bmacwilliam Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I suppose I should elaborate. Man can CHOOSE his standard of value as he sees fit and this can change at any time. THIS is reality. Where is the objective reason that this shouldn't or can't be the case?Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Bob,That is the case.He just cannot escape the consequences of reality. So choosing reality (which includes life) as the standard, instead of God or government, is more effective in ensuring that he can keep on choosing.Be careful with stolen concepts. A "man's life" implies that reality is the standard. There is no "man's life" without reality.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggrad02 Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 (edited) Who is the state?For starters, let's just say the organization that is protecting you from the nutcases in the middle-east that would not hesitate to slit your throat if they could get their hands on you.What service is this "State" providing me?See above.BobI am sorry that answer is no good. I am still waiting to hear who this people are that have a right to my production and a right to protect me. :poke: BTW: Your answer sounded like it was right out of Orwell's 1984 :sick: Edited September 27, 2007 by Aggrad02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Who is the state?For starters, let's just say the organization that is protecting you from the nutcases in the middle-east that would not hesitate to slit your throat if they could get their hands on you.What service is this "State" providing me?See above.BobI am sorry that answer is no good. I am still waiting to hear who this people are that have a right to my production and a right to protect me. :poke: BTW: Your answer sounded like it was right out of Orwell's 1984 :sick:The people around you have decided that this is the case - your neighbours. 'They' pool their money and purchase protection against very real external and internal threats. Those are the rules as agreed upon, in a general sense, by your neighbours (because they voted the government in). If you don't agree with the rules, you do not have the right to refuse to pay, you have the right to leave and go somewhere else and/or vote for someone that sees it your way. In the meantime they have a right to force you to comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 (edited) Be careful with stolen concepts. A "man's life" implies that reality is the standard. There is no "man's life" without reality.MichaelCould you elaborate a little? Not sure what you mean.To be clear, what I mean, and it seems like we're in agreement, that there's nothing objectively invalid with choosing say for example, your wife's life, as your standard of value.Other than maybe doing the dishes more often maybe, it would not change many day to day decisions. It still makes sense for you to live, to earn, to be happy etc. etc. etc...What happens then, it seems, is that an objective ethics is not possible.Bob Edited September 27, 2007 by Bob_Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Bob,We are in agreement except for one thing. What you describe IS objective ethics and very, very selfish. You decide for your life. Not God. Not government.Reality is your background, just like your will is. It is not your master, like God or government. Using only reality, you must use you mind objectively in order to choose wisely.That's about as objective as it gets. And that's Rand's basic message.That being said, I have some considerations about the nature of man (and that means me to me) that include concern for others, etc., and some of them do not align with the traditional Objectivist view of the nature of man. But that is a whole other kettle of fish. I am fishing for a clearer understanding of reality in this case, not trying to replace it with God or government.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggrad02 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) In the meantime they have a right to force you to comply.From your analysis, they don't have the "right" but the "might". So does that mean "might" makes right? Where do you live, I might be mightier than you and have a right to your production/property.BTW: Law does not make something moral, the mob does not making something right either. Hitler (who we have all been talking about lately) was elected in, does that mean Germany was "right" in their decision of the Holocaust?--Dustan Edited September 28, 2007 by Aggrad02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 In the meantime they have a right to force you to comply.From your analysis, they don't have the "right" but the "might". So does that mean "might" makes right? Where do you live, I might be mightier than you and have a right to your production/property.BTW: Law does not make something moral, the mob does not making something right either. Hitler (who we have all been talking about lately) was elected in, does that mean Germany was "right" in their decision of the Holocaust?--DustanYou're right, the mob or the law does not make right, I agree. However, within limits (and these can be argued all day) your neighbours have a right to set up and fund a government that provides services for which everyone is required to pay because everyone benefits. So what I disagree with is not that governments (Hitler for example) cannot go too far, they certainly can and do, or are always justified, but rather that taxation and forced compliance is unjustified in any form. Within limits (and the limits are the real issue), mandatory taxation is perfectly acceptable.Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 What you describe IS objective ethicsReally? I don't recall anything about choosing one's own standard of value as being an Objectivist position. I think this changes everything wrt Rand's ideas if one assumes this stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Bob,The only thing you are not allowed to do in Objectivist ethics is choose a replacement for reality. You say life is the ultimate standard of value? There are times in Objectivist literature when suicide is justified.There are two standards of value always—one cognitive and the other normative. On a cognitive level, reality determines value simply because it is immutable. That form of determining value is, "if this happens, that results." Nothing will ever escape that. On the normative level, the issue is a lot more personal. This is where you can choose your standard. Setting aside reality (where no choice is possible), what is of great value to you may not be to another.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Count me among the Microsoft critics. The trouble is, the government went after Microsoft for exactly the wrong reasons. Microsoft has a trail of fraud, broken agreements and naked armtwisting to cover its repeated intellectual property violations.JimAs an Objectivist you are required to have evidence to support this. It seems to be lacking. Otherwise a guilty verdict would be a slam-dunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now