Galt's Oath

[merjet]

On 8/6/2016 at 5:46 PM, Don E. said:

merjet, you're being ridiculous, and I have to wonder if you're just trolling me.

That's ridiculous.   

Quote

If you want further clarification from Ayn Rand herself, please re-read "The Ethics of Emergencies" in VOS. Here are a couple quotes that are perfectly applicable to the father/daughter braces situation:

You're grasping at straws. Getting dental braces is not an emergency, so it is not "perfectly applicable." You took from a context of emergencies and blindly applied it to a non-emergency situation. 

Quote

In your literal interpretation of the beneficiaries statement, you're saying it would be immoral to help your wife or your friends in any way under any circumstance, and clearly that contradicts what Ayn Rand is saying here.

I saw the implications - intended and unintended - of her assertion (which is based on a false dichotomy). You saw only what you wanted to see. 

Quote

In context, she was talking about examining popular catch phrases that people throw around, such as "It was true yesterday, but not today", in order to understand the philosophical principles underlying them.

No, it wasn't only popular catch phrases. Reread what she wrote -- it included "any abstract statement". I followed her advice. You didn't.

Quote

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind," but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. ("Philosophical Detection", PWNI, p.21)

That's what I did, and you didn't. 

[anthony]

Peter as usual is his modest reticent self, I think - he sees a broad range of ramifications. As well as ideas being ~generated~ in this very useful thread, it's also the basic premises about Rand's rational egoism which are being re-visited and confirmed, even re-aligned by respondents, causing some conceptual shifts. What stands out this far I think: 1. A man cannot in reality live for another (that entails to think, value and act for an other) no more than he can "feel" (accurately, permanently and consistently) or breathe and eat - for him. Galt's Oath affirms the irrationality to even try make possible the impossibility - not to add the immorality, when it is pervasively idealized as the ethics of sacrifice. 2. It's man's life which is the standard of value (not 'a' man's life) and the standard should apply by and to all men. 3. One must, in the 'justice of reality' (surely, the precursor to rights and 'Justice'), acquire the entire rewards of all that's successfully worked for, taken risks for or created. That's before the subsequent choices of which of one's values to benefit. (The evident corollary being that whenever one makes errors or takes risks and fails, one fails alone, at one's own loss and cost to those objective values).

 

[Peter]

I wrote about online Objectivism, “Ideas are being generated.”

And Wolf responded , “Yeah? Name two.”

Wolfoolery.

From Austen Powers, Gold Member:

Fook Mi: [runs to Austin] Austin Powers! You're so great and so sexy!

Austin Powers: Thanks, baby! Now what's your name?

Fook Mi: Fook Mi!

Austin Powers: Can you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Fook Mi: No! Fook Mi! Like this! [turns away so Austin can see Fook Mi written on her bag]

Austin Powers: Oh! Your name's Fook Mi!

Fook Mi: Would you like a drink? [runs away to get drink]

Austin Powers: Actually I have a private bar... [Fook Mi's twin sister, Fook Yu arrives]

Fook Yu: Here you go!  [gives him drink]

Austin Powers: [thinking she's Fook Mi] Fook Mi, that was fast!

Fook Yu: Fook Yu! 

[Peter]

I wrote about online Objectivism, “Ideas are being generated.”

And Wolf responded , “Yeah? Name two.”

Oh what fun, Santa! You just generated two ideas. “Yeah:” indicates you are skeptical of any idea being generated which is an idea. “Name two:” Obviously, you don’t want me to name you and your Lazy Fair City as idea two, which you thought of before coming here, or even any NEW ideas you may have had since encountering OL’s skeptics. How would I know? Hmmm? So, you want me to predict which generated ideas will bear fruit? Or who, having read something on OL, will do something productive? You want me to predict the future? Off with his head! I renamed your City, Lazy Fair, so that is idea two.

Peter

Two quotes from the Matt Ridley online blog: There are no experts on the future.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”: Physicist Richard Feynman, reflecting on the tendency of research to explode complacency and embarrass experts who tell you what’s impossible. end quote

Here’s a famous ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, speaking at the Institute of Biology in London in 1971: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” end quote

[Peter]

Generated ideas, Wolf? Let us leave the geniuses like Stephen B. and Ghs (still on tour with his hit Broadway show, “Hamilton”) and return to an idea, Atlantis, that may have helped generate the idea for Objectivist Living.  

There was a thread on Atlantis in 2000 called “Evil Ideas” where Gayle Dean wrote: But, I've wondered if the REAL test of intellectual honesty is when you are wrong, BUT you are the ONLY person who knows you are wrong, and you still admit it. Because only then is there no external pressure to be honest. It is all internal...you know you were wrong about something --and even though no one else will ever know --you admit it as an act of respect to the other person as an act of integrity to yourself...an act of not trying to get away with faking reality to yourself.

In other words -- contrary to how it might appear to us on the surface – it might be easier to admit you are wrong, in public, under pressure, on the list, after it has been demonstrated in black and white that you are wrong-- than it is to admit it when you are the only one who knows you are wrong. Similar to the way a criminal is more likely to confess to a crime, when he is presented with a lot of evidence against him, than when there is no evidence. end quote  

and in another quote of Gayle: . . . I just don't accept a separation of a person from his thoughts, beliefs, ideas, actions-- so I don't understand that idea at all. end quote  

So. Next time you look in the mirror, Wolf . . .

Peter

[Peter]

Tony wrote: Peter as usual is his modest reticent self . . .end quote

Thank you Tony. You know I hate talking about how great I am. I am even too modest to suggest it. Oops, I did suggest it. The hymn, "How Great Thou Art," is about you, Tony, not humble me.

A better Wolfish question would be, “What ideas have been thought up that are new to the philosophy of Objectivism?” And of course you immediately run into a roadblock. Supposedly, only Leonard gets to do add anything new . . . A regret I have is that there has never been a contextual addition to objectivism. What I mean is, the term “little ‘o’ philosophy objectivism” has never caught on. I am sure past philosophers have been part of “movements” but who now cares if Aristotle, Keppler, or Galileo’s ideas were stamped “approved,” by a bunch like the folks at the ancient version of ARI? Only the ideas, essays and contributions survive, not the kiss ass approval from der authorities. I suggest The Atlas Society start printing essays in ‘small o’ objectivism.  

Peter  

Neil Parille wrote about Harry Binswanger’s book, “How We Know”: Binswanger has a lot of praise for Peikoff in the book, but there are no endorsements from Peikoff or anyone else. end quote

From the blog Quora: What are the most important developments in the philosophy of Objectivism since Ayn Rand's death in 1982? I respect Rand's desire to restrict use of the term Objectivism. But I don't know any other term to describe a living, growing philosophy  starting from her work.  Calling it anything but Objectivism seems like  expropriation.  What suggestions have been made?  . . . As for developments in the philosophy, that's harder for me to answer, but here's what I'll say: First, strictly speaking, there cannot be any updates or additions to the philosophy of Objectivism. That term is a proper noun chosen by Ayn Rand to indicate her philosophy, and by her definition it doesn't include anything that she didn't approve. However, Objectivist philosophers are actively working on extending, applying, and clarifying the original ideas that Rand came up with. In that sense there certainly have been developments in Objectivism: I would still include the publication of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. This book doesn't contain new, post-1982 ideas, but it does represent a new formulation and presentation of them and is an intellectual contribution in its own right. The other big one I would name is Dr. Peikoff's theory of induction as given in his course "Induction in Physics and Philosophy". That is a new, original answer (if only a preliminary answer) to one of the most pressing problems in philosophy, and one that Rand wrote little about.

Jack Crawford, I have read almost everything that Ayn Rand wrote, many of the books and arti... Just happened to pass this way. Dr Peikoff has another book coming out in Sep 2012 Called "The DIM Hypothesis" that you might find interesting. The subtitle is "Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out" It isn't about electricity.  Written 27 Aug 2012. end quotes 

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm compelled to conclude that I'm talking to space aliens.

[KorbenDallas]

 

[Don E.]

merjet, I still think you're trolling me.

On 8/8/2016 at 4:47 AM, merjet said:

You took from a context of emergencies and blindly applied it to a non-emergency situation. 

No, I took a PRINCIPLE from another chapter of her book and applied it THOUGHTFULLY and RATIONALLY to other situations. The general PRINCIPLE is that your loved ones are values to you, and therefore you can morally act for their benefit, because it is in your own self interest to pursue your values, and a sacrifice is only made when you trade a higher value for a lower one. In CONTEXT, in the surrounding paragraphs of that statement, she is speaking of broad CONCEPTS such as "sacrifice", "rational values", and "love and friendship". These PRINCIPLES apply to all of ethics and all of life, not just emergencies. These concepts are discussed and elaborated on and illustrated by Ayn Rand throughout ALL of her writing (even in chapters with "Emergencies" in the title.) If you have missed these concepts in your study of Ayn Rand's writing, then you have seriously misunderstood Objectivism. And I have to wonder if a misunderstanding of that magnitude is deliberate.

I was tempted not to respond at all to your last post, because you seem to be impervious to reason. But now I'm genuinely curious about your interpretation and your mindset. If you are not just trolling me, then please answer these questions DIRECTLY:

1. Do you really believe that according to the Objectivist ethics, it is immoral to buy braces for your daughter? 
2. Do you think if you asked Ayn Rand herself that question, she would say yes, it's immoral? 
3. Do you think any reasonable person (besides yourself) who reads Ayn Rand's work and understands her philosophy would come to that conclusion?
4. What about my hypothetical situation of you handing me $5 in change? Is that immoral in your interpretation of Objectivist ethics?
5. Do you understand the concept of CONCEPTS, or the concept of PRINCIPLES? Or do you always take every statement you hear or read out of context and interpret it literally, without considering the intent of the speaker or author?  
6. What is your purpose in deconstructing statements from Ayn Rand out of context? Is it your goal to show that Objectivism is irrational or contradictory? If so, do you think you're succeeding?  
7. Do you think you're interpreting Ayn Rand's ideas the way she intended them to be understood? 
8. Are you deliberately misinterpreting her ideas? If so, why?

To anyone else who would like to chime in here, I'm new to this forum. Is this merjet's typical line of attack? To take statements out of context and draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from them? Is he a troll? I don't believe it's possible for any thinking person to misinterpret Ayn Rand's ideas this badly. Does anyone else think buying braces for your daughter is immoral according to Objectivism? Or do you agree with me that merjet's interpretation is ridiculous and unfounded? 

 

[KorbenDallas]

11 hours ago, Don E. said:

To anyone else who would like to chime in here, I'm new to this forum. Is this merjet's typical line of attack? To take statements out of context and draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from them?

Haha.  I'm somewhat new myself, becoming very active around January this year.  What I do know is there are some very sophisticated people here, that this is the best Objectivist/Objectivish forum on the Internet, and I absolutely love OL.  It's a rough and tumble place sometimes, unlike any forum I've ever been on, and represents real life more than any forum I've seen.  There are some people on the forum who aren't Objectivists but really good people, but I'm pretty sure Merjet is an Objectivist---but what that definition of Objectivist means to you (in practice) might mean something different to someone else, but you're both still Objectivists.  Hopefully living fruitful lives.

11 hours ago, Don E. said:

Is he a troll?

Na, the last troll we had was Lightyearsaway.

11 hours ago, Don E. said:

Does anyone else think buying braces for your daughter is immoral according to Objectivism?

Nope, I don't think so.  Assuming he was an Objectivist he wouldn't place his daughter above himself, but she would be a very high value in the Aristotelian sense of trying to obtain the everlasting by instilling his values/virtues in her.  Her smile, once the braces were off, would be more visually appealing and she would have more social opportunities (perhaps more self-assuredness, too) in areas like business to personal relationships.  In other words, she could have a better life, thus promoting her happiness.

11 hours ago, Don E. said:

Or do you agree with me that merjet's interpretation is ridiculous and unfounded?

I think the core of the disagreement is this:

On 8/2/2016 at 3:03 PM, merjet said:

Don E, I agree with all you wrote. However, a passage in the Virtue of Selfishness contradicts what's below. See here.

On 8/1/2016 at 10:33 PM, Don E. said:

   Furthermore, there are many occasions when a rationally selfish person can properly and morally "act" for the sake of another man

 

[merjet]

Well, Don E, I'm (mildly) curious about your interpretations and your mindset, too.

1. Do you believe everything Ayn Rand wrote in VoS and ITOE was perfectly valid?
2. Do you agree with everything she wrote in VoS and ITOE?

From what I've seen so far, I will be surprised if you answer 'no' to either of these. So if you do answer 'no', please state your BIGGEST disagreements. 

3. Could the beneficiary-breach passage in VoS have been better written? If so, how?

4. What is your interpretation of the breach assertion? How does it exclude the father buying braces for his daughter?

Depending on how you respond, I might answer your questions. I believe that's a generous offer given how uncivil and impervious to reason your last two posts have been. 

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, Don E. said:

merjet, I still think you're trolling me.

No, I took a PRINCIPLE from another chapter of her book and applied it THOUGHTFULLY and RATIONALLY to other situations. The general PRINCIPLE is that your loved ones are values to you, and therefore you can morally act for their benefit, because it is in your own self interest to pursue your values, and a sacrifice is only made when you trade a higher value for a lower one. In CONTEXT, in the surrounding paragraphs of that statement, she is speaking of broad CONCEPTS such as "sacrifice", "rational values", and "love and friendship". These PRINCIPLES apply to all of ethics and all of life, not just emergencies. These concepts are discussed and elaborated on and illustrated by Ayn Rand throughout ALL of her writing (even in chapters with "Emergencies" in the title.) If you have missed these concepts in your study of Ayn Rand's writing, then you have seriously misunderstood Objectivism. And I have to wonder if a misunderstanding of that magnitude is deliberate.

I was tempted not to respond at all to your last post, because you seem to be impervious to reason. But now I'm genuinely curious about your interpretation and your mindset. If you are not just trolling me, then please answer these questions DIRECTLY:

1. Do you really believe that according to the Objectivist ethics, it is immoral to buy braces for your daughter? 
2. Do you think if you asked Ayn Rand herself that question, she would say yes, it's immoral? 
3. Do you think any reasonable person (besides yourself) who reads Ayn Rand's work and understands her philosophy would come to that conclusion?
4. What about my hypothetical situation of you handing me $5 in change? Is that immoral in your interpretation of Objectivist ethics?
5. Do you understand the concept of CONCEPTS, or the concept of PRINCIPLES? Or do you always take every statement you hear or read out of context and interpret it literally, without considering the intent of the speaker or author?  
6. What is your purpose in deconstructing statements from Ayn Rand out of context? Is it your goal to show that Objectivism is irrational or contradictory? If so, do you think you're succeeding?  
7. Do you think you're interpreting Ayn Rand's ideas the way she intended them to be understood? 
8. Are you deliberately misinterpreting her ideas? If so, why?

To anyone else who would like to chime in here, I'm new to this forum. Is this merjet's typical line of attack? To take statements out of context and draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from them? Is he a troll? I don't believe it's possible for any thinking person to misinterpret Ayn Rand's ideas this badly. Does anyone else think buying braces for your daughter is immoral according to Objectivism? Or do you agree with me that merjet's interpretation is ridiculous and unfounded? 

 

If you have loved ones they are of value to you. Their benefit, your benefit, it's objectively the same benefit subjectively experienced different ways. People are going to act in their perceived best interests so it's a matter of why they perceive apparent sacrificial actions to be that way. Rand said take out the old morality and put in her new one. That worked for many, on the personal level. It's mostly a matter of discarding guilt for those who aren't sociopathic. Morality is for control, self and social. That's because people have free will. Animals that don't have free will have no morality; they simply act/react. Free will is based on cognition. Deny one you deny the other. Those who argue against free will are wrong out of the gate for they are cognitating.

All knowledge is not in Objectivism nor all enlightenment from Ayn Rand--nor correctness.

I find most of your questions kind of silly if not condescending. You are embracing intellectual victimhood by merjet while fighting it. As Nathaniel Branden once said, "Man is a self-fucker."

--Brant

[anthony]

One's own life is a fact of reality, that is *objective*, and therefore inarguably of objective value, one's highest - although that will be arguable in some places. I wonder, at what point of finding and having additional and life-supporting *values* do they become "subjective"? E.g. Love, we'd say is of objective value, but a rational person loving - "Sally" - specifically, is being "subjective"? Purpose/productiveness is an objective value, but to select the profession of say, broker, over (say) architect is a "subjective" choice? and so on. It can't be. A 'subjective value' has to be a self-contradiction, values are objective to the extent one is rational, i.e. objective. Life can't be separated from value, nor can fact.

[anthony]

6 minutes ago, anthony said:

 duped

 

[anthony]

On 2016/08/08 at 7:06 PM, Peter said:

Tony wrote: Peter as usual is his modest reticent self . . .end quote

Thank you Tony. You know I hate talking about how great I am. I am even too modest to suggest it. Oops, I did suggest it. The hymn, "How Great Thou Art," is about you, Tony, not humble me.

 

Well Peter, I notice that if there's anyone to give credit to anyone it will often be you, and I'm returning a bit to you. You know, I am sure, that 'justice' has two sides, criticism of wrongful ideas - and credit given to good ones. In this tumble dryer of abbreviated exchanges in an internet forum, the second gets forgotten too much . Does the fine distinction ever occur to you that 'benevolence' isn't only an important quality in evaluation of a person or idea, but is also cognitively useful? "A charitable reading", as it's known, will usually take one's thinking further. With anybody, Rand included. (Though "charitable" is not quite the word). Improving one's knowledge isn't a zero-sum game, and very much the opposite.

[Peter]

At The Olympics, Michael Phelps laughed during the U.S. national anthem when presented with a medal. I get it but nitpickers might take offense. It was sheer joy and love of country and the anthem.

Tony wrote: "A charitable reading", as it's known, will usually take one's thinking further. With anybody, Rand included. end quote

You are talking about a psychological mindset that reinterprets someone else’s statement in a benevolent way. I have seen that function in action most often when an adult is talking to a child. ‘Did you mean . . . ” the adult will say. And the child will take credit for that interpretation of their meaning. The child is not innocently fudging the facts but they are also learning a lesson, so I don’t count that as being duplicitous considering the child’s mental age. They “should” grow out of it. The same thing occurs when someone quotes Rand and says, “I think you meant this.” Not that Rand is a parent or a deity, but she is usually, extremely precise and logical. An adult should morally admit that was not what they meant, if that is the case. “Darn. You have opened my eyes!”  

And AR is usually right if you break her words down syllogistically, though I agree with Merjet that there are some instances when Rand is not precise or contextual when you factor in the passage of time and the accumulation of *knowledge.* But back then there were only four elements. (joke.)

Peter

Notes.

From: Walter Foddis To: objectivism@wetheliving, Subject: OWL: Are RAKs self-interested?

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 13:40:37 -0600: . . . . On Atlantis many moons ago, Dave Thomas was explaining how, as a hypothetical(?) Objectivist, he would have handled the situation in which a fellow wanted 4 quarters (to purchase a bus ticket) for Dave's dollar:

> From what I understand of Objectivism, the moral thing to do would have been to give him only two or three quarters for his dollar. That way, both of us would have benefited from the exchange.

Mike Hardy wrote: “This is an exceedingly simple-minded caricature of objectivist morality."

I would have to agree that is an overly simplistic view. Of course you'd give someone change equal to the value of the cash. Where in Objectivism is it stated or implied that you need to make a material profit with every exchange?

What is the self-interest in such an exchange? Perhaps not much of anything except knowing you've helped out some other guy get a bus ride. Self-interest seems insufficient to explain the morality of this exchange, which I would classify as a "random act of kindness" (RAK). I think the ~primary~ value in performing RAKs is not out of personal gain (psychological or otherwise), but the fact that someone ~else~ is better off! That you are helping the person so that person gains a value, and that is ~why~ you do it. RAKs do not have to entail sacrifice, and for the most part, I don't believe they do.

Here is another RAK example, which is actually true. I was leaving a parking lot with a practically unused $1 parking stub. I saw this woman about to purchase a ticket, so I rolled down my window and offered her my stub, which she gladly accepted. Would the Objectivist ethics require that I ask her to pay me for the ticket? I think if I were low on cash, as was common in my early student days, I might have asked for the dollar. But given I was not a "starving" student, and a dollar means very little in the big scheme of things (especially a Canadian dollar), I'd take a grateful smile over a dollar any day.

Now someone may say, "Ah ha! You gave this woman your ticket because you wanted to enjoy her smile. Therefore, it was selfish!" But can you imagine telling a person that the main reason you helped them out was because you wanted a smile, not because you wanted them to be better off? I think you'd get many a confused look in stating that that is your ethical reason for helping. I think there is a danger in explaining all acts of benevolence as ~primarily~ selfish, as they can lead one into some very twisted explanations into justifying one's actions. Or in Dave's case, it could lead to a gross misrepresentation of what the Objectivist ethics entails in practice.

I believe it is important to make the distinction of a primary and secondary values in explaining RAKs. I see the primary value as the main goal or end being sought. The secondary value is a by-product of the primary value, a side benefit. However, I would argue that it is the primary value that is your main motivation, or ought to be.

Do I think this contradicts the Objectivist ethics? Yes and no. I think the Objectivist ethics, in terms of its value structure, is sound. (Although some published empirical work would help matters, at least academically.) I also believe that self-interest ought to guide our need to actualize our potentials. However, when it comes to some benevolent acts, I think self-interest fails as an explanation. And no, I don't believe altruism is the only alternative to this. I think the above real-life examples show that a person can act to further the values of another person without sacrificing one's own values and ~as well~, ethically hold, without appealing to altruism or self-interest, that the value gained by the other person is one's primary reason for helping.

In RAK situations, I sometimes see Objectivists appeal to psychological egoism as the reason for behaving ethically. Is this what Objectivism necessarily entails? I think Joel Feinberg makes the point against this position quite clear in his essay, "Psychological Egoism." To say that all motivated action is selfish, one "is not asserting a synthetic empirical hypothesis about human motives; rather, [one's] statement is a tautology roughly equivalent to 'all motivated actions are motivated.'" I especially see the appeal to psychological egoism coming from those new to Objectivism. Might it be that Rand is not clear as to what self-interest entails that this conclusion is sometimes (often?) arrived at?

Interestingly, I think people have a good memory for RAKs as they tend to be rarity rather than the norm. For example, I once parked (Why are my RAK examples car related? Who knows?) in front of a woman's driveway, as I was late for work and couldn't find a regular parking spot. Luckily, she didn't have me towed and left a note asking me not do this again. I then paid her for this kindness by giving her a cheque to compensate for the inconvenience (a parking ticket & being towed would have been much more expensive). She used the money to buy her daughter a few swimming lessons. 4 years later, not seeing each other during this time, it was the first thing she remembered when I approached her in casual conversation. My point: It was a minor event, but it was well remembered.

Sure, there is long range benefits in performing RAKs, such as those elucidated by Kelley in _Unrugged Individualism_ (e.g., modeling ethical behavior for others to follow, thus providing potential future benefit for oneself). But I think it is quite a stretch to state it is a self-interested reason as one's primary motivation in helping. I believe that empathy is a much more accurate and plausible motivation for performing a RAK and that the primary value being sought is the benefit incurred by the helpee.

Walter

From: "Barbara Branden" To: aynrand@wetheliving Subject: Re: AYN: Technicalities on charity Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:52:56 EST. Matt Totten believes that there can be no selfish reason for giving to charity, that it is an act of altruism.

Matt, there are circumstances in which it is an act of altruism, and circumstances in which it is not.

If I give to a charity because I believe it is my moral duty to do so, even though that charity is giving money to people I disapprove to -- say, to socialist organizations -- then that is altruism. More than that, it specifically goes against my rational self-interest.

But say I give to an organization I believe in, whose cause also is my cause -- say, the Institute of Justice or The Objectivist Center -- then I am helping to serve my own interests; I very much want certain ideas to be spread, and they are spreading them.

But again, say I give to a medical research organization, or to one that gives toys to poor children at Christmas. I do this out of a motive of benevolence, not self-sacrifice, simply because medical research is important to me and to everyone else and I wish to help make it possible, and/or because it pains me to think of children going without toys at Christmas. The motive of benevolence toward other human beings -- assuming they are not people I cannot and do not feel benevolence toward -- is a perfectly reasonable motive. It means that, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, one wishes other people well, and that if one can assist them without self-sacrifice -- sacrifice of oneself or one's values -- one will do so. And this is wholly consistent with Objectivism.

Barbara

[anthony]

Peter: Egoism, as psychological, ethical, benevolent - or a pleasurable and emotionally rewarding gesture, making something a little better for someone else at little cost. We can and will periodically "isolate" those concepts and acts, for analysis, but shouldn't forget that a consciousness is an aggregate, not in roughly distinct 'areas of function' like our brains. Man is rational animal above all, which says plenty. What one should not allow (unexamined or for long) is a mind versus body "breach" (theory from practice, action from thought, value from life, repressed emotion ...) Accepting a mind/body dichotomy ~could~ be the first and major self-sacrifice, in my inexpert opinion. I don't quite know if I anywhere depart from Rand, but I am certain that rational selfishness cannot be mean and narrow or angst-ridden*, it's effect must be to liberate one, not constrict one.

*Not to suggest you or your correspondents implied this, not at all. ;)

[Brant Gaede]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

One's own life is a fact of reality, that is *objective*, and therefore inarguably of objective value, one's highest - although that will be arguable in some places. I wonder, at what point of finding and having additional and life-supporting *values* do they become "subjective"? E.g. Love, we'd say is of objective value, but a rational person loving - "Sally" - specifically, is being "subjective"? Purpose/productiveness is an objective value, but to select the profession of say, broker, over (say) architect is a "subjective" choice? and so on. It can't be. A 'subjective value' has to be a self-contradiction, values are objective to the extent one is rational, i.e. objective. Life can't be separated from value, nor can fact.

It's actually quite simple: all valuing is subjective. Values which are objective are objective to man--i.e., the idea or concept man or man as a generality. Those objective values are identified as objective albeit subjectively valued. If you are staggering across the desert almost dead from thirst and you come to a pool of water 100 yards off on your right and a pile of heavy gold bars 100 yards of on your left--which do you go to first?

If you and your mate were the last people on earth, how much "intrinsic" value would any gold have?

--Brant

[anthony]

On 2016/08/11 at 1:09 AM, Brant Gaede said:

It's actually quite simple: all valuing is subjective. Values which are objective are objective to man--i.e., the idea or concept man or man as a generality. Those objective values are identified as objective albeit subjectively valued. If you are staggering across the desert almost dead from thirst and you come to a pool of water 100 yards off on your right and a pile of heavy gold bars 100 yards of on your left--which do you go to first?

If you and your mate were the last people on earth, how much "intrinsic" value would any gold have?

--Brant

It can't be Brant, if values are "objective to man", then they are objective to men and to an individual man--all the way down. This concept is only held in each of our minds, and cannot somehow morph into "subjectivity" when it comes to applying one's evaluation to real things and other individuals; it would be like having a split mind (or "breach").

What is slightly confusing, is that nearly everybody living 'knows' he has great value in his life, his family, his work, his belongings- and all the rest - and for the most part and for many people, he objectively/rationally works for them and then protects them. (There has not been a previous ethics that explicitly lays it out and explicitly says that he's doing 'good' by being rational and selfish, owes nothing to others and has every right to be proud).

So when we hear someone like this rational but unphilosophical guy saying "my subjective choice"  -or - "my subjective values", we can instead understand him to mean - "not objective" - which for him requires clinical testing, scientific evidence", etc."  Since for most people, objective = empirical, and although they may be ethically objective (even by O'ist standards), they misrepresent themselves by this common terminology. . (And for O'ists, "subjective" is primacy of consciousness, anti-reality, anti-mind, feelings and wishes as one's judge or guide, arbitrariness, evasion, whimsy etc etc.).

To come back to the point: I think values are only objective (by definition). "Subjective value" or "intrinsic value", are self-contradictions and oxymorons. There's nothing 'imbued with value', disconnected from a valuer and a context.

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

... nearly everybody living 'knows' he has great value in his life, his family, his work, his belongings

Not me. Especially not the work. Ambivalent about life. My family is independent, no matter what I wish for them. Belongings? - hah.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

It can't be Brant, if values are "objective to man", then they are objective to men and to an individual man--all the way down. This concept is only held in each of our minds, and cannot somehow morph into "subjectivity" when it comes to applying one's evaluation to real things and other individuals; it would be like having a split mind (or "breach").

What is slightly confusing, is that nearly everybody living 'knows' he has great value in his life, his family, his work, his belongings- and all the rest - and for the most part and for many people, he objectively/rationally works for them and then protects them. (There has not been a previous ethics that explicitly lays it out and explicitly says that he's doing 'good' by being rational and selfish, owes nothing to others and has every right to be proud).

So when we hear someone like this rational but unphilosophical guy saying "my subjective choice"  -or - "my subjective values", we can instead understand him to mean - "not objective" - which for him requires clinical testing, scientific evidence", etc."  Since for most people, objective = empirical, and although they may be ethically objective (even by O'ist standards), they misrepresent themselves by this common terminology. . (And for O'ists, "subjective" is primacy of consciousness, anti-reality, anti-mind, feelings and wishes as one's judge or guide, arbitrariness, evasion, whimsy etc etc.).

To come back to the point: I think values are only objective (by definition). "Subjective value" or "intrinsic value", are self-contradictions and oxymorons. There's nothing 'imbued with value', disconnected from a valuer and a context.

Good try.

--Brant

objectively speaking

[anthony]

21 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Not me. Especially not the work. Ambivalent about life. My family is independent, no matter what I wish for them. Belongings? - hah.

I was citing norms of value for average folk, abnormals need not apply. ;o I'm kidding, but you show up a general truth, that as individuals have gotten older, value-specifics (another person/s, a goal - concrete values) will often change places in men's hierarchy, be lost or be given up by us, according to our improving knowledge and changing circumstances. One's value hierarchy isn't engraved in stone, but values we can't do without. Whatever happens with the specific values, the handful of fundamental categories of value last for all our lives or energies.

The "cardinal values" (and their corresponding virtues): Reason (rationality); Purpose (productiveness); Self esteem (pride).

AR: "Productive work is the central *purpose* of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values."

It strikes me about you Wolf that purpose/productiveness is not a value/virtue you are capable of giving up on (nor me) albeit perhaps there's now a gap in your activity. And when you find your next venture, I hope you're not going to call it a 'subjective' value.

[anthony]

On 2016/08/11 at 1:09 AM, Brant Gaede said:

If you are staggering across the desert almost dead from thirst and you come to a pool of water 100 yards off on your right and a pile of heavy gold bars 100 yards of on your left--which do you go to first?

If you and your mate were the last people on earth, how much "intrinsic" value would any gold have?

--Brant

Going for the gold would be the extreme of subjectivity, (you believe you can have your cake (your life) and eat it (also get rich). "Common sense" would dictate otherwise, and I think there's some simple common sense in objective values, which explains how many hold their values together. But take a more complex scenario, with exactly the same stakes, and we always see it doesn't put off all people from picking the subjective option.

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

It strikes me about you Wolf that purpose/productiveness is not a value/virtue you are capable of giving up on

Hmph. People like me are unable to find a market, aside from putting on a happy mask and swimming with the current, pretending to be normal.

[Don E.]

merjet, I joined this forum to meet like-minded people, not to offend people. So I'm sorry that it's come to that.  

I admit I have been offensive to you, but it's only because, so far, based on your interpretation of the beneficiary-breach statement, my impression has been that you're dishonest, and dishonesty offends me. This impression could be mistaken, and I hope it is. So far I've been unable to read between the lines of your terse responses to determine the mindset and motivation behind them. So I asked you those direct questions in order to give you the opportunity to describe your motivation and elaborate on your actual position, and prove to me that you are not dishonest.

I will attempt to elaborate some more. (I'm trying to be as open, honest, and clear with my responses as I can, and I wish you would do the same.) Your interpretation of the beneficiary-breach passage leads to the conclusion that it's always immoral for a father to buy anything for his child, which is a clearly unreasonable conclusion. There is a reasonable interpretation, which is that she was conveying a general principle, not a commandment. You are deliberately choosing the unreasonable interpretation. And to get to that unreasonable conclusion, you first have to take that statement out of context, which I think is dishonest. An honest attempt to understand her ideas would include reading her statements in context, and trying to come up with a reasonable interpretation; that is, trying to determine what she actually meant, what IDEAS she was trying to convey.

I've never met an honest, thinking person who takes statements out of context and over-analyzes them like you seem to be doing. And I don't see how any honest person can think that he can construct a valid interpretation by taking things out of context. So again, the reason I asked you those questions is that I'm trying to determine if you are honestly coming to a conclusion that, to me, seems patently unreasonable and absurd, or if you are intentionally being dishonest and irrational for some purpose known only to you.

As evidence for my argument, let's look at Ayn Rand's beneficiary-breach statement in context. I've highlighted in bold some of the important context that you are ignoring:

Quote

Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. 

The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary: it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.

The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life - and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. ("Introduction", VOS) (boldface mine)

So that's the immediate context, which you have ignored. She clearly states that the beneficiary is not her primary concern in the field of morality. And at the same time, although it's not the primary factor in determining morality, the general principle is that it's proper for the actor to be the beneficiary of his own action; as contrasted with altruism (discussed earlier in the chapter) which says the actor must NOT be the beneficiary of his own action. And, she elaborates on what she means by an "injustice" - a sacrifice of one person to another, of the moral to the immoral. The example of a father purchasing things for his daughter clearly doesn't fall into that category of sacrifice, and therefore it is not the kind of thing she's describing as an injustice. 

The next level of context you have ignored, is that this is the Introduction to VOS, where she is giving the briefest overview of Objectivist ethics, and speaking of broad principles, to be discussed further in later chapters. The main goal of the Introduction is to contrast the basic principles of Objectivist ethics with the basic principles altruist ethics. A more complete description of her ethics is given in chapter 1: The Objectivist Ethics, and the rest of the book. And, like I said, she elaborates on her ideas throughout all her writing. If you really wanted to understand her ideas, you wouldn't be taking one sentence out of context and drawing clearly unreasonable conclusions from it. I mean, you would have to think that Ayn Rand is either a moron or a monster to think that she would tell you it's immoral to buy things for your children. So, when you come to a conclusion like that, the only reasonable thing to do is check your premises, and try to figure out where you have gone wrong in your interpretation. 

On 8/10/2016 at 5:53 AM, merjet said:

4. What is your interpretation of the breach assertion? How does it exclude the father buying braces for his daughter?

I've already answered this question in my previous posts, and I've elaborated on it again above. The answer is that it is a general principle, not a commandment. Context matters - both in reading someone's writing, and in evaluating the morality of a specific action. And motivation matters. The beneficiary of an action is not the primary factor in determining its morality. Here's some of what I said before:

On 8/6/2016 at 0:43 AM, Don E. said:

I think in that quoted statement, Rand was speaking more broadly about breaches between actor and beneficiary, on principle. Like communism vs capitalism - are you the rightful beneficiary of your productive effort, or are others? Is it your decision how to spend your money, or is it "society's" decision? Are you living to pursue your own values and happiness, or are you living to serve others? But she was certainly not asserting that all actions, no matter how small, that might benefit another human being under any circumstances, are immoral.

On 8/6/2016 at 3:46 PM, Don E. said:

Ayn Rand did not lay down commandments for us to follow robotically and dogmatically. She gave us philosophical principles to apply to our lives. The quote about beneficiaries is from the Introduction to VOS, where, if you read it in context, her intent is clearly to lay out the broad principles of the Objectivist ethics, and contrast them with the broad principles of the altruist ethics. You can't take that one sentence and interpret it as "Thou shalt not take any action which benefits another human being". We're talking about broad principles of ethics and philosophy which require rational thought and application to your life, not dogma to be followed blindly. Yes, that's my interpretation, and it's the correct interpretation, if you have actually read and understood Ayn Rand's ideas.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant to the discussion I'm attempting to have with you at this time, but I'll answer them if you answer mine first. Once again, if you are interested in demonstrating to me that you are not dishonest, you can do so by answering my questions directly. If you're not interested in that, then I think we can just drop it here, because I'm not going to be satisfied with less than that.