IDOAR #6 - Q&A: Who Decides What is a Value?

[garybsg]

Excellent job Paul!!!!! Now I do have a question as a reader of Ayn Rands. Something that I have not understood is how would a nation defend itself since a soldier must be willing to give his life for the country(group). I'm at a loss to resolve this conflict with Ayn's thinking. Help

[TheRealBenAtkin]

I wish you would still do videos like these sometimes. I have an easier time getting into these than documentaries or appearances on TV shows.

[shamgar001]

Good video, but I feel the need to point out that it only takes a few day to dehydrate. Three weeks in when you die of starvation.

[xaviern007]

Lol, I was going to post the same thing.

[stovens]

Wonderful I adore mental chess matches. Check!

[msdragonfly1]

i feel like i'm learning a lot here, ty

[terraindrain2]

McKeever can't even bother to shave, before going on camera. It comes as no suprise that he spews wing nut propaganda.

[dabruin2]

What the fuck does shaving have to do with anything? Dumbest comment I've ever read.

[QuaereVerum1983]

Hear hear!

[tomsega]

The initial questions are certainly sociology; questions of structure and agency/phenomenology, rather than philosophy. Unless you're applying them to individual ethic dilemnas..

[eujct]

Very interesting video with alot of good points, but I disagree when you claim anyone who does not follow Ayn Rands philosophy is pro death. Kropotkin's work 'mutual aid' discusses Darwin theory and argues that evolution and being "pro life" depends on communities working together and survival being based on co-operation. This is a rational observation of society, what Kropotkin advocates is an anarcho-communist society. This dosent make him pro-death.

[eujct]

You could argue that if you value life, Rands philosophy leads to death and struggle, as by advocating selfishness under an anarcho-capitalist, the pursuit of profit leads us to value money over survival of our people. The most succesful will therefore be able to form a state to protect their interests, which will lead to suffering and death for those lower down the hierarchy. Im not arguing for communism Im just using the same reductionist logic you use. Values r subjective

[PaulMcKeever]

I cannot comment on Kropotkin, not having read much about his works. Working together, or not doing so, isn't what determines whether someone is pro death. A city of rational egoists would trade with one another, work with one another etc. The matter of pro-life/pro-death is ultimately epistemological. Specifically: to think rationally is pro-life, not to do so is anti-life. To be or not to be = to think or not to think.

[eujct]

Thanks for responding, I appreciate it. I want to learn more about objectivism, I done some research (only a little, so I have maybe missed alot of Rands ideas), but in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1967), she states "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism, and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows".

[eujct]

So in a capitalist society, with profit being the driving force, it is in ones own rational self-interest (reason) to try and gain as much profit in order to enhance ones life chances. So the exchange process is a battle between those participating to try and get a good deal, i.e trying to influence others reason. Observe the mass consumerism of capitalist society where advertising is used to manipulate exchange

[eujct]

(think of all the unesecary goods being bought that we believe will bring us happiness, but dont actually affect our day to day living, that we are lead to believe will bring us happiness). So I judge from my observations of capitalism, that it breeds a culture whereby being profit driven, we are lead to manipulate others reason in order to improve our deal in the exchange. Therefore if one upholds reason, one cant uphold capitalism.

[eujct]

I guess the question I am asking is, does objectivism reject external influence on reason?

[PaulMcKeever]

It rejects coercion, but not persuasion. In an Objectivist society, "no" means no. In society at present, "no" means: the government will force you.

[Youhavethebody]

I would definitely suggest that you read more about Objectivism--even if you don't agree with it, you'll at least understand its arguments.

There's nothing wrong with people persuading others to buy something, because there's nothing wrong with *reason*, with discussion.

There's everything wrong with trying to force other people's minds, which is what every other political system does, in their own ways. Capitalism is the only system which advocates the use of reason instead of force.

[Youhavethebody]

I dispute your last claim: that to uphold reason means that you can't uphold capitalism--rather, the reverse is true. Those who advocate reason are the only people who can truly advocate capitalism. You should read "The Capitalist Manifesto"

I have a question: You've decided that certain things people buy are "unnecessary": does that mean that you would use force (like banning), so that they cannot use such items? And is this decision of yours reason-based (rational)? Why?

[Rahab111222]

"You've decided that certain things people buy are "unnecessary": does that mean that you would use force (like banning), so that they cannot use such items?"

This is a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. How clever of you to build up a strawman.

[Sam26100]

Fabulous, one of the best argued philosophical videos I've seen, and Im a youtube addict. Brilliantly lined out the argument, and broke it down. It's funny, I remember Stefan Molyneux saying that Ayn Rand wasn't good at the socratic method, and I think he implied that objectivists aren't either. If you ever end up having the time to debate him on youtube, I think you would have more to teach him than the other way around, and I say this as an admirer of Stefan

[horvay]

Ah, another good decision for myself, subscribing to Paul's videos.

[PaulMcKeever]

:-)

Thanks for subscribing!

[PaulMcKeever]

Thanks to you all for your kind and encouraging words.

Cheers,

Paul

[qtronman]

He mentions something about we don't know enough... That's why we need to learn! :-) Great video.

[Ostrodim]

Paul, thank you for your brilliant presentation of this issue. I wish you a success in your political campaign.

Dmitry Ostrovsky

[soitoldhimno]

I can speak from experience that it is VERY possible to act against your self-interest. When I used to believe in things like duty, I did many things out of sacrifice "for the greater good." These things did not make me happy or make me feel good about myself. In fact I strongly resented doing these things and was generally miserable, but I sacrificed because I thought it was my responsibility to do so. The idea that every human action is selfish is just not true.

[davidngo4415]

I have lots of respect for you. One question that's been plaguing me is, "Should we waste our time responding and correcting the views of idiots like these?" It's low-hanging fruit, but I'm wondering what reward we're getting out of it. What keeps you doing what you do?

[PaulMcKeever]

I try to pick statements/questions that I hear frequently, that I used to wonder about myself.  My motivation is selfish: the best method for me to learn and integrate is to teach/debate. Doing so usually involves me in the re-reading and reconsidering of things I've read before. Sometimes, this allows me to integrate better, or to discover that old tried and true arguments are over-tried, and not true.

[davidngo4415]

Yeah. I can understand that motivation. teaching and finding the best analogies to explain what I believe in, is a good way to reaffirm and strengthen my arguments. But sometimes, I feel some of these people say some pretty basic and ridiculously stupid things, that don't deserve our time.

[PaulMcKeever]

One problem, however, is that its the basic and ridiculously stupid things that seem to propagate through the web.

[marneedear]

Very good explanation!

[Wonderbread166]

Thanks for this. It seems to me that Rand's philosophy really leaves a lot open to the individual to decide what is valuable for himself, provided that it means "more life." In many cases, for example, choosing between being a writer and a musician, we make our own values. However, other value judgements are objective, such as the example with the woman and her child.

[marneedear]

Yes, in fact that is the whole point of it and was the point of philosophy at one time, now, apparently, it's about asking inane questions, but I digress.

[qtronman]

Certainly. There's millions of "optional values".