Why Rand has no theory of Rights

[Xray]

I reject the Objectivist conception of morality, root and branch. It is other-worldly and Platonic.

This one issue is where I depart from the Objectivists strongly. The other issue is their utter ignorance of science and mathematics.

Speaking of "utter ignorance," I can't recall a more ignorant statement about Rand's ethics than your assertion that it is "other-worldly and Platonic." Where do you come up with this stuff?

Ghs

Maybe it is the Objectivist idea of so-called objective moral values existing (as opposed to them being regarded as mere human creations) just like the Platonic "idea" of e. g. a horse already existing before it "materialized", which led Ba'al to associate a Platonic streak with the Objectivist conception of morality?

Xray,

That you and Ba'al choose collectivism is no skin off my nose. (Before either of you denies this, I will say that to not choose the egoist morality, consciously and unremittingly, is by default,to be collectivist.)

Translated: if you don't share my moral values I'll attach some label to you which represents what I don't like. But since life is a bit more complex, pigeonholing hardly ever works and it certainly does not work here.

My position on the whole altruism vs. egoism debate is a radical one: every action we take is motivated by self-interest, every action, without exception. One can debate what the self-interest is, but the "altruist" does not exist. Only dogmatist of altruism exist, and I reject the dogma that one should always serve others first.

But this does not mean I have never served others first. In fact I have, countless times. What Rand does not take into account is that one can in fact profit from such so-called 'altruistic' acts.

Some of the best things which happened my life have happened by my giving in and not insisting on my point. I can't see anything in the rigid morality system of Objectivism allowing for such variables.

My personal philosophy is that there are many effective ways of getting what you want, and that these ways can well include serving others first.

In addtition, we always act according to what we value most at the moment we make the choice. Again, there is no exception. Example: if John doesn't insist on his point in a debate with a friend, gives in, so to speak, he acts on what he values higher at that moment: non-confrontation.

Rights impose enforceable obligations on other people.

Enforcable by what authority?

Edited October 9, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Some of the best things which happened my life have happened by my giving in and not insisting on my point. I can't see anything in the rigid morality system of Objectivism allowing for such variables.

My personal philosophy is that there are many effective ways of getting what you want, and that these ways can well include serving others first.

In addition [sic], we always act according to what we value most at the moment we make the choice. Again, there is no exception. Example: if John doesn't insist on his point in a debate with a friend, gives in, so to speak, he acts on what he values higher at that moment: non-confrontation.

This is the clearest statement of your position that I have seen.

Secondly, it is a defensible position.

Good job.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Poor Xray can't or won't, or can't for the won't, get the difference between real self interest and subjective self interest, the latter sometimes being real too but frequently not. It's the same old subjective/objective debate. Without real, objective self interest, there is no Objectivist philosophy to speak of; the heart's cut out.

--Brant

[Selene]

Poor Xray can't or won't, or can't for the won't, get the difference between real self interest and subjective self interest, the latter sometimes being real too but frequently not. It's the same old subjective/objective debate. Without real, objective self interest, there is no Objectivist philosophy to speak of; the heart's cut out.

--Brant

Exactly, but at least her exposition above was clear.

[anthony]

Poor Xray can't or won't, or can't for the won't, get the difference between real self interest and subjective self interest, the latter sometimes being real too but frequently not. It's the same old subjective/objective debate. Without real, objective self interest, there is no Objectivist philosophy to speak of; the heart's cut out.

--Brant

Exactly, but at least her exposition above was clear.

I fully agree with both of you.

Xray has made her case clearly, and well. But that's rationalization for you.

It boils down to 'nobody's an altruist'. Conversely, 'everybody is selfish'.

In all these discussions, she won't (not can't, Brant, she's too intelligent for that) distinguish between rational selfishness and ... going along to get along; shrewdly having my own way in the end; sometimes standing up for my values, sometimes, not, on a whim; making myself feel good by an act of generosity; then, grabbing my 'due', without guilt, because I've 'earned' it with my generosity...not a rationally selfish value in sight.

The list is endless. Pragmatism, self-justification,- and the polar opposite of egoism - self-indulgence.

Multiplied by 100 million, this is what has turned Europe into one egalitarian(and elitist), feel-good, cradle to grave, State-run protection racket. Second-handers, the majority of them, whose only values lie in what their neighbors think of them.

It robs true benevolence from human discourse, and respect cannot exist there inseperably from authoritarianism, and fear.

Whew!

Glad to get that out of my system.

Sorry for the super-rant, people. But it sickens me to see the moral core of Objectivism be built into a strawman, and gleefully torn apart. (Knowing, too, that a really great thinker would have punctured Xray's stand in about 20 words. )

Tony

[Xray]

Didn't Ayn Rand document the damage of "other-regarding" morality through the ages? Especially the use made of this false reference point made by the exploiters of the productive portion of humanity. What is so hard to accept about a self valuing, self centered moral system guided by reason? The ice cream example is a silly one but the point is the moral decision and the sanction or non-sanction of this trivial example is purely internal to the person making the decision based on his own reasoning about the matter. No moral sanction is applied to anyone else making a different choice. The sanctions are supplied by reality. Do your actions promote your values, or do they not? The question is, what do you value? Others, only? Selective others? Only others that don't value themselves?

It is precisely the "either-or" element which makes Objectivism so rigid and closed, and rigid/closed systems are far more vulnerable to perishing than more flexible ones.

Imo this is the problem of Objectivism: since it does not allow room for critics who may have a valid point (for this would mean conceding Objectivism may not have everything right), the Objectivist philosophy can't integrate those critical views.

Can you think of any closed philosophical/ideological system which has survived?

[Mikee]

Didn't Ayn Rand document the damage of "other-regarding" morality through the ages? Especially the use made of this false reference point made by the exploiters of the productive portion of humanity. What is so hard to accept about a self valuing, self centered moral system guided by reason? The ice cream example is a silly one but the point is the moral decision and the sanction or non-sanction of this trivial example is purely internal to the person making the decision based on his own reasoning about the matter. No moral sanction is applied to anyone else making a different choice. The sanctions are supplied by reality. Do your actions promote your values, or do they not? The question is, what do you value? Others, only? Selective others? Only others that don't value themselves?

It is precisely the "either-or" element which makes Objectivism so rigid and closed, and rigid/closed systems are far more vulnerable to perishing than more flexible ones.

Imo this is the problem of Objectivism: since it does not allow room for critics who may have a valid point (for this would mean conceding Objectivism may not have everything right), the Objectivist philosophy can't integrate those critical views.

Can you think of any closed philosophical/ideological system which has survived?

I don't understand what you're responding to exactly. I certainly don't represent some authoritarian "Objectivist" pov. A "perfect" philosophy by any name would have a one-to-one correspondence with reality and would be "rigid" as you call it. That's okay unless you don't have a benevolent view of the universe. I don't think "too rigid" is a valid criticism. I personally don't have a rigid/closed philosophy because I'm still looking for answers.

As Brant said, real self-interest subsumes subjective self-interest. There is no conflict. I liked Tony's reply very much (awesome rant) as well.

[kiaer.ts]

Didn't Ayn Rand document the damage of "other-regarding" morality through the ages? Especially the use made of this false reference point made by the exploiters of the productive portion of humanity. What is so hard to accept about a self valuing, self centered moral system guided by reason? The ice cream example is a silly one but the point is the moral decision and the sanction or non-sanction of this trivial example is purely internal to the person making the decision based on his own reasoning about the matter. No moral sanction is applied to anyone else making a different choice. The sanctions are supplied by reality. Do your actions promote your values, or do they not? The question is, what do you value? Others, only? Selective others? Only others that don't value themselves?

It is precisely the "either-or" element which makes Objectivism so rigid and closed, and rigid/closed systems are far more vulnerable to perishing than more flexible ones.

Imo this is the problem of Objectivism: since it does not allow room for critics who may have a valid point (for this would mean conceding Objectivism may not have everything right), the Objectivist philosophy can't integrate those critical views.

Can you think of any closed philosophical/ideological system which has survived?

I don't understand what you're responding to exactly. I certainly don't represent some authoritarian "Objectivist" pov. A "perfect" philosophy by any name would have a one-to-one correspondence with reality and would be "rigid" as you call it. That's okay unless you don't have a benevolent view of the universe. I don't think "too rigid" is a valid criticism. I personally don't have a rigid/closed philosophy because I'm still looking for answers.

As Brant said, real self-interest subsumes subjective self-interest. There is no conflict. I liked Tony's reply very much (awesome rant) as well.

Not believing in objective reality, X-Ray is haunted and terrorized by the straw men of her imagination, oppressing, oppressing, oppressing her. If only Objectivism didn't exist, she'd be free.

[Xray]

I don't understand what you're responding to exactly. I certainly don't represent some authoritarian "Objectivist" pov. A "perfect" philosophy by any name would have a one-to-one correspondence with reality and would be "rigid" as you call it. That's okay unless you don't have a benevolent view of the universe. I don't think "too rigid" is a valid criticism. I personally don't have a rigid/closed philosophy because I'm still looking for answers.

Mikee,

when I wrote about Objectivism being a rigid and closed system, I was not implying that you are a representative of such system. I was thinking of what Nathaniel Branden wrote in his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." (NB)

As Brant said, real self-interest subsumes subjective self-interest. There is no conflict.

The subjective self-interest IS the real self-interest. There is no difference.

Conflict can well arise if you are told by an Objectivist that your subjective self-interest is not your "real" self interest. In that case, I would ask the Objectivist the question: "On what do you base your judgement that my choice is not my real self interest? How can you claim to know that what I choose is not my real self-interest?"

Not believing in objective reality, X-Ray is haunted and terrorized by the straw men of her imagination, oppressing, oppressing, oppressing her. If only Objectivism didn't exist, she'd be free.

Ted,

Please check your premises. If I didn’t believe you actually existed, I would not reply to you here. I’m certainly not the type who doubts everything, like the subjectivist Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged. S.

So rest assured, I believe that you exist. I really do.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

Not believing in objective reality, X-Ray is haunted and terrorized by the straw men of her imagination, oppressing, oppressing, oppressing her. If only Objectivism didn't exist, she'd be free.

Ted,

Please check your premises. If I didn't believe you actually existed, I would not reply to you here. I'm certainly not the type who doubts everything, like the subjectivist Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged. S.

So rest assured, I believe that you exist. I really do.

(A & ~A) > (X & ~X)

Edited October 10, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

Thank you for that link to George Reisman's Capitalism, Ted:

Ms. Xray would benefit from reading Page xliv of the Preface from Reisman's Capitalism, wherein he explained that:

"That meeting, and the next one a week later, had an unforgettable effect on me. In the year or more before I entered Ayn Rand's apartment, I held three explicitly formulated leading intellectual values: liberalism (in the sense in which Mises used the term. and which actually meant capitalism); utilitarianism. which was my philosophy of ethics and which I had learned largely from Mises (though not entirely, inasmuch as I had already come to the conclusions on my own that everything a person does is selfish insofar as it seeks to achieve his ends¹²); and "McCarthyism," which I was enthusiastically for, because I believed that the country was heavily infested with communists and socialists, whom I detested, and to whom Senator McCarthy was causing a major amount of upset. By the time I left Ayn Rand's apartment, even after the first meeting, I was seriously shaken in my attachment to utilitarianism."

Continuing on the next page xlv, Reisman struggles, explaining that:

"At both meetings, most of the time was taken up with my arguing with Ayn Rand about whether values were subjective or objective, while Rothbard, as he himself later described it, looked on with amusement , watching me raise all the same questions and objections he had raised on some previous occasion, equally to no avail."

He left after those two meetings with Ayn, uncomfortable, explaining that:

"Because of such unpleasantness, I did not desire to see her again until after I read Atlas Shrugged. However, I could not forget our meetings and could not help wondering if somehow she might be right that values really were objective after all. I was very troubled by the implications of the proposition that all values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as Mises claimed. It no longer seemed enough that the great majority of people happened to prefer life to death, and health and wealth to sickness and poverty. For if they happened not to, there would be nothing to say to them that could change their minds, and if there were enough of them, no way to fight them, and worst of all, no way even morally to condemn any slaughters they might commit, because if all values really were arbitrary and subjective, a concentration sadist's values would be as good and as moral as the values of the worlds greatest creators."

You see, Ms. Xray, it does matter and they are objective.

Adam

Edited October 10, 2010 by Selene

[Selene]

http://www.govtrack....e=CA&district=7

Yes, unfortunately, he is pretty untouchable in that district.

Gerrymandered the hell out of this district.

Adam,

Prop 20 is on the Nov 2 ballot to take drawing district lines out of the hands of elected officials and give it to members of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission that was created by Prop 11. There is a competing proposition on the ballot that will repeal prop 11. Typical California politics. The radio ad I heard yesterday makes Prop 20 sound like exactly the opposite of its intended purpose, also typical left wing obfuscation. They think and act like everyone is a fool, unfortunately given the number of fools and people wanting handouts they usually win.

http://ballotpedia.o...ting_%282010%29

-Mike

ps: I wasn't even thinking Italians in my "mafia" reference, just a general crime syndicate reference. The term "Mafia" has an interesting history: http://en.wikipedia..../Sicilian_Mafia

Particularly interesting (for drawing analogies) is the section on "Protection Rackets".

Mike

Mikee:

Ahh, NY State politics is sooo ethnic!

Italian stereotypes surface in race for NY governor"

"Strategy sessions have been held at a restaurant called Sinatra’s. “Sopranos”-style gold chains have shown up in campaign advertisements. Ethnic-tinged terms, like 'goumada,' and wisecracks about Sicilian grudges have been bandied about. And television news crews from Italy have descended on the candidates."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_792c4918-d4de-11df-a0cc-00127992bc8b.html

Notice how "Sicilian" and Italian are virtual equal signs. It always amazes me how the "press" maintains its agenda.

By the way, in light of Carl Paladino's speech to the Orthodox Jewish power brokers in NY City yesterday and his commentary on homosexuals, this is going to be a fascinating debate at Hofstra between Cuomo, Paladino and the minor party candidates.

Especially, when it is brought up that little Andy Cuomo was daddy's campaign enforcer during the bruising 1977 mayoral primary primary against Ed Koch where:

"It’s the 'Vote For Cuomo, Not the Homo' smear allegedly used during the 1977 mayoral runoff primary between Democrats Mario Cuomo and Ed Koch, when flyers with that scurrilous slogan were circulated, supposedly by some Cuomo supporters. Both Cuomos have long denied any knowledge of the smears, and even Koch has come to reluctantly accept their denials."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/09/rabbi-yehuda-levin-resurrects.html#ixzz124alp5nY

I was involved in that campaign and I know for a fact that it came from little Andy.

Adam

[Xray]

Xray has made her case clearly, and well. But that's rationalization for you.

It boils down to 'nobody's an altruist'. Conversely, 'everybody is selfish'.

In all these discussions, she won't (not can't, Brant, she's too intelligent for that) distinguish between rational selfishness and ... going along to get along; shrewdly having my own way in the end; sometimes standing up for my values, sometimes, not, on a whim; making myself feel good by an act of generosity; then, grabbing my 'due', without guilt, because I've 'earned' it with my generosity...not a rationally selfish value in sight.

Tony,

Would you please give an example of a "rationally selfish" value?

What for example is irrational about going along to get along? This does not mean you "ought to" go along to get along all the time, but there certainly are situations where it is rationally warranted.

Multiplied by 100 million, this is what has turned Europe into one egalitarian(and elitist), feel-good, cradle to grave, State-run protection racket. Second-handers, the majority of them, whose only values lie in what their neighbors think of them.

This global judgement completely disregards the diversity one can find in Europe. You simply cannot can lump states like e. g. Albania and Sweden together.

"Egalitarian (and elitist)", you wrote. But "egalitarian" and "elitist" are opposites actually.

Second-handers, the majority of them, whose only values lie in what their neighbors think of them.

Valuing what the neighbors think of you is not a characteristic of "Europe", but is an attitude which can be found all over the world - the reason being that we are group animals.

It robs true benevolence from human discourse, and respect cannot exist there inseperably from authoritarianism, and fear.

You have a very odd picture of Europe I must say.

Sorry for the super-rant, people. But it sickens me to see the moral core of Objectivism be built into a strawman, and gleefully torn apart. (Knowing, too, that a really great thinker would have punctured Xray's stand in about 20 words. )

Tony

Twenty words? This gives me an idea: Why don't you give it a try, and write what you think Ayn Rand (who I assume you believe to be a great thinker) would have said in twenty words to puncture my stand?

Edited October 11, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Same old argumentative jujitsu.

Same old refusal to lay out her system

Same old European chauvinism.

I would love to pull every soldier, seaman, marine and aviator out of Germany. Relocate every single missile and defense system to other areas and allow objective reality to illustrate the defects in Ms. Xray's belief system.

[Brant Gaede]

As Brant said, real self-interest subsumes subjective self-interest. There is no conflict.

The subjective self-interest IS the real self-interest. There is no difference.

Conflict can well arise if you are told by an Objectivist that your subjective self-interest is not your "real" self interest. In that case, I would ask the Objectivist the question: "On what do you base your judgement that my choice is not my real self interest? How can you claim to know that what I choose is not my real self-interest?"

Under the influence of a drug my real (objective) self interest is not to go horseback riding, fall off and break my neck, but I go anyway, fall off and break my neck. My subjective self interest in riding the horse is quite real but it is not objective. I use "real" two different ways but you use it only one. It's very hard to know one's own objective self interest. It is next to impossible to know someone else's. Not to know one's objective context means your brain's not working right. That context within the wider objective context--there are innumerable layers or levels from the most particular to the most broad--means you aren't grounded and cannot fathom or determine your objective self interest.

--Brant

[anthony]

Xray has made her case clearly, and well. But that's rationalization for you.

It boils down to 'nobody's an altruist'. Conversely, 'everybody is selfish'.

In all these discussions, she won't (not can't, Brant, she's too intelligent for that) distinguish between rational selfishness and ... going along to get along; shrewdly having my own way in the end; sometimes standing up for my values, sometimes, not, on a whim; making myself feel good by an act of generosity; then, grabbing my 'due', without guilt, because I've 'earned' it with my generosity...not a rationally selfish value in sight.

Tony,

Would you please give an example of a "rationally selfish" value?

What for example is irrational about going along to get along? This does not mean you "ought to" go along to get along all the time, but there certainly are situations where it is rationally warranted.

Multiplied by 100 million, this is what has turned Europe into one egalitarian(and elitist), feel-good, cradle to grave, State-run protection racket. Second-handers, the majority of them, whose only values lie in what their neighbors think of them.

This global judgement completely disregards the diversity one can find in Europe. You simply cannot can lump states like e. g. Albania and Sweden together.

"Egalitarian (and elitist)", you wrote. But "egalitarian" and "elitist" are opposites actually.

Second-handers, the majority of them, whose only values lie in what their neighbors think of them.

Valuing what the neighbors think of you is not a characteristic of "Europe", but is an attitude which can be found all over the world - the reason being that we are group animals.

It robs true benevolence from human discourse, and respect cannot exist there inseperably from authoritarianism, and fear.

You have a very odd picture of Europe I must say.

Sorry for the super-rant, people. But it sickens me to see the moral core of Objectivism be built into a strawman, and gleefully torn apart. (Knowing, too, that a really great thinker would have punctured Xray's stand in about 20 words. )

Tony

Twenty words? This gives me an idea: Why don't you give it a try, and write what you think Ayn Rand (who I assume you believe to be a great thinker) would have said in twenty words to puncture my stand?

Xray,

Well, damn me, if the inexorable Ms X doesn't bounce back! After I came down so hard on you.

I confess, I have a sneaking admiration for this ability you have, relentless and impervious - and would not mind a bit of it myself.

Thing is, are you here to learn about Objectivism, or to nit-pick it to death? Have you never seen it as an entire philosophy and been moved by its simple grandeur? If 'no', then I don't know why I should reply to you.

Out of a sense of fair play, I will.

Sure, O'ism has a few tiny cracks, but all I've seen is you letting other intellects here find those cracks which you take pleasure in trying to split open, and failing.

(20 words? - no, I said I can't do that - I'm already past 100, and counting.)

You utilise what I call a 'slice and dice' mentality to philosophy (and also in the way you post) to people, which ignores the over-all import of the concept (or post) in favour of a prejudiced minor detail of your own.

But I'll try.

You ask for a rationally selfish value.

Let's go straight to the biggest one: an uncompromising desire for truth. The hunger to always live by reality.

You give an instance of friend "John", upthread, and how it is a 'selfish' value to let him have his way, for now, rather than risk confrontation.

So John is of value to you.

What kind of friend would permit truth and reality to be sacrificed to the lesser value of your friendship?

What kind of friend are you?

His feelings, and short-term comfort matter more than the highest value man has.(?)

You used the term "at that moment", I think.

It appeared "logical" at that moment, to do so. Don't you see that this is a range of the moment value, and more critically, that "logical", is not necessarily, "rational"? And Rational means the rest of you life?

Switching gears, I want to make an admission: it occurs to me now as it often does, that there is never going to exist a 18-carat, 100%, egoist.

BUT, what you perceive as rigidity among O'ists, is the steadfast commitment to rational individualism, to its MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.

Lacking this conviction and the choice, a man is doomed to the grey swamp of subjectivism.

"Grey swamp" reminds me of Europe; I have plenty to say there, but enough for now.

(Oh, last thing - egalitarian/elitist. Why do you believe thay are a contradiction in terms? Mankind will always want to 'be better' than others. Outlaw meritocracy, as where you live (as with me),and the selfprofessed altruist (egalitarian) will still find ways to lord it over everyone else, and grab power. However, you'll call that selfishness, I'm afraid.)

Tony

[Xray]

Continuing on the next page xlv, Reisman struggles, explaining that:

"At both meetings, most of the time was taken up with my arguing with Ayn Rand about whether values were subjective or objective, while Rothbard, as he himself later described it, looked on with amusement , watching me raise all the same questions and objections he had raised on some previous occasion, equally to no avail."

He left after those two meetings with Ayn, uncomfortable, explaining that:

"Because of such unpleasantness, I did not desire to see her again until after I read Atlas Shrugged. However, I could not forget our meetings and could not help wondering if somehow she might be right that values really were objective after all. I was very troubled by the implications of the proposition that all values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as Mises claimed. It no longer seemed enough that the great majority of people happened to prefer life to death, and health and wealth to sickness and poverty. For if they happened not to, there would be nothing to say to them that could change their minds, and if there were enough of them, no way to fight them, and worst of all, no way even morally to condemn any slaughters they might commit, because if all values really were arbitrary and subjective, a concentration sadist's values would be as good and as moral as the values of the worlds greatest creators."

You see, Ms. Xray, it does matter and they are objective.

Adam

The fundamental error lies in Objectivism's premise wrongly labeling everything subjective as

"the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional."

The Romantic Manifesto “Art and Moral Treason,” The Romantic Manifesto, 150

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

Here is the wrinkle. For this distortive premise inserts a moral judgement into an epistmologial issue. More in the next few days.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Continuing on the next page xlv, Reisman struggles, explaining that:

"At both meetings, most of the time was taken up with my arguing with Ayn Rand about whether values were subjective or objective, while Rothbard, as he himself later described it, looked on with amusement , watching me raise all the same questions and objections he had raised on some previous occasion, equally to no avail."

He left after those two meetings with Ayn, uncomfortable, explaining that:

"Because of such unpleasantness, I did not desire to see her again until after I read Atlas Shrugged. However, I could not forget our meetings and could not help wondering if somehow she might be right that values really were objective after all. I was very troubled by the implications of the proposition that all values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as Mises claimed. It no longer seemed enough that the great majority of people happened to prefer life to death, and health and wealth to sickness and poverty. For if they happened not to, there would be nothing to say to them that could change their minds, and if there were enough of them, no way to fight them, and worst of all, no way even morally to condemn any slaughters they might commit, because if all values really were arbitrary and subjective, a concentration sadist's values would be as good and as moral as the values of the worlds greatest creators."

You see, Ms. Xray, it does matter and they are objective.

Adam

The fundamental error lies in Objectivism's premise wrongly labeling everything subjective as

"the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional."

The Romantic Manifesto “Art and Moral Treason,” The Romantic Manifesto, 150

http://aynrandlexico...bjectivism.html

Here is the wrinkle. For this distortive premise inserts a moral judgment[sic] into an epistemological[sic] issue. More in the next few days.

Subjectivism

In Metaphysics and Epistemology

Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the “mixed,” moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or “extreme” subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)

"...everything subjective as...

''the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional.''"

I used to teach my rhetoric students that content analysis had some limited analytical merit when employed in critical thinking. Analyzing the content of your post, I see only one word which appears in both of your references.

Unfortunately, subjective and/or subjectivism does not appear in both of your selections. Moreover, subjective functions as an adjective

3a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states; or

4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>

Subjectivism, functions as a noun,

1a : a theory that limits knowledge to subjective experience b : a theory that stresses the subjective elements in experience 2a : a doctrine that the supreme good is the realization of a subjective experience or feeling (as pleasure) b : a doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right

Distortive is question begging, since you have no objective basis for that assertion.

Secondly, and this is what your generic refusal to address, accept or understand, is, that, it is a moral decision.

It is that simple Ms. Xray. It is not subjective to round up gypsies and execute them. It is immoral. It does not depend on your[generic] subjective, selfish, I will just go along with it decision because I want to be gratified, or, well a majority of the folks agree with me.

I can subjectively make a decision and get lucky and it will be an objectively moral decision.

I can subjectively make a decision and one hundred percent (100%) of the time it will be an immoral decision.

It is basically that simple.

Finally, I do not see what your chopped up quote has to do with my post or the link to the lexicon other than they appear separately on the same page. It seems that subjectively, to you, they are connected.

I await your further remarks.

Adam

[rodney203]

Adam, do you mean to say that X-ray pulled the "straw man", by taking the meaning of "subjectivism", applying it to everything subjective, and then using that to condemn Objetivist ideas?

[Selene]

Adam, do you mean to say that X-ray pulled the "straw man", by taking the meaning of "subjectivism", applying it to everything subjective, and then using that to condemn Objetivist ideas?

Rodney:

I was frankly surprised she even answered me because I have been on her case since about two months after that ID joined OL.

This last post appears to attempt to do what you are stating.

However, being as fair as I like to be, I will wait for her to qualify her post.

Philosophical bait and switch has been used before by philosopher salesmen as well as philosopher kings.

Adam

[Xray]

Well, damn me, if the inexorable Ms X doesn't bounce back! After I came down so hard on you.

I confess, I have a sneaking admiration for this ability you have, relentless and impervious - and would not mind a bit of it myself.

A certain amount of resilience does come in handy when one engages in a debate.

But my attitude has always been: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Thing is, are you here to learn about Objectivism, or to nit-pick it to death?

I'm interested in checking the premises of Objectivism and other philosophical systems. Always go for the premises.

My position is that no "ought" can be inferred from an "is".

Have you never seen it as an entire philosophy and been moved by its simple grandeur?

Yes, I have seen it as a total. As for being moved, what moved me was that it has had so much impact on people's lives.

I was also deeply moved by B. Brandens's fascinating biography about Ayn Rand. Rand was a very charismatic and incredibly assertive person, no question. Anyone criticizing her philosophy has to take this into account, for the critic will time and again come across comments like e. g. "I once watched Ayn Rand speak, this courageous Russian lady captured the audience and made mince-meat of anti-Objectivist positions."

I have no doubt that Rand could capture an audience, also, she was rhetorically savvy. So if you combine her charisma plus the rhetorical skills, no wonder that it was difficult for an audience, during the performance, to notice possible flaws in her argumentation. But when combing through her work, one can see those flaws.

Out of a sense of fair play, I will.

Sure, O'ism has a few tiny cracks, but all I've seen is you letting other intellects here find those cracks which you take pleasure in trying to split open, and failing.

Imo it is not just an issue of few tiny cracks, but an issue of the foundation on which it is based.

But I'll try.

You ask for a rationally selfish value.

Let's go straight to the biggest one: an uncompromising desire for truth.

Is an uncompromising desire for truth always to be regarded as "rational"? It may be quite rationally selfish not to want to know the uncompromising truth in all cases.

The hunger to always live by reality.

Living by reality can also lead to choices not compatible with Objectivist 'rational' ideals. For example, person X can decide to work for the poor and underprivileged (whose reality is to live in destitution) instead of becoming an entrepreneur having only the maximum profit in mind.

You give an instance of friend "John", upthread, and how it is a 'selfish' value to let him have his way, for now, rather than risk confrontation.

So John is of value to you.

What kind of friend would permit truth and reality to be sacrificed to the lesser value of your friendship?

What kind of friend are you?

His feelings, and short-term comfort matter more than the highest value man has.(?)

You used the term "at that moment", I think.

It appeared "logical" at that moment, to do so. Don't you see that this is a range of the moment value, and more critically, that "logical", is not necessarily, "rational"? And Rational means the rest of you life?

To clear up a possible misunderstanding on your part: here is the original quote:

In addition, we always act according to what we value most at the moment we make the choice. Again, there is no exception. Example: if John doesn't insist on his point in a debate with a friend, gives in, so to speak, he acts on what he values higher at that moment: non-confrontation.

So the example was of an individual (John), who decides not to insist on his point in a debate with his friend because John values, at that moment, the feeling of a harmonious relationship higher than possible disharmony due to a disagreement between them.

My position is that every individual, without exception, decides in favor of what he/she values highest at the moment of choice (between two or more possibilities).

The burden of proof falls on me here since I have asserted, by the italicized above sentence, the truth of a proposition. So feel free to provide any counterexample you can think of, and I will have to make my case by demonstrating my position using the example provided by you.

(Oh, last thing - egalitarian/elitist. Why do you believe thay are a contradiction in terms? Mankind will always want to 'be better' than others. Outlaw meritocracy, as where you live (as with me),and the selfprofessed altruist (egalitarian) will still find ways to lord it over everyone else, and grab power. However, you'll call that selfishness, I'm afraid.)

My position is that in whatever choice we make, our self-interest comes into play.

Selene (# 245): I was frankly surprised she even answered me because I have been on her case since about two months after that ID joined OL.

I don't recall ever shying away from replying to you if the issue was of enough interest to me.

''the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional.''"

I used to teach my rhetoric students that content analysis had some limited analytical merit when employed in critical thinking. Analyzing the content of your post, I see only one word which appears in both of your references.

What word exactly do do you mean? The “the” you colored in red?

Secondly, and this is what your generic refusal to address, accept or understand, is, that, it is a moral decision.

It is that simple Ms. Xray. It is not subjective to round up gypsies and execute them. It is immoral. It does not depend on your[generic] subjective, selfish, I will just go along with it decision because I want to be gratified, or, well a majority of the folks agree with me.

I can subjectively make a decision and get lucky and it will be an objectively moral decision.

I can subjectively make a decision and one hundred percent (100%) of the time it will be an immoral decision.

It is basically that simple.

You have to be more precise. First of all: EVERY decision we make is a subjective decision. Agreed?

The decision we make can be influenced by our rationally assessing means and ends suitable to reach a chosen goal and that’s where objectivity and rationality come into play.

Let’s say Jim decides to climb the Mount Everest wearing only sandals. What makes this decision (or choice) irrational is the fact that sandals are an (objectively) unsuitable means to reach the goal.

Therefore subjective choices can be both rational and irrational. For example, if an individual makes the (subjective) choice to stop playing soccer because of knee problems, this is a rational decision.

It is that simple Ms. Xray. It is not subjective to round up gypsies and execute them.

It is immoral. It does not depend on your[generic] subjective, selfish, I will just go along with it decision because I want to be gratified, or, well a majority of the folks agree with me.”

Again, you are way too imprecise here, Mr. Selene.

First of all, to round up people to execute them is a subjective choice made by someone (or by more than one).

When persons are executed, we deal with an objective fact. Right?

Think of what happened in Chile after Allende’s death, where the junta did round up people in the Santiago football stadium and executed them.

The vast majority of people will consider this action as immoral because the moral standard we have reached in the 21st century condemns such acts.

So what we can objectively be observed in the development of moral standards is a definite tendency toward more empathy and consideration, resulting in the granting of fundamental rights to all humans in the declaration of human rights many (not all) nations have signed.

Animal rights’ movements have extended this empathy to animals, and possibly the moral standards people in future centuries agree on will condemn as immoral the way animals are being treated by us now.

I can subjectively make a decision and one hundred percent (100%) of the time it will be an immoral decision.

Immoral by the standard you have in mind.

For example, if you had been raised in ancient Rome, would you have regarded slavery and gladiator fights as immoral?

“It is basically that simple”

Basically simple is the irrefutable fact that moral standards are created by humans which makes them subject to change. And is a good thing that they are, Selene. Imagine how the world would look like today if such change were not possible.

Finally, I do not see what your chopped up quote has to do with my post or the link to the lexicon other than they appear separately on the same page. It seems that subjectively, to you, they are connected.

I await your further remarks.

My quote was taken from the Ayn Rand lexicon.

You provided a quote dealing with Mises's assessment of values being arbitrary and subjcetive:

"... all values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as Mises claimed." [complete excerpt posted in # 227]

My point was that Mises's idea of "arbitrary and subjective" was probably not nearly as negatively tinged as Ayn Rand's view of the subjective, and that he simply stated what he regarded as a fact.

Whereas Rand seems to have been on a veritable crusade against the "subjective".

Adam, do you mean to say that X-ray pulled the "straw man", by taking the meaning of "subjectivism", applying it to everything subjective, and then using that to condemn Objetivist ideas?

The shoe is on the other foot, Rodney. For it was Rand, not me, who labeled subjective as so negative.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

Well, damn me, if the inexorable Ms X doesn't bounce back! After I came down so hard on you.

I confess, I have a sneaking admiration for this ability you have, relentless and impervious - and would not mind a bit of it myself.

A certain amount of resilience does come in handy when one engages in a debate.

But my attitude has always been: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Thing is, are you here to learn about Objectivism, or to nit-pick it to death?

I'm interested in checking the premises of Objectivism and other philosophical systems. Always go for the premises.

My position is that no "ought" can be inferred from an "is".

Have you never seen it as an entire philosophy and been moved by its simple grandeur?

Yes, I have seen it as a total. As for being moved, what moved me was that it has had so much impact on people's lives.

I was also deeply moved by B. Brandens's fascinating biography about Ayn Rand. Rand was a very charismatic and incredibly assertive person, no question. Anyone criticizing her philosophy has to take this into account, for the critic will time and again come across comments like e. g. "I once watched Ayn Rand speak, this courageous Russian lady captured the audience and made mince-meat of anti-Objectivist positions."

I have no doubt that Rand could capture an audience, also, she was rhetorically savvy. So if you combine her charisma plus the rhetorical skills, no wonder that it was difficult for an audience, during the performance, to notice possible flaws in her argumentation. But when combing through her work, one can see those flaws.

Out of a sense of fair play, I will.

Sure, O'ism has a few tiny cracks, but all I've seen is you letting other intellects here find those cracks which you take pleasure in trying to split open, and failing.

Imo it is not just an issue of few tiny cracks, but an issue of the foundation on which it is based.

But I'll try.

You ask for a rationally selfish value.

Let's go straight to the biggest one: an uncompromising desire for truth.

Is an uncompromising desire for truth always to be regarded as "rational"? It may be quite rationally selfish not to want to know the uncompromising truth in all cases.

The hunger to always live by reality.

Living by reality can also lead to choices not compatible with Objectivist 'rational' ideals. For example, person X can decide to work for the poor and underprivileged (whose reality is to live in destitution) instead of becoming an entrepreneur having only the maximum profit in mind.

You give an instance of friend "John", upthread, and how it is a 'selfish' value to let him have his way, for now, rather than risk confrontation.

So John is of value to you.

What kind of friend would permit truth and reality to be sacrificed to the lesser value of your friendship?

What kind of friend are you?

His feelings, and short-term comfort matter more than the highest value man has.(?)

You used the term "at that moment", I think.

It appeared "logical" at that moment, to do so. Don't you see that this is a range of the moment value, and more critically, that "logical", is not necessarily, "rational"? And Rational means the rest of you life?

To clear up a possible misunderstanding on your part: here is the original quote:

In addition, we always act according to what we value most at the moment we make the choice. Again, there is no exception. Example: if John doesn't insist on his point in a debate with a friend, gives in, so to speak, he acts on what he values higher at that moment: non-confrontation.

So the example was of an individual (John), who decides not to insist on his point in a debate with his friend because John values, at that moment, the feeling of a harmonious relationship higher than possible disharmony due to a disagreement between them.

My position is that every individual, without exception, decides in favor of what he/she values highest at the moment of choice (between two or more possibilities).

The burden of proof falls on me here since I have asserted, by the italicized above sentence, the truth of a proposition. So feel free to provide any counterexample you can think of, and I will have to make my case by demonstrating my position using the example provided by you.

(Oh, last thing - egalitarian/elitist. Why do you believe thay are a contradiction in terms? Mankind will always want to 'be better' than others. Outlaw meritocracy, as where you live (as with me),and the selfprofessed altruist (egalitarian) will still find ways to lord it over everyone else, and grab power. However, you'll call that selfishness, I'm afraid.)

My position is that in whatever choice we make, our self-interest comes into play.

Selene (# 245): I was frankly surprised she even answered me because I have been on her case since about two months after that ID joined OL.

I don't recall ever shying away from replying to you if the issue was of enough interest to me.

''the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional.''"

I used to teach my rhetoric students that content analysis had some limited analytical merit when employed in critical thinking. Analyzing the content of your post, I see only one word which appears in both of your references.

What word exactly do do you mean? The “the” you colored in red?

Secondly, and this is what your generic refusal to address, accept or understand, is, that, it is a moral decision.

It is that simple Ms. Xray. It is not subjective to round up gypsies and execute them. It is immoral. It does not depend on your[generic] subjective, selfish, I will just go along with it decision because I want to be gratified, or, well a majority of the folks agree with me.

I can subjectively make a decision and get lucky and it will be an objectively moral decision.

I can subjectively make a decision and one hundred percent (100%) of the time it will be an immoral decision.

It is basically that simple.

You have to be more precise. First of all: EVERY decision we make is a subjective decision. Agreed?

The decision we make can be influenced by our rationally assessing means and ends suitable to reach a chosen goal and that’s where objectivity and rationality come into play.

Let’s say Jim decides to climb the Mount Everest wearing only sandals. What makes this decision (or choice) irrational is the fact that sandals are an (objectively) unsuitable means to reach the goal.

Therefore subjective choices can be both rational and irrational. For example, if an individual makes the (subjective) choice to stop playing soccer because of knee problems, this is a rational decision.

It is that simple Ms. Xray. It is not subjective to round up gypsies and execute them.

It is immoral. It does not depend on your[generic] subjective, selfish, I will just go along with it decision because I want to be gratified, or, well a majority of the folks agree with me.”

Again, you are way too imprecise here, Mr. Selene.

First of all, to round up people to execute them is a subjective choice made by someone (or by more than one).

When persons are executed, we deal with an objective fact. Right?

Think of what happened in Chile after Allende’s death, where the junta did round up people in the Santiago football stadium and executed them.

The vast majority of people will consider this action as immoral because the moral standard we have reached in the 21st century condemns such acts.

So what we can objectively be observed in the development of moral standards is a definite tendency toward more empathy and consideration, resulting in the granting of fundamental rights to all humans in the declaration of human rights many (not all) nations have signed.

Animal rights’ movements have extended this empathy to animals, and possibly the moral standards people in future centuries agree on will condemn as immoral the way animals are being treated by us now.

I can subjectively make a decision and one hundred percent (100%) of the time it will be an immoral decision.

Immoral by the standard you have in mind.

For example, if you had been raised in ancient Rome, would you have regarded slavery and gladiator fights as immoral?

“It is basically that simple”

Basically simple is the irrefutable fact that moral standards are created by humans which makes them subject to change. And is a good thing that they are, Selene. Imagine how the world would look like today if such change were not possible.

Finally, I do not see what your chopped up quote has to do with my post or the link to the lexicon other than they appear separately on the same page. It seems that subjectively, to you, they are connected.

I await your further remarks.

My quote was taken from the Ayn Rand lexicon.

You provided a quote dealing with Mises's assessment of values being arbitrary and subjcetive:

"... all values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as Mises claimed." [complete excerpt posted in # 227]

My point was that Mises's idea of "arbitrary and subjective" was probably not nearly as negatively tinged as Ayn Rand's view of the subjective, and that he simply stated what he regarded as a fact.

Whereas Rand seems to have been on a veritable crusade against the "subjective".

Adam, do you mean to say that X-ray pulled the "straw man", by taking the meaning of "subjectivism", applying it to everything subjective, and then using that to condemn Objetivist ideas?

The shoe is on the other foot, Rodney. For it was Rand, not me, who labeled subjective as so negative.

All this time on your hands but you can't even be bothered to learn what a stolen concept is? Rumplestiltskin.

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: No ought from is.

We ought to believe her, no?

--Brant

[Xray]

All this time on your hands but you can't even be bothered to learn what a stolen concept is? Rumplestiltskin.

Ted,

are you aware that it is you who positions himself as Rumpelstilzkin by claiming that I don't know what a stolen concept is? Please reread the Grimm fairy tale in case you have forgotten.

Xray: No ought from is.

We ought to believe her, no?

--Brant

Wrong inference. For what you believe is entirely your own business.

Disprove 'no ought from is'. That's what it is about.

No philosopher has succeeded in doing so, but don't let this discourage you. Never say never.

So if you, Ted (or others reading this) thinks he/she can make the case for an "ought from is" - feel free to present it here.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, oughts come from someplace. Where? We get oughts from ises all the time and you're no different in spite of your sophistical "wrong inference." Your position is there are no objective oughts from objective ises. I do concede the objective existence of subjective oughts. I don't concede there are no objective oughts at all. As for me proving anything, all proofs are deductive. You cannot disprove or prove anything empirically that I know about. You adduce evidence and logically interpret it. That's all. The so called problem of induction is the problem of proving something inductively. The only real problem of induction is people claiming there is a problem and trying to fix it. You "solve" it by using reason. Reason is the application of logic to facts and encompasses both the inductive and deductive. Peikoff's quest for intellectual power is the quest for the victory of unassailable asseveration beyond the basic principles of his Objectivism because he has the "proof." You are demanding I do the same. You two ought to get together and compare notes. He's deluded and you're dishonest--or ignorant; you do know I can't prove an ought from an is. I can demonstrate the is. Using reason we get implications of what from is ought to be an objective ought and give it our best shot; but it's elusive, difficult and tentative, even when couched in absolutist language. Your trick is to focus on one particular while ignoring or being oblivious to the broader context of there is no such thing as a purely inductive proof--so stop asking for one.

--Brant

Edited October 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede