Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959 [Archive]

Wolfman

21st June 2007, 11:56 PM

While I appreciate your sentiment, Tony...I think you're missing the point.

I myself run a non-profit organization, and have to make appeals for financial support. When I first targeted multinational companies, I gave presentations which appealed to their altruistic sensibilities...and got almost nowhere. But when I changed my presentation to appeal to more selfish motivations (better public image, good PR, advertising/marketing opportunities, etc.), I was far more successful.

And quite frankly, I like this way better. I tend to feel more guilty -- as was stated earlier, somewhat "parasitic" -- requesting people to give me money when there's no quantifiable benefit for them. I'm basically coming, hat in hand, and begging. On the other hand, when I present it to them as a win-win situation, where both sides derive quantifiable benefits, not only are they happier about giving, but I feel more confident about getting up in front of them and asking for money.

Think about it this way -- altruistic appeals mostly rely on instilling a sense of guilt in the other party. "Oh, look at these poor people, you have so much more than them, it would be selfish for you not to help, you should give us money." And, quite frankly, I do consider such an approach to be arguably immoral. A more extreme example would be those Sally Struthers commercials where they show kids starving to death, and Sally doing her best to lay a huge guilt trip on you in order for you to give money to them.

Whereas I see nothing inherently immoral in saying, "You help us, we help you; both sides benefit and come out ahead."

Admiral

21st June 2007, 11:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc

Ayn talks about her philosophy of Objectivism, and her ideas that altruism is immoral (strongly disagree there). Mike Wallace is a nice guy, and you may not agree with everything Rand says...but you must admit that watch him try to ask her questions is like watching a kitten nip the tail of a tiger.

(oh, and I haven't watched all of the videos yet, but my issue with her claim about altruism is that, in order for man to achieve his greatest happiness, he needs other men's knowledge and cooperation in building an efficient society with efficient technology)

Thanks for the video, EGarrett.

I happen to be finishing up Atlas Shrugged right now, so while I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist, I'd like to respond to your issue about altruism.

You said yourself that man needs other men's knowledge and cooperation- COOPERATION, not altruism. People work together to serve each other's interests- that's what business is. It's based on voluntary consent.

However, when you start insisting that men should be allowed to force others to give him knowledge and cooperation in order to achieve happiness, THAT'S when Rand would get furious at you. She'd compare it to slavery- what right does someone have to take someone else's ideas and products (in effect, their minds) in order to achieve happiness?

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes a society whose justification is generally similar to what you said about building an efficient society with efficient technology. In practice, though, this means that when someone is successful, when they develop a new metal or a new technology, the government seizes it and uses it "for the benefit of society," meaning that people are punished for spurring technological progress. How is this system one that will help men achieve happiness? Even if it somehow suceeded, it would be a society in which the only kind of happiness one would be allowed to achieve would be unearned- if anyone does work to earn wealth, it would be taken away from them.

Maybe I'm missing your point, though- if I am, please be more specific.

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 12:18 AM

Altruism: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

Yeah, real immoral there, altruism is almost worse than torturing small children.Without speaking to any moral judgments, there is a valid point here regarding human behavior and psychology. The moral ideal, according to Rand, is selfishness. Not selfishness to the exclusion of others but selfishness that elevates the individual thereby elevating society. The moral is one of pragmatism and a realistic view of human psychology and behavior.

The 60's brought change but those hylcon times did not bring about the degree of change that the counter culture had hopped. John and Yoko spending a weel on Mike Douglas, the Bed-in, flying kites for peace, Summer of Love, etc., etc. did little to bring about any significant and permanent social changes that would cause a lot of people to sacrifice for the good of others. On the contrary, the hippies left the communes, got jobs, purchased homes and worked to secure their own and their families future.

They became, to a point, selfish. This isn't to say that they abandoned all of their ideals and became cold uncaring back stabbers. No, they followed Rand's philosophy, to a point, and cared about themselves thereby contributing to society, providing goods and services even if they did so inadvertently. This was, IMO, was far more valuable to society than a love-in ever could be or for that matter a large segment of society living altruistically could be.

I'm not an objectivist and I do not believe that Rand's philosophy is an end all be all treatise on human behavior however I believe strongly that Rand adds a very important piece of the puzzle that we should not ignore. The desire to have material things is a very good thing.

I'm not against altruism and Rand wasn't either. Yes you can find a number of quotes to suggest otherwise but then I can find quotes that would make Einstein look like a theist.

jimtron

22nd June 2007, 12:51 AM

However, when you start insisting that men should be allowed to force others to give him knowledge and cooperation in order to achieve happiness, THAT'S when Rand would get furious at you.

Who said anything about forcing others to do anything--did I miss something?

Admiral

22nd June 2007, 01:16 AM

Who said anything about forcing others to do anything--did I miss something?

I'm talking about taxes and regulations, jimtron, and when they are justified through arguments of social responsibility.

Cain

22nd June 2007, 01:44 AM

I think I watched some of those videos awhile ago. My formative years on the Net were spent arguing with wacky "Objectivists" and their hideous "moral" philosophy. They were even worse than the hardcore Libertarian Party activists (people on USENET like Shanek).

Rand's moral philosophy is, in a word, confused. Her distinction between "altruism" -- which she believed to be evil -- and "benevolence" -- which she believed to be good/OK -- is arbitrary at best, and what one would expect from a fourth-rate mind.

Now of course one could argue that appeals to self-interest empirically generates the best economic outcomes -- and that's exactly what Adam Smith claimed 150 years before Ayn Rand. The most quoted passage from _Wealth of Nations_: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Randfan:
I'm not an objectivist and I do not believe that Rand's philosophy is an end all be all treatise on human behavior however I believe strongly that Rand adds a very important piece of the puzzle that we should not ignore. The desire to have material things is a very good thing.

Wait a minute. I'm pretty sure I remember reading some of Rand's emotionally-laden rhetoric where she went on and on about how a monk is actually selfish because he has this certain uncompromisable belief system. I remember it precisely because it struck me as odd in the context of her militant atheism. Maybe it can be found in _The Fountainhead_, the only Rand novel I actually read. What fries my mind is how she can even pretend to claim a monopoly on words like "rationality" and "reason." Such words always looked like a poor fit -- too costume-y -- much like the capes she would wear on TV. Rand's main rhetorical hook wasn't about materialism, although that's certainly one of the appeals to her followers (notice all the absurd dollar signs). No, she mainly appeal to money and materialism as an expression of authenticity and, most importantly, integrity. Especially to beastly, socially maladjusted male adolescents this supremely self-confident crap -- that is rationalization for greed, self-interest, up-yours mentality, has deep appeal.

Wolfman writes:
Whereas I see nothing inherently immoral in saying, "You help us, we help you; both sides benefit and come out ahead."

Sure, that's superficially amoral. It's almost like a market exchange. Of course, the firm profits, so to speak, because you're enabling a false image, one of social conscience and concern.

There is another approach, the one taken by Kant (Rand's arch-rival). Kant's arguments are rational rather than emotional: we have a duty to others.

Wolfman

22nd June 2007, 02:53 AM

Sure, that's superficially amoral. It's almost like a market exchange. Of course, the firm profits, so to speak, because you're enabling a false image, one of social conscience and concern.
Hmmmm...while I'd agree with most of your comments above, I'd consider this one to be far too sweeping a generalization.

First, it is not only the firm that profits...the people to whom money is being given also profit (in the case of my organization, for example, we were able to use such money to set up a training center that gave young women viable business options besides becoming prostitutes).

Second, it isn't exactly a "false image" when real benefit does derive from their donations. It may be an exaggerated image...but not necessarily false.

Third, there is the implicit assumption that all such companies are motivated only by self-interest. In my experience, I'd say that self-interest is part of it, but there is also a genuine desire to do something good, to make a positive contribution. When there is no quantifiable benefit to the company, it is more difficult for them to justify it; but when they can do something to help others, and derive a quantifiable benefit for themselves, it becomes eminently justifiable...and everyone benefits.

In a number of cases where companies have contributed to our organization, members of that company have subsequently come to visit our projects, and meet the people involved. Almost every time, they demonstrated great personal interest in the work we were doing, and even made additional personal contributions (with no expectation of reciprocal gestures from us) above what the company had given.

Besides running an NGO, I also happen to be a fairly successful businessman (having started two successful businesses, and in the process of setting up my third). I have used my various companies' profits to help support some of my NGO's work (both corporate donations, and my own private donations). To have this cynically referred to as "enabling a false image" rather offends me; certainly, when I make such contributions, I want my company's image to benefit, and if I can derive a financial advantage for my company by doing so, that's great. But equal with my desire for fiscal success, is my desire to use such success to help others.

Let's put it this way -- a businessman has money, and has a choice of two NGOs to which he can give that money. He personally wants to do something to help. In the first case, his donation will derive no personal benefit for himself or his company...once the money is gone, its gone, and that's it. In the second case, his donation will result in benefits for himself, and/or his company, which will in turn mean increased income.

Not only is the latter case obviously the better choice from pretty well any objective criteria, but the latter case also means that he is able to continue giving donations, and even give larger donations, because his first donation results in further profits.

I'm not naive, and I'm fully aware that there are companies who will make such contributions without any real desire to help others, but only out of a cynical desire to use such contributions to their own benefit. But to classify all -- or even the majority -- of such contributions as being like that is, in my opinion and my experience, quite an untrue and unfair characterization.

BPSCG

22nd June 2007, 03:55 AM

Now of course one could argue that appeals to self-interest empirically generates the best economic outcomes -- and that's exactly what Adam Smith claimed 150 years before Ayn Rand. The most quoted passage from _Wealth of Nations_: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." Do you disagree with that?

I expect not. And that is exactly what Rand was claiming.

Maybe it can be found in _The Fountainhead_, the only Rand novel I actually read. Then perhaps you should read Atlas Shrugged. It's stylistically flawed (to put it mildly), but as a defense of capitalism - the "Capitalist Manifesto", if you will - it is unsurpassed. Read it with an open, yet critical - dare I say skeptical? - mind, because there is a lot of wisdom in it. One of my favorite nuggets that I keep in my personal skeptic's toolbox is (paraphrasing) the admonition that "There are no contradictions. If you think you have encountered a contradiction, examine your premises, because one of them is wrong."

Especially to beastly, socially maladjusted male adolescents this supremely self-confident crap -- that is rationalization for greed, self-interest, up-yours mentality, has deep appeal. This is confirmation of your claim that you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, because anyone who's read it and understood it would not make a statement like that. Her point is that everyone will be better off when everyone is free to look after his own self-interest, and is free to interact with others to the extent that he harms no one else. The dystopia she describes in Atlas Shrugged, where pretty much the entire world has gone communist, is the result of the "up yours" mentality which allows me to demand the results of your labor simply because I think I need it.

Gurdur

22nd June 2007, 04:14 AM

This is confirmation of your claim that you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, because anyone who's read it and understood it would not make a statement like that.
= "If you disagree with my Looney Toons ideology, you are therefore wrong".

*snicker*

because there is a lot of wisdom in it.
A bit like saying there's nutritional value in arsenic.

The dystopia she describes in Atlas Shrugged, where pretty much the entire world has gone communist, is the result of
the result of Rand's very peculiar and oddball POV. Nothing else.
Mind you, she was deeply prejudiced against gays as well, and the rape fantasies are ..... well, interesting.

strathmeyer

22nd June 2007, 04:15 AM

Altruism: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

Yeah, real immoral there, altruism is almost worse than torturing small children.

Why are you pointing out that you haven't taken the time to comprehend why people think altruism is immoral?

BPSCG

22nd June 2007, 04:38 AM

= "If you disagree with my Looney Toons ideology, you are therefore wrong".

*snicker*

A bit like saying there's nutritional value in arsenic.

the result of Rand's very peculiar and oddball POV. Nothing else.
Mind you, she was deeply prejudiced against gays as well, and the rape fantasies are ..... well, interesting.Yet another content-free, ad hom-rich post from Gurdur. As surprising as a traffic jam on I-95 at 5:00 on the Friday before Independence Day weekend.

Complexity

22nd June 2007, 05:46 AM

I reread Atlas Shrugged every few years. Not only do I enjoy the read, but I get quite angry.

I agree with most of Rand's philosophy.

Reality is moving uncomfortably close to her vision of consequences.

hgc

22nd June 2007, 07:03 AM

Her point is that everyone will be better off when everyone is free to look after his own self-interest, and is free to interact with others to the extent that he harms no one else.

Everyone will be better off? Even those people who simply can't compete? I can understand how maybe people who already have or know how to get are better off looking after their own self-interest (on a purely mercenary level), but you can't possibly believe that there is no one around who is better off when someone else looks after their interests -- feeds and shelters them.

The dystopia she describes in Atlas Shrugged, where pretty much the entire world has gone communist, is the result of the "up yours" mentality which allows me to demand the results of your labor simply because I think I need it.

That could just as well describe a capitalist system. Just add in the little part about how you can make a choice to produce for me at the subsistence wage I'll pay, your you can make the choice to starve instead. If I happen to have a monopoly over the labor market, it's in my self-interest to pay no more than what it takes to keep my workers from falling dead in the gutter. I would be interested in concrete intersections between the world of Atlas Shrugged and reality.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 07:09 AM

I'm talking about taxes and regulations, jimtron, and when they are justified through arguments of social responsibility.

One can also make the argument that there are some things which are public goods, such as common defense and clean air, which we all derive a benefit from, and should therefore pay into. Otherwise, self-interest will lead to free riders. You can't design an air pollution policy wherein people who don't pay into the program get worse air, and you can't design a national defense plan in which people who don't pay for troops aren't protected. Well, presumably you might be able to, but it would severely compromise the integrity of the plan.

ponderingturtle

22nd June 2007, 07:14 AM

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 07:19 AM

So I am wondering about a couple of data points. First volunteerism, are volunteer firefighters and ambulances immoral? It would seem so.

Also what about nursing homes, it would be in my self interest to stop these unproductive drains on resources I would think.

No, if old people have nothing to offer you, you should kick them to the curb to be eaten by roving dogs. You might say, "We have an interest in taking care of old people because you might one day be old." But there's no direct reciprocity or exhange there, so I don't know if a fundamentalist Randite would make that kind of an arguement.

Admiral

22nd June 2007, 07:20 AM

One can also make the argument that there are some things which are public goods, such as common defense and clean air, which we all derive a benefit from, and should therefore pay into. Otherwise, self-interest will lead to free riders. You can't design an air pollution policy wherein people who don't pay into the program get worse air, and you can't design a national defense plan in which people who don't pay for troops aren't protected. Well, presumably you might be able to, but it would severely compromise the integrity of the plan.

That's true, ImaginalDisc (that one can make the argument, at least), but it isn't really the topic of this thread.

Heck, I'm in favor of both a national defense and a tax on pollution (a tax, not the arbitrary kinds of regulation we have today. Taxes provide all sorts of incentives that quotas can't). Pollution is clearly an example where there's an absence of a market, since there's a negative externality that can't be internalized. The reason it can't be internalized is that there are ridiculous transaction costs involved- that is, it's realistically impossible to enforce property rights over people's air (though if someone came up with a system, I'd be interested).

Ayn Rand even notes that national defense is one of the very few "proper roles of government." I'm not sure how she feels about environmental restrictions, but either way it's not the topic of the thread, which primarily addresses redistribution and regulation.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 07:29 AM

That's true, ImaginalDisc (that one can make the argument, at least), but it isn't really the topic of this thread.

Heck, I'm in favor of both a national defense and a tax on pollution (a tax, not the arbitrary kinds of regulation we have today. Taxes provide all sorts of incentives that quotas can't). Pollution is clearly an example where there's an absence of a market, since there's a negative externality that can't be internalized. The reason it can't be internalized is that there are ridiculous transaction costs involved- that is, it's realistically impossible to enforce property rights over people's air (though if someone came up with a system, I'd be interested).

Ayn Rand even notes that national defense is one of the very few "proper roles of government." I'm not sure how she feels about environmental restrictions, but either way it's not the topic of the thread, which primarily addresses redistribution and regulation.

It is a bit tangential, I admit. However, there's plenty of good moral reasons to contibute to the public good that don't involve "parasitism." I'm planning on being a science teacher when I graduate, not because it's the most luctative or exciting career option available to me, but because I want a career that contributes to the public good of education. I'd be forging more direct benefits for myself to, ideally, contribute to society as a whole. Is that amoral, from Rand's perspective?

There's plenty of people who've dedicated their lives to thankless, low paying, and even dangerous jobs when they could have had safer and more lucrative jobs, just because they believe in the good they can do. That's a form of altruism, isn't it?

Cain

22nd June 2007, 07:55 AM

Wolfman,

Yours is an extensive rationalization. Suppose you're in San Diego and you meet a girl you like. You're walking around town and encounter an advocate for the homeless. Earlier in your walk the woman you're attempting to romance (or seduce) commented on the shameful and nearly omnipresent poverty. Normally you would not give these charities the time of day, but you see an opportunity to impress a potential sex partner. Go down your list looking for ominous parallels:

Presumably the poor benefit from your donation. Why deny them this benefit at the expense of being your true a-hole self? Now, the exchange is primarily motivated by self-interest, but can you be an entirely bad person if you're actually helping others? I think not! Moreover, everyone knows we do most things out of self-interest. Lots of people say they think their contributions to charities are selfish because they derive a natural high off it (psychological egoism). And so on. Humans are extremely good at making up excuses after-the-fact for what they truly want to do.

Then perhaps you should read Atlas Shrugged. It's stylistically flawed (to put it mildly), but as a defense of capitalism - the "Capitalist Manifesto", if you will - it is unsurpassed. Read it with an open, yet critical - dare I say skeptical? - mind, because there is a lot of wisdom in it. One of my favorite nuggets that I keep in my personal skeptic's toolbox is (paraphrasing) the admonition that "There are no contradictions. If you think you have encountered a contradiction, examine your premises, because one of them is wrong."

Oh, great, I've already read over 1,000 pages of Rand's scribblings already, and now I'm supposed to invest the time and energy to plow through a tome from which I will most likely realize no benefit -- other than being able to SAY I read it, and it predictably sucked.

This is confirmation of your claim that you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, because anyone who's read it and understood it would not make a statement like that. Her point is that everyone will be better off when everyone is free to look after his own self-interest, and is free to interact with others to the extent that he harms no one else.

1) Nearly all egoists are unwitting utilitarians; 2) Nearly all egoists are unconvincing utilitarians because there are demonstrable cases where acting contrary to one's self-interests maximizes aggregate utility. Perhaps one could argue that we should generally be self-interested a la Smith, but not always.

In any case, I can confidently say you're misunderstanding Rand's argument. Here's the banner quote from capitalism.org, an Objectivist jizz-site:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does -- if that catch-phrase has any meaning -- but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."

This is precisely one of the unconventional appeals of Rand -- she has boldly claimed the "moral" ground. Lots of people argue socialism is well-meaning and "ideal" but human nature is too corrupt; it just doesn't work. Certain moral autistics find Rand exhilarating and refreshingly honest because she calls hogwash on that widespread disposition. She says capitalism isn't just efficient, but moral. Capitalism is not only natural, but ideal.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 09:01 AM

One of my favorite nuggets that I keep in my personal skeptic's toolbox is (paraphrasing) the admonition that "There are no contradictions. If you think you have encountered a contradiction, examine your premises, because one of them is wrong."

This is not remotely skeptical. To assume that any authority is perfect and makes no contradictions is naive and foolish. You might be wrong, as you often are, but so might Rand.

Admiral

22nd June 2007, 09:06 AM

This is not remotely skeptical. To assume that any authority is perfect and makes no contradictions is naive and foolish. You might be wrong, as you often are, but so might Rand.

You misunderstand. The quote ("there are no contradictions") was NOT a defense of what she believed (she wasn't saying a certain authority makes no contradictions), she was saying that reality makes no contradictions- something that I'm sure skeptics would agree with.

mijopaalmc

22nd June 2007, 09:12 AM

This is not remotely skeptical. To assume that any authority is perfect and makes no contradictions is naive and foolish. You might be wrong, as you often are, but so might Rand.

Uh....it's actually a fairly common form of argumentation here, probably second only to setting up straw men. I've personally been told that I am "misinterpreting the literature" when I cite literature on various topics that contradicts the majority opinion here and therefore the premises of my arguments and consequently the conclusion I draw from them are wrong.

thinkingaboutit

22nd June 2007, 09:16 AM

Sorry but Ayn Rand is a joke.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 09:17 AM

BPSCG

22nd June 2007, 09:59 AM

Oh, that's not what I thought it meant. "Reality" makes no contradictions? That may or may not be true. Phsyics at the macro scale and quandtum physics don't yet agree, so I'd tend to say that we just don't know if the universe is or is not self-contradictory.Perhaps. I'm not convinced, but then again, I'm no physicist. But what Rand was saying was that a proposition and the negation of that proposition can not both be true at the same time.

I got my first education in this area from my father (who never read Rand AFAIK) when I was about twelve and I decided to show him how clever I was one day with the old stumper question, "What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?"

In his usual gentle manner that got us into more than a few shouting matches over the years, he gave me an answer. "If you have an irresistible force, an immovable object is an impossibility. If you have an imovable object, then there can be no such thing as an irresistible force. Stop being so stupid."

He was saying what Rand was saying: There are no paradoxes.

EGarrett

22nd June 2007, 10:00 AM

Thanks for the video, EGarrett.

I happen to be finishing up Atlas Shrugged right now, so while I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist, I'd like to respond to your issue about altruism.

You said yourself that man needs other men's knowledge and cooperation- COOPERATION, not altruism. People work together to serve each other's interests- that's what business is. It's based on voluntary consent.

However, when you start insisting that men should be allowed to force others to give him knowledge and cooperation in order to achieve happiness, THAT'S when Rand would get furious at you. She'd compare it to slavery- what right does someone have to take someone else's ideas and products (in effect, their minds) in order to achieve happiness?

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes a society whose justification is generally similar to what you said about building an efficient society with efficient technology. In practice, though, this means that when someone is successful, when they develop a new metal or a new technology, the government seizes it and uses it "for the benefit of society," meaning that people are punished for spurring technological progress. How is this system one that will help men achieve happiness? Even if it somehow suceeded, it would be a society in which the only kind of happiness one would be allowed to achieve would be unearned- if anyone does work to earn wealth, it would be taken away from them.

Maybe I'm missing your point, though- if I am, please be more specific.Thanks for the reply. I think the issue is just confusion of words. When I hear altruism, I think of the evolved-practice that's described in the Wikipedia article for altruism. When Ayn says altruism, she means forced sacrifice. I don't think that's a good idea either.

mumblethrax

22nd June 2007, 10:17 AM

You misunderstand. The quote ("there are no contradictions") was NOT a defense of what she believed (she wasn't saying a certain authority makes no contradictions), she was saying that reality makes no contradictions- something that I'm sure skeptics would agree with.
I don't agree with it. Rand is butchering Aristotle's law of non-contradiction here in order to sneak in her premises--if "reality" makes no contradictions, it is only because it makes no dictions at all, which is not something interesting to say about either the universe or logic. If, on the other hand, you believe as Rand does that the universe is bound by formal language, there are some well known paradoxes that cause us to do more than merely examine our premises (Grelling-Nelson, for example).

It's also not particularly skeptical to accept that the law of non-contradiction describes the natural world--it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Kerberos

22nd June 2007, 10:29 AM

Perhaps. I'm not convinced, but then again, I'm no physicist. But what Rand was saying was that a proposition and the negation of that proposition can not both be true at the same time.

I got my first education in this area from my father (who never read Rand AFAIK) when I was about twelve and I decided to show him how clever I was one day with the old stumper question, "What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?"

In his usual gentle manner that got us into more than a few shouting matches over the years, he gave me an answer. "If you have an irresistible force, an immovable object is an impossibility. If you have an imovable object, then there can be no such thing as an irresistible force. Stop being so stupid."
Actually I don't think that answer is correct. There could be both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force could simply pass through the immovable object, just like sunlight can go through a window without being stopped and without the window being moved. An immovable object and an unstoppable force can therefore coexist. QED.

Of cause that answer doesn’t involve a contradiction either

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 10:33 AM

Actually I don't think that answer is correct. There could be both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force could simply pass through the immovable object, just like sunlight can go through a window without being stopped and without the window being moved. An immovable object and an unstoppable force can therefore coexist. QED.

Of cause that answer doesn’t involve a contradiction either

The unstopable force can be deflected without stopping, leaving the unstoppable force unstopped and the unmovable object unmoved.

Admiral

22nd June 2007, 10:35 AM

Actually I don't think that answer is correct. There could be both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force could simply pass through the immovable object, just like sunlight can go through a window without being stopped and without the window being moved. An immovable object and an unstoppable force can therefore coexist. QED.

Of cause that answer doesn’t involve a contradiction either

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question. Call it an immovable, impermeable object if you want.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 10:38 AM

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question. Call it an immovable, impermeable object if you want.

Fine, change the premise. The force and the object are wave functions, and can through one another if properly synchronized without anything being penetrated, like some elaborately over explained Star Trek gimmick.

Tony

22nd June 2007, 10:42 AM

Why are you pointing out that you haven't taken the time to comprehend why people think altruism is immoral?

Why are you pointing out you haven't taken the time to comprehend why I think the premise is absurd?

Admiral

22nd June 2007, 10:44 AM

Thanks for the reply. I think the issue is just confusion of words. When I hear altruism, I think of the evolved-practice that's described in the Wikipedia article for altruism. When Ayn says altruism, she means forced sacrifice.

I was a little too vague. Rand also doesn't support people being guilty for not helping others. She believes people should help others because they want to- it's a strange distinction.

Interestingly, it's not too far from the (rather corny) adage "Don't give until it hurts. Give until it feels good."

I don't think that's a good idea either.

Really? I believe you support redistribution of wealth (welfare, etc). You don't believe that's forcing people to give something up for the sake of others?

Admiral

22nd June 2007, 10:46 AM

Fine, change the premise. The force and the object are wave functions, and can through one another if properly synchronized without anything being penetrated, like some elaborately over explained Star Trek gimmick.

You don't see why that's still "cheating"?

Kerberos

22nd June 2007, 10:48 AM

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question. Call it an immovable, impermeable object if you want.

Of cause I am, but pointless linguistic sophistry is practically the raison d'etre for this sub-forum isn't it?

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 10:52 AM

You don't see why that's still "cheating"?

No. The premise explains nothing but that the force is unstoppable and the object immovable.

Tony

22nd June 2007, 10:54 AM

While I appreciate your sentiment, Tony...I think you're missing the point.

I myself run a non-profit organization, and have to make appeals for financial support. When I first targeted multinational companies, I gave presentations which appealed to their altruistic sensibilities...and got almost nowhere. But when I changed my presentation to appeal to more selfish motivations (better public image, good PR, advertising/marketing opportunities, etc.), I was far more successful.

Alright.

And quite frankly, I like this way better. I tend to feel more guilty -- as was stated earlier, somewhat "parasitic" -- requesting people to give me money when there's no quantifiable benefit for them. I'm basically coming, hat in hand, and begging.

I can understand your guilt, I used to feel guilty, like I was begging, when I would ask companies for a job application, but I don't think it follows that altruism is immoral. Nor do I neccessarily think that a parasitic relationship, when the party is willing and has given explicit consent, is immoral. Is it immoral for a mother to carry a child and give birth?

On the other hand, when I present it to them as a win-win situation, where both sides derive quantifiable benefits, not only are they happier about giving, but I feel more confident about getting up in front of them and asking for money.

Ok.

Think about it this way -- altruistic appeals mostly rely on instilling a sense of guilt in the other party.

Mostly? I'm not sure of that.

"Oh, look at these poor people, you have so much more than them, it would be selfish for you not to help, you should give us money." And, quite frankly, I do consider such an approach to be arguably immoral.

I agree, but that isn't altuism per se but merely a cynical approach to it. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's anymore immoral to appeal to someone's guilt than it is to appeal to their greed.

Whereas I see nothing inherently immoral in saying, "You help us, we help you; both sides benefit and come out ahead."

Neither do I, nor do I think it's immoral for a person to have an unselfish devotion to others.

hgc

22nd June 2007, 10:54 AM

The problem is not that there can't be both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, but that neither has ever been demonstrated, or to my knowledge, hypothesized with any promise. Sure, you may fancy at some level of abstraction that there aren't paradoxes in nature, but then that's just a tautology. Human experience does not encompass all of nature anyway, only some part of it. Human experience and imagination may indeed contain paradoxes.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 10:58 AM

Complexity

22nd June 2007, 11:04 AM

I've noticed from earlier threads that Ayn Rand is a divisive topic on this forum - many respect her philosophy, and many others hate her philosophy.

From my own thinking and reading, I've decided that people who hate her philosophy either haven't read her works thoughtfully, don't understand what she is saying, or understand what she is saying and choose to act in a manner contrary to what she advocates.

Members of the first group don't have a basis for an opinion.

Members of the second group should keep on trying.

Members of the third group are people I'd rather not know.

Many will insist that there is another group, but I don't think I've encountered anyone that doesn't belong in one of the first three.

I've no intention of arguing with people about this (or much else) - just stating my position.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 11:08 AM

mumblethrax

22nd June 2007, 11:12 AM

Presuming that the third group you've described "acts in a manner contrary to what she advocates" do so because they think she was in desperate need of an enema, are you saying that you can ignore any of Rand's copious critics because you don't like them?

I'm not surprised you've elected not to defend this position--it's an untenable ad hominem.

Miss Anthrope

22nd June 2007, 11:14 AM

Complexity,

I think many of Rand's views are solid ones. I think she makes valid and intersting points. My problems with Rand started when I read the Virtue of Selfishness. To me she goes too far with what she labels "rational, irrational, moral, immoral". This was the point where I was able to look at her work more objectively. One does not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is much of great substance and wisdom in Rand's work. This does not exclude her from being dogmatic and dare I say, wrong in some respects.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 11:19 AM

drkitten

22nd June 2007, 11:23 AM

Perhaps. I'm not convinced, but then again, I'm no physicist. But what Rand was saying was that a proposition and the negation of that proposition can not both be true at the same time.

Yes. And in saying so, she's so deeply wrong that she will need several hours of staged decompression before she can get to "right."

As a simple example, is the water in my bathtub "hot"?

The water in my bathtub is hot. If you put your hand in it, you will feel the warmth. You might even scald yourself.

The water in my bathtub is not, however, hot. I'm using it (and an external heater) at the moment to boil lots and lots of eggs and it's nowhere near hot yet.

Yes, that's an argument from ambiguity. But since any proposition is inherently contextually-bound, any proposition -- and any argument -- will inherently be ambiguous. If your scheme of "logic" requires unambiguity in order to work -- or includes it as a premise -- then your scheme of logic is fundamentally broken.

Not by coincidence, Rand's scheme of logic and Rand's philosophy are fundamentally broken.

Miss Anthrope

22nd June 2007, 11:24 AM

I think she suffers from the problem of having a really nice hammer. She developed a system of philosophy that handles some problems very well. Naturally, she was inclined to apply it to all problems indiscriminantly.

A brilliant observation! I like it!

drkitten

22nd June 2007, 11:28 AM

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question.

It is a valid answer to a question to point out that the question, as posed, is too badly phrased to admit of a conventional answer.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is not a yes/no question, despite its grammatical form.

If your logic does not admit this (as Rand's does not), your logic is fundamentally broken.

drkitten

22nd June 2007, 11:32 AM

I've noticed from earlier threads that Ayn Rand is a divisive topic on this forum - many respect her philosophy, and many others hate her philosophy.

From my own thinking and reading, I've decided that people who hate her philosophy either haven't read her works thoughtfully, don't understand what she is saying, or understand what she is saying and choose to act in a manner contrary to what she advocates.

Members of the first group don't have a basis for an opinion.

Members of the second group should keep on trying.

Members of the third group are people I'd rather not know.

Just because you'd rather not know me doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that Rand is right.

I'm sure that there are people who could have written the exact same paragraphs above, except that the name of the author would have been Adolph Hitler.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 11:37 AM

Just because you'd rather not know me doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that Rand is right.

I'm sure that there are people who could have written the exact same paragraphs above, except that the name of the author would have been Adolph Hitler.

I call Godwin. You lose.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 11:40 AM

Double post.

BPSCG

22nd June 2007, 12:27 PM

I have to go out, but in the meantime, to those who say there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force, contemplate the implications for F=MA if that were indeed true.

hgc

22nd June 2007, 12:34 PM

ponderingturtle

22nd June 2007, 12:36 PM

I have to go out, but in the meantime, to those who say there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force, contemplate the implications for F=MA if that were indeed true.

As F is dP/dt, so it would impart an infinite amount of momentum, the immovable object would have an infinite mass.

So the correct answer is it depends on the quality of the relative infinities, and you can contrive what sort of infinities they each are to get what ever results you want.

Look at unit area delta functions and such(they have infinite hight and no width but have a specific area). So in this case you are setting up a situation of competing limits.

firecoins

22nd June 2007, 12:55 PM

Sorry but Ayn Rand is a joke.
Are you going to give a proper argument or you just uping your post count?

strathmeyer

22nd June 2007, 01:11 PM

Are you going to give a proper argument or you just uping your post count?

Sorry but thinkingaboutit is a joke.

EGarrett

22nd June 2007, 04:11 PM

I was a little too vague. Rand also doesn't support people being guilty for not helping others. She believes people should help others because they want to- it's a strange distinction.Strange, but subtle and accurate given her philosophy. Not that I've done much reading of her yet.

Really? I believe you support redistribution of wealth (welfare, etc). You don't believe that's forcing people to give something up for the sake of others?Well, this'll be another strange and subtle distinction, but as I said earlier, to get a great amount of happiness, we need others to help us form an efficient society with efficient technology. Welfare can help others to rejoin and contribute to that society. To that extent, since we get something out of it, it isn't necessarily a sacrifice. So I support welfare when we can determine with reasonable certainty that it will be used for people who will contribute to society.

But of course, the next question is...do I believe in forcing people to do so, even if it is a non-sacrifice? It's an interesting question, because while the choice may be ultimately beneficial to everyone, many people might not see that far ahead and would not want to give the money. I suppose you can't force someone to do something that will benefit them if they can't see how and they don't want to.

I think that if you undid the government system of welfare, but allowed businesses to offer people something similar in exchange for some manner of exclusive access to them once they get on their feet, we might be able to do away with welfare and privatize it.

hgc

22nd June 2007, 04:20 PM

Strange, but subtle and accurate given her philosophy. Not that I've done much reading of her yet.

Well, this'll be another strange and subtle distinction, but as I said earlier, to get a great amount of happiness, we need others to help us form an efficient society with efficient technology. Welfare can help others to rejoin and contribute to that society. To that extent, since we get something out of it, it isn't necessarily a sacrifice. So I support welfare when we can determine with reasonable certainty that it will be used for people who will contribute to society.

But of course, the next question is...do I believe in forcing people to do so, even if it is a non-sacrifice? It's an interesting question, because while the choice may be ultimately beneficial to everyone, many people might not see that far ahead and would not want to give the money. I suppose you can't force someone to do something that will benefit them if they can't see how and they don't want to.

I think that if you undid the government system of welfare, but allowed businesses to offer people something similar in exchange for exclusive access to them once they get on their feet, we might be able to do away with welfare and privatize it.

Living in civilized society means submitting to force. No way around it. Hopefully the force is not put into practice against you as long as you're operating within the rules (In other words, are the rules reliable and predictable?). And hopefully the rules are fair and just. This includes the contribution to the public weal by individuals and business entities by means of taxes, fees, etc. Never heard of a society that operated differently.

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 04:38 PM

BPSCG

22nd June 2007, 05:07 PM

As F is dP/dt, so it would impart an infinite amount of momentum, the immovable object would have an infinite mass.Correct. I call on those who argue that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force to demonstrate the existence of even one object of infinite mass.

ImaginalDisc

22nd June 2007, 05:15 PM

Correct. I call on those who argue that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force to demonstrate the existence of even one object of infinite mass.

An object does not need to be infinitely massive to be immovable. A black hole the size the entire universe would be less dense than water, IIRC. I can't think of how such an object might be moved.

EGarrett

22nd June 2007, 05:19 PM

Living in civilized society means submitting to force. No way around it. Hopefully the force is not put into practice against you as long as you're operating within the rules (In other words, are the rules reliable and predictable?). And hopefully the rules are fair and just. This includes the contribution to the public weal by individuals and business entities by means of taxes, fees, etc. Never heard of a society that operated differently.I've said before that for a society to function, someone must be willing and able to do bad things to bad people...so I agree. To a libertarian (which to some extent I guess Rand was), the force seems to only exist to protect property rights and the law.

According to the video, Rand doesn't seem to believe in taxes. Do you know how she intended to fund the military and police without taxes?

thinkingaboutit

22nd June 2007, 05:39 PM

Are you going to give a proper argument or you just uping your post count?

Where to begin? Objectivism is weak in many ways. Rand's scholarship is terrible. She fails to understand many of the positions that she tries to describe and ascribe and criticize.

In life she didn't embrace the idea of philosophy. She demanded that 'Objectivists' accept all of her ideas. She ignored valid criticism of her work.

Here's an essay I found that details a couple of the claims I've made above.

http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt/home.informal/bar/philosophy/objectivism/merrill.comments.html

So what is it that differentiates the writing of Rand from those of classic academics and professional philosophers? It is simply that her work has every appearance of an extended and multi-faceted straw man argument that fails to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship. It has all the marks of what in science would be pseudo-science. If there is such a thing as pseudo-philosophy, this is it.

Look at my post count and look at yours. Do you really think I give a damn about it?

Are you a fan of Rand? Can you tell me what you find the least bit compelling about her philosophy?

BPSCG

22nd June 2007, 06:28 PM

An object does not need to be infinitely massive to be immovable.Then what happens when an object with more mass bumps into it?

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 06:43 PM

Objectivism is weak in many ways.Agreed. But then many philosophies are. None are airtight, if they weren't we wouldn't have competing philosophies. I'll grant you though that Rand's philosophy had a few more holes than many.

Rand's scholarship is terrible.I'm not at all sure what you mean. Please define scholarship and then explain how hers was terrible. Rand was not rigorous in forming her philosophy. If this is what you mean then your criticism is valid.

She fails to understand many of the positions that she tries to describe and ascribe and criticize. In life she didn't embrace the idea of philosophy. She demanded that 'Objectivists' accept all of her ideas. She ignored valid criticism of her work. Asserted premises. Could you give us something more?

Here's an essay I found that details a couple of the claims I've made above.

http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt/home.informal/bar/philosophy/objectivism/merrill.comments.html
(http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt/home.informal/bar/philosophy/objectivism/merrill.comments.html) Interesting but hardly devastating. It's one guy's opinion stitched together from some observations and some valid premises. In any event, I truly despise arguing via link. Could you tell us why you think the article significant?

Look at my post count and look at yours. Do you really think I give a damn about it? Which raises the question, why did you bother to respond at all?

Are you a fan of Rand? I know your post was not meant for me but yes, I am.

Can you tell me what you find the least bit compelling about her philosophy?At a time when the world was focusing on socialism and communism Rand championed and popularized another view of human nature. I don't see Rand as an academic philosopher. I put Rand alongside Dostoevsky and Orwell. Through literature she gave the world a visual image of a concept. It wasn't a grand unifying concept. It was but a piece of the puzzle. It was not unique to her, she didn't discover this concept, she put into the popular culture and societal conscience.

"It should be stressed in conclusion that whether one is a fan or a detractor of Ayn Rand, the issues raised by this book are manifold and provocative. This book should force a debate of renewed vigor about what we mean by egoism, whether and how the egoism/altruism dichotomy should be applied within eudaimonistic ethical theories, and what our ethical theories imply about our political outlook. Smith provides us with a version of egoism that will need to be argued against by those who find it distasteful or misguided, rather than simply dismissed." --A review of Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" by Tara Smith

Kerberos

22nd June 2007, 10:51 PM

Correct. I call on those who argue that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force to demonstrate the existence of even one object of infinite mass.

And you don't see any problem with trying to prove a logical point using empirical natural laws?

Kerberos

22nd June 2007, 10:52 PM

BPSCG

23rd June 2007, 06:08 AM

And you don't see any problem with trying to prove a logical point using empirical natural laws?How about this logical point? An immovable object would have to be at rest (otherwise it's moving) and it would have to have infinite mass. The force attempting to move it would have to be greater than infinite mass to create that infinite-mass-overcoming-force; if there's no mass, there's no force.

So the proposition that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistable force rests on the assumption that there can be two objects of infinite mass. That's a logically absurdity, since if A is of infinite mass, then there cannot exist B, another object, because that would require A's mass to be limited in that there exists something apart from A. It's also logically absurd because the object behind the force would have to be of greater infinite mass than the infinitely massive immovable object.

Here's another logical absurdity. Since the irresistible force comes from an object of infinite mass, where did the energy come from that set that mass into motion? In other words, where did the A come from in F=MA? You can not give an answer that doesn't require another object of infinite mass setting it into motion.

F=MA. Once you make M infinite, you need F to be infinite on the other side and all kinds of logical absurdities arise when you start playing with infinities.

In any case, this is wandering a little far afield of the main point, since most of us don't deal with infinite masses every day. But we do deal with apparent paradoxes every day, and recognizing that they are only apparent paradoxes is a useful tool in getting at the truth. If a line of argument requires the conclusion that I am a woman and it also requires the conclusion that I am a man, that is a paradox, and there is a faulty premise in the argument somewhere. Homeopathy is full of apparent paradoxes, which enables us to conclude that it's nonsense without our having to have degrees in medicine or pharmacology.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 06:16 AM

Correct. I call on those who argue that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force to demonstrate the existence of even one object of infinite mass.

Ah well now you are looking for two things that can't exist in the real world. But as I already pointed out you can have both mathmaticaly.

You define force as say F=limx->infinity2x
and mass as m=limx->infinityx

and you get it accelerating at 2

if you make one of them x^2 then that property dominates and it will accelerate at an infinite rate or not accelerate at all.

So mathmaticaly it works.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 06:18 AM

An object does not need to be infinitely massive to be immovable. A black hole the size the entire universe would be less dense than water, IIRC. I can't think of how such an object might be moved.

How do you define the density of a singularity? And as for moving it, all you need is a mass to pull it with gravity. It will not move much unless you have a separate ultra massive black hole but this is all just math anyway so you can easily posit such a thing.

Kerberos

23rd June 2007, 06:19 AM

How about this logical point? An immovable object would have to be at rest (otherwise it's moving) and it would have to have infinite mass. The force attempting to move it would have to be greater than infinite mass to create that infinite-mass-overcoming-force; if there's no mass, there's no force.

So the proposition that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistable force rests on the assumption that there can be two objects of infinite mass. That's a logically absurdity, since if A is of infinite mass, then there cannot exist B, another object, because that would require A's mass to be limited in that there exists something apart from A. It's also logically absurd because the object behind the force would have to be of greater infinite mass than the infinitely massive immovable object.

Actually an immovable force/unstoppable object do not have to have infinite mass (at least not in the sense that it has an infinite gravitional pull, using physical concepts like that about logical constructs is fairly meaningless), nor would you conclusions follow logically even if it did. You're still assuming that conventional physics are correct, which is not valid in a discussion of pure logic.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 06:22 AM

I've said before that for a society to function, someone must be willing and able to do bad things to bad people...so I agree. To a libertarian (which to some extent I guess Rand was), the force seems to only exist to protect property rights and the law.

According to the video, Rand doesn't seem to believe in taxes. Do you know how she intended to fund the military and police without taxes?

Likely unforced donations, the same thing you would depend on if you say needed urgent medical care and could not afford it or food if you could not afford that.

Such a thing could work, but you would need a very unselfish society which her ideas do not seem to encourage. Look at the potlatch as an example of profound giving.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 06:30 AM

How about this logical point? An immovable object would have to be at rest (otherwise it's moving) and it would have to have infinite mass. The force attempting to move it would have to be greater than infinite mass to create that infinite-mass-overcoming-force; if there's no mass, there's no force.

So the proposition that there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force rests on the assumption that there can be two objects of infinite mass. That's a logically absurdity, since if A is of infinite mass, then there cannot exist B, another object, because that would require A's mass to be limited in that there exists something apart from A. It's also logically absurd because the object behind the force would have to be of greater infinite mass than the infinitely massive immovable object.

Wrong. Did you read my post you quoted above, aside from presumably the part quoted? You are making the failure of thinking that there is only one flavor of infinity, this is wrong look into unit area delta functions more, and you will see how a concept of infinity over infinity can be a number or 0 or infinity if you play with the exact nature of infinity.

Or are you claiming that such math is illogical?

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 06:38 AM

The main flaw seems to be you are depending on people to act in a very unselfish manner by donating time or money to help others while recognising that altruistic motivations are not in general a strong motivator.

BPSCG

23rd June 2007, 06:45 AM

Wrong. Did you read my post you quoted above, aside from presumably the part quoted? You are making the failure of thinking that there is only one flavor of infinity, this is wrong look into unit area delta functions more, and you will see how a concept of infinity over infinity can be a number or 0 or infinity if you play with the exact nature of infinity.Well, if you're saying "infinite" can have multiple meanings at the same time depending on what you're trying to prove, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bail out of the argument at that point. Your math is evidently stronger than mine or you simply copied-and-pasted some stuff out of wikipedia... :)(I get lost in the weeds after elementary algebra), so if you think you can prove that infinity divided by infinity can be a number or zero or infinity, I'll take your word for it. But when you do that, I think the discussion becomes meaningless.

In any case, as I said, I don't often deal with the apparent paradox of multiple infinite masses every day, but I do see other apparent paradoxes from time to time, and it's helpful to remember that when I see an apparent paradox, there's a flaw in the argument somewhere.

Cain

23rd June 2007, 07:46 AM

Agreed. But then many philosophies are. None are airtight, if they weren't we wouldn't have competing philosophies. I'll grant you though that Rand's philosophy had a few more holes than many.

A few gaping holes? Why is it that almost the only people who take Rand seriously as a philosopher tend to find her politics and ethics attractive? Why is it that people first exposed to her metaphysics and epistemology do not have a tendency to experience any "aha!" moment.

I'm not at all sure what you mean. Please define scholarship and then explain how hers was terrible. Rand was not rigorous in forming her philosophy. If this is what you mean then your criticism is valid.

How about basing a review of Rawls' _Theory of Justice_, arguably the most important political philosophy in the last 100 years, on a review she read in the NYT? What if I said she had a HABIT of forming opinions on important philosophers based on secondary rather than primary readings. Or a tantrum she threw at John Hospers because he dared to criticize her work in her presence at an academic symposium he set up to promote her work. This is the sort of thing that happens at symposiums and Rand was too weak-minded to handle it. Or how about her lying to followers about the whole Branden affair? Or maybe the fact her philosophy is largely supported by a pop-psychology she essentially made up. Notable claims include the notion that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions," and a woman cannot be president because her proper role is "hero worship."

A lot of this stuff, if I remember correctly, is covered in Jeff Walker's _The Ayn Rand Cult_. If it matters the book received enthusiastic blurbs from Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer.

BPSCG: Earlier I replied to a post where YOU accused ME of misunderstanding Rand, and encouraged me to read _Atlas Shrugged_. I think I convincingly demonstrated otherwise, which must make you feel foolish for plodding through her ridiculous verbiage with nothing to show for it.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 08:12 AM

A few gaping holes? Why is it that almost the only people who take Rand seriously as a philosopher...I'm not sure how seriously I take her as a philosopher. I've said time and again that she was not rigorous in her philosophy.

...tend to find her politics and ethics attractive? Why is it that people first exposed to her metaphysics and epistemology do not have a tendency to experience any "aha!" moment. "aha" what? I found something wrong therefore everything she says is wrong?

How about basing a review of Rawls' _Theory of Justice_, arguably the most important political philosophy in the last 100 years, on a review she read in the NYT? What if I said she had a HABIT of forming opinions on important philosophers based on secondary rather than primary readings. Or a tantrum she threw at John Hospers because he dared to criticize her work in her presence at an academic symposium he set up to promote her work. This is the sort of thing that happens at symposiums and Rand was too weak-minded to handle it. Or how about her lying to followers about the whole Branden affair? Or maybe the fact her philosophy is largely supported by a pop-psychology she essentially made up. Notable claims include the notion that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions," and a woman cannot be president because her proper role is "hero worship." What about it? You honestly think that all other philosophers are without flaw? Much of this BTW is simply ad hominem. In any event, I've conceded that as a philosopher she was not rigorous.

A lot of this stuff, if I remember correctly, is covered in Jeff Walker's _The Ayn Rand Cult_. If it matters the book received enthusiastic blurbs from Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer. Which is precisely why I'm not an objectivist. I agree with Gardner and Shermer. BTW, I feel about Rand pretty much the same as Shermer having read and heard his take on her (http://www.skepticfiles.org/skmag/un-cult.htm).

Cain

23rd June 2007, 08:29 AM

What about it? You honestly think that all other philosophers are without flaw? Much of this BTW is simply ad hominem. In any event, I've conceded that as a philosopher she was not rigorous.

How is "much of this" ad hominem when you asked about her so-called scholarship. Having to deal with this nonsense bothers me. I take the time to support a point of contention and it's stupidly dismissed as ad hominem (Oh, wait, is that ad hominem now). God.

It's so infuriating dealing with people who know nothing and then bearing to hear them cite logical fallacies in latin. On a scale of annoying it ranks above would-be grammar cop who misspells grammar with an 'e' but below Rand fan who doesn't understand Rand (which is in turn, below third-rate magician who thinks he's more clever than he is).

Please return to regularly scheduled discussion: Can God make a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it???

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 08:31 AM

Well, if you're saying "infinite" can have multiple meanings at the same time depending on what you're trying to prove, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bail out of the argument at that point. Your math is evidently stronger than mine

I just took enough 300 level physics classes and the math needed to get into them to understand that when you get results such as this in models you can have multiple results.

(I get lost in the weeds after elementary algebra), so if you think you can prove that infinity divided by infinity can be a number or zero or infinity, I'll take your word for it. But when you do that, I think the discussion becomes meaningless.
I was not the one who started the debate with physics, just seems to be the one following this debate who wanted to clarify that mathematically not all infinities are equal.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 08:38 AM

This reminds me of a story a friend of mine mentioned. It was a mixture of grad students of physics and philosophy. Two of the physics grad students got into a serious argument over a particular point of physics. The philosophy grad students took it to mean that they would likely not be friends anymore as when you get into that kind of argument in philosophy circles you often never speak to each other again.

The point that physics is a science and so at least one of them is provably wrong did not seem to occur to them.

Not sure if it is relevant here but and interesting data point to consider

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 08:40 AM

How is "much of this" ad hominem when you asked about her so-called scholarship. Having to deal with this nonsense bothers me. I take the time to support a point of contention and it's stupidly dismissed as ad hominem (Oh, wait, is that ad hominem now). God. That is actually a fair cop. I appologize.

It's so infuriating dealing with people who know nothing and then bearing to hear them cite logical fallacies in latin. On a scale of annoying it ranks above would-be grammar cop who misspells grammar with an 'e' but below Rand fan who doesn't understand Rand (which is in turn, below third-rate magician who thinks he's more clever than he is).
:) Likely true. Good for you.

Cain

23rd June 2007, 08:54 AM

That is actually a fair cop. I appologize.

:) Likely true. Good for you.

I hate it even more when get all agreeable and reasonable. You did this in another thread awhile ago and it bothered me. Argh.

EGarrett

23rd June 2007, 09:57 AM

Yes. And in saying so, she's so deeply wrong that she will need several hours of staged decompression before she can get to "right."

As a simple example, is the water in my bathtub "hot"?

The water in my bathtub is hot. If you put your hand in it, you will feel the warmth. You might even scald yourself.

The water in my bathtub is not, however, hot. I'm using it (and an external heater) at the moment to boil lots and lots of eggs and it's nowhere near hot yet.

Yes, that's an argument from ambiguity. But since any proposition is inherently contextually-bound, any proposition -- and any argument -- will inherently be ambiguous. If your scheme of "logic" requires unambiguity in order to work -- or includes it as a premise -- then your scheme of logic is fundamentally broken.

Not by coincidence, Rand's scheme of logic and Rand's philosophy are fundamentally broken.In that particular case, "the water is hot" is not a proposition. The word "hot" doesn't have enough meaning.

EGarrett

23rd June 2007, 09:59 AM

Likely unforced donations, the same thing you would depend on if you say needed urgent medical care and could not afford it or food if you could not afford that.

Such a thing could work, but you would need a very unselfish society which her ideas do not seem to encourage. Look at the potlatch as an example of profound giving.That seems like a major weakness in her philosophy. The military needs a massive amount of money. The police aren't cheap either.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 10:57 AM

That seems like a major weakness in her philosophy. The military needs a massive amount of money. The police aren't cheap either.

Does she ever admit that problem?

ImaginalDisc

23rd June 2007, 12:00 PM

Then what happens when an object with more mass bumps into it?

Any object with more mass couldn't bump into it. It would already be inside it, because the black hole would be the size of the entire universe.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2007, 01:46 PM

Any object with more mass couldn't bump into it. It would already be inside it, because the black hole would be the size of the entire universe.

Error, thought experiment you are not limited by what exists or could exist in the universe. It is a valid question.

mhaze

23rd June 2007, 04:52 PM

A few gaping holes? Why is it that almost the only people who take Rand seriously as a philosopher tend to find her politics and ethics attractive? Why is it that people first exposed to her metaphysics and epistemology do not have a tendency to experience any "aha!" moment.

How about basing a review of Rawls' _Theory of Justice_, arguably the most important political philosophy in the last 100 years, on a review she read in the NYT? What if I said she had a HABIT of forming opinions on important philosophers based on secondary rather than primary readings. Or a tantrum she threw at John Hospers because he dared to criticize her work in her presence at an academic symposium he set up to promote her work. This is the sort of thing that happens at symposiums and Rand was too weak-minded to handle it. Or how about her lying to followers about the whole Branden affair? Or maybe the fact her philosophy is largely supported by a pop-psychology she essentially made up. Notable claims include the notion that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions," and a woman cannot be president because her proper role is "hero worship."

I believe that I have read all of Ayn Rand's works, with the exception of some of the personal letters. The discussion about why a woman could never be president was interesting, I would disagree with it.

However, I do not recall any assertion made by her that that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions,". Can you substantiate that?

Of course, we are here discussing attitudes from the 1960s, a time when homosexuality was a clinical psychiatric diagnosis. No matter. She was certainly radical for her time and quite opposed to many of the contemporary social views of that era.

Can you substantiate that above statement? If so, please provide a reference.

ImaginalDisc

23rd June 2007, 05:14 PM

Error, thought experiment you are not limited by what exists or could exist in the universe. It is a valid question.

If the singularity occupies the entire universe what could possibly bump into it?

mhaze

23rd June 2007, 05:15 PM

I believe that I have read all of Ayn Rand's works, with the exception of some of the personal letters. The discussion about why a woman could never be president was interesting, I would disagree with it.

However, I do not recall any assertion made by her that that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions,". Can you substantiate that?

Of course, we are here discussing attitudes from the 1960s, a time when homosexuality was a clinical psychiatric diagnosis. No matter. She was certainly radical for her time and quite opposed to many of the contemporary social views of that era.

Can you substantiate that above statement? If so, please provide a reference.

Never mind! A quick google leads me to Wikipedia and I quote below. You will note the differences explicitly stated between her political views and her personal views. Bold is mine. It would appear that contrary to your assertions, she was a supporter of individual rights, and unlike most others of her era - extended that to include homosexuals.

Moral views

In 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971), Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays which directly attacked the feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist) and sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. She called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She also addressed homosexuality directly, writing that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." ("The Age of Envy")
In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_University%2C_Boston), Rand explained her stance in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18) In 1971, Rand repeated this stance, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting." [1] (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.6)

Political views

Despite the vigor and rancor in her moral views about homosexuality, Rand took a much more tolerant view of the legal rights of homosexuals. She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government, but rejected the right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector). The basis of this conclusion was not related to her feelings about homosexuality, but rather a product of her stance on property rights being primary over civil rights. Rand supported the right of an owner of private property to discriminate, even on a basis, such as racism, that she condemned as immoral.

ImaginalDisc

23rd June 2007, 05:18 PM

That seems like a major weakness in her philosophy. The military needs a massive amount of money. The police aren't cheap either.

Well, our military's incredibly huge cost is partly due to having a "defense" policy of being able to "project" forces in foreign theaters without any compromise to national defense.

We like to invade places as a matter of national policy. Most European countries don't set that goal, so they spend less.

mhaze

23rd June 2007, 06:31 PM

The subject of altruism is a difficult one, often misunderstood, but it is none the less an important part of Rand's work. I have taken the liberty to quote below a from "The Virtue of Selfishness", chapter 3: Ethics of Emergencies. It is a sample of perhaps a dozen expositions of the concepts, so it is by no means complete.

A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dan*gerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.

ImaginalDisc

23rd June 2007, 06:56 PM

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

Strawman emphasized.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 07:50 PM

Strawman emphasized.I'm genuinely confused. Why is it a strawman? Wouldn't spending a fortune on a single person be selfish when so many others could be more likely helped?

hgc

23rd June 2007, 10:14 PM

I'm genuinely confused. Why is it a strawman? Wouldn't spending a fortune on a single person be selfish when so many others could be more likely helped?

It's a strawman in this case from being the result of the conflating real life with formalized rules of logic. The practice of altruism won't follow the precise parameters laid out for it in abstract philosophising. So just because the absurd case being presented may not come to pass, it does not invalidate the reality of altruism. Actual observation and analysis of the data is so much more fruitful than philosphy.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 10:49 PM

It's a strawman in this case from being the result of the conflating real life with formalized rules of logic. The practice of altruism won't follow the precise parameters laid out for it in abstract philosophising. So just because the absurd case being presented may not come to pass, it does not invalidate the reality of altruism. Actual observation and analysis of the data is so much more fruitful than philosphy.Thanks.

I find the premise that altruism is somehow outside of the bounds of logic, dubious. Also, I'm not sure that the hypothetical has anything to do with what might or might not come to pass but I can think of many real life examples. The point of the hypothetical, it seems to me, is to show how the concept of altruism is self contradictory and problematic.

Let me give you my own example. How do rich people live extravagant lives while so many suffer? I suppose if they are heartless bastards then it is easy. But what about Barbara Streisand or Rosie O'Donnell? This isn't meant as a sleight against them. It's an honest and sincere question. I take them at their words that they care for the welfare of others. Yet I remember the words of Oscar Shindler, had he sold his watch he could have saved more people. Why don't people who have so much money and care so much about others sacrifice everything beyond their own necessities to save others and reduce suffering in the world? Is it realistic to expect liberals to live on far less and give more? What do liberals value?

If I've missed something then I ask your patience. I'll seriously consider your points.

RandFan

ImaginalDisc

23rd June 2007, 11:09 PM

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 11:29 PM

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be.?

Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved. It's as much as part of being human as having hands and a frontal lobe. Altruism is a natural behavior in which the fitness of the group is increased with some cost to the individual. Most of us are altruistic to at least some degree, doing something for others that costs us something. The reward is a sense of satisfaction. It's a very effective evolutionary trick our genes have played on us, and we, with our fairly advanced minds, have hijacked the vessel of altruism our genes were using and have begun to apply it to people with little to no relation to us. Yeah, that's my understanding. I'm not sure how your opening proposition follows from this. Social anthropologists use logic to study and understand behavior. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. I'm at a loss as to how ethics suddenly is outside of logic. My philosophy teacher never told me that. I never read that from Singer or Kant. On the contrary, ethics appears to be quite suitable to logic and reason. It's not absolute. It's often not empirical but behavior can be observed. Inference can be drawn from those observations. Brains can be scanned.

If I consciously choose to perform an altruistic act of my own will, deriving satisfaction from it, who is Rand to object? My resources are mine to do with as I please. We're strongly inclined, partly for evolutionary reasons, to help our loved ones, our friends, and our communities before we help perfect strangers, but I can neither see anything wrong with that, nor can I see Rand's alleged compulsion in "the ethics of altruism" that appears to require us to apply some sort of Utilitarian rubric to our altruistic actions. With all due respect, I think you clearly miss Rand's point. Of course you are free to do with your resources as you please. Rand is making an argument as to why altruism is problematic regardless of the reasons. Your examples bear this out. Perhaps we might choose one philosophy over another. We are capable of reason and some might argue that we have free will. If this is true then perhaps there is utility in choosing objectivist over altruism. Perhaps altruism is problematic as is demonstrated by the examples.

ImaginalDisc

23rd June 2007, 11:57 PM

?

Yeah, that's my understanding. I'm not sure how your opening proposition follows from this. Social anthropologists use logic to study and understand behavior. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. I'm at a loss as to how ethics suddenly is outside of logic. My philosophy teacher never told me that. I never read that from Singer or Kant. On the contrary, ethics appears to be quite suitable to logic and reason. It's not absolute. It's often not empirical but behavior can be observed. Inference can be drawn from those observations. Brains can be scanned.

I'm not talking about anthropology, sociology, or philosophy. I'm talking about biology. Altruism is a behavior common to all social animals. It's of genetic origin, not philosophical.

With all due respect, I think you clearly miss Rand's point. Of course you are free to do with your resources as you please. Rand is making an argument as to why altruism is problematic regardless of the reasons. Your examples bear this out. Perhaps we might choose one philosophy over another. We are capable of reason and some might argue that we have free will. If this is true then perhaps there is utility in choosing objectivist over altruism. Perhaps altruism is problematic as is demonstrated by the examples.

See above. Altruism isn't a philosophy. It's a behavior of human animals just as much as making hives a behavior of bees. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. It's what we're evolved to do.

RandFan

24th June 2007, 12:43 AM

I'm not talking about anthropology, sociology, or philosophy. I'm talking about biology. Biology is a behavior common to all social animals. It's of genetic origin, not philosophical.

See above. Altruism isn't a philosophy. It's a behavior of human animals just as much as making hives a behavior of bees. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. It's what we're evolved to do. "Genetic not philosophical"? I don't even know what that means. I guess Cambridge had better change their curriculum Behavior and Philosophy (http://www.behavior.org/journals_BP/). Damn, wont they be shocked. Isn't ethics also known as The Philosophy of Behavior (http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Ethics.htm)?

Bees? You think that human behavior is the equivalent of bees? Really? That's all that there is? Social science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences), Social Anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences) all can be replaced with Ethology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology)?

What do you mean "biology is a behavior"?

So, if I understand you correctly, we are slaves to whatever our biology compels us to do? Men are brutes to rape and kill if their biological instincts tell them to?

I'm really at a loss. This last year I have read Dawkin's Selfish Gene, Dennet's Freedom Evolves and Pinker's How The Mind Works (to mention recent works) and not once did I ever get the impression that behavior is entirely impervious to reason. Dennett, BTW, is a philosopher who dabbles in both human behavior and altruism quite a bit. I'm sure he will be quite disappointed to hear that it has all been a waste of his time. That human behavior is as fixed as that of bees.

Here's the real clincher, if it doesn't make sense, why does Dawkins et al spend so much time and effort studying behavior and altruism? Answer that one.

You seriously need to help me out because what you are telling me is counter to everythig that I have ever read on the subject. And I've read a lot.

ImaginalDisc

24th June 2007, 12:57 AM

Here's the real clincher, if it doesn't make sense, why does Dawkins et al spend so much time and effort studying behavior and altruism? Answer that one.

You seriously need to help me out because what you are telling me is counter to everythig that I have ever read on the subject. And I've read a lot.

Because it makes biological sense, not logical sense to rational actors.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/biph/2000/00000015/00000002/00235700

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/evolution-and-a.html

I do find it funny that even though evolutionary biology has long been criticized as an attack on selflessness and morality, it now seems as though it may be the only means of explaining those behaviors.

RandFan

24th June 2007, 01:12 AM

Because it makes biological sense, not logical sense to rational actors. ID, it can only make logical sense. It can't make any other sense. The universe only behaves in a logical sense. Biology and logic are NOT mutually exclusive.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/biph/2000/00000015/00000002/00235700

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/evolution-and-a.html

All perfectly compatible with my views and proof that altruism can be logically studied and understood.

I do find it funny that even though evolutionary biology has long been criticized as an attack on selflessness and morality, it now seems as though it may be the only means of explaining those behaviors. Yes, and our understanding can help us shape and mold those behaviors. Which is why the moral zeitgeist no longer includes slavery and misogyny.

You never answered my questions. Here one or two with some additions.

Can humans overcome their biological behavior?
Why was slavery at one time acceptable but now considered immoral?
Why did humans act in a far more violent and brutish fashion than they do know?
Is there such a thing as a moral zeitgeist?
Isn't possible that we can employ reason and overcome our biological impulses?
Is it possible that you could answer my questions and stop being obtuse?

Schneibster

24th June 2007, 01:21 AM

It has all the marks of what in science would be pseudo-science. If there is such a thing as pseudo-philosophy, this is it.Naaaaiiiled it. :D

Kerberos

24th June 2007, 01:32 AM

I hate it even more when get all agreeable and reasonable. You did this in another thread awhile ago and it bothered me. Argh.

Yes, Radfan is terrible like that. I think we should start a petition to have him banned from the Politics forum.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 05:43 AM

RandFan,

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be. Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved. It's as much as part of being human as having hands and a frontal lobe. Altruism is a natural behavior in which the fitness of the group is increased with some cost to the individual. Most of us are altruistic to at least some degree, doing something for others that costs us something. The reward is a sense of satisfaction. It's a very effective evolutionary trick our genes have played on us, and we, with our fairly advanced minds, have hijacked the vessel of altruism our genes were using and have begun to apply it to people with little to no relation to us.

If I consciously choose to perform an altruistic act of my own will, deriving satisfaction from it, who is Rand to object? My resources are mine to do with as I please. We're strongly inclined, partly for evolutionary reasons, to help our loved ones, our friends, and our communities before we help perfect strangers, but I can neither see anything wrong with that, nor can I see Rand's alleged compulsion in "the ethics of altruism" that appears to require us to apply some sort of Utilitarian rubric to our altruistic actions.

It's a rather flimsy argument to assert that Rand set up a strawman in the hypothetical quote I provided; as I have already noted, there are a dozen others, just in that chapter. I do not think the strawman argument has enough substance for me to go pull a couple more. You see the point she was trying to make, right?

Certainly I understand your comments about social behavior in animals, and this in turn implies that it is possible that we might be in agreement, but misunderstanding each other's use of phrases slightly.

As a means of clarification:

Rand would have been seriously opposed to "required volunteer activities" such as are promulgated both in our elementary and high schools, and in our colleges today. These are a simple example of the "hijacking of altruism" that she discussed.

Note one thing here. There is a difference between altruistic behavior as an individual choice and so called altruism imposed from a top down mode as a societal constraint. Animals do not know about rules imposed on them by the public school system last I heard....

ImaginalDisc

24th June 2007, 09:32 AM

I
Rand would have been seriously opposed to "required volunteer activities" such as are promulgated both in our elementary and high schools, and in our colleges today. These are a simple example of the "hijacking of altruism" that she discussed.

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 10:16 AM

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

Rats.

I was hoping that by illustrating the true depth of Rand's sentiments, that would evoke total horror and create die hard enemies, who quaked at the thought of their precious social altruistic experiments indoctrinating our young being challenged, as opposed to people who had a vague and uncomfortable resistance to her hatred of altruism. And then and only then, could a battle rage between the truly enlightened and the degraded and corrupted cult of secondhanders.

Darn!:cool:

RandFan

24th June 2007, 10:17 AM

It's a behavior of human animals just as much as making hives a behavior of bees. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. It's what we're evolved to do.
Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

My head is reeling, ok let's see what we got.

Altruism is biological.
Like bees making hives it's just what we do.
Altruism doesn't necassarily make sense.
Altruism is based on free choice and can't be something that one can be compulsed to do.I realize that you won't answer my questions but I've got to ask them anyway because your posts raise so many questions.

If altruism is based on free choice then can't we use reason to help us make our choices?

RandFan

24th June 2007, 10:48 AM

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.Oh BTW, through peer pressure and social stigma we can compel people to act in altruistic ways.

We can look at various societies and see that some behave in more altruistic ways than others.

Jainist and Buddhist societies tend to act more altruistically.
In Jainist and Buddhist societies adherence to altruistic goals is paramount.
Muslim societies tend not to act more altruistically.
In Muslim societies adherence to law is paramount (see honor killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing))

mhaze

24th June 2007, 11:40 AM

Oh BTW, through peer pressure and social stigma we can compel people to act in altruistic ways.

We can look at various societies and see that some behave in more altruistic ways than others.

Jainist and Buddhist societies tend to act more altruistically.
In Jainist and Buddhist societies adherence to altruistic goals is paramount.
Muslim societies tend not to act more altruistically.
In Muslim societies adherence to law is paramount (see honor killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing))

But in all fairness, Rand was a unique product of Russia--> America 20th century composite. Thus a individualist and capitalist.

Alternatively we could look at rice cultures, where in old times individual will had to be pretty much stomped out and behavior rigidly controlled - to get the crops produced, everbody had to perform their part, otherwise everybody died. Nile/Egypt, old China, Mayans. Rand would not have fit in those places very well...

RandFan

24th June 2007, 12:05 PM

But in all fairness, Rand was a unique product of Russia--> America 20th century composite. Thus a individualist and capitalist.

Alternatively we could look at rice cultures, where in old times individual will had to be pretty much stomped out and behavior rigidly controlled - to get the crops produced, everbody had to perform their part, otherwise everybody died. Nile/Egypt, old China, Mayans. Rand would not have fit in those places very well...:rolleyes: :eye-poppi :eek:

Holly cow, I'm not on ignore. :D

Yes, I would very much agree with you about Rand being an individualist as a result of her background.

I would also agree that had Rand gone to another country other than the US her life and perhaps even her outlook on life would have been different.

What I'm not sure of is how this applies to my argument that altruism isn't simply a biological behavior that humans have no control over. That we can in fact mold and shape human behavior through reason. That altruism can and does create dilemmas. Should rich liberals live in mansions, fly in jets and stay in the finest hotels? What is the purpose of having so much money while so many people suffer? Social scientists tell us that wealth has a limited ability to inculcate happiness and well being. If this is true then why don't wealthy liberals give more of their money to the poor? Should they? Let's assume that they should, how much of their wealth should they give? Would doing so actually improve society? Is there a logical argument in favor of individuals seeking first to care for themselves and their loved ones?

Further, if we have the free will to be altruistic do we not also have the free will to forgo altruism? If we, through observation and logic find that altruism is not always the best choice, given multiple choices, can we choose an alternate? Can we not devise a philosophy that would give humans the tools that would best help them make decisions about charity, self interest and the balancing of the two?

Are these questions that can even be answered? Does altruism, being a biological behavior, preclude the asking of such questions? At least one inquiring mind would like to know.

Yes, these are pesky questions that no one wants to answer. Sorry folks. It's just my way.

ImaginalDisc

24th June 2007, 12:14 PM

My head is reeling, ok let's see what we got.

Altruism is biological.
Like bees making hives it's just what we do.
Altruism doesn't necassarily make sense.
Altruism is based on free choice and can't be something that one can be compulsed to do.I realize that you won't answer my questions but I've got to ask them anyway because your posts raise so many questions.

If altruism is based on free choice then can't we use reason to help us make our choices?

Sorry, I'm not trying to avoid you're questions, I'm just really not feeling well this weekend. I'll go back and go through your questions on Monday.

RandFan

24th June 2007, 12:21 PM

Sorry, I'm not trying to avoid you're questions, I'm just really not feeling well this weekend. I'll go back and go through your questions on Monday.Thanks, I apologize for being impatient. :)

mhaze

24th June 2007, 01:05 PM

:rolleyes: :eye-poppi :eek:

Holly cow, I'm not on ignore. :D

Yes, I would very much agree with you about Rand being an individualist as a result of her background.

I would also agree that had Rand gone to another country other than the US her life and perhaps even her outlook on life would have been different.

What I'm not sure of is how this applies to my argument that altruism isn't simply a biological behavior that humans have no control over. That we can in fact mold and shape human behavior through reason. That altruism can and does create dilemmas. Should rich liberals live in mansions, fly in jets and stay in the finest hotels? What is the purpose of having so much money while so many people suffer? Social scientists tell us that wealth has a limited ability to inculcate happiness and well being. If this is true then why don't wealthy liberals give more of their money to the poor? Should they? Let's assume that they should, how much of their wealth should they give? Would doing so actually improve society? Is there a logical argument in favor of individuals seeking first to care for themselves and their loved ones?

Further, if we have the free will to be altruistic do we not also have the free will to forgo altruism? If we, through observation and logic find that altruism is not always the best choice, given multiple choices, can we choose an alternate? Can we not devise a philosophy that would give humans the tools that would best help them make decisions about charity, self interest and the balancing of the two?

Are these questions that can even be answered? Does altruism, being a biological behavior, preclude the asking of such questions? At least one inquiring mind would like to know.

Yes, these are pesky questions that no one wants to answer. Sorry folks. It's just my way.

Actually, easy to answer. For various reasons, we've got lots of stuff in the gene pool. You might call it a rich repository of behavioral imperatives.

We've got psychopaths, sociopaths. The makings of eminent politicians right there. Rapists and serial killers. Without which, our literature and movies would be lacking essential plot material. And those inclinations toward altruism, subverted by the previously mentioned categories of humans...

RandFan

24th June 2007, 01:10 PM

Actually, easy to answer. Cool, I look forward to the answers.

For various reasons, we've got lots of stuff in the gene pool. You might call it a rich repository of behavioral imperatives.

We've got psychopaths, sociopaths. The makings of eminent politicians right there. Rapists and serial killers. Without which, our literature and movies would be lacking essential plot material. And those inclinations toward altruism, subverted by the previously mentioned categories of humans...Yes, all very interesting. Now, about those answers...

Cain

24th June 2007, 02:29 PM

Never mind! A quick google leads me to Wikipedia and I quote below. You will note the differences explicitly stated between her political views and her personal views. Bold is mine.

Thank you for highlighting this most arbitrary difference in a desperate effort to put a favorable spin on Rand's odious views.

It would appear that contrary to your assertions, she was a supporter of individual rights...

By all means please substantiate this claim, if you can. I merely noted -- correctly -- that she found homosexuality disgusting, a consequence of "psychological corruptions." I wish I had remembered the line involving false "premises," which is the sort of thing no sane person could ever fabricate. In any case, I discussed her views and habits in the context of her "scholarship."

From _The Virtue of Selfishness_, as quoted by mhaze:
Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him.... In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

As I've said in previous threads on this topic, Rand's confusion/straw man is a basic one. Altruism vs. egoism is not about pursuing the highest values in one's hierarchy of values, but a question involving *what* to value, a point often lost on her followers. Rand is using loaded terms.

---

With regard to the rationality of egoism vs. altruism, it always amuses me why people take the former for granted. I'm guessing most have probably never given it more than five minutes of serious thought. What's so rational about benefiting oneself? Why does it "make sense" in the context of morality and rationality -- not biology -- to perform actions that benefit oneself over others? More often than not, it's completely arbitrary. This is what I find so troubling -- and fascinating -- about so-called "Objectivism" -- the fact that egoism is a subjectivist doctrine. Even more hilarious is how many "Objectivists" will say "Man is an end in himself" -- which is not at all consistent with the spirit of egoism. Many "Objectivists" are surprised to learn that line either originated with, or was popularized by, Kant (and it actually makes sense in the context of his duty ethics). Randroids will demand, in language similar to the demands seen above, that I produce the relevant Kant quotes, which has never been too difficult.

Egoism is a morally arbitrary doctrine. At least with a morality incorporating altruism you have people who strive to assume a rationally neutral point of view.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 02:37 PM

Cool, I look forward to the answers.

Yes, all very interesting. Now, about those answers...

Okay, since you insist.:boxedin:

Rand was very strict in her method. It was the individual, and the society. Very, very rarely did she discuss issues of say - family units. Had she done so, that would have superficially thrown a wrench in the works, but not really. You are close to asking questions about the nature of relationships in a family, proper or improper, and this is a Rand stayed clear of. Rather she looked at the relationship of the individual to the larger culture.

I believe that Rand would have said (and of course paraphrasing never really works) that numerous attitudes and behaviors proper within a family or intimate relationships are improperly and by way of manipulators applied to the society at large, and at that point they contribute to dysfunction, corruption and inefficiency.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 02:47 PM

Thank you for highlighting this most arbitrary difference in a desperate effort to put a favorable spin on Rand's odious views.

By all means please substantiate this claim, if you can. I merely noted -- correctly -- that she found homosexuality disgusting, a consequence of "psychological corruptions." I wish I had remembered the line involving false "premises," which is the sort of thing no sane person could ever fabricate. In any case, I discussed her views and habits in the context of her "scholarship."

Well, I will just repeat the quote again. You want references?

"I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government.

Now you mentioned two or so cases where she was asked about her personal opinions on the subject. In interviews. She answered she didn't like it, etc. My point - substantiated - is that she was an early supporter of gay rights, and very serious about it.

Your point is what, exactly??? That she was not?

Yes or no please.

With regard to the rationality of egoism vs. altruism, it always amuses me why people take the former for granted. I'm guessing most have probably never given it more than five minutes of serious thought. What's so rational about benefiting oneself? Why does it "make sense" in the context of morality and rationality -- not biology -- to perform actions that benefit oneself over others? More often than not, it's completely arbitrary. This is what I find so troubling -- and fascinating -- about so-called "Objectivism" -- the fact that egoism is a subjectivist doctrine. Even more hilarious is how many "Objectivists" will say "Man is an end in himself" -- which is not at all consistent with the spirit of egoism. Many "Objectivists" are surprised to learn that line either originated with, or was popularized by, Kant (and it actually makes sense in the context of his duty ethics). Randroids will demand, in language similar to the demands seen above, that I produce the relevant Kant quotes, which has never been too difficult.

Egoism is a morally arbitrary doctrine. At least with a morality incorporating altruism you have people who strive to assume a rationally neutral point of view.

My apologies, but I have absolutely no clue what you are getting at in these two paragraphs.

RandFan

24th June 2007, 03:02 PM

Okay, since you insist.:boxedin:

Rand was very strict in her method. It was the individual, and the society. Very, very rarely did she discuss issues of say - family units. Had she done so, that would have superficially thrown a wrench in the works, but not really. You are close to asking questions about the nature of relationships in a family, proper or improper, and this is a Rand stayed clear of. Rather she looked at the relationship of the individual to the larger culture.

I believe that Rand would have said (and of course paraphrasing never really works) that numerous attitudes and behaviors proper within a family or intimate relationships are improperly and by way of manipulators applied to the society at large, and at that point they contribute to dysfunction, corruption and inefficiency.Thanks. I really appreciate your response though I confess frustration on my part.

My questions are direct and do not necessarily need to be answered with an eye to Rand or Objectivism. Perhaps we could try this another way, if you wouldn't mind indulging me, let's take this a bit slower. Forget Rand for now. Let's focus only on altruism and the nature of humans.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between impulses that are self interest in nature and benevolent ones?

Now, of course you can argue that benevolent impulses exist because of self-interest but I think you understand my point. Let me however give an example.

I want to buy a new car.
I want to donate to Habitat For Humanity Having been poor and without good housing I believe that it is a very worthy cause.
I can't do both. I barely have enough to buy the new car.
My current car is in good shape and is more than sufficient to meet my needs for at least another year at which time I will have saved up enough money to buy a car.
I really want a new car.Would you agree that there is a conflict here?

Please feel free to offer all of the commentary you want but in the least answer this question. If you don't think you can answer with a yes or no then please explain why.

Cain

24th June 2007, 04:29 PM

Well, I will just repeat the quote again. You want references?

"I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government.

Now you mentioned two or so cases where she was asked about her personal opinions on the subject. In interviews. She answered she didn't like it, etc. My point - substantiated - is that she was an early supporter of gay rights, and very serious about it.

Your point is what, exactly??? That she was not?

Yes or no please.

All this "rights" business is you trying to impose a context on what I was discussing; I never commented on the matter (in that frame) because it was beside the point.

I do marvel at your attempt to soften Rand's bigotry by calling her an early supporter of gay rights. She could hardly be considered progressive when we take into account the fact she was living in New York city, and aware of the libertarian politics which attracted a number of "out" folks (including Roy Childs). I see in the relevant section of the aforementioned _Ayn Rand Cult_, N. Branden would change his seat "if an evidently gay man sat down at the next table." No doubt Branden's political views at the time (prior to being ousted) were consistent with Rand's. Sorry if I'm not too impressed with Rand's view that the government should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It seems unremarkable given her well-known politics.

Here's another anecdote from ARC, p 119:
Once, at a Nureyev ballet, friend Joan Blumenthal whispered that she wished Rudolph would quit telegraphing gay signals to other male dancers because it was detracting from the performance. Rand, shocked at her implication that Nureyev might be gay, cited as contrary evidence the prominent bulge in his leotard."

Also, anyone familiar with Rand should know she did not neatly separate her moral and political views. The politics of the Libertarian Party are more or less consistent with "Objectivism," but orthodox adherents, following their guru, reject the LP on the grounds it lacks a proper moral foundation.

Your point is what, exactly???

My point is that she was a bigot, and attempted to justify her nutty views by appealing to her nutty "psychology." It's perfectly possible for a bigot to "support gay rights," though what that entails today and what it may have meant 35 years ago are rather different. It's also possible to self-identify as an "Objectivist" or a Republican and at the same time be gay.

My apologies, but I have absolutely no clue what you are getting at in these two paragraphs.

Good.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 04:52 PM

All this "rights" business is you trying to impose a context on what I was discussing; I never commented on the matter (in that frame) because it was beside the point.

I do marvel at your attempt to soften Rand's bigotry by calling her an early supporter of gay rights. She could hardly be considered progressive when we take into account the fact she was living in New York city, and aware of the libertarian politics which attracted a number of "out" folks (including Roy Childs). I see in the relevant section of the aforementioned _Ayn Rand Cult_, N. Branden would change his seat "if an evidently gay man sat down at the next table." No doubt Branden's political views at the time (prior to being ousted) were consistent with Rand's. Sorry if I'm not too impressed with Rand's view that the government should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It seems unremarkable given her well-known politics.

Here's another anecdote from ARC, p 119:

Also, anyone familiar with Rand should know she did not neatly separate her moral and political views. The politics of the Libertarian Party are more or less consistent with "Objectivism," but orthodox adherents, following their guru, reject the LP on the grounds it lacks a proper moral foundation.

My point is that she was a bigot, and attempted to justify her nutty views by appealing to her nutty "psychology." It's perfectly possible for a bigot to "support gay rights," though what that entails today and what it may have meant 35 years ago are rather different. It's also possible to self-identify as an "Objectivist" or a Republican and at the same time be gay.

Pardon me, but I think I am beginning to understand your overall point of view. You have repeatedly mentioned "the cult", "objectist", "Adherents" etc, now "brandon", and have a number of anecdotal and incidental events which if I understand correctly - along with the book "Ayn Rand Cult" which I have not read - these together, in your view, substantiate that she was a bigot.

But I have no interest in anecdotal evidence, and no interest whatsoever discussing in the "ayn rand cult", "objectists" in the abstract or general, however the phrases may be used, whatever spin might be put on them.

I'm a stickler for original sources.

BPSCG

24th June 2007, 06:20 PM

Please return to regularly scheduled discussion: Can God make a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it???Ah, an apparent paradox.

Here's the faulty underlying premise: There is a God, at least in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense.

BPSCG

24th June 2007, 06:50 PM

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.Emphasis mine. This is my chief beef with Rand - her belief in free will. I don't believe there actually exists such a creature. Every single action we take from the moment of birth to our last breath, is the compulsion to achieve inner contentment. Whether that means choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla or risking one's life to save another, that action is determined by the need to satisfy one's need for inner contentment. For more on that, read Benedict Spinoza's The Ethics, or, for a more approachable read, Mark Twain's essay, What is Man?

And for a truly fascinating look at Twain and Spinoza's parallel views on free will, examined side by side, with a link to an extract from Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, click here (http://forums.randi.org/364%29%20People%20who%20wouldn%27t%20dream%20of%20 being%20racist%20%28at%20least,%20openly%29%20or%2 0cruel%20to%20handicapped%20people,%20but%20think% 20nothing%20of%20being%20hateful%20to%20overweight %20people,%20even%20to%20their%20face.%20Or%20who% 20think%20weight%20is%20somehow%20a%20moral%20defi ciency.). Twain was born 200 years after Spinoza, and there's no evidence he ever encountered Spinoza's writing, yet their arguments regarding free will are amazingly similar. I'm not sure how much, if any, of Rand's views are invalidated by her belief in free will. The problem with altruism isn't the fact that someone may decide that an act of self-sacrifice will give him the greatest inner contentment (or at least the least inner dissatisfaction), but rather that society attempts to impose a moral obligation on him to make that self-sacrifice. I don't see that the nonexistence of free will changes any of that.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 07:01 PM

Thanks. I really appreciate your response though I confess frustration on my part.

My questions are direct and do not necessarily need to be answered with an eye to Rand or Objectivism.
I want to buy a new car.
I want to donate to Habitat For Humanity Having been poor and without good housing I believe that it is a very worthy cause.
I can't do both. I barely have enough to buy the new car.
My current car is in good shape and is more than sufficient to meet my needs for at least another year at which time I will have saved up enough money to buy a car.
I really want a new car.Would you agree that there is a conflict here?

There is only a conflict between your wanting to donate to HFH vs keeping it; the various issues of how/when to buy a new car still retain the cash in the house. The conflict is because you say you want to donate to HFH. Rand would discuss this but not view it as an issue of primary importance; of primary importance would be say....forcing people to work for HFH as is done in the criminal justice system in America today, enforced altruism or essentially a type of slavery.

One might go into the "Is HFH really a good thing at all, and on what basis" but that is not the point. You have already stated you want to give them money. I can't see any reason to question that. As a more explicit definition here is Rand's take on the 1960 Democratic platform (bold is mine):
America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capital*ism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pur*suit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin. <snipped 2 paragraphs>

The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.
The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national con*science sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which that platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportu*nity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”

A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?

Opinions?

mhaze

24th June 2007, 07:05 PM

Emphasis mine. This is my chief beef with Rand - her belief in free will. I don't believe there actually exists such a creature. Every single action we take from the moment of birth to our last breath, is the compulsion to achieve inner contentment.

Rand said this same thing, you are in agreement with her. I would reference it but just posted a longie and don't want to hog the forum:D

Cain

24th June 2007, 07:14 PM

Pardon me, but I think I am beginning to understand your overall point of view. You have repeatedly mentioned "the cult", "objectist", "Adherents" etc, now "brandon", and have a number of anecdotal and incidental events which if I understand correctly - along with the book "Ayn Rand Cult" which I have not read - these together, in your view, substantiate that she was a bigot.

But I have no interest in anecdotal evidence, and no interest whatsoever discussing in the "ayn rand cult", "objectists" in the abstract or general, however the phrases may be used, whatever spin might be put on them.

I'm a stickler for original sources.

Yes, such a stickler for original sources that earlier you approvingly cite Wikipedia and an Ayn Rand FAQ. Clearly you're not much of a stick*ler for accurate quotat*ions: It's Branden, not Brandon; Objectivist, not objectist.

Walker's bibliography has two sources for J. Blumenthal. One is a personal interview he conducted Oct. 31, 1991, and the other is an interview conducted by Karen Reedstorm for _Full Context_.

Homosexuals need to check their premises.

RandFan

24th June 2007, 07:27 PM

There is only a conflict between your wanting to donate to HFH vs keeping it; the various issues of how/when to buy a new car still retain the cash in the house. The conflict is because you say you want to donate to HFH. No the conflict is because I want to donate to HFH and I want to buy a new car. It's my hypothetical and it was simply to point out that there does exist conflict. The conflict is not between whether or not to keep the cash or give it to HFH. In my hypothetical I really want a new car.

You didn't answer the question.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between impulses that are self interest in nature and benevolent ones?

Sheesh why is this like pulling teeth?

mhaze

24th June 2007, 08:12 PM

No the conflict is because I want to donate to HFH and I want to buy a new car. It's my hypothetical and it was simply to point out that there does exist conflict. The conflict is not between whether or not to keep the cash or give it to HFH. In my hypothetical I really want a new car.

You didn't answer the question.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between impulses that are self interest in nature and benevolent ones?

Sheesh why is this like pulling teeth?
You're being unclear. 1st sentence you want 2 things. 4th sentence you want 1.

mhaze

24th June 2007, 09:20 PM

Yes, such a stickler for original sources that earlier you approvingly cite Wikipedia and an Ayn Rand FAQ. Clearly you're not much of a stick*ler for accurate quotat*ions: It's Branden, not Brandon; Objectivist, not objectist.

Walker's bibliography has two sources for J. Blumenthal. One is a personal interview he conducted Oct. 31, 1991, and the other is an interview conducted by Karen Reedstorm for _Full Context_.

Homosexuals need to check their premises.

Tablet computer translates poorly from scribbling, my bad. Went to Wpedia to find your sources, seemed reasonable.

RandFan

24th June 2007, 10:40 PM

You're being unclear. 1st sentence you want 2 things. 4th sentence you want 1.I'll get back to the hypothetical in a moment. I can see that it is distracting you. For now, let's focus on the question. You know, the one in red. Just the question.

Ok, Let me see if I can't make this even more clear. The following question is what I would like to know. I've colored the text red so it will be easy to identify. It is the only question that I'm interested in at this moment in time. See if you can focus on it and it alone. Empty your mind of the nasty complex hypothetical and just focus on the question. If you should spot in this post any other questions, please ignore them. They are rhetorical in nature only. I only want you to answer the question that is in red text, got it? Red text. The question immediatly follows.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

my god how hard can this really be? Wait, I'm being punked, right?

RandFan

24th June 2007, 11:07 PM

You're being unclear. 1st sentence you want 2 things. 4th sentence you want 1.Ok, now for my hypothetical.

The 1st sentence is the dilemma.
It's a simple dilemma.
It's a dilemma between 2 desires, a desire that serves only me (a selfish desire) and a desire to help others.
The 4th sentence isn't the dilemma.
The 4th sentence doesn't conflict, contradict or add to the dilemma delineated in the 1st sentence.
The purpose of the 4th sentence was to make clear the selfish desire.
Since the thing I want in the 4th sentence is identical to one of the things that I want in the 1st sentence then it should stand to reason that given the fact that I've outlined the dilemma before and I restated the dilemma in the post you question that sentence 4 would not suddenly alter or add to the dilemma.I'm assuming that there will be additional questions about the hypothetical especially in regard to the number of things wanted in the hypothetical (hint 2) so I took the liberty of numbering these premises so we could discuss them ad infinitum. Won't that be fun?

I suppose I deserve this.

mhaze

25th June 2007, 05:38 AM

Ok, now for my hypothetical.
The 1st sentence is the dilemma.
It's a simple dilemma.
It's a dilemma between 2 desires, a desire that serves only me (a selfish desire) and a desire to help others.of numbering these premises so we could discuss them ad infinitum.
Won't that be fun?

I suppose I deserve this.

You are making a simple thing complicated so then it can be discussed ad infinitum ?

ponderingturtle

25th June 2007, 05:57 AM

Beerina

25th June 2007, 07:46 AM

RandFan,

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be. Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved.

Ironically, you just demonstrated why it is logical.

Animals evolving found out that altruistic behaviors are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages.

But, see, this is voluntary behavior, so to speak. And that's what this is all about.

As Ayn Rand said once, "The question is not, 'should I or shouldn't I give a beggar a dime?' The question is, 'Should I or should I not have to buy my freedom, dime by dime?'"

hgc

25th June 2007, 08:07 AM

Ironically, you just demonstrated why it is logical.

Animals evolving found out that altruistic behaviors are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages.

But, see, this is voluntary behavior, so to speak. And that's what this is all about.

As Ayn Rand said once, "The question is not, 'should I or shouldn't I give a beggar a dime?' The question is, 'Should I or should I not have to buy my freedom, dime by dime?'"

Should you have to buy your freedom? Someone's got to pay for it. By that I mean that your freedom has a lot to do with a situation of social stability that allows for the predictable ability to accumulate and maintain property. It's not a matter of "should," and more a matter of "can" and "will" to whatever extent.

RandFan

25th June 2007, 09:49 AM

mhaze,

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

I really do get that you are being a prick BTW.

mhaze

25th June 2007, 04:15 PM

mhaze,

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

I really do get that you are being a prick BTW.

Suit yourself. You've posted a confused question or series of, changed it, changed it again or clarified it, whichever, suggested that it'd be fun to discuss ad infinitum, and now called me a prick.

I don't even agree with the words set up in the construction to illustrate whatever point you may be getting at. Impulses? Conflict? "Benevolent?"

How about something really simple.

You want the ice cream cone.
The baby has the ice cream cone.
No one is looking.
What do you do?

RandFan

25th June 2007, 09:52 PM

Suit yourself. You've posted a confused question or series of, changed it, changed it again or clarified it, whichever, suggested that it'd be fun to discuss ad infinitum, and now called me a prick.

I don't even agree with the words set up in the construction to illustrate whatever point you may be getting at. Impulses? Conflict? "Benevolent?" I apologize for calling you a name. That was inappropriate. I just think what you are doing is not necessary and it certainly isn't funny. So you are yanking my chain by being obtuse. That's fine. There is always ignore.

Beerina

26th June 2007, 08:36 AM

Should you have to buy your freedom? Someone's got to pay for it. By that I mean that your freedom has a lot to do with a situation of social stability that allows for the predictable ability to accumulate and maintain property.

So it's in my interest to give bums dimes so they won't rise up?

Or are you suggesting it's proper for power hungry poiliticians to lead bums on cruscades to take money away to give to said bums?

ImaginalDisc

26th June 2007, 10:34 AM

I'll have to get back to this thread in a few days. This cold's knocking me out and debating philosophy takes way too much brain power.

hgc

26th June 2007, 11:30 AM

So it's in my interest to give bums dimes so they won't rise up?

Yes.

Or are you suggesting it's proper for power hungry poiliticians to lead bums on cruscades to take money away to give to said bums?

Uh, what? A concrete example might be in order here.

mhaze

26th June 2007, 01:46 PM

I apologize for calling you a name. That was inappropriate. I just think what you are doing is not necessary and it certainly isn't funny. So you are yanking my chain by being obtuse. That's fine. There is always ignore.

Hey not a problem. I just mean that if I say I don't get it, well I just don't get it.

The difficulty in my answering your question about your internal conflict re (A) or (B) is that it is up to you, the conflictee, to answer that. If the question was phrased to me as the conflictee then, no there is no conflict. HFH gets no money, and I get the car.

EGarrett

26th June 2007, 10:49 PM

Well, our military's incredibly huge cost is partly due to having a "defense" policy of being able to "project" forces in foreign theaters without any compromise to national defense.

We like to invade places as a matter of national policy. Most European countries don't set that goal, so they spend less.You still have to feed, clothe, house, train, transport, and arm a large number of men. And that's completely ignoring the costs of developing weaponry and new vehicles and technology, and mass-producing said weaponry and new vehicles and technology. Even in relatively peaceful countries...the cost is huge.

How did Ayn address this issue, if I might ask?

EGarrett

26th June 2007, 10:52 PM

Suit yourself. You've posted a confused question or series of, changed it, changed it again or clarified it, whichever, suggested that it'd be fun to discuss ad infinitum, and now called me a prick.

I don't even agree with the words set up in the construction to illustrate whatever point you may be getting at. Impulses? Conflict? "Benevolent?"

How about something really simple.

You want the ice cream cone.
The baby has the ice cream cone.
No one is looking.
What do you do?If you're asking how Rand's philosophy handles this...the ice cream cone is the baby's property. She does not favor theft, and believes that one of the few roles the government should have is enforcing the law.

EGarrett

26th June 2007, 10:59 PM

I'll get back to the hypothetical in a moment. I can see that it is distracting you. For now, let's focus on the question. You know, the one in red. Just the question.

Ok, Let me see if I can't make this even more clear. The following question is what I would like to know. I've colored the text red so it will be easy to identify. It is the only question that I'm interested in at this moment in time. See if you can focus on it and it alone. Empty your mind of the nasty complex hypothetical and just focus on the question. If you should spot in this post any other questions, please ignore them. They are rhetorical in nature only. I only want you to answer the question that is in red text, got it? Red text. The question immediatly follows.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

my god how hard can this really be? Wait, I'm being punked, right?No offense, but if you want to know why you end up in so many flamewars, this is a textbook example. If you want the person to answer only that question...just say "Try it this way" then give ONLY that question. No need for all the condescension and attitude. Really, it adds nothing and drags my thread into the gutter.

Mycroft

27th June 2007, 12:25 AM

Hey not a problem. I just mean that if I say I don't get it, well I just don't get it.

The difficulty in my answering your question about your internal conflict re (A) or (B) is that it is up to you, the conflictee, to answer that. If the question was phrased to me as the conflictee then, no there is no conflict. HFH gets no money, and I get the car.

The question is if you agree that there can be a conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses, not how you personally would resolve the hypothetical conflict used in the example.

Senex

27th June 2007, 02:02 AM

I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I watched the Fountainhead movie. My dog's name is Cooper because I let my dad name him and he named him after his favorite movie actor. Ayn Rand is brilliant, but her writing is stilted.

I watched the Mike Wallace interview that started this thread. I believe Ayn Rand is brilliant but I don't agree with much of what she says. I do believe she would have been the Holy Grail of a naughty woman who needed a spanking. She is exponentially smarter than I am. She would have been indignent while over my knee. Naughty Ayn over my knee. It might have happened

hehehehehehe....

Admiral

27th June 2007, 03:20 AM

You still have to feed, clothe, house, train, transport, and arm a large number of men. And that's completely ignoring the costs of developing weaponry and new vehicles and technology, and mass-producing said weaponry and new vehicles and technology. Even in relatively peaceful countries...the cost is huge.

How did Ayn address this issue, if I might ask?

From a 1964 Playboy interview with Rand:

RAND: In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate.

I have a problem with her answer- part of the reason government lotteries can make money is by making it illegal to hold private lotteries, which Rand certainly wouldn't support. Otherwise, government might as well be imposing a voluntary tax of selling vacuum cleaners- they can't possibly survive against competition if they have the additional cost of running a country.

Still, this is her general point. And like she mentioned, it's the last problem that should be solved.

Admiral

27th June 2007, 03:40 AM

Another quote from that interview worth mentioning:

PLAYBOY: Do you consider wealthy businessmen like the Fords and the Rockefellers immoral because they use their wealth to support charity?

RAND: No. That is their privilege, if they want to. My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Based on this, to answer ponderingturtle:
And volunteer fire and ambulance would be immoral.

No. Her point would be that they're not necessarily more moral than people who serve as firemen for profit, or people who don't serve as firemen at all.

What she considers most dangerous is when someone claims that an incompetent volunteer fireman is better than a competent for-hire one. Atlas Shrugged is filled with characters who fail miserably at their jobs, but nonetheless trumpet the fact that they don't seek to make a profit as if it morally validates them.

hgc

27th June 2007, 05:42 AM

What she considers most dangerous is when someone claims that an incompetent volunteer fireman is better than a competent for-hire one. Atlas Shrugged is filled with characters who fail miserably at their jobs, but nonetheless trumpet the fact that they don't seek to make a profit as if it morally validates them.

Is the real world filled with such characters?

Admiral

27th June 2007, 06:41 AM

I can think of about 535 of them...

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 06:47 AM

Another quote from that interview worth mentioning:

Based on this, to answer ponderingturtle:

No. Her point would be that they're not necessarily more moral than people who serve as firemen for profit, or people who don't serve as firemen at all.

What she considers most dangerous is when someone claims that an incompetent volunteer fireman is better than a competent for-hire one. Atlas Shrugged is filled with characters who fail miserably at their jobs, but nonetheless trumpet the fact that they don't seek to make a profit as if it morally validates them.

But then is there something immoral about depending of a service that you do not support? The best position to be in her society is that of the leach, you do not support the services as it is volentary but you take maximum advantage of them. Screw those dumb enough to pay.

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 06:52 AM

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 07:45 AM

I have a problem with her answer- part of the reason government lotteries can make money is by making it illegal to hold private lotteries, which Rand certainly wouldn't support."Many countries in Europe" have both government and private lotteries, though the latter are generally only allowed for charity and not for for-profit companies.

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 07:56 AM

Animals evolving found out that altruistic behaviors are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages.

But, see, this is voluntary behavior, so to speak. And that's what this is all about.Social animals also evolved behaviours to pressurise others -- who would otherwise not -- to act in altruistic ways that are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages. If you behave altruistically because you want to avoid being beaten up by the silverback, than that is not necessarily voluntary behaviour.

Cain

27th June 2007, 09:23 AM

Social animals also evolved behaviours to pressurise others -- who would otherwise not -- to act in altruistic ways that are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages. If you behave altruistically because you want to avoid being beaten up by the silverback, than that is not necessarily voluntary behaviour.

In a thread on the Infidels board awhile back, I offered the following thought experiment (slightly edited):

Consider the following diabolical example, unfortunately not my own:

Suppose you live in a closed community of sorts, and one of the resident scientists develops an altruism pill. The pill only becomes active under very particular circumstances, and it produces the following behavior: A person will sacrifice her own life in order to save two or more lives. The reason why it's in the self-interest of everyone in the community to take the pill is that it's more likely you will be one of the two (or more) people in danger of losing their life than the sacrificial hero. Make sense?

Now here's the catch: A person who is truly self-interested -- that is, places his own self-advantage above others -- will *pretend* to take his pills, in effect benefiting from the robotic self-sacrifice of others while never putting his own life in danger. This then goes to what someone earlier mentioned about problems of free-ridership; if everyone acts in their self-interest, then nobody will take the pill.

---
As for Rand on emergency situations, consider the fact that some 50,000 people will die today from malnourishment and poverty related diseases. Can we justifiably impose a tax on people in rich countries to stave off death (that is, until those countries get enough laissez-faire capitalism :rolleyes: ). This seems to constitute an emergency.

Admiral

27th June 2007, 09:30 AM

But then is there something immoral about depending of a service that you do not support?

That's EXACTLY her point, actually- that's why she doesn't think that charity is a moral duty. In a society, though, where your need automatically becomes a claim on other people, not only is it considered good to rely on other people, but government will actively insist that those with ability provide services to those with need.

The best position to be in her society is that of the leach, you do not support the services as it is volentary but you take maximum advantage of them. Screw those dumb enough to pay.

Actually, no, that's the best position to be in a socialist society. As long as you claim a great need, you can take all you want from the able in society. Screw those dumb enough to produce- just seize all you can from the producers!

Say, for example, that after many years of difficult research I come across a cure for cancer, free of side effects. I then charge a few thousand dollars for each dose. You would probably claim I was an evil, greedy capitalist, and you want to nationalize the drug, providing it for free for everyone that couldn't afford it.

Here's my question, though. I produced that drug for profit, I put that work into it- what right do you have to seize it? You're effectively saying that all the work and money I had put into it was rightfully yours. Now, in a society that can do this, only the suckers would produce anything. By far, the best thing to be is a leech. Like I said, screw those dumb enough to produce.

Admiral

27th June 2007, 09:38 AM

In a thread on the Infidels board awhile back, I offered the following thought experiment (slightly edited):

Consider the following diabolical example, unfortunately not my own:

Suppose you live in a closed community of sorts, and one of the resident scientists develops an altruism pill. The pill only becomes active under very particular circumstances, and it produces the following behavior: A person will sacrifice her own life in order to save two or more lives. The reason why it's in the self-interest of everyone in the community to take the pill is that it's more likely you will be one of the two (or more) people in danger of losing their life than the sacrificial hero. Make sense?

Now here's the catch: A person who is truly self-interested -- that is, places his own self-advantage above others -- will *pretend* to take his pills, in effect benefiting from the robotic self-sacrifice of others while never putting his own life in danger. This then goes to what someone earlier mentioned about problems of free-ridership; if everyone acts in their self-interest, then nobody will take the pill.

Actually, what you're offering is similar to a complaint Rand mentions in Atlas Shrugged: to paraphrase, that an altruistic society rewards those who disobey it, and punishes those who obey it.

---
As for Rand on emergency situations, consider the fact that some 50,000 people will die today from malnourishment and poverty related diseases. Can we justifiably impose a tax on people in rich countries to stave off death (that is, until those countries get enough laissez-faire capitalism :rolleyes: ). This seems to constitute an emergency.

Rand would say no.

While I'm not adamantly opposed to it, I would be skeptical of such a tax, for a variety of reasons. One is that foreign aid is inevitably seized by corrupt governments (or, for that matter, by corrupt members of our own government- look at where Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 relief money went). Another reason is that governments always like to declare a state of emergency, or (their favorite) a state of war, in order to infringe on people's rights. The War on Terror is one example, but so is the War on Drugs.

In this case, I have a serious question- how long exactly is this emergency supposed to last? Is there an "exit strategy"?

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 09:39 AM

That's EXACTLY her point, actually- that's why she doesn't think that charity is a moral duty. In a society, though, where your need automatically becomes a claim on other people, not only is it considered good to rely on other people, but government will actively insist that those with ability provide services to those with need.

So you get to shaft society and get its benefits? That is the hight of morality. Of course EMS can do wonderful things like force you to sign your house over to them, as they have no requirement to treat you so don't get seriously sick you will lose everything.

Actually, no, that's the best position to be in a socialist society. As long as you claim a great need, you can take all you want from the able in society. Screw those dumb enough to produce- just seize all you can from the producers!

Wrong. You see you do not have to claim it, society has to recognize it. But that is obviously to complex. If people can't support themselves and no one wants to pay for them they deserve to die. That is the philosophy, period.

Life has no value, only property has value and no one can force anyone to do anything preserve someone else's life. So you can not force treatment for people who can not pay, that would be the hight of immorality, much more so than watching someone die when you can treat them. That is not a fundamentally immoral action, by Ayn is it?

Say, for example, that after many years of difficult research I come across a cure for cancer, free of side effects. I then charge a few thousand dollars for each dose. You would probably claim I was an evil, greedy capitalist, and you want to nationalize the drug, providing it for free for everyone that couldn't afford it.

No no no, you have to charge each person everything they have, as you have the cure and they need it. Supply and demand dictates that, you have the only supply and they have all the demand.

Here's my question, though. I produced that drug for profit, I put that work into it- what right do you have to seize it? You're effectively saying that all the work and money I had put into it was rightfully yours. Now, in a society that can do this, only the suckers would produce anything. By far, the best thing to be is a leech. Like I said, screw those dumb enough to produce.

You are so right we need hospitals in this country to wait until they verify the bank accounts of everyone before treatment, then toss the bastards who do not have enough resources to make it sufficiently profitable.

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 09:42 AM

Make sense?No. Does everyone need to take the pill in order for one of them to die and save two others? Or does everyone who takes the pill die and save two others?

Admiral

27th June 2007, 09:54 AM

So you get to shaft society and get its benefits? That is the hight of morality. Of course EMS can do wonderful things like force you to sign your house over to them, as they have no requirement to treat you so don't get seriously sick you will lose everything.

Wrong. You see you do not have to claim it, society has to recognize it. But that is obviously to complex. If people can't support themselves and no one wants to pay for them they deserve to die. That is the philosophy, period.

Life has no value, only property has value and no one can force anyone to do anything preserve someone else's life. So you can not force treatment for people who can not pay, that would be the hight of immorality, much more so than watching someone die when you can treat them. That is not a fundamentally immoral action, by Ayn is it?

No no no, you have to charge each person everything they have, as you have the cure and they need it. Supply and demand dictates that, you have the only supply and they have all the demand.

How'd I get the supply, ponderingturtle? You seem to believe it appeared from some miracle.

You are so right we need hospitals in this country to wait until they verify the bank accounts of everyone before treatment, then toss the bastards who do not have enough resources to make it sufficiently profitable.

Here's a question- which system would you prefer, one in which everyone was guaranteed health care, or one in which only people who could afford health care got it?

You'd answer, in a heartbeat, "one in which everyone was guaranteed health care." It seems like the obvious choice.

But what does that actually mean, everyone's guaranteed health care regardless of their ability to pay? From the doctor's perspective, it means that whatever he charges, he'll get the same number of patients.

Imagine you ran a steakhouse. Like steakhouses today, you provide steak for people that can afford it, and don't to people that can't afford it. However, imagine there were a government program that stated that if someone couldn't afford steak, the government would pay for whatever the price of the steak was. What would you do?

Obviously, you'd set the price of the steak as high as you wanted- say $10,000. After all, you were keeping the price low so that people would come to the restaurant, but the government has the mantra that "Regardless of cost, everyone deserves a steak." Everyone could still afford steak, since the government was picking up the tab, but you've just taken millions from taxpayers. Plans to provide something universally cause prices to rise.

There are other variations of plans, and each backfires in its own special way. Maybe you force doctors to keep their prices low (and therefore discourage doctors from entering the business, causing a shortage). Maybe you force hospitals to take people regardless of their ability to pay (meaning no one would want to build a hospital in a poor neighborhood- you're hurting the people you wanted to help). What exactly is your plan?

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 09:54 AM

As long as you claim a great need, you can take all you want from the able in society.More like: as long as you can convince others that you have a great need. It is not enough to just claim it; if no one believes you, you would get nothing.

Say, for example, that after many years of difficult research I come across a cure for cancer, free of side effects. I then charge a few thousand dollars for each dose. You would probably claim I was an evil, greedy capitalist, and you want to nationalize the drug, providing it for free for everyone that couldn't afford it.Far more likely (as that's the kind of thing that actually happens) is that governments all over the world will fall over themselves trying to buy it from you for a few thousand dollars for each dose, to provide it for free to their populations, and you would be more than happy to sell it to those governments as you know that if you need to sell it directly to patients who can afford it, you'll sell a whole heck of a lot less.

Admiral

27th June 2007, 10:01 AM

More like: as long as you can convince others that you have a great need. It is not enough to just claim it; if no one believes you, you would get nothing.

That's still a serious problem. Socialists reward people for how good a liar they are, and (most importantly) how much "pull" you have in the government.

Look at Robert Byrd, the "King of Pork" senator from West Virginia. He's very good at what he does, which is steer federal money towards his state by whatever means he can. Is this the great hero of leftism, men who can seize money in backroom deals and graft?

Far more likely (as that's the kind of thing that actually happens) is that governments all over the world will fall over themselves trying to buy it from you for a few thousand dollars for each dose, to provide it for free to their populations, and you would be more than happy to sell it to those governments as you know that if you need to sell it directly to patients who can afford it, you'll sell a whole heck of a lot less.

Actually, that's true. Where'd that money come from?

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 10:20 AM

Obviously, you'd set the price of the steak as high as you wanted- say $10,000.That of course assumes that the government will continue to cover the costs for your steaks no matter how high the price, but that is of course silly. One would expect that there will be more than enough other steakhouses that demand less money from the government.

Plans to provide something universally cause prices to rise.If that was true, then it is a mystery why countries with universal healthcare consistently provide cheaper healthcare at similar or better quality.

Maybe you force doctors to keep their prices low (and therefore discourage doctors from entering the business, causing a shortage).Maybe they are 'forced' to keep their prices low (actually, "their unions negotiate lower prices with the health insurance system" would be a better description) but they would also have more patients.

Maybe you force hospitals to take people regardless of their ability to pay (meaning no one would want to build a hospital in a poor neighborhood- you're hurting the people you wanted to help).So according to you poor neighbourhoods have lots of hospitals that no one in those neighbourhoods can afford to go to, and those hospitals will close when everyone in those neighbourhoods is insured and the hospitals guaranteed their pay? :boggled:

Admiral

27th June 2007, 10:41 AM

That of course assumes that the government will continue to cover the costs for your steaks no matter how high the price, but that is of course silly. One would expect that there will be more than enough other steakhouses that demand less money from the government.

So you're agreeing that competition is good for the health care industry. That's true.

If that was true, then it is a mystery why countries with universal healthcare consistently provide cheaper healthcare at similar or better quality.

I guess you're ignoring the long waitlists for doctors in Canada. Or the ridiculously high tax rates that support European health care.

Maybe they are 'forced' to keep their prices low (actually, "their unions negotiate lower prices with the health insurance system" would be a better description) but they would also have more patients.

I don't exactly understand. If keeping prices low gets companies more profits, they're going to do it anyway and government is irrelevant. (One thing we don't disagree on is that these hospitals really want to make money). If you're holding the price lower than the hospital would set it, you're lowering the profit they're making. (To claim otherwise is to claim that the hospitals aren't interested in making money, and that government has to force them to. I don't think you're making that claim).

So according to you poor neighbourhoods have lots of hospitals that no one in those neighbourhoods can afford to go to, and those hospitals will close when everyone in those neighbourhoods is insured and the hospitals guaranteed their pay? :boggled:

You're mixing up the plans I was talking about. I was referring to any sort of system that mandates hospitals provide free health care to people that can't afford it, NOT systems that insure them. (Those have different problems).

For example, laws requiring hospitals to provide free clinics sound great, but they do discourage building hospitals in areas where people would use these free clinics.

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 10:50 AM

Socialists reward people for how good a liar they are,After all, if someone claims to be in great need, no one in the government ever checks whether that is true... :oldroll:

and (most importantly) how much "pull" you have in the government.Now you are talking about another group of people entirely. And this is hardly unique of "Socialism" or whatever Libertarians like to claim is socialism. It is an integral part of every political system. Can you envision a system where a one's influence in the government is unrelated to a one's influence in the government? I can't.

Look at Robert Byrd, the "King of Pork" senator from West Virginia. He's very good at what he does, which is steer federal money towards his state by whatever means he can. Is this the great hero of leftism, men who can seize money in backroom deals and graft?If you what you say is true, then no. "Leftists" generally hate that sort of thing. Of course it seems to me that he manage to steer federal money towards his state for public works, and "leftists" certainly love public works. Everybody loves public works.

Actually, that's true. Where'd that money come from?From taxes or from mandatory insurance premiums.

mumblethrax

27th June 2007, 11:16 AM

No. Does everyone need to take the pill in order for one of them to die and save two others? Or does everyone who takes the pill die and save two others?
The latter, provided that such a situation arises.

Earthborn

27th June 2007, 11:25 AM

Or the ridiculously high tax rates that support European health care.Of course those European countries spend less tax money on healthcare than the United States does.

I don't exactly understand. If keeping prices low gets companies more profits, they're going to do it anyway and government is irrelevant.But they may not be able to keep the prices low enough that everyone can afford it.

If you're holding the price lower than the hospital would set it, you're lowering the profit they're making.Only if the number of patients remains the same, but that is not the case. If more patients can afford to be treated by the hospital because they are covered by the healthsystem, the hospital will get more patients and the hospital may make more 'profit' than if it had to sell its services at the higher price to fewer patients.

You're mixing up the plans I was talking about. I was referring to any sort of system that mandates hospitals provide free health care to people that can't afford it, NOT systems that insure them.Universal healthcare is the system that insures them. Nobody in their right mind would mandate hospitals to provide free healthcare to people who can't afford it and not pay those hospitals for the healthcare provided.

Admiral

27th June 2007, 11:37 AM

After all, if someone claims to be in great need, no one in the government ever checks whether that is true... :oldroll:

You've never heard of welfare fraud?

How much money you get depends on how good you are at faking your need by whatever standard the government demands. Or, better yet, actually BE in need. That's what we should encourage in society.

I'm not one of those jerks who complains about how lucky people on welfare are, or makes generalizations about poor people being lazy. I do know, on the other hand, that if you provide incentives, people tend to respond to them.

Now you are talking about another group of people entirely. And this is hardly unique of "Socialism" or whatever Libertarians like to claim is socialism. It is an integral part of every political system. Can you envision a system where a one's influence in the government is unrelated to a one's influence in the government? I can't.

That's an interesting attitude. "Corruption is an integral part of any government." I wholeheartedly agree.

That's why I'm pushing towards a system where government has LESS power! The best way to make influence in government irrelevant is to make government (nearly) irrelevant! As soon as you say that government should be able to subsidize private companies, you create whole lobbying industries that efficiently suck money into their special interests.

The more focused the government's roles (in my view, on justice and national defense alone), the less ability people have to abuse it.

If you what you say is true, then no. "Leftists" generally hate that sort of thing. Of course it seems to me that he manage to steer federal money towards his state for public works, and "leftists" certainly love public works. Everybody loves public works.

My apologies for the term "leftist," if you're offended by it. I simply don't like using the word "liberal," since liberal used to mean what libertarianism does today (see the term "classical liberal"). It referred to people that were opposed to the growth of government.

I also don't like the term "statist" which is popular among libertarians. Since I don't like imposing labels on people I'm arguing against. It's like when creationists call evolution believers "Darwinists," as if making it sound like a religion made it a religion.

Anyway, from here on out I'll just say "liberal," if that's what you'd prefer. (Of course, this sometimes leads to the accusation that I'm turning "liberal" into a dirty word or somesuch, which is not my intention).

Back to the topic. "Everybody loves public works?" I certainly don't. You can try to paint me as "being against parks" or somesuch, but that's beside the point. Here's one of my main problems with public works:

Imagine a restaurant (yes, I have a whole slew of "imagine a restaurant" analogies) where each night, the bill is totaled up and divided among everyone.

Now, if I were paying for my own food, I'd probably just have a sandwich and water. That costs me $10. I could have more expensive stuff, but I want to save my money.

However, in this restaurant where the bill is shared, you get rewarded for gluttony. If there are 100 diners, then for each additional dollar you spend, you only lose one cent. Maybe you order the steak. Maybe you order an appetizer. Maybe you get the most expensive champagne on the menu, and maybe it all adds up to $100. Hey, I'm not paying for it!

Now, imagine you're across the restaurant. You're an honest and unselfish person, and it's not as though you need more than your $10 meal... but still, I'm over across the room with the rest of the gluttons, eating huge meals at your expense. You'd be a sucker NOT to get a $100 meal.

So, since everyone in this restaurant is punished if they're frugal, and since getting loads of expensive food is almost costless to them, everyone ends up with a $100 meal, and everyone pays $100. That's fair, right? Except... hold on, all I wanted was a sandwich!

When you have a situation like Congress, where the government freely reallocates money from state to state, you end up with the opposite of the free rider paradox, which is the sucker paradox. Atlanta might not want or need a subway system, but hey, they paid for subway systems in Cleveland, and Houston, and Seattle- they're entitled to their own! Does San Francisco need $200 million to build a new park? Well, Boston, Baltimore, and Miami all got parks, so San Francisco should get its turn at the trough!

What gets forgotten in this process is where all that wealth came from. It came from taxes that prevented people from opening new businesses, and taxes that discouraged people from working for difficult promotions. Liberals don't like to think about where taxes came from- but that's the fallacy of looking at the immediately obvious (we built this public works project) and ignoring the unseen (taxes discouraged growth and development).

Like Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction by which everybody attempts to live at the expense of everyone else."

From taxes or from mandatory insurance premiums.

Exactly. So you're saying, "It's not that government would seize what you produce, necessarily... they'd just seize what OTHER people produce and pay you with that!"

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 11:38 AM

How'd I get the supply, ponderingturtle? You seem to believe it appeared from some miracle.

Forethought. You see your ability to shop around in a medical emergency is very limited. So if the you have the only supply that the sick person has any access to.

You can not shop around in an emergency. So it restricts the available supply, while increasing the demand. So any drug should cost a massive amount more in an emergency life saving basis than it would in a more long term basis.

Here's a question- which system would you prefer, one in which everyone was guaranteed health care, or one in which only people who could afford health care got it?

You'd answer, in a heartbeat, "one in which everyone was guaranteed health care." It seems like the obvious choice.

But what does that actually mean, everyone's guaranteed health care regardless of their ability to pay? From the doctor's perspective, it means that whatever he charges, he'll get the same number of patients.

Wrong. No system of universal health care works like that. You are making so many assumptions beyond what is needed here that you don't have an idea what you are even doing.

Imagine you ran a steakhouse. Like steakhouses today, you provide steak for people that can afford it, and don't to people that can't afford it. However, imagine there were a government program that stated that if someone couldn't afford steak, the government would pay for whatever the price of the steak was. What would you do?

Wow what a straw man. The system would be more like the government says you must provide steak to everyone at a set rate of reimbursement. You no longer have the ability to set your own prices. Now how many people come to you will depend on other things than money, and that will effect what money you make.

This largely what private insurance does anyway in this country, it is just that instead of the say $800 payment that the insurance companies make if you have no insurance you get to make the $3000 payment. Capitalism at work there.

Obviously, you'd set the price of the steak as high as you wanted- say $10,000. After all, you were keeping the price low so that people would come to the restaurant, but the government has the mantra that "Regardless of cost, everyone deserves a steak." Everyone could still afford steak, since the government was picking up the tab, but you've just taken millions from taxpayers. Plans to provide something universally cause prices to rise.

Ah so this is once again the fact that universal coverage must cost more, even if it does not in the real world. Damn you reality for getting your facts wrong.

There are other variations of plans, and each backfires in its own special way. Maybe you force doctors to keep their prices low (and therefore discourage doctors from entering the business, causing a shortage). Maybe you force hospitals to take people regardless of their ability to pay (meaning no one would want to build a hospital in a poor neighborhood- you're hurting the people you wanted to help). What exactly is your plan?

I see that you live in libertopia and have no connection to the real world other than in internet connection.

Cain

27th June 2007, 11:38 AM

Actually, what you're offering is similar to a complaint Rand mentions in Atlas Shrugged: to paraphrase, that an altruistic society rewards those who disobey it, and punishes those who obey it.

Which strikes me as empty rhetoric. If an altruistic society rewards those who disobey it, then it seems like an environment hospitable to the selfish as it ripe for exploitation.

In the earlier Infidels post, and I've touched upon it here, I made the further distinction between universal ethical egoism and individual ethical egoism. The universal ethical egoist says everyone should be act in his or her own self-interests, and then this will be to the benefit of everyone (basic Adam Smith). This does not apply in the above thought experiment, which is basically the prisoner's dilemma. The optimal strategy for the group would be for everyone to take the pill. The optimal strategy for the individual would be for everyone else to take the pill. The worst possible outcome for the group is that nobody takes the pill. So there's an inconsistency here where it's in one's narrow self-interests to act against enlightened self-interest.

An individual egoist sheds the veneer of egalitarianism and contends her own self-interests matter more than others. This character makes moral arguments for free-riding, unless free-riding does not personally benefit her. In other words, this person thinks she ought to be the one not to take the pill, as this is the most optimal strategy available to her. This highlights what's philosophically wrong with egoism in general: what makes YOU so special? What kind of neutral, rational disinterested argument can you make to show your interests matter more?

The individual egoist is also spared of adopting Rand's rather nutty view that "rational self-interests" are never in conflict. I think in _VoS_ she gives the example of two men pursuing the same job, and then provides some rationalization for why it's not against the interests of one to be rejected.

Rand would say no.

While I'm not adamantly opposed to it, I would be skeptical of such a tax, for a variety of reasons. One is that foreign aid is inevitably seized by corrupt governments (or, for that matter, by corrupt members of our own government- look at where Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 relief money went). Another reason is that governments always like to declare a state of emergency, or (their favorite) a state of war, in order to infringe on people's rights. The War on Terror is one example, but so is the War on Drugs.

In this case, I have a serious question- how long exactly is this emergency supposed to last? Is there an "exit strategy"?

Those are reasonable concerns, but I think it highlights the difference in moral premises. Of course everyone would be opposed to foreign aid if they believed it did more harm than good. What people often leave out is that your empirical view is crucially influenced by your moral point of view. If you think it's illegitimate for governments to tax or regulate emissions, then you're going to be less likely to believe in global warming. If you're opposed to taxes in general on moral grounds, then you're going to be more likely to think the government spending is wasteful.

In the moral sphere the more interesting arguments assume otherwise in order to thunder a principle of morality. In the above quote I cited against BPSCG, Rand essentially said let's assume other systems are more efficient. It doesn't matter because they're still unjust. So in the case of foreign aid, can we consider transfers illegitimate? I agree Rand would probably say that they are but it's difficult to think of a more pressing humanitarian concern.

The philosopher Peter Unger has some famously provocative examples indicating our morality says we should contribute to famine relief even though we do not. We're essentially tribal, glorified apes, and so our brains are not trained to respond to things happening far, far away.

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 11:43 AM

I guess you're ignoring the long waitlists for doctors in Canada. Or the ridiculously high tax rates that support European health care.

But Americans pay more on a per capita basis for health care. That is a simple fact. So why is it that these systems that must be more expensive are not in the real world? Where is the savings our capitalistic system gives us?

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 11:46 AM

Universal healthcare is the system that insures them. Nobody in their right mind would mandate hospitals to provide free healthcare to people who can't afford it and not pay those hospitals for the healthcare provided.

Well no one ever claimed that the US government was in its right mind. And you have the funny bankrupsies because people can not afford their health care bills, those are always good for a laugh.

mhaze

27th June 2007, 06:22 PM

mhaze

27th June 2007, 06:33 PM

I
---
As for Rand on emergency situations, consider the fact that some 50,000 people will die today from malnourishment and poverty related diseases. Can we justifiably impose a tax on people in rich countries to stave off death (that is, until those countries get enough laissez-faire capitalism :rolleyes: ). This seems to constitute an emergency.

No, Rand would argue the corruption and imprecision from the tax would be far worse than the deaths. She would probably have gone further and argued that if you go down that road, the 50k goes up, not down. (More typos from tablet pc!)

ponderingturtle

29th June 2007, 09:32 AM

Anyone have an idea about what she would actualy have thought about using emergencies to extort people?

hgc

29th June 2007, 11:02 AM

That's still a serious problem. Socialists reward people for how good a liar they are, and (most importantly) how much "pull" you have in the government.

Look at Robert Byrd, the "King of Pork" senator from West Virginia. He's very good at what he does, which is steer federal money towards his state by whatever means he can. Is this the great hero of leftism, men who can seize money in backroom deals and graft?

Government collects money and re-distributes it through spending. In the US, all domestic spending lands in one of 50 states (+ some other territories). Byrd is good at getting some decent portion of that into West Virginia. That's what all 535 of them are supposed to do. That's what their constituents elect them for. Is Byrd corrupt? Perhaps, and if so, he should be hectored for that specifically (with evidence).

But what you really don't like is the role of government, period. That goes for all the Randians, libertarians and other flavors of right-wing anarchism. You just label it "Socialist" or "leftist" because that must get the blood flowing, or something. Does Socialism reward liars any more than any other socio-political ideology? Do leftists like to get their hands on government spending any more than rightists do? Poppycock!

mhaze

29th June 2007, 02:35 PM

Anyone have an idea about what she would actualy have thought about using emergencies to extort people?

The question seems unclear. Is the issue of an ambulance driver-capitalist who would charge ripoff sums to take a person to the hospital, or of a society that would extort taxes on the basis of some emergency the solution of which was alleged to be for the common good (eg., say global warming)?

Senex

29th June 2007, 04:31 PM

the Holy Grail of a naughty woman who needed a spanking.

that should be investigated by skeptics.

Ayn always had a superior male as the protagonist of all her stories. As smart as she was she always thought the hero was smarter than the heroine. Ayn thought the alpha male was in charge and could give arbitrary discipline.

Read her books thoughtfully. Ayn was looking for that male her entire life. I wasn't that guy but I might have fooled her for an afternoon :D

mhaze

29th June 2007, 04:44 PM

Ayn always had a superior male as the protagonist of all her stories. As smart as she was she always thought the hero was smarter than the heroine. Ayn thought the alpha male was in charge and could give arbitrary discipline.

Read her books thoughtfully. Ayn was looking for that male her entire life. I wasn't that guy but I might have fooled her for an afternoon :D

I was told that Dagney was the villian of AS.
Rationale: She was the last to abandon the corrupt society.

Arguably, then, you have a point, the smart males had already all left. But I have some difficulty thinking of sex roles between times this far apart; as another example of this try to read Joseph Conrad and consider them. Briefly for Conrad: woman (always weak) is fooled by evil man, good guy struggles and finally beats up (phsyically) bad guy, weak woman falls for good guy as a result of show of strength. Hard to buy the sub plot today.

Don't we have a similar problem reading AR? Nonetheless and without trying to over analyse the literature (never could stand english profs that did that!) both AS and Fount have strong sex-role sub plots.

Mycroft

29th June 2007, 04:54 PM

I must say that in Ayn Rands mind the best position to be in must be emergency medicine. Just think how much you can force people to pay you to keep them alive. And such extortion would seem to be moral.

"Hey do you want to keep breathing? $50,000 for the epipen that will permit that" It is just supply and demand at work, your demand for the epipen is high and I have the only available supply. Capitalism at work pure and simple.

That seems to be what people always project on to Ayn Rand, but I don't see any evidence from Rands writings that she would actually support this.

Understanding Rand, or any philosopher, doesn't mean you have to agree with her. One can certainly disagree with specific aspects of her beliefs while still acknowledging that she makes many valid points that are worth considering.

Senex

29th June 2007, 05:06 PM

Don't we have a similar problem reading AR? Nonetheless and without trying to over analyse the literature (never could stand english profs that did that!) both AS and Fount have strong sex-role sub plots.

Thay certainly do. In AS and Fount the female protagonist was both brilliant and submissive to the male protagonist. I have no interest in either story but I suspect Ayn Rand needed discipline from a fellow not as smart as she was. I could have been the one. I'm not as smart as she was but I could be a protagonist. If someone just asked.

Always in the wrong place -- the story of my life.

Admiral

29th June 2007, 10:21 PM

Government collects money and re-distributes it through spending. In the US, all domestic spending lands in one of 50 states (+ some other territories). Byrd is good at getting some decent portion of that into West Virginia. That's what all 535 of them are supposed to do. That's what their constituents elect them for.

And THAT'S MY PROBLEM. See what I wrote above about the restaurant where all 100 diners shared the check!

And like you said, their constituents are big fans of people that can get money from other states into theirs. In other words, the system rewards people that can steal money from other states.

What exactly did you mean by "some decent portion"? If it's a portion larger than the amount WV put in (which it is), then by what standard is it decent? It's money that came from other states.

So, yes, he's good at his job- which is stealing from people that aren't as good at demonstrating their "need."

Is Byrd corrupt? Perhaps, and if so, he should be hectored for that specifically (with evidence).

While I wouldn't rule it out, I'm certainly not accusing him of being corrupt. I'm accusing him of taking money from other states to pay for projects in his own (which he's proud of doing). I don't think he's doing it for graft, I think he's doing it to get votes- but he's still wasting other states' money!

But what you really don't like is the role of government, period.

That's true. I wouldn't deny it.

That goes for all the Randians, libertarians and other flavors of right-wing anarchism. You just label it "Socialist" or "leftist" because that must get the blood flowing, or something.

About the labels- I explained that above:

My apologies for the term "leftist," if you're offended by it. I simply don't like using the word "liberal," since liberal used to mean what libertarianism does today (see the term "classical liberal"). It referred to people that were opposed to the growth of government.

I also don't like the term "statist" which is popular among libertarians. Since I don't like imposing labels on people I'm arguing against. It's like when creationists call evolution believers "Darwinists," as if making it sound like a religion made it a religion.

Anyway, from here on out I'll just say "liberal," if that's what you'd prefer. (Of course, this sometimes leads to the accusation that I'm turning "liberal" into a dirty word or somesuch, which is not my intention).

The trouble is, I'm used to saying leftist simply because when I'm discussing politics with libertarian friends, the word "liberal" can lead to some confusion, since, like I said above, the term "liberal" used to mean what libertarian does today. Some libertarians prefer to call themselves "classical liberals." Anyway, that's why I often use the term "leftist"- and like I said, I apologize for appearing to use it as a rhetorical tool.

As for calling it "socialist"- Most liberals are fine with the term
"socialized" to refer to government controlled. As a quick example, from a very positive review of Michael Moore's Sicko:

http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/story/168807.html
Michael Moore traveled to France, Canada and England to show the wonders of socialized medicine.

Would you not use the term "socialized health care" to describe government health care? I'll stop saying it in this case, since you're right and it could be considered inflammatory. But I do usually refer to systems involving these principles, (to each according to his need, etc) as being socialized.

On the other hand, you do use the term "Randian," rather than Objectivist, and you refer to "right-wing anarchism." So who's trying to get the blood rushing with unfair terms?

Back to the topic.

Does Socialism reward liars any more than any other socio-political ideology? Do leftists like to get their hands on government spending any more than rightists do? Poppycock!

I'm CERTAINLY not a rightist, and don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm arguing for Republicans. Republicans are at least as bad about public spending- the differences are only subtle differences in what they want to spend the money on (to broadly generalize, schools, welfare, pork versus national defense, agricultural subsidies, pork).

I want to decrease public spending in nearly every issue.

EGarrett

29th June 2007, 11:47 PM

Say, for example, that after many years of difficult research I come across a cure for cancer, free of side effects. I then charge a few thousand dollars for each dose. You would probably claim I was an evil, greedy capitalist, and you want to nationalize the drug, providing it for free for everyone that couldn't afford it.

Here's my question, though. I produced that drug for profit, I put that work into it- what right do you have to seize it? You're effectively saying that all the work and money I had put into it was rightfully yours. Now, in a society that can do this, only the suckers would produce anything. By far, the best thing to be is a leech. Like I said, screw those dumb enough to produce.If you produced that drug for profit...in a free economy...you'd be much better off charging way less for it. Ideally, you'd charge the exact amount so that there are no doses left over, and no one needing a dose left over. If you want to maximize your profits in a free market...you don't really get to choose how much you charge.

EGarrett

29th June 2007, 11:52 PM

Well, our military's incredibly huge cost is partly due to having a "defense" policy of being able to "project" forces in foreign theaters without any compromise to national defense.

We like to invade places as a matter of national policy. Most European countries don't set that goal, so they spend less.Let me say also that one of the major reasons these countries don't spend that much on the military is because they can rely on other countries to defend them when some dictator goes nuts. See: The United States and Britain saving France's ass in WWII. Ayn Rand might point out that that is socialist leeching in action also.

EGarrett

29th June 2007, 11:55 PM

From a 1964 Playboy interview with Rand:

I have a problem with her answer- part of the reason government lotteries can make money is by making it illegal to hold private lotteries, which Rand certainly wouldn't support. Otherwise, government might as well be imposing a voluntary tax of selling vacuum cleaners- they can't possibly survive against competition if they have the additional cost of running a country.

Still, this is her general point. And like she mentioned, it's the last problem that should be solved.But, how could we "take the plunge" towards a fully laissez-faire economy if we have no idea how the taxation would work, and if, in fact, all indications are that it would NOT work? I can't see how the conversation even gets started with such a gaping hole in the proposition.

firecoins

29th June 2007, 11:56 PM

But Americans pay more on a per capita basis for health care. That is a simple fact. So why is it that these systems that must be more expensive are not in the real world? Where is the savings our capitalistic system gives us?
because the universal healthcare programs in other countries don't pay for proceedures that they don't deem necessary but you might need anyway. Canadians and some Europeans can come to the US for procedures they don't want to wait for lowering their healthcare costs per capita.

Earthborn

30th June 2007, 06:54 AM

because the universal healthcare programs in other countries don't pay for proceedures that they don't deem necessary but you might need anyway.Name one procedure that they don't deem necessary and you might need anyway, and that isn't covered by the universal healthcare programs in those other countries.

hgc

30th June 2007, 07:13 AM

Name one procedure that they don't deem necessary and you might need anyway, and that isn't covered by the universal healthcare programs in those other countries.

How about this procedure?

Gurdur

30th June 2007, 07:21 AM

because the universal healthcare programs in other countries don't pay for proceedures that they don't deem necessary but you might need anyway. Canadians and some Europeans can come to the US for procedures they don't want to wait for lowering their healthcare costs per capita.
This is total, utter nonsense. You don't have a single shred of evidence, only ignorant prejudices.

Earthborn

30th June 2007, 09:44 AM

How about this procedure?I'm not entirely sure, because it is not a procedure that is used very often, but I think that probably IS covered, in some countries at least. :)
If it isn't, you can always deduct it from your taxes as "special medical needs".

I happen to know that here in the Netherlands (and no doubt in far more Catholic countries as well) pilgrimage of sick and crippled people to Lourdes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes) is covered by some insurance companies. Proof here (http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/laatstenieuws/article723694.ece/VVD_laakt_Lourdes-polis) (in Dutch).

hgc

30th June 2007, 10:57 AM

I happen to know that here in the Netherlands (and no doubt in far more Catholic countries as well) pilgrimage of sick and crippled people to Lourdes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes) is covered by some insurance companies. Proof here (http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/laatstenieuws/article723694.ece/VVD_laakt_Lourdes-polis) (in Dutch).

Good Lord! I was being entirely facetious, but covering a trip to Lourdes is not materially different from covering an exorcism.

ponderingturtle

30th June 2007, 12:00 PM

The question seems unclear. Is the issue of an ambulance driver-capitalist who would charge ripoff sums to take a person to the hospital, or of a society that would extort taxes on the basis of some emergency the solution of which was alleged to be for the common good (eg., say global warming)?

How would Ayn view the morality of using emergencies to extort peoples property from them. This could well be the fire department trick such as Crassus used in Rome. He would show up with his fire department and buy the land at a discount before agreeing to put them out. That would seem to be a capitalistic ideal.

ponderingturtle

30th June 2007, 12:03 PM

That seems to be what people always project on to Ayn Rand, but I don't see any evidence from Rands writings that she would actually support this.

Understanding Rand, or any philosopher, doesn't mean you have to agree with her. One can certainly disagree with specific aspects of her beliefs while still acknowledging that she makes many valid points that are worth considering.

The problem is becuase so many people find a truth and think it is the only thing. Free markets work well for some things therefore free markets are the morally superior solution to all problems.

This absolutist thinking produces all the looniest ideologies and political structures.

ponderingturtle

30th June 2007, 12:07 PM

Here is something I have found bothering me, it seems that everyone regards her as being very very smart, I have to wonder why? Can people tell me that?

EGarrett

30th June 2007, 06:38 PM

Here is something I have found bothering me, it seems that everyone regards her as being very very smart, I have to wonder why? Can people tell me that?She created her own, consistent and logical theory about how the world works, purely from her own observation, and contrary in many ways to what the prevailing wisdom was at the time. It takes a GREAT amount of intelligence to do that, especially when you're going against things that are thought to be correct.

There's also small things you can pick up from the video...the quick and efficient way in which she answers questions, indicating swift understanding and clear thought...an exceptional memory, to be able to hold all of those theories of hers and explain them clearly in response to questions...a very dynamic facial expression with almost constantly darting eyes, indicating a large amount of emotions, thoughts and calculations running through her head at any given time (compare her facial expressions to Paris Hilton's blank face in her recent Larry King interview and you'll see the difference). An almost active anger/disregard for other people's feelings indicated by the intensity of the way she attacks other people's points and dismisses their dearest hopes...(highly intelligent people tend to feel emotions more strongly and to express themselves using stronger language, and they naturally end up being outsiders from the general population, and thus are detached and have very little empathy)...

...and finally...an apparent poor amount of personal hygiene (look at her teeth) and fashion sense. See my thread titled "would you want to be a genius if no one ever knew" for more on that.

Hmmmm...perhaps I should just make a YouTube video comparing this footage to Paris Hilton's interview with bullet points cut in?

rockoon

1st July 2007, 03:14 AM

You cannot compare the healthcare systems of say, American and Canada, and be comparing free market vs socialized medicine.

For one thing, America's health care system isnt driven by the free market. There is plenty of government intrusion that claims to be socialistic.

The noted difference in the economic reality of these two countries in this regard could simply be related to how bad it is to do things half-arsed. As a single example, many poor in the U.S. utilize emergency rooms as if they were clinics or the local general practitioner. They do so with the threat of legal consequences if the ER does not treat them. Clearly an ER, which isnt designed to be a clinic, cannot perform economically like a clinic would. This isn't free market at all.

Still further, the American legal system puts a very heavy burden on the practitioners of medicine due to our tort laws. Extensive malpractice insurance is essential because our legal system demands it. If you don't have it then you wont be practicing medicine for very long.

On a sort-of-but-not-really-related note: Fully-soclialized medicine rides on the coat tails of the rest. The alure of obscene profits is the primary driver of a lot of medical research. Perhaps a profitless system does better at driving the research into some things ultimately more beneficial to society by and large, but if we are discussing the case of "in an emergency" then we are probably discussing research that is driven by obscene profits where the socialists merely copy what the capitalists came up with.

ponderingturtle

1st July 2007, 04:35 AM

She created her own, consistent and logical theory about how the world works, purely from her own observation, and contrary in many ways to what the prevailing wisdom was at the time. It takes a GREAT amount of intelligence to do that, especially when you're going against things that are thought to be correct.

There's also small things you can pick up from the video...the quick and efficient way in which she answers questions, indicating swift understanding and clear thought...an exceptional memory, to be able to hold all of those theories of hers and explain them clearly in response to questions...a very dynamic facial expression with almost constantly darting eyes, indicating a large amount of emotions, thoughts and calculations running through her head at any given time (compare her facial expressions to Paris Hilton's blank face in her recent Larry King interview and you'll see the difference). An almost active anger/disregard for other people's feelings indicated by the intensity of the way she attacks other people's points and dismisses their dearest hopes...(highly intelligent people tend to feel emotions more strongly and to express themselves using stronger language, and they naturally end up being outsiders from the general population, and thus are detached and have very little empathy)...

...and finally...an apparent poor amount of personal hygiene (look at her teeth) and fashion sense. See my thread titled "would you want to be a genius if no one ever knew" for more on that.

Hmmmm...perhaps I should just make a YouTube video comparing this footage to Paris Hilton's interview with bullet points cut in?

Are you really trying to defend her inteligence by comparing her to Paris Hilton? Inanimate objects compare favorably to paris hilton.

So that her morality cares nothing for human life in an abstract sense is a true mark of inteligence?

ponderingturtle

1st July 2007, 04:38 AM

You cannot compare the healthcare systems of say, American and Canada, and be comparing free market vs socialized medicine.

For one thing, America's health care system isnt driven by the free market. There is plenty of government intrusion that claims to be socialistic.

The noted difference in the economic reality of these two countries in this regard could simply be related to how bad it is to do things half-arsed. As a single example, many poor in the U.S. utilize emergency rooms as if they were clinics or the local general practitioner. They do so with the threat of legal consequences if the ER does not treat them. Clearly an ER, which isnt designed to be a clinic, cannot perform economically like a clinic would. This isn't free market at all.

Still further, the American legal system puts a very heavy burden on the practitioners of medicine due to our tort laws. Extensive malpractice insurance is essential because our legal system demands it. If you don't have it then you wont be practicing medicine for very long.

So does this mean we have a socialized contrustuction industry or any other industry that has high insurance requirements? The tort law has nothing to do with if it is a free market or not, or does a free market remove the need to compensate people you dammage now?

And still no one can tell me if pulling a Crassus is moral to Ayn Rand.

robinson

1st July 2007, 12:46 PM

Wow. Great thread. Would her interview with Donahue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAExHnF1BoY&mode=related&search=) be relevant here?

Cain

1st July 2007, 02:12 PM

[All too common conservative tropes]

This is the same stuff I hear over and over again, and I wonder if anyone has bothered to check their facts. According to Wikipedia, the NIH is responsible for 28% of basic biomedical funding, most of it, i believe, going toward basic research. Pharmaceutical companies are best at applied research and marketing the hell out of the latest drug that may cause anal leakage [cue old people dancing]. This free-riding business is vastly overblown (unless we're talking about private industry coasting on tax-payer money), not unlike all this exaggerated nonsense regarding malpractice claims. Besides, the threat of lawsuits is closer to a free market solution: If doctors do not provide the care contracted, then they have to face the consequences.

EGarrett

1st July 2007, 02:25 PM

Are you really trying to defend her inteligence by comparing her to Paris Hilton?I was providing a counter-example that is relevant to right now and that can be viewed easily on YouTube etc., and who is populary accepted as an unintelligent person so that the thread doesn't get dragged into a tangent about the example person's intelligence.

And I am not "defending" her intelligence, because there was no attack on it. You asked a question about why others considered her extremely intelligent, and I'm taking the time to answer for you. I will take it from your tone though, that the response was valid enough that it threatened your current opinion and thus upset you.

So that her morality cares nothing for human life in an abstract sense is a true mark of inteligence?Her morality is cold and detached. Being cold and detached, in and of itself, is not a true mark of intelligence. But in combination with the other observations, it strongly suggests an extremely intelligent person.

Likewise, holding a knife alone is not the mark of a murderer, but in combination with standing in front of a person who just died from stab wounds, it strongly suggests that you just killed someone.

Mycroft

1st July 2007, 03:52 PM

The problem is becuase so many people find a truth and think it is the only thing. Free markets work well for some things therefore free markets are the morally superior solution to all problems.

This absolutist thinking produces all the looniest ideologies and political structures.

Oh come on!

Take a look at this thread; the absolutists are the ones bashing Rand, not supporting her. They are the ones who, like you, exaggerated her belief system into something silly and then bashed her for it. The truth is that those that actually subscribe to her philosophies are few, insignificant and have no real influence on political discourse in today's world.

Rand is worth paying attention to because she does raise some valid points about the destructiveness of socialism, but other than telling people what not to do, her overall philosophy isn't very useful as any kind of a guide. She is, at most, a starting point for some interesting discussions.

rockoon

1st July 2007, 07:38 PM

So does this mean we have a socialized contrustuction industry or any other industry that has high insurance requirements?

It means that we cannot make inferences about the economics of the American construction industry as if it were an ideal example of a free market construction industry without also considering the economic effects of the tort system which is external to it. Changes in the law will effect the economics of the industry.

In the case of the American medical industry, the economic effects that the tort system has is considerable.

This is simply to say that we cannot make fair comparisons without considering the economic impacts of differing tort systems and the laws which go hand in hand with them.

It is not pro or anti Ayn Rand. It is a point of fact which undermines some of the comparisons that several people tried to use to justify anti-Rand conclusions in regards to the medical industry.

They may well be right, but their point wasn't.

So I stand on my post. We cannot make fair compairisons between the USA and Canada based only on cost per patient, and draw conclusions about free market vs socialized.

And still no one can tell me if pulling a Crassus is moral to Ayn Rand.

Beats me.. I'm not a loyal Objectivist.

rockoon

1st July 2007, 07:59 PM

Besides, the threat of lawsuits is closer to a free market solution: If doctors do not provide the care contracted, then they have to face the consequences.

For one thing, it is not that there are consequences that is important here, but instead on the extent of those consequences. It is not unheard of for a litigant in a civil case against a doctor or medical institution in America to walk away with many times the lifetime earnings of the average doctor. Consequently doctors, or their institution, pay large amounts of money to insurance companies to shield themselves from these risks.

For another, civil torts in America are handled differently than civil torts in other countries. Not only is this true, but when an industry is socialized along with it comes extensive laws in regards to what can and cannot be claimed during a tort.

Also in America, torts which fail to prove their case are still often very expensive to defend against. In some cases, the plaintiff in a failed tort will be responsible for the legal bills of the defending party, but this doesnt mean much when the plaintiff is poor.

its Apples and Oranges. Thats all I am saying. American Foo is not equal to Free Market Foo.

Cain

1st July 2007, 09:00 PM

And I am not "defending" her intelligence, because there was no attack on it. You asked a question about why others considered her extremely intelligent, and I'm taking the time to answer for you. I will take it from your tone though, that the response was valid enough that it threatened your current opinion and thus upset you.

I don't see the point of this at all. Her arguments should be considered on their merits; personal intelligence is moot. Judging by her philosophy, I do not see any indication of brilliance but I admit my perspective is skewed. I see major personality shortcomings, though that's not exactly relevant. Some sources say Kant had an IQ of 105, though others estimate it at over 200. It doesn't really matter.

Her morality is cold and detached.

Her morality does not seem "detached" enough! What a surprise given she exalts egotism :rolleyes: _The Fountainhead_, as I remember it, was littered with emotional appeals, some of which made absolutely no sense. A line I may never forget declares collectivism is something like "slavery to slavery without the dignity of a master." Face it, Rand's writings are of the sort that make socially maladjusted teens hard. She produced stroke books. (Not that that matters any more than her alleged intelligence.)

I should think a properly detached egoism would not distinguish between people and rocks when it comes to frustrating one's goals. What's wrong with harming others in order to further *my* interests? "Objectivists" usually insist on answering that my "real" or "true" rational self-interest could not possibly involve harming others. This is where Rand's armchair psychology often comes into play (see the fine example of a female president). Rand appeals to what she thinks is the proper and truly rational nature of humankind.

A coherent agent-relative ethical egoism takes into the fact that people are built differently. Objectivists do not really give a fig if people are starving to death half way around the world, but if take into account revealed preferences, most of us are the same. That doesn't make it right; it speaks to our beastly nature, they're just unapologetic about it. People who do care are easily dismissed as "bleeding hearts" who let their emotions get the better of them. Let's turn to lying and stealing. Why is it wrong for an Objectivist to steal money in a situation where there is a 99% chance he won't get caught? I've heard Objectivists say the guilt is not worth it. Piekoff uses the example of stealing an apple in childhood, loss of self-esteem, being a "creator" and all that jazz. You know what I say? Don't get all emotional and namby pamby on me, man! Stealing can be exhilarating, and do wonders for your self-esteem. Just ask any confidence man. When magician Michael Close was ripping people off for Penn and Teller's TV program, he said stealing "for real" was unbelievably thrilling -- much more exciting than a silly demonstration.

Rational, detached behavior involves regarding the interests of others. I think the example Unger uses is that you're traveling through a fairly obscure, rural place in your new car, one boasting expensive leather seats. You come across a man who is bleeding and in desperate need of medical assistance. If you help him into the car to take him to the hospital, then your seats will be ruined, and will require hundreds of dollars to be replaced. Alternatively, you could let him die. Sorry, no working phones nearby, no beach towels in the trunk. Most people say they help the man in need, even at the expense of a few hundred dollars. Now, regain perspective: tens of thousands are dying from preventable disease, and for a much smaller sum of money you can literally save lives. The difference is that death and dying is so remote that it doesn't press the same emotional buttons; it lacks the same sense of immediacy, even though this difference is entirely superficial. This is where people conjure up rationalizations: "Oh, I've heard scattered reports through out my life about how those charities are corrupt."

Another example to consider is the case of an Objectivist Vampire. This is what, in my view, made _Interview with the Vampire_ so interesting. Lestat (Cruise) accepts himself for what he is. He "initiates force," harms humans, but it's in his nature to do so. Louis (Pitt) is such an awful, boring, self-loathing gloomy Gus.

An "Objectivist" should say that a vampire should eat humans, assuming it's in the nature of vampires to do so. This is "rational" behavior. Then there are those of us who actually do believe in something resembling a universal (or "objective") morality, and we say otherwise. You want cold and detached? Try the utilitarian who donates the bulk of his income to Oxfam.

rockoon writes:
For one thing, it is not that there are consequences that is important here, but instead on the extent of those consequences. It is not unheard of for a litigant in a civil case against a doctor or medical institution in America to walk away with many times the lifetime earnings of the average doctor. Consequently doctors, or their institution, pay large amounts of money to insurance companies to shield themselves from these risks.

So? The fact of the matter is the VAST MAJORITY of people with legitimate grievances do not sue. Payments should be large enough to not only cover the damage inflicted by incompetent doctors, but provide a strong enough incentive so that mistakes are less likely to occur. Big deal if they walk away many times richer than a doctor, especially if a family member has died. You don't want to sound like the economically-illiterate leftists (apologies for the pleonastic phrasing) who criticize drug companies for spending more money on advertising than research and development. Advertising more means selling more, which increases the size of the pie, allowing more money for R&D. Right? I don't think the additional differences you cited matter to what I was highlighting. Apart from the fact our governments grant and enforce monopoly rights on new drugs (like any patent), I think you glossed over the anti-free market subsidies the pharmaceutical industry receives.

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 08:45 AM

Oh come on!

Take a look at this thread; the absolutists are the ones bashing Rand, not supporting her. They are the ones who, like you, exaggerated her belief system into something silly and then bashed her for it. The truth is that those that actually subscribe to her philosophies are few, insignificant and have no real influence on political discourse in today's world.

Rand is worth paying attention to because she does raise some valid points about the destructiveness of socialism, but other than telling people what not to do, her overall philosophy isn't very useful as any kind of a guide. She is, at most, a starting point for some interesting discussions.

I posed a specific question as to morality in a certain situation, none of her supporters can answer that simple question. Why should I think much of something that can not answer a simple question with historical precedent?

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 08:47 AM

It means that we cannot make inferences about the economics of the American construction industry as if it were an ideal example of a free market construction industry without also considering the economic effects of the tort system which is external to it. Changes in the law will effect the economics of the industry.

So in your ideal free market people never make mistakes, or there is no need to make financial recompense to those dammaged by your actions?

Mycroft

2nd July 2007, 11:41 AM

I posed a specific question as to morality in a certain situation, none of her supporters can answer that simple question. Why should I think much of something that can not answer a simple question with historical precedent?

I don't recall ever instructing you to "think much of" anything. What I did was to point out that some of your specific criticisms don't make sense:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2732232#post2732232

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2723862#post2723862

mhaze

2nd July 2007, 11:52 AM

I posed a specific question as to morality in a certain situation, none of her supporters can answer that simple question. Why should I think much of something that can not answer a simple question with historical precedent?

Ponder, I intended to answer your question of a few days ago, but got busy. So here is your answer. I can find no direct answer in the writings of Rand. Therefore here is my opinion on how she would have thought.

Does the provider of Emergency services have the right to charge exorbinant prices?

Answer: Yes. Your question presumes that a REGULATED MARKET would be a superior one. And she does have numerous essays about the evils of government regulated markets.

Is that adequate?

mhaze

2nd July 2007, 11:53 AM

its Apples and Oranges. Thats all I am saying. American Foo is not equal to Free Market Foo.

Not even remotely...

rockoon

2nd July 2007, 11:59 AM

So in your ideal free market people never make mistakes, or there is no need to make financial recompense to those dammaged by your actions?

You can argue the pros and cons of a free market systems all you want. I have made no judgement here on the matter. If you really want an arguement about it, go find someone willing to make a judgement.

This isnt about what an ideal free market system should be, or the merits of one. This is about why you cannot compare America with Canada and declare that it is a comparison of free market vs socialism.

This, inspite of the fact that Canada isnt an ideal socialist system either.

This begs the question of why you are looking to argue the merits of the free market system with someone who has not taken a stand on the matter here. Did you fail to argue it successfully with those who did take a stand?

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 01:09 PM

Ponder, I intended to answer your question of a few days ago, but got busy. So here is your answer. I can find no direct answer in the writings of Rand. Therefore here is my opinion on how she would have thought.

Does the provider of Emergency services have the right to charge exorbinant prices?

Answer: Yes. Your question presumes that a REGULATED MARKET would be a superior one. And she does have numerous essays about the evils of government regulated markets.

Is that adequate?

That is not quite what I was asking. She would seem to be infavor of not outlawing it, but would she consider it moral or immoral? She went beyond simply social organizational structure to morality of individual acts.

So that is helpful, but does not really answer the question.

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 01:12 PM

You can argue the pros and cons of a free market systems all you want. I have made no judgement here on the matter. If you really want an arguement about it, go find someone willing to make a judgement.

The point is that most people who argue for such free markets talk about individual responsibility, and suing a doctor for malpractice would seem to be a prime example of holding an individual accountable for their actions.

So is it the insurance and collectivization of risk that is counter to the free market, or the holding negligent doctors responsible that is counter to the free market?

rockoon

2nd July 2007, 01:26 PM

So is it the insurance and collectivization of risk that is counter to the free market, or the holding negligent doctors responsible that is counter to the free market?

I suspect that you refuse to get the point because you really really want to argue the merits of socialism vs free market.

Tough. I wont.

Now what?

EGarrett

2nd July 2007, 02:03 PM

I don't see the point of this at all. Her arguments should be considered on their merits; personal intelligence is moot. Judging by her philosophy, I do not see any indication of brilliance but I admit my perspective is skewed. I see major personality shortcomings, though that's not exactly relevant. Some sources say Kant had an IQ of 105, though others estimate it at over 200. It doesn't really matter.I know that, but PonderingTurtle asked a question and I was answering him.

Her morality does not seem "detached" enough! What a surprise given she exalts egotism :rolleyes: _The Fountainhead_, as I remember it, was littered with emotional appeals, some of which made absolutely no sense.Her emotional appeals were to herself and the self...she was cold and detached to others.

I should think a properly detached egoism would not distinguish between people and rocks when it comes to frustrating one's goals. What's wrong with harming others in order to further *my* interests? "Objectivists" usually insist on answering that my "real" or "true" rational self-interest could not possibly involve harming others. This is where Rand's armchair psychology often comes into play (see the fine example of a female president). Rand appeals to what she thinks is the proper and truly rational nature of humankind.No. Rand did not favor stealing or using force against others. She was for laissez faire capitalism. The entire rest of your post is based on this misunderstanding, please correct it before we continue.

Cain

2nd July 2007, 02:38 PM

No. Rand did not favor stealing or using force against others. She was for laissez faire capitalism. The entire rest of your post is based on this misunderstanding, please correct it before we continue.

Misunderstanding, indeed. I thought I made it crystal clear Rand did not favor lying or stealing. The argument is that this belief is inconsistent with authentic ethical egoism. Please do try to read a little deeper, if you can.

mhaze

2nd July 2007, 03:10 PM

That is not quite what I was asking. She would seem to be infavor of not outlawing it, but would she consider it moral or immoral? She went beyond simply social organizational structure to morality of individual acts.

So that is helpful, but does not really answer the question.

Okay, I get the gist of your question. First I am going to answer your question, then I am going to support it, and ref a short section of Rand's writings. I hope this method is not boring or trivializing the subject, because you have asked a very good question.

Is it moral or immoral to extort a large sum from an accident victim, and refuse to help unless he pays up? (qualification: Personal morality issue. It should be clear to all that Rand would have opposed law, social forcings, on the issue).

Immoral. Grossly, obscenely immoral.

That is stated irrespective of the following -

My duty as a capitalist and competitor ambulance driver is to drive him out of business, lest he sully the reputation of those in our trade and thus impinge on my prosperity in the trade.

Now, why do I say this according to Rand?

Realize the following. Rand did not say "be a MiniRand". She was not out to create babbling RandHeads, but people who could think, being essentially, a teacher. This is in large part why there is wrongness associated with Randness. A lot of people who followed Rand thought they should become little philosophers.

She said on the contrary, go do lots of really cool stuff, improve the world and prosper. So look at what I did in answering the above question. I answered it. It reflects what I think.

Reference (Again from VS)

9. The Cult of Moral Grayness
by Ayn Rand

One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bank*ruptcy of today’s culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: “There are no blacks and whites, there are only grays.” This is asserted in regard to persons, actions, principles of conduct, and morality in general. “Black and white,” in this context, means “good and evil.” (The reverse order used in that catch phrase is interesting psychologically.) In any respect one cares to examine, that notion is full of contradictions (foremost among them is the fallacy of “the stolen concept”). If there is no black and white, there can be no gray—since gray is merely a mixture of the two.

Before one can identify anything as “gray,” one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of moral*ity, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justifica*tion for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil. In morality, “black” is predominantly the result of at*tempting to pretend to oneself that one is merely “gray.”

If a moral code (such as altruism) is, in fact, impossible to practice, it is the code that must be condemned as “black,” not its victims evaluated as “gray.” If a moral code prescribes irreconcilable contradictions—so that by choosing the good in one respect, a man becomes evil in another—it is the code that must be rejected as “black.” If a moral code is inapplicable to reality—if it offers no guidance ex*cept a series of arbitrary, groundless, out-of-context injunctions and commandments, to be accepted on faith and practiced automatically, as blind dogma—its practitioners cannot properly be classified as “white” or “black” or “gray”: a moral code that forbids and paralyzes moral judg*ment is a contradiction in terms.

If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right, and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as “gray”; morally, he is “white.” Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience. But if, in order to escape the responsibility of moral judg*ment, a man closes his eyes and mind, if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, he cannot be re*garded as “gray”; morally, he is as “black” as they come.

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 03:49 PM

I suspect that you refuse to get the point because you really really want to argue the merits of socialism vs free market.

Tough. I wont.

Now what?

No, you just have no idea what a free market must entail. What is being advocated is anarchy not a free market. That is when you get the removal of all responcibility.

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 04:18 PM

Okay, I get the gist of your question. First I am going to answer your question, then I am going to support it, and ref a short section of Rand's writings. I hope this method is not boring or trivializing the subject, because you have asked a very good question.

Is it moral or immoral to extort a large sum from an accident victim, and refuse to help unless he pays up? (qualification: Personal morality issue. It should be clear to all that Rand would have opposed law, social forcings, on the issue).

Immoral. Grossly, obscenely immoral.

That is stated irrespective of the following -

My duty as a capitalist and competitor ambulance driver is to drive him out of business, lest he sully the reputation of those in our trade and thus impinge on my prosperity in the trade.

The problem here is that taking advantage of others because of changes in supply and demand is fundamental to capitalism. So it is moral in general to soak someone for as much as possible because of changes in supply and demand, so when do emergencies that can cause sifts in supply and demand make something immoral?

If you are arguing that the marketplace is fundamentally moral, then taking advantage of events that cause a reduction in supply is in general moral, so if you argue that, at what point does it become immoral to use an unpredicted event for personal profit?

mhaze

2nd July 2007, 04:32 PM

The problem here is that taking advantage of others because of changes in supply and demand is fundamental to capitalism. So it is moral in general to soak someone for as much as possible because of changes in supply and demand, so when do emergencies that can cause sifts in supply and demand make something immoral?

If you are arguing that the marketplace is fundamentally moral, then taking advantage of events that cause a reduction in supply is in general moral, so if you argue that, at what point does it become immoral to use an unpredicted event for personal profit?

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you now asking a general question about her attitude toward capitalism? That appears to be the case, but I want to be sure I have it exactly right.

In the alternate, you might be still on the prior case discussed.

ponderingturtle

2nd July 2007, 05:18 PM

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you now asking a general question about her attitude toward capitalism? That appears to be the case, but I want to be sure I have it exactly right.

In the alternate, you might be still on the prior case discussed.

It is not about capitalism in general, but about when taking advantage of a situation becomes immoral.

It is presumably not immoral to sell something after a reduction in the supply or an increase in the demand for that has changed so that you make a large profit. But at some point it would have to become immoral as there is a continuous spectrum from basic say reselling a property at a large profit if the need for such property increases, to threatening to withhold treatment to gain a financial advantage.

As she does not believe in any gray area there must be some specific point on this spectrum where it turns from moral to immoral. I would like to have an idea where that is.

mhaze

2nd July 2007, 07:40 PM

It is not about capitalism in general, but about when taking advantage of a situation becomes immoral.

It is presumably not immoral to sell something after a reduction in the supply or an increase in the demand for that has changed so that you make a large profit. But at some point it would have to become immoral as there is a continuous spectrum from basic say reselling a property at a large profit if the need for such property increases, to threatening to withhold treatment to gain a financial advantage.

As she does not believe in any gray area there must be some specific point on this spectrum where it turns from moral to immoral. I would like to have an idea where that is.

You are saying that reselling a property at a large profit is problematic?
What difference is it if the profit is 2% or 200%? Note that in an economic system, profit is not a static thing but moves and creates goods or services. That is why one factory worker in a town is said to support four or five people in that town - at the supermarket, the ice house, etc.

Again, there may be a confusion between the economic system and private morality. Rand did in fact laugh at assertions of immoral profits, because the use of such a concept would typically illustrate some ignorance of the function of capital (Wealth of Nations is really the basic reference for this).

If you just crack open Wealth of Nations, read the first few pages, then do the same for Das Kapital, what is your impression?

EGarrett

2nd July 2007, 10:15 PM

Misunderstanding, indeed. I thought I made it crystal clear Rand did not favor lying or stealing. The argument is that this belief is inconsistent with authentic ethical egoism. Please do try to read a little deeper, if you can.This thread is not about authentic ethical egoism...it's about Ayn Rand. If you want people to understand your point, make it concisely. You did not do that.

RandFan

2nd July 2007, 11:37 PM

No offense, but if you want to know why you end up in so many flamewars, this is a textbook example. If you want the person to answer only that question...just say "Try it this way" then give ONLY that question. No need for all the condescension and attitude. Really, it adds nothing and drags my thread into the gutter.No offense taken. I'm not sure what you are complaining about. The guy is purposely being obtuse. Perhaps you should talk to him.

Cain

3rd July 2007, 02:20 AM

This thread is not about authentic ethical egoism...it's about Ayn Rand. If you want people to understand your point, make it concisely. You did not do that.

Threads naturally branch out, especially around the sixth page (recent posts deal with international comparisons of health care systems and the "cult of moral greyness"). My goodness, whatever does ethical egoism have to do with Ayn Rand? Maybe instead we ought to steer discussion back on to strictly biographical subject matter, and I'll get the ball rolling? So, what do you think was her favorite number? Don't ask me why, but I think it was six.

robinson

3rd July 2007, 05:23 AM

It was 7.

rockoon

3rd July 2007, 06:04 AM

No, you just have no idea what a free market must entail. What is being advocated is anarchy not a free market. That is when you get the removal of all responcibility.

A free market would not have mandated liability. Liability would be a commodity which is negotiated and traded like any other.

The fact that it is mandated means the economics of it is mandated. The participants have no choice, thus there is no free market.

I am still not going to argue the merits of it. The American medical system is a heavily regulated industry and as such isn't even remotely a free market system. Period.

robinson

3rd July 2007, 06:11 AM

The American medical system is a heavily regulated industry and as such isn't even remotely a free market system. Period.

True.

mhaze

3rd July 2007, 04:02 PM

So, what do you think was her favorite number?
One.

Steven Howard

3rd July 2007, 04:15 PM

9. The Cult of Moral Grayness
by Ayn Rand

One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bank*ruptcy of today’s culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: “There are no blacks and whites, there are only grays.”

(And so forth.)

This shows both why Rand's novels are so long and why so few grown-ups take her seriously. Four hundred and twenty-four words to say what? Nothing. She sets up a straw man and then doesn't even knock it down.

mhaze

3rd July 2007, 04:41 PM

(And so forth.)

This shows both why Rand's novels are so long and why so few grown-ups take her seriously. Four hundred and twenty-four words to say what? Nothing. She sets up a straw man and then doesn't even knock it down.
Paraphrasing Rand in today's lingo, admittedly much more concise -

"Everybody's a winner.":rolleyes:

Right?

robinson

3rd July 2007, 04:50 PM

I watched all the clips on YT. Fascinating. I discussed her with an old timer who was alive when she was big. There was a lot of controversy over her books, and that cool movie with Gary Cooper. I love that speech from the film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

EGarrett

3rd July 2007, 06:17 PM

Threads naturally branch out, especially around the sixth page (recent posts deal with international comparisons of health care systems and the "cult of moral greyness").The Cult of Moral Grayness...by Ayn Rand.

My goodness, whatever does ethical egoism have to do with Ayn Rand?By your own admission, nothing.

Maybe instead we ought to steer discussion back on to strictly biographical subject matter, and I'll get the ball rolling? So, what do you think was her favorite number? Don't ask me why, but I think it was six.You know very well that there are a lot of things to bring up about Ayn Rand, Mike Wallace, and the interview. Don't pout.

mhaze

3rd July 2007, 07:58 PM

You know very well that there are a lot of things to bring up about Ayn Rand, Mike Wallace, and the interview. Don't pout.

These things being online - Youtube, etc., has implications we can probably not comprehend.

In late 1999 I ordered VHS tapes of some of Rand's interviews, including Wallace. Those were very rare.

What a difference in the dialog of ideas today.

Cain

3rd July 2007, 10:33 PM

The Cult of Moral Grayness...by Ayn Rand.

By your own admission, nothing.

This is incredible. You do realize Ayn Rand espoused ethical egoism? Are you aware that it cuts to the heart of her ethics? Do you not see how it's even more relevant than an excerpt from an article lambasting the culture?

You know very well that there are a lot of things to bring up about Ayn Rand, Mike Wallace, and the interview. Don't pout.

Pssssht. Oh, and I don't think Rand would choose seven. That number is simply too conventional. I still think six is more plausible.

mhaze

4th July 2007, 09:31 AM

I'll throw a question out.

Rand sailed to fame half in the Hollywood world, based on her philosophy of capitalism. Then she branched into (short story version) art, music, and romance with her concepts.

Did she get it right, half way get it right, or completely mess it up with these extensions?:rolleyes: This is a fairly broad question. There is no short excerpt to support or refute the question. I guess...

Mycroft

4th July 2007, 12:39 PM

It is not about capitalism in general, but about when taking advantage of a situation becomes immoral.

It is presumably not immoral to sell something after a reduction in the supply or an increase in the demand for that has changed so that you make a large profit. But at some point it would have to become immoral as there is a continuous spectrum from basic say reselling a property at a large profit if the need for such property increases, to threatening to withhold treatment to gain a financial advantage.

It seems to me that what you're describing as "taking advantage" is nothing more than selling a commodity to the person/people who are able/willing to pay the most for it.

If we assume that the supply of this commodity is limited, wouldn't any other practice in effect be showing favoritism towards someone with the least resources? How would that be any more or less moral?

Let's say, for example, that I have acquired something very rare: a rock from Mars. Assume for the sake of argument that it's provenance is impeccable, and that I acquired it for very little.

My neighbor thinks it's really neat, he offers me $1000 for it, which is all the money he has.

A local businessman wants it for his collection and offers me a million dollars for it.

Bill Gates wants it and offers me a billion dollars for it.

At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?

mhaze

4th July 2007, 03:29 PM

It seems to me that what you're describing as "taking advantage" is nothing more than selling a commodity to the person/people who are able/willing to pay the most for it.

At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?

Even if I accepted Ponder's argument re immorality of high prices, which I do not, in the alternative one could argue that the paradymn applies only to a zero sum game. That is where if one person wins, another loses.

One go further with that and note growth rates of the economic bases of countries, and the fashion in which trade is not a zero sum game. Technology throws all zero sum games to the winds of change.

Rand argued that capitalism implied growth, and socialism stagnation.

Cain

4th July 2007, 04:14 PM

My neighbor thinks it's really neat, he offers me $1000 for it, which is all the money he has.
A local businessman wants it for his collection and offers me a million dollars for it.
Bill Gates wants it and offers me a billion dollars for it.
At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?

A superb analogy, Mycroft! Truly, a stunning achievement. Let's compare a Mars rock against emergency, life-saving medical attention.

The B.S. laissez-faire argument for charging extortionist prices is that it gives people an incentive to provide life-saving goods. If a person can 10 dollars per bottle of water, he'll try to find a way to get his product into a disaster zone. If a hurricane is coming and a store-owner cannot jack up the prices on flashlights, then one person can come in and afford to buy flash lights and radios for each and every member of her family, potentially leaving others in the dark. B.S. arguments.

Funny thing is that most people, for some craaaaazy reason, think it's immoral to exploit a person in a vulnerable position. One could of course believe such exploitation is immoral but ought to remain legal (because we have the "right" to take advantage of others).

See also the 1981 Michael Mann movie THIEF where the gangster Leo beats up James Caan.

EGarrett

4th July 2007, 07:49 PM

This is incredible. You do realize Ayn Rand espoused ethical egoism? Are you aware that it cuts to the heart of her ethics?Apparently not, because one of the core elements of her point of view (not stealing) is counter to what you were bringing up.

Mycroft

4th July 2007, 09:20 PM

A superb analogy, Mycroft! Truly, a stunning achievement. Let's compare a Mars rock against emergency, life-saving medical attention.

Since poderingturtle didn't mention life-saving medical attention but only increase in prices due to shifts of supply and demand, I can only conclude that you are high.

However, I don't see that it makes a lot of difference in the analogy. Suppose instead of a Mars rock I have one dose of wunder-serum that cures cancer. My neighbor, a local businessman, and Bill Gates all know someone dying of cancer and offer to buy my serum at the same prices offered for the Mars rock.

What's the moral principle to guide my decision? Each of my three potential customers will use the serum to save a life, So aren’t they all equally moral choices? Am I required to choose by lots to avoid “gouging” anyone? Please explain the logic here, if you can.

The B.S. laissez-faire argument for charging extortionist prices is that it gives people an incentive to provide life-saving goods. If a person can 10 dollars per bottle of water, he'll try to find a way to get his product into a disaster zone. If a hurricane is coming and a store-owner cannot jack up the prices on flashlights, then one person can come in and afford to buy flash lights and radios for each and every member of her family, potentially leaving others in the dark. B.S. arguments.

You assert that it’s a BS argument, but you fail to explain why. Is it that you don’t like the outcome? Surely you know that argument from a negative consequence is a fallacy.

Funny thing is that most people, for some craaaaazy reason, think it's immoral to exploit a person in a vulnerable position. One could of course believe such exploitation is immoral but ought to remain legal (because we have the "right" to take advantage of others).

Is it still immoral if a relatively poor person exploits a wealthy person? Suppose in your previously mentioned disaster zone some relatively poor person who has just lost almost everything he owns finds an opportunity to profit from a wealthy person?

Suppose some working-class guy, a driver for a limo company, suffers through hurricane Katrina and sees everything he owns wiped out, but finds himself in possession of his company’s only custom-built stretch Hummer with a full tank of gas. While he’s using it to get his elderly blind grandmother and his pregnant wife out of town, he comes across an attorney who has used his services before who makes him an offer; “You have plenty of room in there,” he says, “Take me, my wife, our daughter and our dog scruffy with you, and I’ll give you a hundred thousand dollars!”

Is it still immoral? I’d like your opinion.

Cain

5th July 2007, 01:24 AM

Apparently not, because one of the core elements of her point of view (not stealing) is counter to what you were bringing up.

Do you just not pay attention? You an Mycroft, I swear. Did I not already anticipate this criticism and address it in the post above? Why is stealing wrong according to Rand's ethics? A prohibition on stealing, from the perspective of a rational and consistent egoism, is hardly absolute, and not limited to what Rand termed emergency circumstances. Specifically I am talking about what are known as prudent predator arguments.

Mycroft blathered:
Since poderingturtle didn't mention life-saving medical attention but only increase in prices due to shifts of supply and demand, I can only conclude that you are high.

If you had a clue and followed the threading you would instantly know this discussion came out of emergency circumstances. If you wanted to address actual arguments rather than erecting an insufferable straw man you would charitably interpret comments pertaining to "treatment," "taking advantage of others," and "emergency circumstances" as a little more pressing than buying Mars rocks.

However, I don't see that it makes a lot of difference in the analogy. Suppose instead of a Mars rock I have one dose of wunder-serum that cures cancer. My neighbor, a local businessman, and Bill Gates all know someone dying of cancer and offer to buy my serum at the same prices offered for the Mars rock.

What's the moral principle to guide my decision? Each of my three potential customers will use the serum to save a life, So aren’t they all equally moral choices? Am I required to choose by lots to avoid “gouging” anyone? Please explain the logic here, if you can.

That you do not see a difference speaks volumes. If each of the options involves saving a life, and you only have a single dose of "wunder-serum," then Iagree it does not matter (assuming all lives are equal). Considering Bill Gates will have many billions left-over, I do not think he is hurting.

You assert that it’s a BS argument, but you fail to explain why. Is it that you don’t like the outcome? Surely you know that argument from a negative consequence is a fallacy.

Proving you do not even understand the B.S. arguments.

Is it still immoral if a relatively poor person exploits a wealthy person? Suppose in your previously mentioned disaster zone some relatively poor person who has just lost almost everything he owns finds an opportunity to profit from a wealthy person?

Suppose some working-class guy, a driver for a limo company, suffers through hurricane Katrina and sees everything he owns wiped out, but finds himself in possession of his company’s only custom-built stretch Hummer with a full tank of gas. While he’s using it to get his elderly blind grandmother and his pregnant wife out of town, he comes across an attorney who has used his services before who makes him an offer; “You have plenty of room in there,” he says, “Take me, my wife, our daughter and our dog scruffy with you, and I’ll give you a hundred thousand dollars!”

Is it still immoral? I’d like your opinion.

One dumb example deserves another, eh? You seem stubbornly -- no, blissfully -- unaware of the fact that dollar sums are relative. Furthermore, the example seems confused because you have the lawyer initiating an offer. Instead I'll answer your question directly: yes, it's possible and it is immoral for a relatively poor person to exploit a relatively wealthy person. It happens, sometimes in the form of blackmail.

Instead let's go back to moral values, and I'll pose my own contrived example. Two people are injured in an earthquake. You know one person is relatively rich and the other victim is relatively poor. In your possession is one dose of "wunder-serum XX," which has the power to magically save people who are on the verge of death from dying (yep). It also prevents infections. The rich person has a gash on his arm. He's willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the wunder-serum. The poor person who is on the verge of death begs for the drug. Question: is it immoral to even have an auction? If you think it's permissible to have an auction, then I'm assuming you agree it's permissible to sell the drug to someone who does not need it, so that someone who does will die. What if the only competitive counter-offer from the poor person is a life of servitude? Also, I call ******** in advance to anyone who says, "i takez the $$$ and i gives it to teh famine relief booyah!!!"

ponderingturtle

5th July 2007, 08:09 AM

You are saying that reselling a property at a large profit is problematic?
What difference is it if the profit is 2% or 200%? Note that in an economic system, profit is not a static thing but moves and creates goods or services. That is why one factory worker in a town is said to support four or five people in that town - at the supermarket, the ice house, etc.

Again, there may be a confusion between the economic system and private morality. Rand did in fact laugh at assertions of immoral profits, because the use of such a concept would typically illustrate some ignorance of the function of capital (Wealth of Nations is really the basic reference for this).

If you just crack open Wealth of Nations, read the first few pages, then do the same for Das Kapital, what is your impression?

The point is she believes in absolute morality, everything is moral or immoral. So there is a continuum of how much events extort the increase in value of the property. It was accepted that charging someone say $200,000 for an epipen because with out it they will die is immoral, but this is just the extreme end of the continuum that everyone will admit that at the other end it is perfectly acceptable, say buying land speculating on mineral wealth there.

So now it is an immoral act but not an immoral profit to take everything you can from someone who needs your help?