Golden Rule

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Please read what I wrote.  I said I don't know what anyone else is thinking.  I know what they write when I read what they write.  I know what they say, when I can hear what they say.   I know what they do when I can see what they do.  I do NOT know what they think. Their thoughts are in their heads where I cannot perceive them.   My actions are connected to what I think. That I can say from first hand witness.  I can -suppose- that other people's actions are connected to what they think.  

Do you know the difference between know as in first hand witness and suppose  or the difference between direct knowledge gotten  through the senses and second hand witness  i.e. hearsay?

A circuitous trip to establish the self-evident : that none of us knows what others think. So?

You avoided addressing the bulk of my earlier post by embarking on this red herring: because it is too clear that people's actions are ultimately dependent on their morals, and your Golden Rule is next to useless if they are already immoral/irrational. By their actions and words one will know them and their morality.

But you've often trivialised an objective morality, so I understand why.

Do you have to personally meet a known thief, a known terrorist, a dictator etc., - "first hand" - to make a good assessment of his premises? C'mon. You are joking of course.

[anthony]

8 hours ago, dldelancey said:

.

What can be learned from this?  The Golden Rule is a nice guideline for everyday transactions in shallow* relationships, but it isn't enough for ongoing relationships that require cultivation.

-------

*Shallow has a neutral meaning here.

"Shallow" works for me, the GR as a quick "guideline". Superficial things, like bumping a stranger in the street. Letting a motorist into busy traffic. Not jumping a queue. Fine, as far as it goes.

But my question is- are these things to be done (and not done) by an individual ~solely~ because he would want them (or not want them) done unto him? Is that the best we can offer?

Where's the objective behavior of simple respect for another man/woman, or recognition of his/her plight -- benevolence to general humanity?

One could make some guesses at how the social fabric of a country could be gradually affected, if the GR is widely accepted as all there is to morally rely upon.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

 

Do you have to personally meet a known thief, a known terrorist, a dictator etc., - "first hand" - to make a good assessment of his premises? C'mon. You are joking of course.

The only way I know anyone's premises is if they say what they are or write them down and I read them.  I only know externals.  I have no idea what is in anyone's head  since I do hot have the talent of mental telepathy. How am I to know anyone's actual thoughts as they think them.  

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, dldelancey said:

This assumes only situations where bad conduct is in play.  What about situations where neutral or good conduct is in play, but still not the desired conduct?  For instance, if you give your partner flowers, that's not bad conduct at all.  However, the flowers won't be received in the way you expect if what your partner really wanted was for you to take out the trash.  You might have preferred the flowers.  Your partner prefers you take out the trash.

I get your point--I consider it valid--but you need a better example. Flowers versus trash re love? Something's wrong in Love City.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

One of my favorite activities on OL is treating people as they treat others while expecting not to be treated that way themselves. There really isn't much difference between adults and children, including (or maybe I should say "especially") highly intellectualized adults. There are 30 to 80-year-olds who post here who still have the same insecurities and double standards as 2-year-olds, and who regularly practice childish bullying/bluffing/victim-playing techniques.

J

Ya got me.

--Anon.

dang!

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

Of course: you're indicating an independent and objective standard of morality, irrespective primarily of others' responses, and naturally, selfish. It's a given that many will respond in kind with their honesty, for its own sake too.

If the Golden Rule said only - "act always consistent to your virtues and knowledge, i.e. with integrity"- who'd argue?

I would. Why? The GR is more direct, obvious and in your face.

--Brant

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The only way I know anyone's premises is if they say what they are or write them down and I read them.    

You got a letter from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?

[anthony]

42 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I would. Why? The GR is more direct, obvious and in your face.

--Brant

Why? Because the GR says zero about the standards you operate from. Anything goes for anybody.

Catchy platitudes don't make for the truth too often.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Many people have observed over the years that Rand performed a bit of not-so-sleight sleight-of-hand in her ethics by beginning with referring to "survival," "life," "existence versus nonexistence," and "man's life" as her standard of value, and then suddenly and not-so-sneakily switching to "man's survival qua man," or "proper to man qua man." Such a not-so-sneaky leap from all of the arguments made about "survival" to "survival qua man" requires either pure question-begging or a smuggling in of a bit of the golden rule.

J

I'm puzzled by this confusion between "man" and "man qua man". As far as I know the two are interchangeable, they represent one and the same, which is an abstraction of the specific nature of man, of all men ever to exist.

So, "man's life is the standard of value" - put another way - would be : "the life of man qua man is the standard of value".

It doesn't mean *A* man's life (my life, your life) is the standard. Read like that, you could indeed say there's some Golden Rule in there.

However, one's own life is "the purpose", Rand made the distinction.

Or else I missed your meaning.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

You got a letter from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?

No. I get hearsay about him from the newspapers and the t.v. 

What is your "source"?

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Why? Because the GR says zero about the standards you operate from. Anything goes for anybody.

Catchy platitudes don't make for the truth too often.

Truth? We don't have no stinkin' truths! We don't have to show no truths!

Seriously, first the phrase then we think about it--which is what we are doing. The phrase is useful for shortcuts and starters. It's a shortcut for "Behave yourself!"

Good luck in ever replacing it as such.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

I'm puzzled by this confusion between "man" and "man qua man". As far as I know the two are interchangeable, they represent one and the same, which is an abstraction of the specific nature of man, of all men ever to exist.

So, "man's life is the standard of value" - put another way - would be : "the life of man qua man is the standard of value".

It doesn't mean *A* man's life (my life, your life) is the standard. Read like that, you could indeed say there's some Golden Rule in there.

However, one's own life is "the purpose", Rand made the distinction.

Or else I missed your meaning.

My take is the first "man" is a man and the second the concept "man." It's the relationship of the particular to the universal and therefore a general objectification of morality and related valuing. (Is to ought?)

--Brant

[moralist]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

You believe then that actions by men are disconnected from their thinking?

Some are,Tony...  

Men do the greatest good when they choose to act contrary to their thoughts and emotions.

 

Greg

[moralist]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 8:56 PM, syrakusos said:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

-- Aleister Crowley

a f**king pervert

 

Greg

[anthony]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

My take is the first "man" is a man and the second the concept "man." It's the relationship of the particular to the universal and therefore a general objectification of morality and related valuing. (Is to ought?)

--Brant

Is to ought, I agree with your conclusion. But I just don't see your first part your way. There are several reasons I think why not. At minimum, Rand was a stickler for precision. If you skip randomly through the Lexicon, there are countless references to "man". e.g. "the egalitarian's view of man"; "man's mind", etc. . And then, there are many others where she deliberately specifies - a man; all men; the individual; and sometimes, man qua man.

If she'd meant "a man" in this pivotal matter, she'd have certainly said so, I imagine.

"The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the *standard* [italicized] of value -- and *his own life* as the ethical *purpose*of every individual man".

Why didn't she write "every individual man" in both cases? Why distinguish the two? because "man's life" is a topmost level of abstraction and the other is a concrete, I think.

She continues: "The difference between 'standard' and 'purpose' in this context is as follows: a standard is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. "That which is required for the survival of man qua man" is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man...and the life he has to live is his own. Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man--in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life".

(Sorry for throwing in this much used quotation, but you'd agree that its interpretation is all-important and with far-reaching consequences).

I ask how can an individual be his own standard - measurement and gauge - of value.

A standard, or benchmark, is what he measures and compares himself *against*: i.e. metaphysically, the nature of man and man's consciousness (autonomous, rational and volitional) ... so that he can live in a manner "proper to man".

And once he grasps it, man's nature ("is") segues into *a* man's actions ("ought").

Epistemologically, a man as his own "standard of value" has to be self-referencing - circular and even subjective, I suggest - with commonality to the Golden Rule and the Cat Imp.

(Seldom has so much turned on a single word - "a").

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, anthony said:

I'm puzzled by this confusion between "man" and "man qua man". As far as I know the two are interchangeable, they represent one and the same, which is an abstraction of the specific nature of man, of all men ever to exist.

So, "man's life is the standard of value" - put another way - would be : "the life of man qua man is the standard of value".

It doesn't mean *A* man's life (my life, your life) is the standard. Read like that, you could indeed say there's some Golden Rule in there.

However, one's own life is "the purpose", Rand made the distinction.

Or else I missed your meaning.

Yes, you missed my meaning.

Rand begins by identifying "one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence," and concludes that the standard of ethical value is "that which is required for the organism's survival."

Well, men can exist and survive by initiating force against other men. Many have done so very successfully. They continue to do so to this day. Animals can and do survive by stealing food or shelter from their own kind, or even eating their own, and mankind can too.

So, Rand's entire setup about existence and survival was irrelevant. Her ethics -- of non-initiation of force -- are not based on what is "required for the organism's survival." She makes a magical leap from "survival" to "survival proper to man qua man," which is simply begging the question of what is ethically proper to man. Knowingly or not, she snuck in a bit of the golden rule without providing an actual objective argument to support her doing so.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, moralist said:

-- Aleister Crowley

a f**king pervert

 

Greg

Balancing a spheroid on one's heels is perversion???????

[Jonathan]

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Balancing a spheroid on one's heels is perversion???????

No, I think that what Apey means is that believing in a different form of magic/pretend/make-believe than Apey does is perverted.

Hmmm. Was Crowley ever so perverted as to spend a year stalking and peeping on another man? Probably not.

J

[anthony]

45 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Yes, you missed my meaning.

Rand begins by identifying "one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence," and concludes that the standard of ethical value is "that which is required for the organism's survival."

Well, men can exist and survive by initiating force against other men. Many have done so very successfully. They continue to do so to this day. Animals can and do survive by stealing food or shelter from their own kind, or even eating their own, and mankind can too.

So, Rand's entire setup about existence and survival was irrelevant. Her ethics -- of non-initiation of force -- are not based on what is "required for the organism's survival." She makes a magical leap from "survival" to "survival proper to man qua man," which is simply begging the question of what is ethically proper to man. Knowingly or not, she snuck in a bit of the golden rule without providing an actual objective argument to support her doing so.

J

I'm still puzzled. "Man must choose his actions...(etc.) by the standard of that which is proper to man..."

What is "proper to man" is for an individual to act according to the identity of man's consciousness (man's only tool) not only for physical survival but for a (proper) thriving. From here, and the fact that each life is an end in itself, derives the ethics of rational selfishness and the necessity of virtues to gain one's values for thriving, and from that derives the principle of never forceably using others to one's own end. All that, is what is ethically proper to man. It's a logical transition based on facts of reality, not a magical leap.

As long as "man's life" is considered the objective standard of value (rather than "a man's life") it bears no resemblance to the GR.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Is to ought, I agree with your conclusion. But I just don't see your first part your way. There are several reasons I think why not. At minimum, Rand was a stickler for precision. If you skip randomly through the Lexicon, there are countless references to "man". e.g. "the egalitarian's view of man"; "man's mind", etc. . And then, there are many others where she deliberately specifies - a man; all men; the individual; and sometimes, man qua man.

If she'd meant "a man" in this pivotal matter, she'd have certainly said so, I imagine.

"The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the *standard* [italicized] of value -- and *his own life* as the ethical *purpose*of every individual man".

Why didn't she write "every individual man" in both cases? Why distinguish the two? because "man's life" is a topmost level of abstraction and the other is a concrete, I think.

She continues: "The difference between 'standard' and 'purpose' in this context is as follows: a standard is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. "That which is required for the survival of man qua man" is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man...and the life he has to live is his own. Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man--in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life".

(Sorry for throwing in this much used quotation, but you'd agree that its interpretation is all-important and with far-reaching consequences).

I ask how can an individual be his own standard - measurement and gauge - of value.

A standard, or benchmark, is what he measures and compares himself *against*: i.e. metaphysically, the nature of man and man's consciousness (autonomous, rational and volitional) ... so that he can live in a manner "proper to man".

And once he grasps it, man's nature ("is") segues into *a* man's actions ("ought").

Epistemologically, a man as his own "standard of value" has to be self-referencing - circular and even subjective, I suggest - with commonality to the Golden Rule and the Cat Imp.

(Seldom has so much turned on a single word - "a").

Unfortunately for your thesis the idea that Rand was "a stickler for precision" is questionable. That she thought so, is not. "Man qua man" by your understanding is an axiomatic statement or a blatant tautology. I think (therefor I am) she defaulted to a preferred literary formulation. It reads best to the ear.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I'm still puzzled. "Man must choose his actions...(etc.) by the standard of that which is proper to man..."

What is "proper to man" is for an individual to act according to the identity of man's consciousness (man's only tool) not only for physical survival but for a (proper) thriving.

Apparently the issue is that you don't grasp what "begging the question" means. I would suggest that you look it up, and study it until you understand it.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Knowingly or not, she snuck in a bit of the golden rule without providing an actual objective argument to support her doing so.

Jonathan,

I missed this.

You are exactly right.

The whole idea of having the right to act so long as one does not violate the rights of others is pure golden rule.

Attacking the golden rule is not the best course for Objectivism-friendly people to attack Christianity if that is what they want to do. No matter how much you twist the arguments into logical pretzels, they can't escape the fact that the golden rule is part of the foundation of individual rights. 

  

Michael

 

 

[Jonathan]

Thanks, MSK.

The Objectivist Ethics is a nifty improvement on the golden rule, but it's not quite the "objective" and based-purely-on-the-reality-of-man's-nature-and-man's-survival theory that Rand sold it as. It needs more work, and you're right that twisting arguments into logical pretzels isn't the solution. Well, at least it's not a solution consistent with the Objectivist Epistemology.

J

[moralist]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

No, I think...

You don't think... you ~feel~.

 

Greg

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Balancing a spheroid on one's heels is perversion???????

No, Bob. 

"Do whatever you want" is a value held by immoral perverts.

 

Greg