps to a 'pro-social' act, perhaps to a 'selfish' act.

How about "pathological selfishness"? Would that even be discussable in an Objectivish framework?

Never mind.

But, if someone like Oakley can convince people that altruism is sometimes pathological, there might be hope. On the other hand, I posted her WSJ article on my Facebook page and didn't get any response from my friends on the left.

I am not surprised. My leftist friends on Facebook are way too involved in their own lives to take note of my deep reading. They would rather see pictures of food and gardens and reports of criminal stupidity. I should mention that one of my leftish friends can always be expected to lurch out of nowhere should I mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism. It seems that this one person considers my interest in and engagement with Randian thought and activism and sociality to be as if I were a bloodthirsty maniac, or an Objectivist myself. Perhaps our leftish friends should be cross-pollinated (you can find me on Facebook as Bill Scherk, should we not mysteriously connected there already)

B.Oakley says: "...we seem to have a biologically-based propensity for spirituality. If you throw away organized religion, it doesn't mean that the pull for spirituality just disappears. It simply shifts to something else. The central spiritual tenet of modern atheistic creeds seems to be that altruism is always good. Actually, modern atheistic, progressive thought often seems to share much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing..."

I need to finish listening to her interview to fairly answer this, as my first reaction is that tired old progressive subterfuge of "can you give evidence of a biological propensity for spirituality?" followed by the equally tiresome hope for an illustrative example. When she says "actually," stiff little hooks in my mind-gullet grab the implicated notions -- a sentence composed of her 'actuals' like "the biologically-based pull for spirituality simply shifts to something else" is really tough to swallow whole. I have to break it down and see if the parts make sense.

She says, "Modern atheistic (progressive) thought [has] much in common with religious fundamentalism." I wonder, does she mean some or all or what?

I wonder if this phrase would go down like nectar in non-progressivist craws if it were rephrased to comprise another body of thought: "Modern atheistic Objectivist thought has much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing." What might make the medicine go down, what makes the mental throat-fangs do their job of filtering gross generalizations ...?

What looks to be the most interesting for me is her concept of bias, altruistic bias. This looks to have both a leftish/progressivish slant, and a right-thinking Objectivish slant. If this were a class, and I Phil Coates, I might ask, "Who can give me examples of altruist bias on OL?"

Anyhow, I should mention my appreciation for the introduction of Oakley's work. It looks like a good feed for the mind.

Edited July 29, 2013 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

It's fine, Darrell, any time now Carol will weigh in with her report on the piece.

...

;)

And I will ,never fear. I will read it as soon as I finish my urgent projects, such as opening the bottle of South African white which was miraculously on sale today, they never have sales, but I guess they felt guilty about the three hottest days of the century last week when they were Cash Only due to a tree falling on a hydro pole in the storm behind the store. I do not know about you but here they do not have service charges on cashback so the liquor store is basically the first stop bank for many. You should have seen the value trades going on between the plastic-poor and the cash credible. What some people are willing to do for a dozen cold ones is a real eye opener.

Btw I chuckled at your little joke about socialists being mentally ill. I never make jokes myself of course, and have always stoutly refuted the canard that Objectivists are more prone to Narcissistic Personality Disorder than anybody else.

[Dglgmut]

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

This is impossible. An objective morality requires objective values, and objective justice is even farther from reality.

There are many situations where following a set of principles will not give you the best result.

[Dglgmut]

Btw I chuckled at your little joke about socialists being mentally ill. I never make jokes myself of course, and have always stoutly refuted the canard that Objectivists are more prone to Narcissistic Personality Disorder than anybody else.

At least narcissism is relatively harmless.

Whatever Obama's got is a real threat...

[caroljane]

Tony dear, as a mutual friend could you inform William that I am not speaking to him until he removes that menacing face and restores the Happy Baby, which I know you agree with me about?

Thanks,

Carol

[Darrell Hougen]

There was a story about Barbara Oakley not too long ago in the Wall Street Journal,

Here's the Oakley article at the WSJ: Pathological Altruism: A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought. I her book on hold from my local library. It looks to be an interesting and challenging read. Not only that, but she sounds like a fascinating person from her biographical notes.

Here she is on Youtube with an interview from Red Ice Radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlZVt6JsiTs

so she seems to be basking in the lime light right now, but who knows if the idea will gain any traction. It does seem as if progressivism is some sort of religion.

I've been labeled a Progressive here a few times, which label implies I have been bathed or soaked in the gospel of Progressivism like a teabag, until the tannins have turned me into a dank Obama-brown, but I think it is an error to mix up the label with the thing, or to reduce a person to an attribute. It could be that this one attribute ('Progressivisticism') is far and away the most fundamental attribute of my personality, but this is unlikely, I think.

I know labels can be dangerous as can any generalization and I wouldn't say you fit the mold because I don't know your views that well. Given your sense of humor and your interest in Objectivism, I'm guessing you probably don't fit the mold. As you mention below, even an interest in Objectivism is heresy to the true believer.

Oakley gives some characteristics of progressivism or liberalism in the modern sense, but here are some others that might help you identify yourself:

1. Did you vote for Obama more than once? Obama is so far left and has done so much damage to this country by passing Obamacare, it's hard to imagine any intelligent, rational person that isn't part of the church of progressivisticism voting for him more than once. Actually, even voting for the Pied Piper once is suspect.

2. Are you a latent racist? Do you feel that colored people are victims and can't succeed without help from white people? Do you generally view colored people as being passive --- to be acted upon by white people but not primary actors in history? Do you generally blame most of the world's problems on white people or America?

3. Do you engage in projection? Do you blame people on the right for behavior generally engaged in almost exclusively by people on the left?

4. Do you believe that people are generally more free in a highly regulated society than in a lightly regulated society? Do you believe that elites in various fields should make decisions for ordinary people that are too dumb to think for themselves?

I'm sure there are other characteristics, but these are a few that came to mind.

Progressives and so called "liberals" seem to be impenetrable to logic and evidence.

This may be true to some degree, but it makes me wonder how these afflicted persons manage to get through the week. Impenetrable to logic and evidence -- this suggest to me a person who has basic problems in getting out of bed and to work. As ever, illustrative examples of this general class of miscreants behaving as you predict would be helpful to discussion.

When I say that people on the left are impenetrable to logic and evidence, I am, of course referring to their political beliefs, not their views on science or how to run their everyday lives. I've noticed the same thing with people on the religious right, of course. For example, I know relatively intelligent engineers who nevertheless have a hard time accepting the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Examples: The endless stream of social programs that have been tried and failed doesn't seem to deter calls for more social programs. The failure of country after country to produce wealth under socialism or communism doesn't ever lead to an acceptance of capitalism. Obama pays lip service to capitalism, but is proud that Obamacare is named after him. Go figure.

It should be clear that Oakley is not actually doing any work against so-called 'altruism' per se; as she notes in the Freeman interview (emphasis added):

The concept of pathological altruism doesnt imply that altruism itself is problematic. Instead, this concept illustrates that both empathic emotion and rationality are important in truly attempting to perform an altruistic act.

This is actually pretty racy talk -- attempting to perform an altruistic act. I imagine an individual in full Objectivish lockdown (at a conference) attempting to perform such an act amongst his or her peers. Such a behaviour 'seems' to be something Not Quite Right -- at the least it is an act that needs relabeling, perhaps to a 'pro-social' act, perhaps to a 'selfish' act.

How about "pathological selfishness"? Would that even be discussable in an Objectivish framework?

Never mind.

Some, so called Objectivists seem to revel in their shocking use of the term "selfish", but most of the better Objectivists are careful to define terms and distinguish between traditional uses of the term "selfish" and rational self interest.

But, if someone like Oakley can convince people that altruism is sometimes pathological, there might be hope. On the other hand, I posted her WSJ article on my Facebook page and didn't get any response from my friends on the left.

I am not surprised. My leftist friends on Facebook are way too involved in their own lives to take note of my deep reading. They would rather see pictures of food and gardens and reports of criminal stupidity. I should mention that one of my leftish friends can always be expected to lurch out of nowhere should I mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism. It seems that this one person considers my interest in and engagement with Randian thought and activism and sociality to be as if I were a bloodthirsty maniac, or an Objectivist myself. Perhaps our leftish friends should be cross-pollinated (you can find me on Facebook as Bill Scherk, should we not mysteriously connected there already)

I laughed when I read this, because this is exactly the attitude of one person on the left that I know, my own brother. He didn't come right out and call me a blood thirsty maniac, but he tried to provide "proof" that Ayn Rand was a blood thirsty maniac. He linked to some bogus smears going around the internet.

B.Oakley says: "...we seem to have a biologically-based propensity for spirituality. If you throw away organized religion, it doesn't mean that the pull for spirituality just disappears. It simply shifts to something else. The central spiritual tenet of modern atheistic creeds seems to be that altruism is always good. Actually, modern atheistic, progressive thought often seems to share much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing..."

I need to finish listening to her interview to fairly answer this, as my first reaction is that tired old progressive subterfuge of "can you give evidence of a biological propensity for spirituality?" followed by the equally tiresome hope for an illustrative example. When she says "actually," stiff little hooks in my mind-gullet grab the implicated notions -- a sentence composed of her 'actuals' like "the biologically-based pull for spirituality simply shifts to something else" is really tough to swallow whole. I have to break it down and see if the parts make sense.

She says, "Modern atheistic (progressive) thought [has] much in common with religious fundamentalism." I wonder, does she mean some or all or what?

I wonder if this phrase would go down like nectar in non-progressivist craws if it were rephrased to comprise another body of thought: "Modern atheistic Objectivist thought has much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing." What might make the medicine go down, what makes the mental throat-fangs do their job of filtering gross generalizations ...?

Unfortunately, there is a certain amount of that in some Objectivist circles. Ayn Rand's own intolerance of disagreement didn't really help get things off on the right foot.

Darrell

[anthony]

Btw I chuckled at your little joke about socialists being mentally ill. I never make jokes myself of course, and have always stoutly refuted the canard that Objectivists are more prone to Narcissistic Personality Disorder than anybody else.

At least narcissism is relatively harmless.

Whatever Obama's got is a real threat...

Carol: No, never, twasnt I. On "little" jokes, or on socialists being mentally ill. (Look to someone closer at hand...hint...hint).

My jokes are BIG, if so dry they are dessicated - and what I think of socialists is unprintable.

Calvin: Spoken evidently as someone who has fortunately not been intimate with a narcissist.

[caroljane]

Btw I chuckled at your little joke about socialists being mentally ill. I never make jokes myself of course, and have always stoutly refuted the canard that Objectivists are more prone to Narcissistic Personality Disorder than anybody else.

At least narcissism is relatively harmless.

Whatever Obama's got is a real threat...

Carol: No, never, twasnt I. On "little" jokes, or on socialists being mentally ill. (Look to someone closer at hand...hint...hint).

My jokes are BIG, if so dry they are dessicated - and what I think of socialists is unprintable.

Calvin: Spoken evidently as someone who has fortunately not been intimate with a narcissist.

Sorry Tony! It's just that sometimes all you Objectivists look alike -

as to the narcissists, OL history shows that considerable harm has been done to MSK and other good-faith members here from such a source.

[anthony]

There was a story about Barbara Oakley not too long ago in the Wall Street Journal,

Here's the Oakley article at the WSJ: Pathological Altruism: A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought. I her book on hold from my local library. It looks to be an interesting and challenging read. Not only that, but she sounds like a fascinating person from her biographical notes.

Here she is on Youtube with an interview from Red Ice Radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlZVt6JsiTs

so she seems to be basking in the lime light right now, but who knows if the idea will gain any traction. It does seem as if progressivism is some sort of religion.

I've been labeled a Progressive here a few times, which label implies I have been bathed or soaked in the gospel of Progressivism like a teabag, until the tannins have turned me into a dank Obama-brown, but I think it is an error to mix up the label with the thing, or to reduce a person to an attribute. It could be that this one attribute ('Progressivisticism') is far and away the most fundamental attribute of my personality, but this is unlikely, I think.

I know labels can be dangerous as can any generalization and I wouldn't say you fit the mold because I don't know your views that well. Given your sense of humor and your interest in Objectivism, I'm guessing you probably don't fit the mold. As you mention below, even an interest in Objectivism is heresy to the true believer.

Oakley gives some characteristics of progressivism or liberalism in the modern sense, but here are some others that might help you identify yourself:

1. Did you vote for Obama more than once? Obama is so far left and has done so much damage to this country by passing Obamacare, it's hard to imagine any intelligent, rational person that isn't part of the church of progressivisticism voting for him more than once. Actually, even voting for the Pied Piper once is suspect.

2. Are you a latent racist? Do you feel that colored people are victims and can't succeed without help from white people? Do you generally view colored people as being passive --- to be acted upon by white people but not primary actors in history? Do you generally blame most of the world's problems on white people or America?

3. Do you engage in projection? Do you blame people on the right for behavior generally engaged in almost exclusively by people on the left?

4. Do you believe that people are generally more free in a highly regulated society than in a lightly regulated society? Do you believe that elites in various fields should make decisions for ordinary people that are too dumb to think for themselves?

I'm sure there are other characteristics, but these are a few that came to mind.

Progressives and so called "liberals" seem to be impenetrable to logic and evidence.

This may be true to some degree, but it makes me wonder how these afflicted persons manage to get through the week. Impenetrable to logic and evidence -- this suggest to me a person who has basic problems in getting out of bed and to work. As ever, illustrative examples of this general class of miscreants behaving as you predict would be helpful to discussion.

When I say that people on the left are impenetrable to logic and evidence, I am, of course referring to their political beliefs, not their views on science or how to run their everyday lives. I've noticed the same thing with people on the religious right, of course. For example, I know relatively intelligent engineers who nevertheless have a hard time accepting the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Examples: The endless stream of social programs that have been tried and failed doesn't seem to deter calls for more social programs. The failure of country after country to produce wealth under socialism or communism doesn't ever lead to an acceptance of capitalism. Obama pays lip service to capitalism, but is proud that Obamacare is named after him. Go figure.

It should be clear that Oakley is not actually doing any work against so-called 'altruism' per se; as she notes in the Freeman interview (emphasis added):

The concept of pathological altruism doesnt imply that altruism itself is problematic. Instead, this concept illustrates that both empathic emotion and rationality are important in truly attempting to perform an altruistic act.

This is actually pretty racy talk -- attempting to perform an altruistic act. I imagine an individual in full Objectivish lockdown (at a conference) attempting to perform such an act amongst his or her peers. Such a behaviour 'seems' to be something Not Quite Right -- at the least it is an act that needs relabeling, perhaps to a 'pro-social' act, perhaps to a 'selfish' act.

How about "pathological selfishness"? Would that even be discussable in an Objectivish framework?

Never mind.

Some, so called Objectivists seem to revel in their shocking use of the term "selfish", but most of the better Objectivists are careful to define terms and distinguish between traditional uses of the term "selfish" and rational self interest.

But, if someone like Oakley can convince people that altruism is sometimes pathological, there might be hope. On the other hand, I posted her WSJ article on my Facebook page and didn't get any response from my friends on the left.

I am not surprised. My leftist friends on Facebook are way too involved in their own lives to take note of my deep reading. They would rather see pictures of food and gardens and reports of criminal stupidity. I should mention that one of my leftish friends can always be expected to lurch out of nowhere should I mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism. It seems that this one person considers my interest in and engagement with Randian thought and activism and sociality to be as if I were a bloodthirsty maniac, or an Objectivist myself. Perhaps our leftish friends should be cross-pollinated (you can find me on Facebook as Bill Scherk, should we not mysteriously connected there already)

I laughed when I read this, because this is exactly the attitude of one person on the left that I know, my own brother. He didn't come right out and call me a blood thirsty maniac, but he tried to provide "proof" that Ayn Rand was a blood thirsty maniac. He linked to some bogus smears going around the internet.

B.Oakley says: "...we seem to have a biologically-based propensity for spirituality. If you throw away organized religion, it doesn't mean that the pull for spirituality just disappears. It simply shifts to something else. The central spiritual tenet of modern atheistic creeds seems to be that altruism is always good. Actually, modern atheistic, progressive thought often seems to share much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing..."

I need to finish listening to her interview to fairly answer this, as my first reaction is that tired old progressive subterfuge of "can you give evidence of a biological propensity for spirituality?" followed by the equally tiresome hope for an illustrative example. When she says "actually," stiff little hooks in my mind-gullet grab the implicated notions -- a sentence composed of her 'actuals' like "the biologically-based pull for spirituality simply shifts to something else" is really tough to swallow whole. I have to break it down and see if the parts make sense.

She says, "Modern atheistic (progressive) thought [has] much in common with religious fundamentalism." I wonder, does she mean some or all or what?

I wonder if this phrase would go down like nectar in non-progressivist craws if it were rephrased to comprise another body of thought: "Modern atheistic Objectivist thought has much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing." What might make the medicine go down, what makes the mental throat-fangs do their job of filtering gross generalizations ...?

Unfortunately, there is a certain amount of that in some Objectivist circles. Ayn Rand's own intolerance of disagreement didn't really help get things off on the right foot.

Darrell

Darrell,

Despite William's disdain of "gross generalizations" he has accurately put his finger on the concept that loosely unites the religious, the progressives and Objectivist 'fundamentalists' (so called)..

For whatever reasons (and the primitive instincts for survival and knowledge in his ancient big, bad world, must be up there) man seems to have an innate, overwhelming need to immerse himself in something huge and powerful.

Who can dismiss such a human instinct as pathetic and frail? I can't, but like all instincts, it's what we allow it, or do with it that counts, obviously.

Whether a man immerses himself in God and religiosity; or humanity and the collective, the object of it all - broadly - is to give oneself over to a safe, knowledgeable, moral authority (way I see it).

Oakley got it so right with:

"If you throw away organized religion, it doesn't mean that the pull for spirituality just disappears. It simply shifts to something else".

Rand identified this as the intrinsicist/skeptical false dichotomy, in that they have one and the same epistemic and psychological source; she recognised the switch from one to the other throughout history.

In his gem 'The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand', David Kelley explains intrinsicism:

"As a theory of knowledge, intrinsicism holds that facts are revealed to us, that the mind is a passive mirror, absorbing the truth by revelation or the unthinking acceptance of authority".

[...]

In ethics, the intinsicist holds that what is right or wrong is determined by certain facts or authority, and must be accepted as duty, regardless of our own needs and interests as valuers".

[...]

We have to hold in mind both the requirements of reality and of our own nature, and if we focus too narrowly on one or the other, we tend to slide into intrinsicism or subjectivism."

==========

The background was, of course, Peikoff's tiff with Kelley for daring to speak to libertarians. LP called Kelley a subjectivist; DK responded by calling LP an intrinsicist. Kelley clearly won that round, imo.

I'm often beating this drum as I believe this is crucial to all O'ists.

I believe that to varying degrees we all started out as intrinsicists early on.

And how can one fault this, when the principles (and Rand's portrayal of them in fiction) were so damn powerful at first sight, when young? Additionally, in filling the vacuum left by discarded religious dogma - as in many cases.

However, rationalistically absorbing the principles - and perceiving and conceptualizing them for oneself, are two whole different ball games.

To the extent that Rand did not discourage intrinsicism enough - god knows, she'd be horrified at it creeping in to her philosophy -or that Peikoff actively encouraged it in his zeal to avoid subjectivism, and to build ARI as the supreme authority - well, this is conjecture on my part.

All in all, WSS has touched the core in his paraphrase; "Modern atheistic Objectivist thought has much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing..."

It has been so, at times still is - though I think disappearing slowly - and each individual O'ist can correct the error for himself.

[moralist]

Nothing good could ever, ever have come from a killing so bad, so meaningless. But a least the riots predicted, have not erupted, to tear apart anyone's theories.

To the contrary, I believe the fact that riots haven't erupted has torn apart a theory or two.

At least one blown theory is that threatening to riot could thwart handing down a just verdict.

[caroljane]

Yes, conjectural double negatives are very comforting.

[moralist]

Yes, conjectural double negatives are very comforting.

I believe you've responded to what someone else wrote.

[anthony]

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

This is impossible. An objective morality requires objective values, and objective justice is even farther from reality.

There are many situations where following a set of principles will not give you the best result.

We have this different interpretation of what objective law is (again). In a word, I think it's "knowable" law: Predictable, consistent, and of clear boundaries. Law which can be traced back through individual rights, to rational selfishness - to "life as the standard". So it's connected through principles, to that over-arching principle. How does one get closer than that to reality?

Anyhow, my point earlier was that objective law and justice already has morality 'built in'. Contrasted with creeping progressivist law and justice which reflects, and sometimes panders to, subjectivist and collectivist 'moralism'..

With Zimmerman, an objective procedure found him innocent through an objective law (acting in self defence) - and in spite of external pressure and all the moralizing about racism and racial profiling, gave him objective justice.

[Dglgmut]

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

This is impossible. An objective morality requires objective values, and objective justice is even farther from reality.

There are many situations where following a set of principles will not give you the best result.

We have this different interpretation of what objective law is (again). In a word, I think it's "knowable" law: Predictable, consistent, and of clear boundaries. Law which can be traced back through individual rights, to rational selfishness - to "life as the standard". So it's connected through principles, to that over-arching principle. How does one get closer than that to reality?

Anyhow, my point earlier was that objective law and justice already has morality 'built in'. Contrasted with creeping progressivist law and justice which reflects, and sometimes panders to, subjectivist and collectivist 'moralism'..

With Zimmerman, an objective procedure found him innocent through an objective law (acting in self defence) - and in spite of external pressure and all the moralizing about racism and racial profiling, gave him objective justice.

Objective law, as you describe it, is one thing, justice is completely different. Justice is necessarily a subjective concept because there are too many factors to consider in any scenario to be able to determine what is "fair".

I agree with you as far as objective law goes, however, I do support the subjectivity of the masses, even when they are wrong, as long as they use non-violent means to effect their goals.

Morality is too complicated to be built into the law... the law is there to prevent the really bad stuff, by force, while everything else can be dealt with through voluntary interactions. That law is based on principles, and therefore cannot solve most problems, but even when the law is ineffective it must be followed as not to set a destructive precedent which would end up being a negative tradeoff.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeeezusss!

Justice is subjective? Morality cannot be built into the law?

I used to think people on this site were interested in Objectivism--or at least knew the basics.

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Dglgmut]

So what of all those people demanding "Justice for Trayvon"? Why are they wrong? And did Zimmerman get his justice?

You can't legislate morality. There will never be enough rules, enough caveats, to make sure that everything everyone does is moral... nor is there anyone smart enough to make such rules or any process to determine who would be smart enough if it were possible.

And again, objective morality is not within our reach at this time as we cannot even define objective values.