Please rationally support this decision

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can't afford it.

--Brant

Brant,

Maybe.

But the real problem is the risk of getting shortchanged on the goods. I mean, a title is only a piece of paper...

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

And for that matter who said that principles are objective? You wrote that the cell phone thief was "creating or reinforcing an image of themselves that they will then either project onto others or hold in contrast to others with stronger principles than themselves." Why must the thief necessarily see the principles of others as being stronger?

Principles and values are largely objective as all human beings are largely the same, and to the extent that they are different by nature they will have to customize those principles and values.

I never said the thief thinks everyone else has stronger principles, I said that when he does encounter people who he sees as having stronger principles--those that he values in others, meaning that he would rather surround himself with people who have these principles than those who do not--then he will have the burden of hiding his own depravity.

I can't prove anything about Mao's relationships. And if he's a psychopath what does it matter? I'm saying that if you behave like a person you would not want anything to do with, then of course you are not going to be able to sustain mutually beneficial relationships unless you are constantly covering up your shortcomings.

If I was a baker, and someone stole a loaf of bread from me to keep their family alive, I'd understand. If your principles would not allow you to forgive such a small and circumstantial transgression then I think your principles are out of wack.

Yes, just as the phone thief may find it necessary to hide his depravity, so may the bread thief.

Mao may well qualify as a psychopath. But assigning him to that category does not prove that he did not successfully pursue his self-interest. I am not aware of any evidence that Mao was unable to pursue mutually beneficial relationships or that among his associates he had to spend much time covering up his shortcomings.

The more a baker understands the importance of feeding hungry people without charge, the closer he is to becoming an ex-baker.

[Brant Gaede]

You can't afford it.

--Brant

Brant,

Maybe.

But the real problem is the risk of getting shortchanged on the goods. I mean, a title is only a piece of paper...

Michael

The title is all you get. I'll just get another to replace it. And you can frame it for your wall, but Kat might wonder, WTF?

--Brant

no need for a physical; I'm not transferable

[Dglgmut]

Yes, just as the phone thief may find it necessary to hide his depravity, so may the bread thief.

Mao may well qualify as a psychopath. But assigning him to that category does not prove that he did not successfully pursue his self-interest. I am not aware of any evidence that Mao was unable to pursue mutually beneficial relationships or that among his associates he had to spend much time covering up his shortcomings.

The more a baker understands the importance of feeding hungry people without charge, the closer he is to becoming an ex-baker.

If it was rational to steal the bread, then no, he wouldn't have anything to hide. As far as Mao being a psychopath, human nature comes before ethics, Human nature may not apply to certain anomalies and therefor neither would an ethics derived from such nature. If everyone were a psychopath, the human race would not be as successful as it is. It could not be normal, so when speaking generally of human beings, psychopaths may or may not be concidered.

If i was a baker I would not want people stealing from me, but depending on the situation, I may forgive it.

[moralist]

Frank writes:

The biography I referenced supports the idea that Mao was satisfied with his life. Feel free to submit any relevant data that proves otherwise.

That is still just your opinion filtered through your values... of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

We'll always have different views because we each live by different moral standards.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Yes, just as the phone thief may find it necessary to hide his depravity, so may the bread thief.

Mao may well qualify as a psychopath. But assigning him to that category does not prove that he did not successfully pursue his self-interest. I am not aware of any evidence that Mao was unable to pursue mutually beneficial relationships or that among his associates he had to spend much time covering up his shortcomings.

The more a baker understands the importance of feeding hungry people without charge, the closer he is to becoming an ex-baker.

If it was rational to steal the bread, then no, he wouldn't have anything to hide. As far as Mao being a psychopath, human nature comes before ethics, Human nature may not apply to certain anomalies and therefor neither would an ethics derived from such nature. If everyone were a psychopath, the human race would not be as successful as it is. It could not be normal, so when speaking generally of human beings, psychopaths may or may not be concidered.

If i was a baker I would not want people stealing from me, but depending on the situation, I may forgive it.

A bread thief has nothing to hide? Is it legal to steal bread in your state?

It is hardly a certainty that successful predators are scarce anomalies. In the U.S. about 100,000 citizens work for an organization that regularly uses force and the threat of force to seize income from over 100 million productive citizens.

The average cell phone owner would not want his phone stolen from him, but depending on the situation, he might forgive it.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Frank writes:

The biography I referenced supports the idea that Mao was satisfied with his life. Feel free to submit any relevant data that proves otherwise.

That is still just your opinion filtered through your values... of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

We'll always have different views because we each live by different moral standards.

Greg

You could argue that the statement "The Gettysburg Address was delivered on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863" is an opinion filtered through the opinion holder's values of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

However, saying that the accuracy of date of the address is an opinion does not undermine the fact that there are a multitude of eyewitness accounts to confirm that date, and there are no accounts to support the theory that the address took place on another date.

Similarly, there are no accounts that I know of to support the theory that Mao was an anguished, guilt-ridden man.

[Brant Gaede]

Frank writes:

The biography I referenced supports the idea that Mao was satisfied with his life. Feel free to submit any relevant data that proves otherwise.

That is still just your opinion filtered through your values... of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

We'll always have different views because we each live by different moral standards.

Greg

You could argue that the statement "The Gettysburg Address was delivered on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863" is an opinion filtered through the opinion holder's values of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

However, saying that the accuracy of date of the address is an opinion does not undermine the fact that there are a multitude of eyewitness accounts to confirm that date, and there are no accounts to support the theory that the address took place on another date.

Similarly, there are no accounts that I know of to support the theory that Mao was an anguished, guilt-ridden man.

That's because he ended up on top. Hitler went to hell before he put a bullet in his head as he knew he was losing it all. He was obviously anguished. Who cares if he felt guilt? I doubt it. His any guilt was likely not killing more people or whatever it took to be on the winning side. He did blame his Germans for not deserving that--not being good enough. He felt good about the Jews, however. Yep, he knew the future would deliver thanks for getting rid of them. Some Muslims are doing that now. And think of all the "good" Germans who didn't have to feel guilty because they were just "following orders." Wars and conflicts are structured in such a way--including mass murder--so that the people who feel bad are the victims and the victimizers get to feel good for doing good, usually in the name of the state's ideology. Behind every collectivist ideology is a power luster and a philosopher--sound familiar?--usually many more than one but only one is necessary if you combine the two into a crazy man who goes on a shooting spree.

--Brant

[moralist]

Frank writes:

You could argue that the statement...

...but I wouldn't.

And it's due to the fact that you and I view the world differently because we each live by different moral standards. We will each take to the grave with us what we chose and all of its consequences...

...just as we each deserve.

Greg

[Dglgmut]

A bread thief has nothing to hide? Is it legal to steal bread in your state?

Why does it matter if it's legal? I said I believe it would likely be rational to save a family rather than not steal a loaf of bread. And if the thief believed it was rational, then it would not have any adverse effects on his conscience. So if he trusts someone, he may tell them about it, or at least he may reveal his values. That is the difference between a rational and irrational transgression.

It is hardly a certainty that successful predators are scarce anomalies. In the U.S. about 100,000 citizens work for an organization that regularly uses force and the threat of force to seize income from over 100 million productive citizens.

I didn't say "successful predators", I said psychopaths. A normal person can be a "successful predator", but that does not account for the psychic cost--which is really the source of all value.

The average cell phone owner would not want his phone stolen from him, but depending on the situation, he might forgive it.

Sure, and it may even be rational to steal a phone in a certain scenario, but your original number was 5% of people and you didn't stipulate any extraordinary circumstances. My argument has been that there is, in fact, a psychic cost to such actions that would create problems with intimate/honest/vulnerable human interactions.

[moralist]

DGLGMUT writes:
My argument has been that there is, in fact, a psychic cost to such actions that would create problems with intimate/honest/vulnerable human interactions.

Your words are being read by a blind scribe. Frank does not recognize what a person becomes from doing evil as being a valid consideration...

...which speaks volumes about what he has become.


Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Frank writes:

You could argue that the statement...

...but I wouldn't.

And it's due to the fact that you and I view the world differently because we each live by different moral standards. We will each take to the grave with us what we chose and all of its consequences...

...just as we each deserve.

Greg

I'm opting for cremation.

--Brant

forewarned is forearmed (I owe you one, Greg)

[Brant Gaede]

DGLGMUT writes:

My argument has been that there is, in fact, a psychic cost to such actions that would create problems with intimate/honest/vulnerable human interactions.

Your words are being read by a blind scribe. Frank does not recognize what a person becomes from doing evil as being a valid consideration...

...which speaks volumes about what he has become.

Greg

Mao was a mass murdering human totalitarian monster inside and out--who lived a self-satisfying life because his self was rotten and evil to the core.

--Brant

some known mass murderers bottom to top:

Pal Pot

Stalin

Hitler

Mao

Rachel Carson

Karl Marx

[Francisco Ferrer]

Frank writes:

The biography I referenced supports the idea that Mao was satisfied with his life. Feel free to submit any relevant data that proves otherwise.

That is still just your opinion filtered through your values... of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

We'll always have different views because we each live by different moral standards.

Greg

You could argue that the statement "The Gettysburg Address was delivered on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863" is an opinion filtered through the opinion holder's values of someone else's opinion filtered through their values.

However, saying that the accuracy of date of the address is an opinion does not undermine the fact that there are a multitude of eyewitness accounts to confirm that date, and there are no accounts to support the theory that the address took place on another date.

Similarly, there are no accounts that I know of to support the theory that Mao was an anguished, guilt-ridden man.

That's because he ended up on top. Hitler went to hell before he put a bullet in his head as he knew he was losing it all. He was obviously anguished. Who cares if he felt guilt? I doubt it. His any guilt was likely not killing more people or whatever it took to be on the winning side. He did blame his Germans for not deserving that--not being good enough. He felt good about the Jews, however. Yep, he knew the future would deliver thanks for getting rid of them. Some Muslims are doing that now. And think of all the "good" Germans who didn't have to feel guilty because they were just "following orders." Wars and conflicts are structured in such a way--including mass murder--so that the people who feel bad are the victims and the victimizers get to feel good for doing good, usually in the name of the state's ideology. Behind every collectivist ideology is a power luster and a philosopher--sound familiar?--usually many more than one but only one is necessary if you combine the two into a crazy man who goes on a shooting spree.

--Brant

In "The Virtue of Selfishness," Ayn Rand wrote. ". . . men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

Any dictatorship?

In the case of Hitler, surrounded by military enemies which by his own recklessness he provoked, the Third Reich's Fuhrer used his Walther PPK 7.65 to put a hole in his head.

In the case of Mao, after a 27-year absolutist reign the head of state of the world's most populous nation died of natural causes without a hint of serious threat from domestic or foreign enemies.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Frank writes:

You could argue that the statement...

...but I wouldn't.

And it's due to the fact that you and I view the world differently because we each live by different moral standards. We will each take to the grave with us what we chose and all of its consequences...

...just as we each deserve.

Greg

The actual date of the Gettysburg Address or the mental state of Mao Tse-Tung in his later years have nothing to do with how we view the world or how "we each live."

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears." --Ayn Rand

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know about "different moral standards" necessarily apropos a discussion, but there are obviously different intellectual standards manifesting themselves on OL: Greg's and everyone else's. Greg doesn't have any suitable for ratiocination, so he keeps hitting his moral default. At least he's not troll-pretending; he's above board about this.

--Brant

[anthony]

In "The Virtue of Selfishness," Ayn Rand wrote. ". . . men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

Any dictatorship?

You are still being highly materialist FF.

If you're going to quote Rand extensively you may have to accept what she meant, implicitly as well as explicitly.

She begins with the independent being (of mind and body) as the bench mark. Sure, the thief, looter and dictator may exist to old age - in apparent success - and not get what one considers their just desserts, explicitly. They have in the mean time, without fail, abandoned themselves to others - either in their lust for absolute power over them or in feeding off them. (Altruism, in its fundamental state). Either way, he needs them. Whatever you or anyone could perceive as their outward thriving belies that each is a husk of a man. All his victims have ended up owning him.

[anthony]

Frank writes:

You could argue that the statement...

...but I wouldn't.

And it's due to the fact that you and I view the world differently because we each live by different moral standards. We will each take to the grave with us what we chose and all of its consequences...

...just as we each deserve.

Greg

The actual date of the Gettysburg Address or the mental state of Mao Tse-Tung in his later years have nothing to do with how we view the world or how "we each live."

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears." --Ayn Rand

The facts of reality are independent of a mind, but the judgments of those facts are not.

Greg, as I know him to be( ) makes quick judgments not always identifying the facts truly and often from a metaphysical and axiomatic fallacy.

But in principle his method is right. I believe his attachment to Objectivists is grounded on what he agrees with us: judgment is essential. (For the individual).

[Francisco Ferrer]

A bread thief has nothing to hide? Is it legal to steal bread in your state?

Why does it matter if it's legal? I said I believe it would likely be rational to save a family rather than not steal a loaf of bread. And if the thief believed it was rational, then it would not have any adverse effects on his conscience. So if he trusts someone, he may tell them about it, or at least he may reveal his values. That is the difference between a rational and irrational transgression.

It is hardly a certainty that successful predators are scarce anomalies. In the U.S. about 100,000 citizens work for an organization that regularly uses force and the threat of force to seize income from over 100 million productive citizens.

I didn't say "successful predators", I said psychopaths. A normal person can be a "successful predator", but that does not account for the psychic cost--which is really the source of all value.

The average cell phone owner would not want his phone stolen from him, but depending on the situation, he might forgive it.

Sure, and it may even be rational to steal a phone in a certain scenario, but your original number was 5% of people and you didn't stipulate any extraordinary circumstances. My argument has been that there is, in fact, a psychic cost to such actions that would create problems with intimate/honest/vulnerable human interactions.

"Why does it matter if it's legal?" It shouldn't matter at all to a man who cares nothing about the possible consequences of his theft in the area of law enforcement. According to his own personal ethics, a man may be willing to go to prison for 50 years in order to establish the moral principle that a needy man may steal a cell phone or a loaf of bread.

But it may matter a great deal to the man who regards the avoidance of arrest and prison as a higher value than possession of bread or a phone. As you said in Post #167, "there must be some room for subjectivism in ethics."

With regard to the thief, you now say that "if he trusts someone, he may tell them about it." But earlier in Post #179 you wrote, "If it was rational to steal the bread, then no, he wouldn't have anything to hide."

"Not having anything to hide" suggests an entirely different degree of openness than merely telling a person one can trust about a crime.

Now if willingness to reveal violation of someone's rights is "the difference between a rational and irrational transgression," then we would have to state that those who boasted of mass murdering Indians in the19th century (for sport, not defense) were rational. The Khmer Rouge leadership boasted of the need to reduce the population of Cambodia by millions: "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."

You write, "I didn't say 'successful predators,' I said psychopaths." Since you grant that distinction, the position that one may pursue his rational self-interest without regard to the rights of others may be even stronger.

As for having to "account for the psychic cost," how do we go about that? Unless a predator admits to having experienced some "psychic cost," we have no basis for assuming that there has been any cost. Furthermore, even if we grant the existence of such a cost, we cannot say with any certainty that the psychic side effects outweigh the benefits of having made good use of someone else's property.

My estimate of 5% who would steal a cellphone was rough. A more precise measure of the number of unscrupulous people in a population was probably gained by an experiment conducted by Reader's Digest.

They "lost" 192 wallets around the world. In each of the 19 cities, they included a name, cellphone number, family photo, coupons, and business cards in the discarded wallet, as well as $50 in whichever currency the country used. They then left 12 wallets around each city near parks, shopping malls, and on sidewalks, and counted how many were returned . . . Out of the 192 wallets they dropped, 90 wallets were returned, or about 47 percent.

I will stipulate that taking and keeping a valuable item that is explicitly labeled with a name and contact number is a form of theft. Thus the number of potential thieves in human society may be much higher than 5%.

The essential point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that one necessarily experiences a psychic cost for taking the unearned and undeserved or that such cost is not offset by the benefits of the taking.

[Dglgmut]

The essential point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that one necessarily experiences a psychic cost for taking the unearned and undeserved or that such cost is not offset by the benefits of the taking.

Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that. They pick an identity and they try to become that. If they want to be the type of person who "doesn't give a shit" about another's right to property, then they will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to defend that decision.

However, while that identity may be attractive for obvious reasons, there is a necessary cost if one does not want to surround himself with people like him. The cost is revealing what he thinks of himself. Or, the more likely route, is to accept relations with people about as morally depraved as he is, even though it isn't what he really wants--and even with these he cannot reveal his lack of self-esteem for it would reflect also his lack of esteem for those like him.

[Brant Gaede]

The essential point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that one necessarily experiences a psychic cost for taking the unearned and undeserved or that such cost is not offset by the benefits of the taking.

Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that. They pick an identity and they try to become that. If they want to be the type of person who "doesn't give a shit" about another's right to property, then they will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to defend that decision.

However, while that identity may be attractive for obvious reasons, there is a necessary cost if one does not want to surround himself with people like him. The cost is revealing what he thinks of himself. Or, the more likely route, is to accept relations with people about as morally depraved as he is, even though it isn't what he really wants--and even with these he cannot reveal his lack of self-esteem for it would reflect also his lack of esteem for those like him.

If Francisco is honest might he now admit he doesn't introspect and really doesn't understand introspection? As a computer, he's well programmed. So is Greg, and it's no surprise what comes out.

--Brant

no surprises from me either--not after all these years

[Francisco Ferrer]

In "The Virtue of Selfishness," Ayn Rand wrote. ". . . men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

Any dictatorship?

You are still being highly materialist FF.

If you're going to quote Rand extensively you have to accept what she meant, implicitly as well as explicitly.

She begins with the independent being (of mind and body) as the bench mark. Yes, the thief, looter and dictator may exist to old age - in apparent success - and not get what one considers their just desserts, explicitly. They have in the mean time, without fail, abandoned themselves to others - either in their lust for absolute power, or in feeding off them. (Altruism, in its fundamental state). Either way, he needs them. Whatever you or anyone may perceive as their outward thriving belies that each is a husk of a man. All his victims have ended up owning him.

Actually, Rand does not begin with independence. She begins with why man needs a code of values and goes on to argue that "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil."

It is not until halfway through "The Objectivist Ethics" that she brings up "independence" and it is to assert "the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence)."

Granted, we can see how forming one's own judgments is essential to the furtherance of a human life; one must depend ultimately on one's own mind to choose the path that is most likely to further one's own good. However, "living by the work of one’s own mind " is not the only logical conclusion we can derive from the premise of one's life as its standard of value. Prudent transgression against others may result in benefits with minimal or no costs.

As for the charge that predators have "abandoned themselves to others": is the predator's life or secondary values in jeopardy because others work for his benefit? As I've pointed out in this thread, thousands of federal employees have spent most of their adult lives in the employ of an agency devoted to transferring wealth from the most productive citizens to the least productive. But this remunerative dependency on others is hardly likely to disappear tomorrow at dawn. Nor is there any evidence that internal revenue employees suffer self-doubt to any greater degree than the rest of the population.

Mao was owned by his victims, you say? If so, why didn't any of the victim/owners think to sell off or discard this thing they owned?

[Francisco Ferrer]

The essential point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that one necessarily experiences a psychic cost for taking the unearned and undeserved or that such cost is not offset by the benefits of the taking.

Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that. They pick an identity and they try to become that. If they want to be the type of person who "doesn't give a shit" about another's right to property, then they will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to defend that decision.

However, while that identity may be attractive for obvious reasons, there is a necessary cost if one does not want to surround himself with people like him. The cost is revealing what he thinks of himself. Or, the more likely route, is to accept relations with people about as morally depraved as he is, even though it isn't what he really wants--and even with these he cannot reveal his lack of self-esteem for it would reflect also his lack of esteem for those like him.

Actually, admissions of wrong-doing and regret are not at all uncommon. Scared Straight and similar programs have made use of felons engaging in self-reproach to discourage teens from committing crimes.

The question in this thread is whether a successful (i.e. unpunished) predator would experience "necessary" (your word) psychic costs. If it is your position that they do, then your claim must be backed by evidence other than your merely saying it is so.

In my experience a significant minority of the population is willing to violate property rights without the least regret. In college I met socialists who bragged about stealing works by Mises and Hayek from the university library in order to prevent other students from reading them and being "misled." I've met fast food employees who think that they are entirely justified in "hooking up" friends with "free" burgers and fries because restaurant employees work a minimum wage job and their corporate bosses would never feel the loss. I've met politicians who were happy to accept donations and gifts from alcohol distributors who wanted entry to the market and thus competition to be kept limited. I know an AIG employee who justified the Fed's bailout of his company on the grounds that he had four sons to send to college.

I think none of the above individuals has the least worry that he might "surround himself with people like him."

[Francisco Ferrer]

If Francisco is honest might he now admit he doesn't introspect and really doesn't understand introspection? As a computer, he's well programmed. So is Greg, and it's no surprise what comes out.

--Brant

no surprises from me either--not after all these years

As I told you in Post #149: "One does not himself have to be the exception to show there is an exception to a claim. To illustrate, if someone claims that pole vaulting above 6 mi is impossible, I do not personally have to pole vault 6.16 m to establish that such an action can be performed."

In this thread I do not have to be a person without the ability or desire to introspect (and thus have regrets about theft) to know that there are such people.

[Dglgmut]

Actually, admissions of wrong-doing and regret are not at all uncommon. Scared Straight and similar programs have made use of felons engaging in self-reproach to discourage teens from committing crimes.

I thought we were talking about successful predators... Is this the quality of "evidence" you think I should be providing? What convicted fellons say after years in prison isn't a reliable source of anything.

The question in this thread is whether a successful (i.e. unpunished) predator would experience "necessary" (your word) psychic costs. If it is your position that they do, then your claim must be backed by evidence other than your merely saying it is so.

I am being theoretical because this is a theoretical issue... I cannot give you ostensible evidence because it would be as arbitrary as your Scared Straight refrence.

Really what it comes down to is shame, and how it manifests. And again, shame is not something people go around talking about.