A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Are you going to make Phil stay after class for punishment?

Kinky!

Adam

Now really, Mr. Selene, you are getting carried away by your imagination once again!

What Phil needs is appreciation, not punishment. I'm serious about that. We all need appreciation, but the ways vary in which we seek it.

As opposed to you, Mr. Selene, who engage in many OL discussions mostly for the fun part (each forum needs its jesters), Phil is a more serious person who does not take things as lightly as you do.

That's what I enjoy about OL: there's quite a motley crew assembled here!

A few words about the choice to live....

To speak of a choice to live is curious, in a way. We obviously don't have a choice about being born, so that is not what is being referred to here. We are speaking instead of the choice to continue living.

In most cases we don't make a conscious decision to live. The instinct of self-preservation (or whatever one wishes to call it) is so strong that the desire to live is our natural default setting.

So even with the modifier "choice to continue living", we normally don't consciously choose to live.

We rarely think of it except when we believe our lives are in danger or when we contemplate suicide.

So it is mostly in extreme situations where a choice to live comes into play.

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

Ghs

The moral principle of mind independence? Of 'second-handedness' - ie., ultimately altruism?

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

This just show the complexity of moral issues and how probematic it can become if one tries to adapt one's decisions to the Procrustes bed of a moral thinking which operates on a black and white basis.

Suppose in the above example, Person P decides not to commit suicide because he feels a sense of moral duty toward those he leaves behind. Thus we would get the situation of the "choice to live" being based on a person's sense of duty.

And isn't it often in fact a sense of duty toward others which prevents people from committing such extreme acts?

As to the "obligations to others," that works both ways. For example, Frank Capra's Jimmy Stewart moment where he realizes that he is worth more dead than alive.

Placing a net dollar value on a human life, as Capra opines in this great film, should not be the standard. It is how many lives we touch on a regular basis and how many lives we affect.

But isn't George Bailey in It's a Wondeful Life the epitome of an altruist?

I always end up dissolved in tears when watching that film. Each time I tell myself how 'corny' it is, but it doesn't seem to help.

Why would a grasshopper be interested in a piece of fly or wormlet?

Artistic license I suppose. ;)

As opposed to you, Mr. Selene, who engage in many OL discussions mostly for the fun part (each forum needs its jesters), Phil is a more serious person who does not take things as lightly as you do.

La Cigale,

Small point of order - "jester" isn't merited. There aren't many more dedicated to individualism and liberty, as Mr Selene.

Oh, Selene himself has used the jester icon on occasion.

But you are of course right: Selene is of course not only posting as the jester here.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

Ghs

The moral principle of mind independence? Of 'second-handedness' - ie., ultimately altruism?

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

I have my own opinions on these difficult issues, but they are not engraved in stone, and at this point I prefer to hear what others have to say.

Ghs

Yeah, good points. Definitely, I'd say that any, at least half-sane, person would have second thoughts about suicide, when considering the effect on his loved ones.

Tentatively, the logical inference of one's 'selfishness' in going ahead anyway (to them), is that one'd presume that they'd know that one's conviction was strong enough - even at the cost of their grief. IOW, not whimsical, so offering some tiny comfort to them.(?) I'm not sure.

Other considerations (ie financial) are more in the area of 'natural' death, and planning ahead (like the insurance industry insists), not only for what one won't be around to see, but for the peace of mind one has right now, value for loved ones, and happiness - while living.

Tricky : not engraved in stone, as you remark.

Tony

[kiaer.ts]

Why would a grasshopper be interested in a piece of fly or wormlet?

[jriggenbach]

Subject: George just being George as usual

Or: how not to read a post - or do it unfairly and with defiant resistance ===>

>psychobabble

a dismissive, 'loaded' and emotionalist term: often used by those who are resistant to introspection or to psychological concepts as explanations.

> about people who criticize or don't agree with him

'reading in' or psychologizing a personal motive - when that did not actualy exist in the post.

> about how his social skills are superior

'reading in' or psychologizing a personal motive - when that did not actualy exist in the post.

> I advise Phil to remove the pole from his ass

defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him.

> insults or hypocrisy

when he is called on doing this, he 'turns the tables' ...calling the very attempt to point these things out "insulting".

Which means George doesn't have to consider them. And he -certainly- doesn't have to consider changing his behavior away from food fights and personalities. (He will just point the finger at -you-, suggesting there is something monstrous or hypocritical or unjust or 'insulting' of you for naming the issue. -- That's his defensive technique.)

And the real wonder of all this is that you absolutely refuse to do what you're always whining that too few of the rest of us do - respond to our argument that "civility" is a phoney concept from top to bottom and nothing but a smokescreen designed to conceal the fact that those who are always clamoring for "civility" are just as insulting as the rest of us. They want their insults not to count as insults, while our insults do count as insults. There is nothing more to the entire phoney baloney issue than that. I have said this. George has said this. You never reply - despite the fact that you become all prickly and wounded if anyone doesn't carefully reply to each and every "argument" you put forth.

So what is your reply? What is the error of our argument?

JR

[anthony]

As opposed to you, Mr. Selene, who engage in many OL discussions mostly for the fun part (each forum needs its jesters), Phil is a more serious person who does not take things as lightly as you do.

La Cigale,

Small point of order - "jester" isn't merited. There aren't many more dedicated to individualism and liberty, as Mr Selene.

(But don't let me stop your flow. )

[George H. Smith]

What Phil needs is appreciation, not punishment. I'm serious about that. We all need appreciation, but the ways vary in which we seek it.

As opposed to you, Mr. Selene, who engage in many OL discussions mostly for the fun part (each forum needs its jesters), Phil is a more serious person who does not take things as lightly as you do.

I doubt if anyone has a problem with Phil's seriousness. What I have a problem with is his hypocrisy. Consider these remarks by Phil:

Most mature people who have spent a lot of time in social and business or institutional environments have learned how to back off, de-escalate potential personal conflicts. Unfortunately, for the spread of Oism, for their own personal success, and for online discussion boards like this - most LECAF's ('lone egghead cranky and abrasive old farts')never learned these things and it's too late in their lives for them to even consider doing so now.

(Also explains the shortage of women. They seldom tend to like to hang around with loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts.)

Any reasonable person would understand that to call people "loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts" is an insult -- but not Phil. He doesn't think this is an insult because he didn't name anyone in particular -- even though it is obvious to whom he is referring. Thus, when I replied that Phil should "remove the pole from his ass," he responded with righteous indignation, claiming that I was "defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him."

This is not a matter of being serious. It is a matter of being a gold-plated hypocrite. .

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

Ghs

The moral principle of mind independence? Of 'second-handedness' - ie., ultimately altruism?

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

I have my own opinions on these difficult issues, but they are not engraved in stone, and at this point I prefer to hear what others have to say.

Ghs

We are social beings and in the revenge motivated suicide it might be a queer way of reaching out to significant others even while leaving and achieving a bit of immortality by hurting them.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> [Phil doesn't] respond to our argument that "civility" is a phoney concept [JeffR]

Why would I respond to such a dumb view?

> those who are always clamoring for "civility" are just as insulting as the rest of us.

Nor is this true.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Do you think the terms "moral" and "immoral" apply to a person who has killed himself? What would it mean to call the decision to commit suicide "immoral"?

I ask this because people don't usually take their own lives unless they regard their situation as hopeless in some sense.

Every suicide can be regarded as choosing - (the reasons for the choice vary) - non-existence over existence as the higher value at the moment of choice. Every decision we make - every decision, for there is non exception - has this as the underlying operating principle.

Someone else mentioned suicide bombers. In the case of Muslim terrorists, we are dealing with people who believe that their actions will get them a pass to heaven and eternal happiness. They don't regard suicide as the cessation of life but as passage to a better life.

Even with suicide bombers not believing in an afterlife, the self-interested motive often is to be regarded as heroes/heroines voluntarily sacrificing their lives for a "higher" value - their country; the ideology they believe in, etc.

... let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

I would not use the the term "moral principle", since revenge suicides can be based on 'moral principles' as well. A religious fanatic for example may well use his/her own 'moral principles' to justify a vengeful suicide.

Instead I would work with the term "empathy" here. Vengeful suicides go against empathy.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

Why would I respond to such a dumb view?

For the same reason you expect others to respond to your dumb views?

JR

[rhartford]

. . .

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

The questions George raises prompt me to think of related issues given my status as an "old man." (Yes, I am even older than George.) When considering my "activism" type of activity, I think increasingly about the benefit of those actions to those I care about, as small as those benefits might be. I do not know to what extent those thoughts motivate me, or if they are simply recognition of the more limited time left available to me compared to younger people.

Although in dire circumstances the motivational component of "for the sake of others" might grow, I suspect that it could never, for me, be considered as "solely" for the sake of others.

[9thdoctor]

. . .

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

This made me think of a scene from I, Claudius:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siHTRG6a5hQ&feature=related

Starting just before 2 minutes in. Romans seem to have had a different attitude. Also, there's Hunter Thompson and Arthur Koestler to mention. I suppose you could look at it like a financial calculation, if the net present value of expected future enjoyment of life is less than the pain...

[Philip Coates]

Xray,

Thanks for the corrections to my translation of the La Fontaine poem:

> "Alla" is not misspelled; it is the passé simple form of the verb "aller".

> août = August

> prêteux, fem. prêteuse = prone to lending; generous.

> Emprunteux, fem. emprunteuse: 'borrower', (verb emprunter 'to borrow']

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just had a great idea for a sneaky form of monetizing this site--one that anyone can benefit from. On one Objectivist forum, they have Atlas points. Other forums have similar rewards.

If we adopt this same idea with a twist based on what was postulated earlier in the thread, we could have one unprovoked insult giving the insulted party a right to one insult without response. Then we could put together Insult Points that you spend for this.

Obviously, as this is a form of virtual money, and OL does promote a free market and all, these Insult Points would be able to be transferred from one person to another on demand.

That means enterprising capitalists could go around goading people to insult them until they get a hefty backlog of Insult Points. Then they could offer their cache of Insult Points to inept insulters for a small fortune.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Romans seem to have had a different attitude. Also, there's Hunter Thompson and Arthur Koestler to mention. I suppose you could look at it like a financial calculation, if the net present value of expected future enjoyment of life is less than the pain...

The Irish historian W.E.H. Lecky discusses Roman views of suicide and contrasts them with Christian views in his remarkable two-volume work History of European Morals. (This work was published in 1869, when Lecky was 31. Lecky's other great work in intellectual history, the two-volume History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, was published when Lecky was only 27.)

I first read this richly detailed account while I was in high school (Lecky is well-known in freethought circles), and it sparked my interest in the philosophical aspects of suicide.

Lecky points out that Romans differed somewhat in their attitudes toward suicide, but on the whole they regarded it as a rational option. Lecky quotes a number of passages from Seneca, the Roman Stoic who killed himself after being implicated in a plot to assassinate Nero. Here are two of them:

To death alone it is due that life is not a punishment, that, erect beneath the frowns of fortune, I can preserve my mind unshaken and master of itself. I have one to whom I can appeal. I see before me the crosses of many forms....I see the rack and the scourge, and the instruments of torture adapted to every limb and to every nerve; but I also see Death. She stands beyond my savage enemies, beyond my haughty fellow-countrymen. Slavery loses its bitterness when by a step I can pass to liberty. Against all the injuries of life, I have the refuge of death.

...

If I can choose the ship in which I will sail, and the house I will inhabit, so I will choose the death by which I will leave life.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I just had a great idea for a sneaky form of monetizing this site--one that anyone can benefit from. On one Objectivist forum, they have Atlas points. Other forums have similar rewards.

If we adopt this same idea with a twist based on what was postulated earlier in the thread, we could have one unprovoked insult giving the insulted party a right to one insult without response. Then we could put together Insult Points that you spend for this.

Obviously, as this is a form of virtual money, and OL does promote a free market and all, these Insult Points would be able to be transferred from one person to another on demand.

That means enterprising capitalists could go around goading people to insult them until they get a hefty backlog of Insult Points. Then they could offer their cache of Insult Points to inept insulters for a small fortune.

Michael

If this is truly a free market in Insult Points, then I could work out a kickback deal. For example, I could insult JR 10 times, and he could then give me 5 of his points. Then each of us would be able to insult Phil 5 times without Phil being able to respond.

Sounds good to me....

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: OL Awarding Insult Points rather than Atlas Points

Michael, With your usual brilliance you've stumbled on a great idea.

Since you want someone totally objective, you'd have to allow Jeff and George to form a deliberative committee and have final say as to what constitutes a provoked vs.an unprovoked insult and what constitutes an insult as opposed to a factual statement.

You'd have to get one of our audio-visual wizards (WSS? ND? Adam? Rich?) to come up with an appropriate Icon:

I suggest Atlas (or me) with a Huge Erection. Holding up a condom like a tent pole.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't care how you guys slice and dice it, just so long as I get the money.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

You'd have to get one of our audio-visual wizards (WSS? ND? Adam? Rich?) to come up with an appropriate Icon:

I suggest Atlas (or me) with a Huge Erection. Holding up a condom like a tent pole.

There shouldn't be just one icon, you should get to choose. Here are some ideas:

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: OL Awarding Insult Points rather than Atlas Points

Michael, With your usual brilliance you've stumbled on a great idea.

Since you want someone totally objective, you'd have to allow Jeff and George to form a deliberative committee and have final say as to what constitutes a provoked vs.an unprovoked insult and what constitutes an insult as opposed to a factual statement.

You'd have to get one of our audio-visual wizards (WSS? ND? Adam? Rich?) to come up with an appropriate Icon:

I suggest Atlas (or me) with a Huge Erection. Holding up a condom like a tent pole.

Do you prefer Viagra or Cialis?

--Brant

we need your shipping address

[9thdoctor]

I suggest Atlas (or me) with a Huge Erection. Holding up a condom like a tent pole.

Do you prefer Viagra or Cialis?

--Brant

we need your shipping address

How about this?

Now what was this thread supposed to be about?

[Selene]

Subject: OL Awarding Insult Points rather than Atlas Points

Michael, With your usual brilliance you've stumbled on a great idea.

Since you want someone totally objective, you'd have to allow Jeff and George to form a deliberative committee and have final say as to what constitutes a provoked vs.an unprovoked insult and what constitutes an insult as opposed to a factual statement.

You'd have to get one of our audio-visual wizards (WSS? ND? Adam? Rich?) to come up with an appropriate Icon:

I suggest Atlas (or me) with a Huge Erection. Holding up a condom like a tent pole.

I think this is more apropos and so much more realistic and true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVeFkakURXM

grrr - I cannot stand when this happens. Oh well...

Edited March 7, 2011 by Selene

[caroljane]

Subject: OL Awarding Insult Points rather than Atlas Points

Michael, With your usual brilliance you've stumbled on a great idea.

Since you want someone totally objective, you'd have to allow Jeff and George to form a deliberative committee and have final say as to what constitutes a provoked vs.an unprovoked insult and what constitutes an insult as opposed to a factual statement.

You'd have to get one of our audio-visual wizards (WSS? ND? Adam? Rich?) to come up with an appropriate Icon:

I suggest Atlas (or me) with a Huge Erection. Holding up a condom like a tent pole.

I think this is more apropos and so much more realistic and true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVeFkakURXM

grrr - I cannot stand when this happens. Oh well...

Just working out your subtle imagery -- oh good heavens, that happens to you ? You poor guys.

Must be an American thing.

[Philip Coates]

Read the instructions on the label" "If your Erection last longer that Three Hours or if you are a Canadian..."

[Selene]

Read the instructions on the label" "If your Erection last longer that Three Hours or if you are a Canadian..."

I waive consecutive translation...