Rand's gender hierarchy

[Brant Gaede]

I think in the child-hat formulation Rand is telling us that while the child starves and mom gets the hat it isn't a sacrifice for the mom because that mom is basically an immoral, shallow human being and that's a more important point. Such a mom does not deserve and really can't use a morality of rational self-interest because she never sought out higher values and achieved a noble, upstanding character. Considering human nature and its requirements for a good, moral and happy life that woman came up short, was essentially selfless and her selfishness was as superficial and shallow as she was. Or, selfishness--not.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Read what it says. Rand mentions two different cases.

Correct, and you and Barnes completely ignore the first one, where the mother chooses to feed her child rather than buy a hat. You and Barnes also conveniently ignore that Rand would not morally approve buying a hat rather than feeding the child. After all, it would be a sacrifice and ergo immoral.

You ignore the fact that Rand conceives of two different possibilities, with different values to the mother, confirming the fact that values are in Rand's own definition subjective. She states that in the second one, where the mother prefers the hat, it is a sacrifice if she gives up the hat to feed her child. That implies that it would be not a sacrifice if she bought the hat and let her child starve, so in Rand's terms that would be the moral thing to do. That is the absurdity that everyone but an Objectivist can see. Trying to divert the attention to the first case won't help, as that is a different case, and the fact that this one may be more in line with the general opinion about morality doesn't erase the fact of the absurd conclusion in the second example.

[Xray]

I think in the child-hat formulation Rand is telling us that while the child starves and mom gets the hat it isn't a sacrifice for the mom because that mom is basically an immoral, shallow human being and that's a more important point.

Brant, the scenario of the mother letting the child starve is not outlined in Rand's example.

Also, Rand personally condemns any kind of sacrifice, and along with it the persons who do the sacrificing.

[Xray]

It would be hard to be more shallow, although Xray gives it a good try, as I showed here.

Let's look at the "here" you are talking about:

View PostXray, on 01 August 2009 - 07:09 AM, said:

"A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a LOWER value to get a HIGHER value in return. (Xray)

"That is way too broad, and would include even working for money and buying groceries. So I will charitably consider she meant only what she considers "good examples", whatever that might include."

(Merlin Jetton)

Lower for higher is natural law. To say "too broad" about a short and definitive fact is blank out. Of course, it would include groceries. It is natural law. It includes everything whether tangible or intangible.

"Let us analyze Xray's proposition. Let us use Rand's well-known question "of value to whom and for what?"(ibid)

OK.

"Xray used "value" twice, so we can ask the question about each occurence. Is the valuer the same person for both?" (ibid)

Irrelevant. Natural law applies at all times and all places. One or a trillion valuers in one or a trillion instances is still less valued for more valued.

"If yes and the lower value is the person's own property, e.g. reluctantly selling something of value to obtain something else more highly valued, it is a ho-hum situation." (ibid)

"Reluctantly" or "ho hum", its still lower valur for higher value. I might add that in seeking higher for lower, the impetus is to get it done. Where's the "reluctance?" Why throw such words in?

"However, if yes and the lesser value is another human being, e.g. the valuer is a priest sacrificing an unwilling victim to appease the gods, that is a radically different situation." (ibid)

No it isn't. Would you say that the victim would put a higher value on not being a victim? The thing is, the victim's higher/lower valuations still exist, but being a victim, the preference is not allowed to be exercised.

The object traded has no say in the trading. If a dollar is traded for a loaf of bread, neither the dollar nor the bread has any say in the matter. Only the valuer and traders are attributing value. In such instances as with

the priest, the victim is the object traded for "God's favor, etc." That it is a human being traded does not alter the lower for higher principle. The victim IS NOT DOING THE TRADING regardless of personal valuations of

higher/lower. The victim is being traded just the same as any other object.

"Another radically different situation is a duped victim who puts little or

no value on his own life, e.g. a suicide bomber." (ibid)

The difference is from object to subject, but the same natural law applies. Motivation? Preference for oblivion? The promise of 41 virgins in "heaven?" What? As always, lower value for higher value. There is no way without the intent to hold to a higher value held, or to gain a higher valued goal.

"The valuers being two different people adds more and different situations. Consider again the priest with an unwilling victim. The victim is not trading a lower value for his/her own higher value, but rather the

opposite." (ibid)

As stated above, the victim is not trading at all. Trading and being traded are not the same. It's one person's valuation imposed upon and denying the victim to exercise his lower to higher preference. The lower to higher preference exists whether is can be physically manifested or not.

"The victim is coerced, or duped, into forfeiting a higher value for a lower value." (ibid)

Do you mean that if an individual is robbed at gunpoint, giving up his/her money to save his/her life means the money is valued (by the victim) more that his/her life? Kind of a self contradiction, isn't it?

"For such a case, Rand's saying "sacrifice" means "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue" is not meaningless like Dragonfly claims (post #408), but makes good sense. I suspect Rand thought more about sacrificial victims when she formulated her meaning of "sacrifice."

I makes no sense at all. For there is no such animal with the intention of giving up more for less. (ibid)

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I have an idea: Let's just barbecue the brat, have a meal of him with a nice bottle of Chianti and go on to other things. (This would not be acceptable for an Objectivist because Ayn Rand explicitly denied she favored eating babies so it's not Objectivism.)

--Brant

[merjet]

I makes no sense at all.

You sure got that right!

[merjet]

She states that in the second one, where the mother prefers the hat, it is a sacrifice if she gives up the hat to feed her child. That implies that it would be not a sacrifice if she bought the hat and let her child starve, so in Rand's terms that would be the moral thing to do. That implies that it would be not a sacrifice if she bought the hat and let her child starve, so in Rand's terms that would be the moral thing to do. That is the absurdity that everyone but an Objectivist can see.

Wrong. You imply that Rand said that all non-sacrificial actions are moral. That is a non sequitur. Some immoral actions are not sacrifices. Where does Rand say that only sacrifice is immoral?

What is absurd is the portrayal of Rand that critics like you and Barnes try to paint.

[Selene]

I have an idea: Let's just barbecue the brat, have a meal of him with a nice bottle of Chianti and go on to other things. (This would not be acceptable for an Objectivist because Ayn Rand explicitly denied she favored eating babies so it's not Objectivism.)

--Brant

It is very important to have enough beer - thick beer to pour over the barbecued brat because it seals in the juices. Works great with chicken.

xray the brat Brant is referring to is not the German kind or the WWII kinds. I wonder how well PETA would have done under the Third Reich?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

She states that in the second one, where the mother prefers the hat, it is a sacrifice if she gives up the hat to feed her child. That implies that it would be not a sacrifice if she bought the hat and let her child starve, so in Rand's terms that would be the moral thing to do. That implies that it would be not a sacrifice if she bought the hat and let her child starve, so in Rand's terms that would be the moral thing to do. That is the absurdity that everyone but an Objectivist can see.

Wrong. You imply that Rand said that all non-sacrificial actions are moral. That is a non sequitur. Some immoral actions are not sacrifices. Where does Rand say that only sacrifice is immoral?

The point is of course that Rand's example describes the choice between only two possibilities: either save the child and forgo the hat or buy the hat and let the child starve. The first option is in Rand's terms a sacrifice and therefore immoral (the notion that saving you own child at the price of a new hat would be immoral is of course in itself absurd). That implies that the alternative is not a sacrifice and must be the moral thing to do, otherwise it would be impossible to do anything moral in that situation. She cannot have her cake and eat it too, or save the child and also buy the hat.

What is absurd is the portrayal of Rand that critics like you and Barnes try to paint.

Why is it so difficult to admit that Rand sometimes screwed up royally? Don't blame the messengers.

[ginny]

Adam and Brant, Germans are very particular about their brats and beer. Make sure it's imported stuff, and please use decent mustard. Enjoy! But do so subjectively.

Oh, could we toss DF onto the spit as well and slather him with lots of sauce. Yummy.

I'm thinking that since a bar-b-que is an subjective value here and since we agree we value the bar-b-que, it's perfectly okay to eat 'em up. Any fault with my logic?

Ginny

Edited August 21, 2009 by ginny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why is it so difficult to admit that Rand sometimes screwed up royally? Don't blame the messengers.

Dragonfly,

I certainly have no problem with this.

My problem comes when the "messengers" are flat-out wrong.

It might ruffle some feathers, but for as incredible as it may seem, it is possible for both Rand and the "messengers" to be wrong.

I most often find this (on both sides) on issues of scope. But also on some other issues.

The irritating part of the "messengers" is that when you agree that they are right on one point, they immediately start bashing Rand with gusto and insinuating (or stating outright) that you agree with their many errors. That's equally irritating about fundamentalist Objectivists from the other side.

All this is usually nothing but the mind-games Schopenhauer listed.

Michael

[Xray]

She states that in the second one, where the mother prefers the hat, it is a sacrifice if she gives up the hat to feed her child. That implies that it would be not a sacrifice if she bought the hat and let her child starve, so in Rand's terms that would be the moral thing to do. That is the absurdity that everyone but an Objectivist can see.

Wrong. You imply that Rand said that all non-sacrificial actions are moral.

Wrong. DF did not imply this.

Merlin Jetton:

That is a non sequitur. Some immoral actions are not sacrifices. Where does Rand say that only sacrifice is immoral?

The non-sequitur is your inference from DF's post.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Adam and Brant, Germans are very particular about their brats and beer. Make sure it's imported stuff, and please use decent mustard. Enjoy! But do so subjectively.

Oh, could we toss DF onto the spit as well and slather him with lots of sauce. Yummy.

I'm thinking that since a bar-b-que is an subjective value here and since we agree we value the bar-b-que, it's perfectly okay to eat 'em up. Any fault with my logic?

Ginny

No, but your premises could stand a bit of work. Your message, and the thinking behind it, comes across loud and clear. All "Germans" valuate the

same. This evidences the illusion of (collectivist) categorical identity, the cornerstone of "Objectivism"; which jokingly touts individualism.

If you don't like the truth, destroy the messenger and pretend the unwanted truth goes away. If you don't have refuting argument, the subjective choice is to evade the issue and dally about with personal attacks. That's really high caliber intellectual stuff.

So your logic is quite clear: "eat the messenger" who points out truths you don't like.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Adam and Brant, Germans are very particular about their brats and beer. Make sure it's imported stuff, and please use decent mustard. Enjoy! But do so subjectively.

Oh, could we toss DF onto the spit as well and slather him with lots of sauce. Yummy.

I'm thinking that since a bar-b-que is an subjective value here and since we agree we value the bar-b-que, it's perfectly okay to eat 'em up. Any fault with my logic?

Ginny

Your logic is quite clear: "eat the messenger" who points out truths you don't like.

Adam and I were talking about the baby. Adults are much too tough.

--Brant

Edited August 22, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[merjet]

Wrong. You imply that Rand said that all non-sacrificial actions are moral.

Wrong. DF did not imply this.

Wrong again, Xray. We know you have reading comprehension problem, but here it is again in Dragonfly's own words:

That implies that the alternative is not a sacrifice and must be the moral thing to do, (source)

Edited August 22, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

I makes no sense at all.

You sure got that right!

I did get it right, Merlin. For "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue" makes no sense at all.

No-brainer actually, when you think about it. For who would trade something because he/she wants a lesser value in return? No one.

Re sacrifice: The etymological roots of the term "sacrifice" are from the Latin "sacra facere" which means 'to perform holy acts', the holy acts being mostly offers made by humans to a deity.

So the term clearly has its origin in a religious act.

The next question to ask is:

WHY are those religious sacrifices performed?

Are they perfomed because the sacrificer expects to get

- a higher value

or

- a lower value in return?

What do you think, Merlin?

To flesh it out with an example, let's take a famous sacrifice act we are all familiar with:

Cain and Abel sacrificing to the biblical god.

Each offered something to god - Cain gave cereal froms his fields, Abel gave a lamb from his herd.

What did they expect to get in return for what they offered?

A higher value or a lower value?

Bottom line: everyone trading X fo Y operates by the same principle: Y is regarded as the higher value. There is NO exception to this operative principle rooted in human nature.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Wrong. You imply that Rand said that all non-sacrificial actions are moral.

Wrong. DF did not imply this.

Wrong again, Xray. We know you have reading comprehension problem, but here it is again in Dragonfly's own words:

That implies that the alternative is not a sacrifice and must be the moral thing to do, (source)

It is you who have the comprehension problem. DF referred to a specific situation, not to a global rule. Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Why is it so difficult to admit that Rand sometimes screwed up royally? Don't blame the messengers.

Dragonfly,

I certainly have no problem with this.

My problem comes when the "messengers" are flat-out wrong.

It might ruffle some feathers, but for as incredible as it may seem, it is possible for both Rand and the "messengers" to be wrong.

I most often find this (on both sides) on issues of scope. But also on some other issues.

Michael,

I too have no problem whatsoever with errors being pointed out on both sides.

So if you disagree with any of the following points, please quote the area of disagreement and explain why you think I'm in error.

I have been thinking a lot about the "sacrifice" topic, trying to find out WHY there is so much confusion re its meaning.

Let's leave out Rand's elaborations on sacrifice for the moment in order to get to the core of the issue.

- Every so-called sacrifice is a trade, where a person offers something to get something else in return.

- EVERYONE engaging in a trade does this to get a higher value, not a lower value in return.

- There is NO exception to this operative principle.

But like in any trade, this does not mean that you get what you have bargained for.

The merchandise acquired may turn out not to be as expected, whether it is rotten apples, or a defective car (a so-called "lemon").

This also applies to non-material trades. Parents may devote (= trade) a lot of emotional energy, time and money to rear their children, but this does not mean that the result will be as desired by the parents.

"I have sacrificed my whole life to that rascal of a husband", a betrayed wife may complain. "For years I was hoping the serial adulterer would stop cheating on me - to no avail".

So often, looking back, people complain how much they "sacrificed" in hope of getting a higher value in return but are disappointed that the trade did not have the desired result.

It is very important to separate these two issues.

For however a trade is evaluated in hindsdight by the trader, the root principle remains untouched:

The trader always HOPES to get a higher value when engaging in a trade, whether it is donating a few dollars to the church, offering sacrificial animals to a deity, rescuing a dog from an shelter, adopting a child, or sacrificing one's time time to train for the Olympics, etc.

That is, individual disappointment regarding the result of a trade does not affect the operative principle tht people WANT to get a higher value for what they give.

Would you agree with these points?

Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Your "operative principle" is wrong.

But it's in Xray-speak dogma. I have no way of discussing it with you without prompting repetition of dogma.

No exceptions.

(At least, so far.)

You say, "... in order to get ot the core of the issue."

You mean, "... in order to get people to agree with me."

That's preaching.

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Your "operative principle" is wrong.

Michael,

And WHY do you think it is wrong? Can you name one single example of a trader engaging in a trade because he/she wants a LOWER value in return for what they give??

Operative principle: "EVERYONE engaging in a trade does this to get a higher value, not a lower value in return."

What exactly to you find wrong and why?

Do you claim to see something in the natural make up of an individual mind enabling the intent of trading more for less?

If so, what?

But it's in Xray-speak dogma. I have no way of discussing it with you without prompting repetition of dogma.

You arbitrarily label my arguments as "dogma". Where are your arguments to show the alleged "dogma" is false?

Just exactly what do you find in error in " Xray-speak dogma?"

Do you believe characterizing an argument as "dogma" affects the veracity or falsity of said argument?

If so, how?

You say, "... in order to get ot the core of the issue."

You mean, "... in order to get people to agree with me."

That's preaching.

It's not preaching. It is digging. For the truth, which (as opposed to "objective" values) CAN be discovered.

The truth may often not be pleasant, but it is ALWAYS contradiction-free.

What can be said of a philosophical thought system in which there remain inherent contradictions?

Closing one's eyes to those contradictions is agreeing to a "sacrificium intellectus" which medieval scholastics "recommended" when the judgement of one's intellect could not be reconciled with the contents of biblical dogma.

There you have it again, the "sacrifice". The scholars considered the human intellect as the lower value compared to faith. Faith towered above all, value-wise. Even philosophy was considered as the 'maid servant of theology' ("philosophia ancilla theologiae").

Inquiring minds want to know and a religion in which a god condemns his creatures because they ate from the "tree of knowledge" says it all. At least the founders of the religion left no one in doubt as to what was the goal: blind obedience and subordination to a doctrine.

But this attitude is by no means limited to theist thought systems.

"You say, "... in order to get to the core of the issue."

Right: "Core" connotes the heart (from Latin "cor") of an issue, which involves checking the premise determined by entity identity to be integrated in order to reach a conclusion consistent with reality.

Do you have any objections to the process?

If so, what and why?

"That's preaching."

Once again, do you think your arbitrary characterization as "preaching" attempting to denigrate rather than address affects the truth or falsity of the argument?

If so, why?

If not, why do you throw in all these non sequiturs rather than address the issue raised and answer the questions asked?

Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Its not preaching. It is is digging. For the truth, which as opposed to objevtive values CAN be discovered.

Xray,

Heh.

Is the truth a value to you?

Or do you hold to subjective truth only?

Michael

[Xray]

It is very important to have enough beer - thick beer to pour over the barbecued brat because it seals in the juices.

Good tip. I'll try it out with my soy brats.

[Brant Gaede]

I always thought Mother Teresa was selfish. The selfish pursuit of selflessness is a core contradiction of religion. The trick is to stop feeling guilty about your basic human nature which is the basic nature of all life. Through guilt you are controlled which is the basic trick of religion and all morality save morality based on true individualism. Objectivism went too far with this sacrifice business. It's one thing to know enough to refuse a morality of sacrifice and avoid the controlling guilt, it's quite another to make confusing postulations about what naturally occurs in a human brain. Avoiding sacrifice simply means making best choices for one's benefit. This is rational self interest. I have to agree with Xray about motivation. One's actions, however, may be sacrificial to oneself because for whatever reason or reasons one made a bad choice or choices. Bad choices come from ignorance, stupidity, brain damage, depression, irrationality, "acts of God," etc. I do not think, though, that no exceptions are possible. Someone might find some "black swan" somewhere. It's happened before.

I certainly think Ayn Rand got tangled up here in her theorizing and rhetoric and special definitions. Selfishness is a virtue, also a simple fact. Selflessness is an existential threat qua a morality of collectivism and control through guilt and moral disarmament. Selfishly trying to act selflessly can be amusing to an observer, but certainly contradictory if not insanely stupid.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Truth is an objective value to be pursued for all human minds.

Whether one chooses to pursue it or not is up to the individual.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Truth is an objective value to be pursued for all human minds.

Whether one chooses to pursue it or not is up to the individual.

Michael

Absolutely.

--Brant