Why Rand has no theory of Rights

[Selene]

[George H. Smith]

I don't believe for a second that you are as oblivious about the Objectivist conception of morality as you pretend to be.

Shayne

Oblivious, no.

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.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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

[George H. Smith]

I have heard people argue that a sole survivor on a desert island has rights. This does not make any sense to me.

Since rights are always embedded in a social context, the notion of rights playing a role for a sole survivor on a desert island, who is isolated from any social context, does not make any sense indeed. Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense.

You seem quite fond of states of confusion and disarray. Might I suggest drugs and alcohol as an easier way to enter into this state.

Shayne

She has a valid point. The only things that count on a desert island are the physical environment, the physical stamina of the person on the island and the wits he brings to bear on his survival and, of course, luck. Since there is no one else to wrong (by hypothesis) there are no moral considerations. Morality is the modality of relating to others in close social contact. One can never morally wrong himself. He can make mistakes (which could be fatal or injurious) but they have the same nature as arithmetical errors. Since one is the owner of his own body and time anything he willingly does to his body and any way he willingly uses his time cannot be seen as a moral error or wrong. Abuse of one's own property is rightful use.

Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else. Arithmetical right and wrong does not equate to moral right and wrong provided one is not using false figures to defraud another person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This subject has been discussed before on OL, so I won't go into the same details here. But what you have done is to take your own narrow and historically shallow conception of ethics and impose it on a discipline that has existed for 2500 years.

The notion that ethics must be other-regarding, and therefore applies only in a social context, flies in the the face of eudaemonism and other forms self-realization theories (including Rand's egoism) that have constituted major currents in western philosophy for many, many centuries. Before you criticize Objectivists for their supposed ignorance in science and mathematics, perhaps you should tend to your own garden first and do something about your ignorance in the field of ethics.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

s. Before you criticize Objectivists for their supposed ignorance in science and mathematics, perhaps you should tend to your own garden first and do something about your ignorance in the field of ethics.

Ghs

I understand ethics completely. I reject most of the conventional ethical ideas because they are useless. The 2500 years you refer too encompassed war, death, slavery, theft, and violence. A fat lot of good the ideas or your precious 2500 years have done. I find conventional ethics underwhelming.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

s. Before you criticize Objectivists for their supposed ignorance in science and mathematics, perhaps you should tend to your own garden first and do something about your ignorance in the field of ethics.

Ghs

I understand ethics completely. I reject most of the conventional ethical ideas because they are useless. The 2500 years you refer too encompassed war, death, slavery, theft, and violence. A fat lot of good the ideas or your precious 2500 years have done. I find conventional ethics underwhelming.

Please tell us about the unconventional ethics--the overwhelming(?)--and why they have not to do with "death, slavery, theft, and violence."

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

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?

Indeed, where, Ba'al?

Usually I think I understand where you get your views, even when I think they're wrong. But the assertion that Objectivist ethics is "other-worldly and Platonic" is just bizarre. Where DO you get it? Explanation, please.

And here's another weird one:

I understand ethics completely. I reject most of the conventional ethical ideas because they are useless. The 2500 years you refer too encompassed war, death, slavery, theft, and violence. A fat lot of good the ideas or your precious 2500 years have done. I find conventional ethics underwhelming.

??? Conventional ethics is just what you say you sign on to -- with your idea that ethics only pertains to social relations. Yet now you say you "reject most of the conventional ethical ideas"?

Ellen

[rodney203]

I think I have something useful to add to this argument over ethics if the players here will just calm down, relax, drop judgement for a while and think.

Consider the following chart which illustrates points I wishs to make:

(I hope this chart thing holds together during the transmission between display systems)

Objectivist Thinking...............................................Old Conventional Thinking

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ethics = principles for personal fulfillment................Little thought or guidance on the matter

Politics = principles for general social interaction......The old "ethics" or "morality"

Government = politics carried to its conclusion..........At best, poor guidance

See how much was missing from old way thinking. See how much the old thinking was dependant on the "social" aspect of existence.

It is important for us all to clearly define our terms. The Objectivist thinking and literature is quite well thought out on this matter.

Edited October 7, 2010 by rodney203

[william.scherk]

[....]

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?

Indeed, where, Ba'al?

Usually I think I understand where you get your views, even when I think they're wrong. But the assertion that Objectivist ethics is "other-worldly and Platonic" is just bizarre. Where DO you get it? Explanation, please.

Ellen, I was struck by a few comments of yours in another thread, comments in which you seemed to suggest that Stephen Hawking is incapable of co-authoring the bestselling book that just appeared with his name affixed to it.

You haven't yet made it back to that thread to add further meat to the bone of that suggestion. I will put my comments in a stronger form here: Usually I think I understand where you get your views, even if I think they're wrong. But the assertion that "there's no way anyone could know what Hawking really thinks of what's published in his name" is just bizarre. Where DO you get it? Explanation please.

Now, I should note for interested readers that you almost sort of answered a similar question backchannel, in that you referred to some gossip without further elaboration. But why should Bob Kolker tell you where he got his "bizarre" assertion when you don't tell us where you got your "bizarre" assertion?

[George H. Smith]

I think I have something useful to add to this argument over ethics if the players here will just calm down, relax, drop judgement for a while and think.

Consider the following chart which illustrates points I wishs to make:

(I hope this chart thing holds together during the transmission between display systems)

Objectivist Thinking...............................................Old Conventional Thinking

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ethics = principles for personal fulfillment................Little thought or guidance on the matter

Politics = principles for general social interaction......The old "ethics" or "morality"

Government = politics carried to its conclusion..........At best, poor guidance

See how much was missing from old way thinking. See how much the old thinking was dependant on the "social" aspect of existence.

It is important for us all to clearly define our terms. The Objectivist thinking and literature is quite well thought out on this matter.

Your three points under "Old Conventional Thinking" are a caricature.

Ghs

[Xray]

Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else.

So true. And if anyone thinks he/she can refute this basic fact, feel free to present your case here.

The notion that ethics must be other-regarding, and therefore applies only in a social context, flies in the the face of eudaemonism and other forms self-realization theories (including Rand's egoism) that have constituted major currents in western philosophy for many, many centuries. Before you criticize Objectivists for their supposed ignorance in science and mathematics, perhaps you should tend to your own garden first and do something about your ignorance in the field of ethics.

Ghs

The discussion was not about whether ethics "must be other-regarding" - the discussion was about which issues fall into the realm of ethics and which don't.

Do you believe Rand's 'desert island dunce' ;) as an example of immorality is convincing? If yes, please demonstrate.

Now if you are all alone on an island, and instead of searching for water want to drink sand, more power to you. Enjoy.

Why would any thirsty sane person want to drink sand?

Good question.

A person on a desert island ignoring the difference between sand and water is simply stupid, and this has nothing to do with (im)morality.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

The discussion was not about whether ethics "must be other-regarding" - the discussion was about which issues fall into the realm of ethics and which don't.

On various discussion boards I have had arguments with Objectivists who tell me that the choice of whether to have chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream for desert has moral import. They tell me that all choices have moral import to which I answer: nonsense.

Forget math and quantum physics. This kind of mishugas is why I will never be an Objectivist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Now, I should note for interested readers that you almost sort of answered a similar question backchannel, in that you referred to some gossip without further elaboration. [....]

That seriously misrepresents what was said backchannel.

Do I have your permission to post your part of the exchange?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

The discussion was not about whether ethics "must be other-regarding" - the discussion was about which issues fall into the realm of ethics and which don't.

On various discussion boards I have had arguments with Objectivists who tell me that the choice of whether to have chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream for desert has moral import. They tell me that all choices have moral import to which I answer: nonsense.

Forget math and quantum physics. This kind of mishugas is why I will never be an Objectivist.

Promise?

The moral import is only from choosing, not, in this case, your choice. The exercise of free will is the core of morality. Cats, dogs and the shark that eats you don't do anything with moral import.

--Brant

[anthony]

Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else.

So true. And if anyone thinks he/she can refute this basic fact it, feel free to present your case here.

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.)

"Morality only exists in the social context" is 'other-based', of course. (Goes to show, you can take the girl out of the convent, but you can't take the convent.. etc.)

I ask this: is it any coincidence that Ba'al's 2500 years of "death, slavery..." etc, marked the inglorious height of altruism? A philosophy that by religion and monarchy sacrificed and denied the individual?

That you and I can be what we are and do what we want today, is the result of a tiny few egoists who fought for their ideas ... not because of the overwhelming many who would stifle them. They could not have survived at all, if they did it out of duty to others.

Aristotle, the Egoist: "I have gained this from philosophy; that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law."

(Or 'Society'. Or the clergy. Or God.)

Tony

[Mikee]

The discussion was not about whether ethics "must be other-regarding" - the discussion was about which issues fall into the realm of ethics and which don't.

On various discussion boards I have had arguments with Objectivists who tell me that the choice of whether to have chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream for desert has moral import. They tell me that all choices have moral import to which I answer: nonsense.

Forget math and quantum physics. This kind of mishugas is why I will never be an Objectivist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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?

[BaalChatzaf]

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?

Being polite is a way of getting along with other folks with a minimal energy expenditure. That is very much in my interest since I live among other folk and not on a desert island.

Even Francisco in -AS- is in favor of good manners.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[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?

Being polite is a way of getting along with other folks with a minimal energy expenditure. That is very much in my interest since I live among other folk and not on a desert island.

Even Francisco in -AS- is in favor of good manners.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree with you. Isn't this a self centered rational decision, to minimize the conflicts with others that do not promote your values?

[Selene]

Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else.

So true. And if anyone thinks he/she can refute this basic fact it, feel free to present your case here.

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.)

"Morality only exists in the social context" is 'other-based', of course. (Goes to show, you can take the girl out of the convent, but you can't take the convent.. etc.)

I ask this: is it any coincidence that Ba'al's 2500 years of "death, slavery..." etc, marked the inglorious height of altruism? A philosophy that by religion and monarchy sacrificed and denied the individual?

That you and I can be what we are and do what we want today, is the result of a tiny few egoists who fought for their ideas ... not because of the overwhelming many who would stifle them. They could not have survived at all, if they did it out of duty to others.

Aristotle, the Egoist: "I have gained this from philosophy; that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law."

(Or 'Society'. Or the clergy. Or God.)

Tony

Tony:

Excellent line on the convent out of the girl! However, Ms. Xray will have "none" of it!

She will never really understand what you were explaining to Robert:

This is why Ayn was brilliant.

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world."

"That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures — because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer — because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage."

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."

"No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive"

And THIS is why she was great!

Adam

Edited October 8, 2010 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

The discussion was not about whether ethics "must be other-regarding" - the discussion was about which issues fall into the realm of ethics and which don't.

On various discussion boards I have had arguments with Objectivists who tell me that the choice of whether to have chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream for desert has moral import. They tell me that all choices have moral import to which I answer: nonsense.

Forget math and quantum physics. This kind of mishugas is why I will never be an Objectivist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

People who call themselves Objectivists can say all kinds of silly things. There is nothing in Rand's metaethics or ethics that necessitates the conclusion that all choices, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, are moral choices. All moral judgments are value judgments, but not all value judgments are moral judgments.

Ghs

[anthony]

And THIS is why she was great!

Adam

A-man to that, Brother Adam!

Tony

[william.scherk]

Now, I should note for interested readers that you almost sort of answered a similar question backchannel, in that you referred to some gossip without further elaboration. [....]

That seriously misrepresents what was said backchannel.

Do I have your permission to post your part of the exchange?

No, Ellen, you don't. I don't mean to be a jerk, I just don't get it -- your contention that we should hesitate before accepting the idea that Hawking co-authored The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow.

Here is what I wrote on that point backchannel. . .

The advanced epistemological stuff makes my eyes glaze (e.g., anything like 'how do we know we know what we think we know he knows he knows'), and I don't think that was what you are getting at. For me, it's a point of curiosity -- IF you think he doesn't have control over what goes out in his name, IF . . . I simply wonder how you came to suspect he doesn't.

Now you have permission to let us know, should you choose to do so, how you got to this bizarre place . . . the answer you gave backstage was pretty feeble.

[Brant Gaede]

Why would Hawking's co-author have misrepresented Hawking's contribution? It would be professional suicide to be found out.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Now, I should note for interested readers that you almost sort of answered a similar question backchannel, in that you referred to some gossip without further elaboration. [....]

That seriously misrepresents what was said backchannel.

Do I have your permission to post your part of the exchange?

No, Ellen, you don't. I don't mean to be a jerk,

Well, you certainly are being one.

To begin with, the subject of Hawking only came up backchannel (in an exchange about TFT which you'd initiated) because I added as an after note to a comment that I didn't have time to look for a particular item pertaining to TFT just now, this comment:

Speaking of time, though. I am really pressed for that.

Dental surgery tomorrow. Fall chores starting. Traditional

Thanksgiving Seminar in the offing. Practicing to be done

for traditional music performance. HOUSE TO BE CLEANED (not

that we don't keep the place clean -- it's about the books

and magazines and papers and stuff which accumulate in

living and dining rooms...).

I'm sort of wishing I hadn't mentioned the Hawking issue,

since that gets into a huge can of worms and there's a limit

to what I want to say on-line. (On the other hand, I don't

like seeing Hawking blamed for crud published in his name.)

Please bear with if I don't get back on that for a few days.

Bearing with for a few days is apparently not on the books for you.

Ever had dental surgery, William? The recovery isn't fun.

Rather than waiting, you (1) wrote to me further about the topic backchannel, and then (2) proceeded to drag the subject of Hawking into an unrelated thread.

Plus you made a stupid comparison between Ba'al's bizarre description of the Objectivist ethics and the obviously reasonable point that there's no way of knowing to what extent Hawking really thinks what's published in his name.

I just don't get it -- your contention that we should hesitate before accepting the idea that Hawking co-authored The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow.

Here is what I wrote on that point backchannel . . .

The advanced epistemological stuff makes my eyes glaze (e.g., anything like 'how do we know we know what we think we know he knows he knows'), and I don't think that was what you are getting at. For me, it's a point of curiosity -- IF you think he doesn't have control over what goes out in his name, IF . . . I simply wonder how you came to suspect he doesn't.

Now you have permission to let us know, should you choose to do so, how you got to this bizarre place . . . the answer you gave backstage was pretty feeble.

Your quote above was from your note continuing the topic backchannel after I'd indicated that it would be a few days before I could respond on-list. Here is the "pretty feeble" answer I gave:

1) the realities of his situation;

2) the supposed product;

3) a lot of scuttlebutt which is talked about sotte voce and

indirectly in the physics community.

The realities of his situation were discussed on the other thread.

Plus, in response to your saying that you "think the general question of how he gets his thoughts out has been answered," I responded:

I beg to differ. The Guardian interview you cited, I think,

should give considerable pause to the idea that Hawking

could "co-author," in any meaningful sense of writing a

book, what's published as "co-authored" by Hawking.

OK, he got out a coherent, consecutive SIMPLE thought -- in

20 minutes. Imagine trying to get out complicated physics.

You appear not to be imagining.

What I on the other hand can't imagine is why you don't appear to mind if Hawking is blamed and ridiculed for gaffes there's no way to know he is responsible for making. It was the desire to discourage the ridiculing of Hawking by George and others which occasioned my warning in the first place.

If you want to continue this, please copy all the posts on the subject from this thread -- where they're very intrusive -- to the "David Harriman's Book" thread, where the exchange between you and me started. Not that the subject really belongs there either, but at least it's less of a thread hijack there since it came up sort of naturally.

Whether I'll reply further should you choose to continue, I don't know. Depends on how you continue, if you do, and on whether I have time.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Duplicate !!

Edited October 9, 2010 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

If you want to continue this, please copy all the posts on the subject from this thread -- where they're very intrusive -- to the "David Harriman's Book" thread, where the exchange between you and me started. Not that the subject really belongs there either, but at least it's less of a thread hijack there since it came up sort of naturally.

I opened a new topic, "Did Stephen Hawking co-author The Grand Design."