I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
Charity is a choice. If someone wants to give up everything they own, whatever their reason is, that is their choice. When that person then demands we have a duty to support him so he can continue his habit, my choice is no. But, I'm not given that free choice.
Again, Rand makes no mention whatsoever of reclaiming tax revenue nor did she teach it? Please show us evidence that objectivist advocate this type of behavior.
"Moochers" are tax payers as well. How do you define "moochers"? Be specific.
Since Rand spent her life railing against the social programs and decided to partake in them - That most certainly is a big public ordeal.
@logtype47 "the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare state administration."
I define moochers as those who receive benefits from a system which they haven't paid into, or receive vastly more, adjusted for inflation, than they paid.
It amazes me how these mindless free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite secretly applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatments.
There's a huge difference between receiving benefits from a system you were wrongfully forced into paying to, and supporting such institutions in the first place. I'd imagine the large part of her criticism of state-run institutions revolved around people who took from it without paying into it, basically just leeching off of those who were paying into it.
@UnboundObjectivity Rand never intended on taking back her tax revenue by applying for social programs. You speak of it as if it were a tactical move on her part. She lied and concealed her actions. People don't behave in this manner when they are taking back what is rightfully theirs.
If applying for social programs was acceptable Rand would have gladly approved of it publicly in her teachings. I challenge you find a cite a source where Rand supports such behavior.
The main reason I discredit this as supposedly proving her "hypocrisy" is that you seem to be implying that it would have been more consistent with her philosophy for her to allow her money to stay in the system to be mooched off of by others, instead of reclaiming it for herself. And as far as hiding it, I don't know -anyone- who makes receiving social security benefits a big public ordeal.
No. But are you going to tell me that the majority of universities advocate the philosophies of radical individualism, unregulated markets, and are anti-welfare?
You mean to tell me that there is an institute dedicated to Ayn Rand and objectivism? Good grief. Good thing I have no faith in humanity otherwise this would severely depress me.
@2002lees Cooperation is much closer to democracy than being a predator who usurps the planet under the guise of rational self-interest. The altruistic gene is certainly a much better quality than being an asshole! To give a shit about the society as a whole is to contribute to the greater good not just your selfish needs at the expense of everyone else who shares this planet with you. Ayn Randians cannot see the consequences of their actions they only see "what's in it for me right now."
@UnboundObjectivity The outcome of rational self interest in some situations wind up being at the expense or exploitation of others. Selfishness to an extreme as with radical libertarian types with sociopathisc tendencies walk all over people all of the time. A rejoinder here shopuld at the consideration of others instead of being selfish assholes with the "I got mine, screw you" mentality. And what about externalities?
@tomestubbs If an action involved the exploitation of others, then it was neither rational nor in anyone's real best interest. The point is to learn from mistakes when they do happen. I much prefer a philosophy that is 100% opposed to any use of force, that says every individual is an end in themselves. Any straying from this route, and you end up advocating the idea that man is a means to the ends of another or society. Such ideas rely on the expense, and -always- end in exploitation of others.
@tomestubbs Speaking broadly when it comes to externalities, the benefits of a free, industrial society nearly immeasurably outweigh the negative consequences that have resulted. And as technologies continue to improve, better and cleaner ways of production will be invented. Only when direct harm can be proven is it moral to use force to intervene.
I understand Schwartz' point, and I agree to a very limited extent. I think he goes too far when he starts declaring that people can't find fulfillment in life by dedicating one's self to helping disaster victims. Who is he to say what people find fulfilling in their own lives?
@pilate10 Umm, then there are two women from Alaska who said that. Palin is relgious; an Objectivit can't be religious. Objectivism isn't conservatism.
Ayn Rand was a very intelligent woman and a good writer but she never reached the full potential of her own philosophy. For someone to truly accept reason, liberty, and capitalism they must accept anarchy. Rothbard's philosophy was far ahead of Miss Rands. She never understood economics very well and when it came to individual/natural rights she had no firm ground to stand on while still supporting the state. It is shame that her intolerance of others restrained her from moving forward.
There's no example today or in history of a society based solely on individualism and self-interest. There is always some form of government and collectivism. Objectivism is pure fantasy.
@markgg1: Many people need many things. If you think it's your life's purpose to give them the things they need, then go ahead and do it. It's not for anyone else to tell you what to do. The point is that people act on the basis of the values they hold, and the position of Objectivism is that those values should be rationally evaluated, rather than handed down by rote. Any value you hold must ultimately derive from the fact that you live, hence your life is your highest value. Simple.
@dkt80 I am probably too stupid to understnad what u mean. But this is how it is: If someone needs help, its a moral duty (not legal) to help them. You dont have to of course, thats your decision, but I think your acting immorally by not helping. Sometimes people 'need' other people to carry on surviving. Human Life is the most precious thing on Earth, and if I can help preserve it... than I will
@markgg1: Millions of years of evolution have taught us to be helpful to each other. That's very strong evidence that it's a good thing to do (at least from the point of view of our genes). Now we have the ability to reason about why, and figure out the consequences of various actions. The point is that we should use that ability. It's very important that charity should be voluntary - who has the right to decide how you spend your efforts except you?
@dkt80 Of course charity is voluntary.. who suggested otherwise? I said its a moral duty (based on my own opinono) but not a legal one. Noone should be forced to give to charity... although people should be urged to.
Objectivism is a pathetically distorted ideology, that people try to pass off as philosophy.
Here is an easy way to counter its "rational self-interest"
What other things are interested in only what is good for themselves?
Animals, and all other life that cannot reflect upon itself. In nature, life is selfish. As humans, we have the ability to reflect upon and transcend our natural instincts. Thus, we should, and there, altruism exists. Rand was a fool
@dionkar336: Humans aren't particularly altruistic. Many species - particularly the intelligent ones - practice some form of altruism. That should indicate to you that it serves a purpose. The difference with humans is that we are able to rationally evaluate the purpose of our actions. What standard do you propose to use to decide whether or not an action is good? (And before you answer, ask whether you'd feed yourself to a starving lion).
The standard for deciding whether an action is good is quite simple. The question before the action should be, "Will this action cause more suffering?" By acting selfishly, we assure our continued existence at the inconvenience of others. To be happy, we hunt for new things, and thus take away from others. If an action causes further suffering, it is evil.
@dionkar336: I am made desperately unhappy by the fact that you have money and I don't. Give me your money. I need it more than you do. Also it hurts me when you breathe. That's my air. Give it back.
@dkt80 See, now you are just being childish. Lets start with the air thing. One, air is infinite, as lon as there are plants. it isnt your air, just like it isnt mine. We are all allowed to breathe it. as for the money, I am willing to give you some of my money if you earn it. By the way, I am also made desperately unhappy when people have money and dont share. If you honestly needed money, Id let you have what I can spare, but I wont go so far as giving away everything so I cannot live.
@dionkar336: I'm simply taking your philosophy to its logical extreme. Air is not infinite. But you put your finger on the salient point - "I am willing to give you some of my money *if you earn it*". Think about what that means.
See, you made a mistake. You, like many people, think a philosophy is a belief system. You dont believe in a philosophy, you do philosophy. Massive difference. Air is indeed infinite, as long as there are plants to convert CO2 to oxygen. Besides, I also revised that in my second part. Yes, I would absolutely give extra money to those who need it, so that they may also have good food to eat and clean water to drink. Earn it or not, what extra I have will be granted.
@dionkar336: I agree fully - philosophy is what one does. And I seriously hope you don't propose to give charity to the undeserving. Would you really feed a drunk alcohol, or buy cocaine for a crack addict? That's worse than self-destructive, it's society-destructive.
Well, that would be foolish. Im a shrewd judge of character, and far too much of an opinionated asshole to just bluntly give money away. I'd ask them what it is they need the money for, things like that, to assess the situation. Why give the extra to someone who would waste it on an addiction? then I wouldnt have extra money to give to someone who actually is trying to live, or feed their families. Thought that was more obvious. I will explain better in the future.
@dionkar336: Right, so you'd make a judgement call. So let's not have any more nonsense about universal charity, shall we? Now let's get to the heart of the matter: you have money, other people need money, who gets to choose what gets done with the money?
Btw - a favorite line from Morticia Addams - "Hush Mama! It's for charity! The poor. We need more of them." The Law of Unintended Consequences at work.
No, not a judgment call. That would be judging a person based on what I see. I would actually ask and get to know a person before doing anything. Universal charity exists, because the ones who ask for money but would spend it on drugs or alcohol? I would get them help to break the cycle. simple
@dkt80 Rational self-interest cannot exist, for if one is greedy with their money, they breed discontent in their society. When there is discontent, some of that will inevitably be in the form of jealousy for what the rich has. When that jealousy grows desperate enough, people turn to crime. When they do this, they rob or kill the rich to take what they have. And so, selfishness leads to death or robbery. Discontent still exists, the rich are on edge.
@dionkar336 Jealousy is not a synonym for envy. Jealousy is the virtue of defending what is rightfully yours from those who want to take it or destroy it. Envy is a synonym for covetousness- the vice of longing to seize or destroy what doesn't belong to you.
However, it is scientifically proven that people are nicer to those who give, or act friendly. A person can like you, but you dont have to like them back. Merely acting like you do influences their behavior. Hence, altruistic behaviors engender gratitude, and gratitude translates over to friendly feelings. Thus, the society is made more peaceful. when wealth is more evenly spaced, people arent as jealous, because the level of wealth is roughly the same for all
@dkt80 You wrongly assume that rich people have earned their money fairly (although some have). The simple fact that every country in the world has completely different numbers of rich to poor ratios shows us that it is all relative. Who really deserves more? A football player on 100K a week, or a heart surgeon on 100k a year? It is abundently obvious who is more useful. Money is not even relevant to whether you 'earned it or not'. The docter doesnt do it for money he does it to fix hearts...
@markgg1: I'm fully aware that there are a great many people who became very rich by very dubious means. Nobody said life was fair. The real problems start when they get political power. So my view is, the less power politicians have, the better.
As to football players - apparently the general public thinks it's worth paying them 100K a week to watch them throw balls around. I personally think that's stupid, but hey - I'm not the general public.
@dkt80 hmmm... not sure the public do want them paid so much. They are paid so much because their employers amass huge amounts of wealth as there is little regulation.
I think your basically arguing for tiny government? Is that correct?
@markgg1: If the public didn't want them paid so much, they wouldn't pay so much to watch the games, I think. I mean the employers can only amass wealth because lots of people pay to watch, right? Where else does the money come from?
Yes, I'm basically arguing for tiny government. Individual freedom, individual responsibility, individual ability to screw up royally and have to ask for a helping hand from your pals.
@dkt80 I think big government is the best system.. based on three branches of government with proper checks and balacnes...
Me and you will never agree, so theres no point debating it. But I do say look at wetern countries with big govs (sweden, norway, germany) , and those with small and compare (USA) stats on poverty, crime, health etc...
@markgg1 Correlation is not causation. High crime also correlates with church attendance. And regulation is often a major cause of crime - as in the prohibition.
@dkt80 Agreed correlation not always causation... but the huge differences in violent crime in USA and Europe needs an explanation, along with health disparities etc... I strongly beleive its due to this extreme libertarian ideology in America 'your on your own' mentality... its lazy, and destructive politics.
@markgg1: I'm inclined to believe that it's because Americans are generally more willful and/or ambitious. Ruthless, even. It could be that economic prosperity is intrinsically coupled to social dysfunction. English speakers generally have a reputation (outside of their own countries) for being pushy, devious, underhanded and avaricious. And they have a disproportionate share of global wealth. All interesting facts.
@dkt80 yeh but the wealth is tied up in a tiny minority, so who really benefits? Not very many... I dont think ammasing billions is worthy of such applause. Your average joy working 50 hours a week on a hospital ward, or your cops, or ambulance crews.. they are worthy of respect. not Donald Trump! I define ambition differently than you I guess
@markgg1 You can't deny that it's better to be rich than to be poor. And the acquisition of "stuff" is what's motivated humanity's rise from mud huts to 42-inch TVs. Some people win disproportionately, but that's always going to be the case. Meanwhile, the lives of most of the rest improve incrementally. Take away the billionaires, and a lot of those incremental improvements would disappear.
@dkt80 But dont get we wrong, I love America. The culture, the values etc... just think there are so many social problems that could be cured with a bit of political will. It will cost money sure.. but maybe spend but less on cruise missiles, and more on infrastructure, or health.
@markgg1 Oh yes, I absolutely 100% agree with you about the cruise missiles. But you see, to me that says, get rid of the stupid politicians who want to buy such crap. I've never met a politician who wasn't a self-important asshole. It's in the nature of what they do - only the corrupt aspire to power.
@dkt80 I aceept its not always easy to find cause and efect.. maybe the higher rate of murder in the USA is not realted to the size of government but something else.. very complex, hence why people will never agree on whats a 'perfect' system
You see, I will give, because when I have enough to feed myself, that is all my body needs. I do not need materialistic goods, nor do I need to hoarde my wealth. I cannot take money and things with me to my death, so what is the point in having them? When I die, I want to be able to die knowing I have aided others in my life. I would hate to die with so much junk that I dont know what to do with it.
@dionkar336: People are nicer to those who are nice first. It's called optimistic tit-for-tat, and it's a good strategy. This is what is meant by *rational* self-interest. It seems to be the *rational* part that you're not acknowledging. Of course it's a good idea to try to keep society happy.
If it makes you happy to give your stuff away, well good for you. The point is that it's *your* decision, not anybody else's. And that is the essence of capitalism.
"rational" self interest also says that people should be selfish as a virtue. Selfishness cannot exist with charity, they are opposites and thus do not exist together. You cant keep society happy and be selfish at the same time, because if everyone in society were selfish, then everybody would be competing for resources. Thus, those who can get them (The young, healthy, strong) Win and hoarde the resources while the old, weak, and sick in the society lose out.
@dionkar336 I can't be charitable for selfish reasons? That's patently wrong. As a rational capitalist, I understand that more trade equals more wealth. Therefore it is in my interests to have people to trade with. Therefore it's worth my while to see that the illiterate are educated and the hungry are fed. More customers, more business, more money for me in the end. Wealth is *not* a one-way street. Money is *made*, not acquired.
@dkt80 Charity means "love," and love is not selfish. So no, you can't be charitable for selfish reasons, though you can give for selfish reasons. This is what Jesus meant when He said, "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet in front of you like the hypocrites, for they have received their reward." Those hypocrites are people who give with selfish motives, so what they have given isn't real charity, but a pretender to the title- not evil, but morally neutral, not good.
@ajpmathwiz: It's evil to give charity when it is undeserved. Any gift must therefore be motivated by an estimate of recipient's worthiness. And the bald fact is that we only consider people worthwhile who have some potential worth to us. Hence any moral charity is ultimately selfish.
@dkt80 It's evil for people to do as they please with their own money? If you believe that, you are no less a busybody than the socialists. It's one thing to say, "Don't give charity to someone who will hurt themselves with it," but to criticize gift giving because you personally wouldn't engage in it makes you a busybody. Concern yourself with your own house.
@ajpmathwiz: Excellent point. Except you're attacking a straw man - I'm not interested at all in what other people do with their money (as I said in other posts here). I'm simply observing that any claim to "unselfish" charity is self-delusion.
@ajpmathwiz: Actually I take that back - I *do* have an interest in what people do with their money. And I most certainly have an opinion about what they should do with it. What I have no interest in is having any say in the matter. Or in anybody else having any say in the matter. Is that precise enough?
@ajpmathwiz: Again, you're restating things that I hope everybody here believes. You haven't addressed my argument at all. I claim that charity cannot be good unless it has some selfish motivation. Instead of calling me a busybody and implying that nobody wants to hear what I have to say, please talk to the point.
@dkt80 I'm saying that we have a fundamental disagreement about what is good. I believe that nothing is morally good unless it is motivated by love, and love is not and cannot be selfish. It is always directed at the object of affection, not at the self. Now, plenty of things are morally neutral- work and trade and enjoying the fruits thereof is one such thing- a licit pleasure and a just return, but not based in love.
@ajpmathwiz: My question now is: what causes you to love somebody? Why do you love some people more than others?
I'm not going to get into the subject of divine morality. If you can't justify your morality here on earth, with words and reason, then I don't care where it comes from - it's wrong.
@dkt80 I love others because He loved me enough to die for me. I believe in justice, but also in forgiveness and mercy. Concerning morality, what is your objective standard to measure morality against? Indeed, from where does a man's right to life come? What sets man apart from any of the animals that neither of us have qualms about eating or forcing to do our work? I contend that it is that man is created in the image and likeness of God. What say you?
@ajpmathwiz: I contend that the right to life is a choice - made by civilized men in the interest of living in a cooperative society. I further argue that making man's life (or more generally, any accepted member of society's life) paramount in the system of values is the only coherent and self-consistent choice. I believe that this is a superior basis for morality than God, since it forces us to use our reason, and is not based on the self-important assumption that we are the creator's image.
@dkt80 If rights come from men, then they can be taken away by men. Minority groups can be plundered, enslaved and slaughtered, with no recourse. Sure, it may not be the most economically productive thing to do, but what does that matter to people who enjoy violence, or prefer hatred to the general prosperity? You may call Nazis and the KKK barbaric, but you will be dumbstruck when they reply with, "So?" They don't consider their enemies human, so they have no qualms about stripping them of
@dkt80 ... their rights. If, as you say, rights are a product of civilization, what stops people from having the right to declare groups of people, "uncivilized," and therefore not protected by the law, nor possessing any rights? If, however, rights come from God, they may be taken away only by the wrath of God. One of the weapons of God's wrath is government, which is charged with punishing violence against persons and property.
@ajpmathwiz: I never said I believed in majority rule. Consider that. If the founding fathers could get it right, then there's hope for man yet. One can construct a system of deontological ethics without the absolute (and arbitrary!) authority of a deity. That is precisely what Rand attempted to do. Take a premise - man's life is the source of virtue - and derive your ethics from there. It's not hard, and it's not arbitrary. And it's exactly as enforceable as "God's law".
@dkt80 Anyone can conduct a system of ethics; the real question is are they right? The fact is that whoever creates rights has the intrinsic power to amend or destroy those rights. If you say that rights come from man, and that there is no one to answer to if you are powerful enough, what is the point of being moral? Someone with enough power can even commit genocide and get away with it. If, however, we must answer to our Creator, then His Word is Law, regardless of what we think.
@ajpmathwiz: The trouble with divine ethics - as you should well know - is that they are ultimately up to the interpretations given by men (since God stubbornly refuses to make his presence known). There's a religious world war looming because these men are, by and large, idiot mystics. That should be no surprise, since their ethical philosophy requires no reason - it's simply appeal to an ultimate authority, no thought or judgement required.
@ajpmathwiz Furthermore, the reason why those with enough power don't get away with it is twofold.
First, actions have consequences, and if you piss off enough people, those consequences will be dire, no matter who you are. So the monarchs learned.
Second, it's because we structure our societies so as to prevent individuals from attaining that much power. That's what constitutions are for - to limit power. I'm for abolishing politicians and political power altogether.
@dkt80 That is an is/ought fallacy. You can't get an "ought" from an "is." The questions were "Where do rights come from?" "What is good?" and "Why is being good important?" If there is no Judgment, then you can do whatever you can get away with. How did Kim Il-Sung pay for what he did? I'd say that he's burning in Hell, but from a materialistic standpoint, he lived out a full life, died in royal splendor, and now his nation is ruled by his son.
@ajpmathwiz: I'm not suggesting that an is implies an ought. One always requires a premise to bridge that gap, as in "I wish to live". And these premises are obviously different for different people (although they are arguably not equally justifiable).
The short answers to your questions - the constitution, life of man, and because it follows from your premise.
It's too late to make Kim Il-Sung pay, but that's the fault of those he ruled. For some bizarre reason, he's popular in North Korea.
@ajpmathwiz No doubt you will argue that restricting political power doesn't prevent people from getting economic power, to which my response is - one can only create money by being productive and having something to sell. You can take away someone's economic power simply by refusing to trade with them.
@dkt80 Never would I regard a man earning wages and spending them as he pleases as evil, so long as neither the profit nor the purchase was the direct result of an evil action. However, it is fundamentally a fleshly act, and therefore morally neutral (or spiritually worthless). Likewise, giving for selfish reasons like fame, instead of out of love, guts charity of what makes it good. It is not evil to do so, but one who does so has received his reward....
@dkt80 If you refuse to accept a morality based in spiritual truths, then you cannot even understand my argument, let alone accept it. Truly, it's not even my argument; it's the wisdom of Jesus that I am relaying to you. And what is good, anyway? If you do not accept that there is an Arbiter and Judge of good and evil, what does it matter? Ayn Rand was right about a lot of things, but she was ignorant of true wisdom, and she understood only shadows of it.
@dionkar336: One final point - trying to distribute wealth evenly tends to destroy the wealth in question. The basic problem is that if I can't get more "stuff" by working harder, then I have no motivation to work hard at all. That's a serious oversimplification of what's going on, but it highlights the principal error (or error in principle) of redistribution.
@dkt80 And why do you need more stuff? what is the point of acquiring material goods? What do you gain if you hae a job that pays you 400,000 a year? lets say half that goes to taxes and living expenses. You still have 200,000. What are you going to do with that? You cant take any of that money or any things you buy with it to your death, you can only take the actions you have committed in life. And that 200,000 extra a year you keep is 200,000 that others cant have to live with.
Objectivism is philosophically incomplete and fallacious. I can see how a doctrine of rugged individualism, anti-altruism, and unabashed hedonism would appeal to modern people, especially under the guise of "rational self-interest". There's a reason it's not taught as a real philosophy. If you think it's because it's revolutionary, it isn't - it's functionally similar to Nitzsche's philosophies... which inspired the Nazis. Then again, so did Hegel. But both are legitimized. Look deeper.
Things that annoy me about the ARI and TOC are; the black and white world view of there adherents - they dismiss ambiguity just a quickly as any religious extremist. They don't acknowledge that the 'prosperity' of the US that they revere isn't a result of a free market - an introductory look at the coporate and economic policies of the 20th century shows government 'stimulation' permeated the US business world. Also their neo con outlook on world politics.
Frankly, all macro problems aside, I simply have no trust in any individuals who reject evolutionarily beneficial concepts such as altruism. They are ignorant of concepts of reciprosity and cooperation. They aspire to lone wolves in a world of social networks. They wouldn't sacrifice to save their children. They are completely irrational to me. I think that people only adhere to such a doctrine when they were inherently self-involved. It's a philosophy of ex post facto justification.
@PSK11489: Aren't you letting your rationality be dictated by your evolutionary origins, there?
I think it would be impossible to be an objectivist without understanding reciprocity and cooperation very well indeed. No society (and no capitalist society in particular) could survive without them. Your use of Latin seems to exceed your grasp of what Rand had to say.
@dkt80 Our evolutionary origins are in us, because they are what worked best for our survival.. therefore we should follow our altruisitic urges. We are natural creatures, and there is no harm in following our natural urges.. to coorporate, to reproduce, to love children, to show compassion for others when they need help. These are what it is to be human, and I find it worrying people reject them. We are not robots.
@markgg1: I don't think we're disagreeing about whether it's good to be charitable. The issue is, who chooses? Should the government force people to give to charity? Should the majority decide who's worthy of charity and who is not? It's not an issue about whether or not you should do good deeds, it's an issue of liberty. Do you see my point?
I agreed until you got to Hegel and Nietzsche. I 'm guessing you know that the part of them that inspired the Nazis was the incomplete and mistranslated part? But yea, right Hegelians did form Fascism, the left made communism, and Rand was an idiot pseudo-philosopher. But a technically decent writer. Still hate her with a passion
If charity is something you volunteer, then fine. BUT it should not be forced. There is a proverb: "True charity is anonymous." This is a virtue. Taxes are not a virtue.
Charity reminds me of reading about worker's attitude to charity in the workhouses.
there it was seen as an insult, charity givers were beaten up.
human dignity is a right, it is not dependant on the rich. if dignity is absent. beware. it is only a matter of time before all the 'benevolence' gets a boot in the mouth.
Tax the wealthiest to keep society balanced.
do it internationally,. all human beings deserve not to be at the whim of an ignoramus oaf like this speaker.
If men with little money start stealing from those with lots, with this not make society 'balanced' under your beliefs? Do you then approve of theft, or does that theft have to be actuated by a third party (i.e. the government) and then you approve?
i see two virtues in charity: as an unattached provider you are held in high esteem which contributes to your self-esteem. another is a possible connection with the reciever. intellectual and emotional intercourse, even if it's an instant.
We need to get rid of all currency and start a symbiotic relationship with each other and this planet. It's the only way we'll finally be happy in this world. Greed is not happiness. It only builds on itself. Has nobody noticed that? People are trapped by it. It's like a hunger that feeds itself until you've eaten away the lining of your own stomach. Greed divides you from others and isolates you, turning friends into enemies (and even lovers too). Fuck this Ayn Rand bullshit. Wake up humanity!
There are enough resources for everyone on this planet to have more than what they need right now. If we work together (I know, really really crazy idea, right?) our technology will improve so that we can go beyond this planet's resources and expand into the rest of the universe. We will need massive organization which can be accomplished via the internet. Consumerism, corporate lies, and greed-based bureaucracy are all slowing this process down to a near stand-still at the moment.
Where do you think prosperity comes from? From the criteria one has to fulfill on their own in order to life -- thus each person owns their life and owes nothing to anyone for it, only what is owed to themselves. The silver bullet to these retarded "Greater good" arguments, meant to enslave all-to-all, is that there are specific things you can't give to another person.
You owe it to yourself to help the greater good, or the greater good will become the greater bad. And then you'll be living in a world full of shit. That's just the natural occurrence of things.
And here it's important not to conflate sacrifice with benevolence. esspecially if you advocate totally free capitalism. all you would have to rely on is the compassion of others,of volentary charity. it would then be in everyone's "self-interest" to realize that we all benefit from a friendly helpful society--since no one will be forced to help one of us if something goes wrong. but you don't achieve this through sacrifice--or enouraging said irrational society to use others asa meansto an end.
That is, to make the distinction when dealing with others whether or not something that i value is ACTUALLY at stake -- there is such a thing as mutual aid, mutual good will, mutual understanding without agreeing but still able to have complimentary differences. The context and purpose of one's action, without dropping the long-range, etc.
(couldn't find your latest comment) It reminds me of when Piekoff (a little fanatical for my tastes but a good source of objectivist thought non-the less) took a question from the audience on, in effect, overthrowing the government for the sake of capitalism -- "revolution now!!!" -- and Piekoff just stood blankly and said, "how?" lol, "we don't have any supporters, if you can think of a better idea outside educating the public, i'm all ears."
By NO MEANS WHATSOEVER would i ever DARE to make a character comparison when i say this but, sometimes, i feel like Jefferson who knew that slavery was evil, but knew the south just wasn't ready for it. not even the slaves were ready for such a radical culture change, and objectivism in particular teaches some pretty damn unpopular ideas. on the plus-side, people will eventually NEED to grow more rational and think more logically since information is doubling every ten years.
You can't make people think, you can't make them respect themselves you can't make people work--its like physical fitness, you can teach someone how to get in shape but ultimately it's their responsibility. Thats something aperson is only capable of giving themselves only by their own virtue to their own values. This entails being rational, and therefore treating one another fairly, since one does not expect the opposite of existence (effects without causes, rewards without effort). thus, trade.
"This entails being rational, and therefore treating one another fairly, since one does not expect the opposite of existence (effects without causes, rewards without effort)."
Speaking of cause and effect, what do you suppose the effect would be to tell an IRRATIONAL society that it's okay to do whatever you want as long as it's for your own self-interest? Do you think that power has no effect on rationality? Power corrupts unless you spread it equally. Give me 1 example where this is not true.
"it's okay to do whatever you want as long as it's for your own self-interest" indeed this is true, though important to distinquish between motivated action and action that is to your self-interest. a friend who wants to drive home drunk is certainly motivated to get home, but clearly they are not acting in their self-interest. If there is one thing objectivism DOES NOT teach, it's that you just go head and do what you feel like. power corrupts? corrupts...what?and why would that be corruption?
"If there is one thing objectivism DOES NOT teach, it's that you just go head and do what you feel like."
Maybe so, but what I'm saying is that people who have the power to do whatever they feel like half the time will go ahead and do whatever they feel like. So when you're telling someone w/ power your vague idea that it's good for people to be concerned only with their self interest, they can VERY EASILY get the wrong idea and do whatever they please WITHOUT considering the damage they'll do.
While your first statement may be true, it does not address the question I asked. Besides, who would organize the labor force in putting these resources into production?
The only resource we will need to exchange in the not too distant future will be information. Due to the exponentially growing capacity of computers we are able to process more and more data faster and faster. We are just barely reaching that upward curve right now. This will fuel the biological revolution (i.e. human genome project etc.) and right after that we will have a revolution in nanotechnology, allowing us to manipulate the very fabric of the world around us..If we don't kill each other
Maybe you don't follow me. The information that we are gaining at a rapid pace will be able to help us transform the world. Due to the vast expansion of information technology (making computers and other hardware more and more affordable at a rapid rate) and once nanotechnology truly takes off we will be able to build food replicators, so yes, in a way information will fill millions of empty stomachs. People need to be more generous with their information though at this stage.
Food cannot be created from nothing. Also, any materials used to "build" food will almost immediately become scarce. But all this is beside the point. You still haven't answered the question I asked. Even if food is plentiful, and if we eliminate all currency, how do exchange our labor or product for food if the producers of food don't want our labor or product?
I sometimes give money to homeless people just because I want to however I wonder if it is a good idea because it will encourage dependency. Not all situations are the same however I have decided to fault on being generous.
*sigh* I agreed until he said "provided the recipient show gratitude." He already said duty was not a concern. Showing gratitude is not a duty either. And if one does what so few do, devote their life to helping victims, where does he get the judgment that "this can not be a fulfilling life"?
You still haven't defined your terms. There are no universal definitions for those words. We can bicker about poor paraphrasing all day, but you have to define your terms specifically.
Sorry, but "making some earnest comparisons" is just a spicy way of saying "I was name calling". Your comment had no purpose, and no real intellectual depth. When you say something more like, "I have looked it up, and the point about "x" is flawed because of "y". But saying that all objectivists are narcissistic fails to establish any true argument. Unless you give a more specific purpose and definition behind "narcissist".
Though if you were to put all the kindness in the world into a slap of rock, it would still be a rock and bear no fruit. To quote a very good book, "You can want in one hand, and spit in the other, and see which one fills up first."
But see, I disagree with that last part. Charitable action can make up the entirety of one's life in the proper context, and for some people, can be incredibly fulfilling.
What is most surprising is that the main tenent of Rand's beliefs seems to have been left out. Charity should be provided not *becase* the people are needy, but because they have some good qualities past this neediness. Tsunamis are accidental, so aiding victims in any form will not create a consistent drain on society.
Man has no instincts, nor does man survive automatically, or even want to survive automatically. So human nature consists of controlling fear? Fear of what?
Listen to this jerk everyone: He's trying to pretend that he's the compassionate one, the caring one, the giving one, yet he tells me "you're not so important ya know." Where's your kindness and compassion towards me? When you gallavant around the world trying to save everyone, do you do it because they're all "not so important?" Are we all just 1/6000000000 important? OH the endless contradictions of altruism! Take your implicitly admitted unimportance to its logical conclusion, okay?
That's what it comes down to. Damn right I am important! In fact, I am literally the most important thing in the world to myself. When I die it is literally ALL over, and this life is the only one I've got, so I'm going to suck the most out of life that I can.
When you ask questions of value or of importance, you have to ask, value or importance TO WHOM. No other kind of value or importance is even possible.
I give and receive selfishly. I love someone because they are a value to me, and this is the highest honor I can bestow upon another person. I wouldn't give to someone who wasn't a value to me, nor would I expect gifts from someone to whom I wasn't valuable.
Dude, why don't you look up something, anything at all, about Objectivism? These are such silly, superficial criticisms, the kind Objectivists get and deal with all the time so easily and are god-damn sick of hearing.
I "serve" in the Navy for the purpose of protecting my own life, liberty, property, family, rights, loved ones, etc.. Entirely for my own selfish benefit.
So if you loved someone and got married to them, would you say, "Honey, this is the biggest, most unselfish sacrifice I've ever made in my life!" Yeah, she'd love to hear that....
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
SwordOfApollo 4 days ago
Never let anyone convince you that you have sme great purpose in life. They are trying to manipulate you for THEIR purposes...
Dracopol 3 months ago
Charity is a choice. If someone wants to give up everything they own, whatever their reason is, that is their choice. When that person then demands we have a duty to support him so he can continue his habit, my choice is no. But, I'm not given that free choice.
Solverwiz 9 months ago
Again, Rand makes no mention whatsoever of reclaiming tax revenue nor did she teach it? Please show us evidence that objectivist advocate this type of behavior.
"Moochers" are tax payers as well. How do you define "moochers"? Be specific.
Since Rand spent her life railing against the social programs and decided to partake in them - That most certainly is a big public ordeal.
logtype47 10 months ago
@logtype47 "the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare state administration."
I define moochers as those who receive benefits from a system which they haven't paid into, or receive vastly more, adjusted for inflation, than they paid.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
It amazes me how these mindless free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite secretly applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatments.
logtype47 10 months ago
@logtype47
Receiving benefits from a system that she were forced to pay into isn't contrary to her philosophy.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
@UnboundObjectivity Ah Ha. Well then please refrain from criticizing those who utilize state institutions.
logtype47 10 months ago
@logtype47
There's a huge difference between receiving benefits from a system you were wrongfully forced into paying to, and supporting such institutions in the first place. I'd imagine the large part of her criticism of state-run institutions revolved around people who took from it without paying into it, basically just leeching off of those who were paying into it.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
@UnboundObjectivity Rand never intended on taking back her tax revenue by applying for social programs. You speak of it as if it were a tactical move on her part. She lied and concealed her actions. People don't behave in this manner when they are taking back what is rightfully theirs.
If applying for social programs was acceptable Rand would have gladly approved of it publicly in her teachings. I challenge you find a cite a source where Rand supports such behavior.
logtype47 10 months ago
@logtype47
The main reason I discredit this as supposedly proving her "hypocrisy" is that you seem to be implying that it would have been more consistent with her philosophy for her to allow her money to stay in the system to be mooched off of by others, instead of reclaiming it for herself. And as far as hiding it, I don't know -anyone- who makes receiving social security benefits a big public ordeal.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
Ayn Rand's philosophy clearly has been taken over by idiots.
2002lees 10 months ago
@2002lees Ayn Rand attracts idiots because she was an idiot. No university I know of takes her "philosophy" seriously. Why is that?
itpduder 10 months ago
@itpduder
Because her philosophy is contrary to what they want to teach to people.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
@UnboundObjectivity Are you suggesting that public and private universities are socialist because they reject Rand's philosophy?
logtype47 10 months ago
No. But are you going to tell me that the majority of universities advocate the philosophies of radical individualism, unregulated markets, and are anti-welfare?
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
You mean to tell me that there is an institute dedicated to Ayn Rand and objectivism? Good grief. Good thing I have no faith in humanity otherwise this would severely depress me.
Lukyo1984 10 months ago
@Lukyo1984 Your comments suggests you don't have faith in yourself. It's a thought apparently well rationed
2002lees 10 months ago
@2002lees Of course I have no faith in myself. Any faith worth having belongs directed towards Christ. No one else and nothing else.
Lukyo1984 10 months ago
If I give a poor man money because it makes me feel good, then that would be okay with objectivism since my motivation is egoistic?
jonizzzzzzzzzzz 1 year ago
@jonizzzzzzzzzzz yes.
TorySoma 11 months ago
Selfish assholes at last have a perpetuated reason for validity, Ayn Rand's writing, which is at best mediocre and too black and white.
tomestubbs 1 year ago
@tomestubbs Individualism is rational self interest. Atruism is mystical, subjective and irrational.
2002lees 10 months ago
@2002lees Cooperation is much closer to democracy than being a predator who usurps the planet under the guise of rational self-interest. The altruistic gene is certainly a much better quality than being an asshole! To give a shit about the society as a whole is to contribute to the greater good not just your selfish needs at the expense of everyone else who shares this planet with you. Ayn Randians cannot see the consequences of their actions they only see "what's in it for me right now."
tomestubbs 10 months ago
@tomestubbs
"At the expense of everyone else"? Ayn Rand SPECIFICALLY advocated actions motivated by self interest that were not at the expense of others.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
@UnboundObjectivity The outcome of rational self interest in some situations wind up being at the expense or exploitation of others. Selfishness to an extreme as with radical libertarian types with sociopathisc tendencies walk all over people all of the time. A rejoinder here shopuld at the consideration of others instead of being selfish assholes with the "I got mine, screw you" mentality. And what about externalities?
tomestubbs 10 months ago
@tomestubbs If an action involved the exploitation of others, then it was neither rational nor in anyone's real best interest. The point is to learn from mistakes when they do happen. I much prefer a philosophy that is 100% opposed to any use of force, that says every individual is an end in themselves. Any straying from this route, and you end up advocating the idea that man is a means to the ends of another or society. Such ideas rely on the expense, and -always- end in exploitation of others.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
Comment removed
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomestubbs Speaking broadly when it comes to externalities, the benefits of a free, industrial society nearly immeasurably outweigh the negative consequences that have resulted. And as technologies continue to improve, better and cleaner ways of production will be invented. Only when direct harm can be proven is it moral to use force to intervene.
UnboundObjectivity 10 months ago 2
So objectivists can't celebrate winter season santa claus-day? Since they are focused more on obligation to give rather than giving from your heart?
tannalv 1 year ago
to scorn = to contradict the non-aggression principle
kmarinas86 1 year ago
I understand Schwartz' point, and I agree to a very limited extent. I think he goes too far when he starts declaring that people can't find fulfillment in life by dedicating one's self to helping disaster victims. Who is he to say what people find fulfilling in their own lives?
PosFlow 1 year ago
Don't be too altruistic but don't be too selfish either!
The Objectivist cult promotes selfishness because it advocates rational SELF-INTEREST!
I can tell just by the look on that guy's face and the way he sounds that he doesn't like charity very much!
rebelq1 1 year ago
I know an Objectivist from Alaska who thinks she can see Russia from her front porch.
pilate10 1 year ago
@pilate10 Umm, then there are two women from Alaska who said that. Palin is relgious; an Objectivit can't be religious. Objectivism isn't conservatism.
asalmog 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was a very intelligent woman and a good writer but she never reached the full potential of her own philosophy. For someone to truly accept reason, liberty, and capitalism they must accept anarchy. Rothbard's philosophy was far ahead of Miss Rands. She never understood economics very well and when it came to individual/natural rights she had no firm ground to stand on while still supporting the state. It is shame that her intolerance of others restrained her from moving forward.
bolognamof 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
12 People think they are the same person.
CipherMind117 1 year ago
There's no example today or in history of a society based solely on individualism and self-interest. There is always some form of government and collectivism. Objectivism is pure fantasy.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
I love the down rates lol. Angry Marxists?
lacklusterkid 1 year ago
@lacklusterkid yup
zosothedestroyer 1 year ago
These people are nuts. The good feeling is irrelevant. Charity is supposed to be helping people who need help.
These people are frankly dangerous.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1: Many people need many things. If you think it's your life's purpose to give them the things they need, then go ahead and do it. It's not for anyone else to tell you what to do. The point is that people act on the basis of the values they hold, and the position of Objectivism is that those values should be rationally evaluated, rather than handed down by rote. Any value you hold must ultimately derive from the fact that you live, hence your life is your highest value. Simple.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Values are held and created because we can reflect on our inevitable ends
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dkt80 I am probably too stupid to understnad what u mean. But this is how it is: If someone needs help, its a moral duty (not legal) to help them. You dont have to of course, thats your decision, but I think your acting immorally by not helping. Sometimes people 'need' other people to carry on surviving. Human Life is the most precious thing on Earth, and if I can help preserve it... than I will
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1: Millions of years of evolution have taught us to be helpful to each other. That's very strong evidence that it's a good thing to do (at least from the point of view of our genes). Now we have the ability to reason about why, and figure out the consequences of various actions. The point is that we should use that ability. It's very important that charity should be voluntary - who has the right to decide how you spend your efforts except you?
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Of course charity is voluntary.. who suggested otherwise? I said its a moral duty (based on my own opinono) but not a legal one. Noone should be forced to give to charity... although people should be urged to.
markgg1 1 year ago
Objectivism is a pathetically distorted ideology, that people try to pass off as philosophy.
Here is an easy way to counter its "rational self-interest"
What other things are interested in only what is good for themselves?
Animals, and all other life that cannot reflect upon itself. In nature, life is selfish. As humans, we have the ability to reflect upon and transcend our natural instincts. Thus, we should, and there, altruism exists. Rand was a fool
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336: Humans aren't particularly altruistic. Many species - particularly the intelligent ones - practice some form of altruism. That should indicate to you that it serves a purpose. The difference with humans is that we are able to rationally evaluate the purpose of our actions. What standard do you propose to use to decide whether or not an action is good? (And before you answer, ask whether you'd feed yourself to a starving lion).
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80
The standard for deciding whether an action is good is quite simple. The question before the action should be, "Will this action cause more suffering?" By acting selfishly, we assure our continued existence at the inconvenience of others. To be happy, we hunt for new things, and thus take away from others. If an action causes further suffering, it is evil.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336: I am made desperately unhappy by the fact that you have money and I don't. Give me your money. I need it more than you do. Also it hurts me when you breathe. That's my air. Give it back.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 See, now you are just being childish. Lets start with the air thing. One, air is infinite, as lon as there are plants. it isnt your air, just like it isnt mine. We are all allowed to breathe it. as for the money, I am willing to give you some of my money if you earn it. By the way, I am also made desperately unhappy when people have money and dont share. If you honestly needed money, Id let you have what I can spare, but I wont go so far as giving away everything so I cannot live.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336: I'm simply taking your philosophy to its logical extreme. Air is not infinite. But you put your finger on the salient point - "I am willing to give you some of my money *if you earn it*". Think about what that means.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80
See, you made a mistake. You, like many people, think a philosophy is a belief system. You dont believe in a philosophy, you do philosophy. Massive difference. Air is indeed infinite, as long as there are plants to convert CO2 to oxygen. Besides, I also revised that in my second part. Yes, I would absolutely give extra money to those who need it, so that they may also have good food to eat and clean water to drink. Earn it or not, what extra I have will be granted.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336: I agree fully - philosophy is what one does. And I seriously hope you don't propose to give charity to the undeserving. Would you really feed a drunk alcohol, or buy cocaine for a crack addict? That's worse than self-destructive, it's society-destructive.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80
Well, that would be foolish. Im a shrewd judge of character, and far too much of an opinionated asshole to just bluntly give money away. I'd ask them what it is they need the money for, things like that, to assess the situation. Why give the extra to someone who would waste it on an addiction? then I wouldnt have extra money to give to someone who actually is trying to live, or feed their families. Thought that was more obvious. I will explain better in the future.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336: Right, so you'd make a judgement call. So let's not have any more nonsense about universal charity, shall we? Now let's get to the heart of the matter: you have money, other people need money, who gets to choose what gets done with the money?
Btw - a favorite line from Morticia Addams - "Hush Mama! It's for charity! The poor. We need more of them." The Law of Unintended Consequences at work.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80
No, not a judgment call. That would be judging a person based on what I see. I would actually ask and get to know a person before doing anything. Universal charity exists, because the ones who ask for money but would spend it on drugs or alcohol? I would get them help to break the cycle. simple
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dkt80 Rational self-interest cannot exist, for if one is greedy with their money, they breed discontent in their society. When there is discontent, some of that will inevitably be in the form of jealousy for what the rich has. When that jealousy grows desperate enough, people turn to crime. When they do this, they rob or kill the rich to take what they have. And so, selfishness leads to death or robbery. Discontent still exists, the rich are on edge.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336 Jealousy is not a synonym for envy. Jealousy is the virtue of defending what is rightfully yours from those who want to take it or destroy it. Envy is a synonym for covetousness- the vice of longing to seize or destroy what doesn't belong to you.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@dkt80
However, it is scientifically proven that people are nicer to those who give, or act friendly. A person can like you, but you dont have to like them back. Merely acting like you do influences their behavior. Hence, altruistic behaviors engender gratitude, and gratitude translates over to friendly feelings. Thus, the society is made more peaceful. when wealth is more evenly spaced, people arent as jealous, because the level of wealth is roughly the same for all
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dkt80 You wrongly assume that rich people have earned their money fairly (although some have). The simple fact that every country in the world has completely different numbers of rich to poor ratios shows us that it is all relative. Who really deserves more? A football player on 100K a week, or a heart surgeon on 100k a year? It is abundently obvious who is more useful. Money is not even relevant to whether you 'earned it or not'. The docter doesnt do it for money he does it to fix hearts...
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1: I'm fully aware that there are a great many people who became very rich by very dubious means. Nobody said life was fair. The real problems start when they get political power. So my view is, the less power politicians have, the better.
As to football players - apparently the general public thinks it's worth paying them 100K a week to watch them throw balls around. I personally think that's stupid, but hey - I'm not the general public.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 hmmm... not sure the public do want them paid so much. They are paid so much because their employers amass huge amounts of wealth as there is little regulation.
I think your basically arguing for tiny government? Is that correct?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1: If the public didn't want them paid so much, they wouldn't pay so much to watch the games, I think. I mean the employers can only amass wealth because lots of people pay to watch, right? Where else does the money come from?
Yes, I'm basically arguing for tiny government. Individual freedom, individual responsibility, individual ability to screw up royally and have to ask for a helping hand from your pals.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 I think big government is the best system.. based on three branches of government with proper checks and balacnes...
Me and you will never agree, so theres no point debating it. But I do say look at wetern countries with big govs (sweden, norway, germany) , and those with small and compare (USA) stats on poverty, crime, health etc...
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Correlation is not causation. High crime also correlates with church attendance. And regulation is often a major cause of crime - as in the prohibition.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Agreed correlation not always causation... but the huge differences in violent crime in USA and Europe needs an explanation, along with health disparities etc... I strongly beleive its due to this extreme libertarian ideology in America 'your on your own' mentality... its lazy, and destructive politics.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1: I'm inclined to believe that it's because Americans are generally more willful and/or ambitious. Ruthless, even. It could be that economic prosperity is intrinsically coupled to social dysfunction. English speakers generally have a reputation (outside of their own countries) for being pushy, devious, underhanded and avaricious. And they have a disproportionate share of global wealth. All interesting facts.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 yeh but the wealth is tied up in a tiny minority, so who really benefits? Not very many... I dont think ammasing billions is worthy of such applause. Your average joy working 50 hours a week on a hospital ward, or your cops, or ambulance crews.. they are worthy of respect. not Donald Trump! I define ambition differently than you I guess
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 You can't deny that it's better to be rich than to be poor. And the acquisition of "stuff" is what's motivated humanity's rise from mud huts to 42-inch TVs. Some people win disproportionately, but that's always going to be the case. Meanwhile, the lives of most of the rest improve incrementally. Take away the billionaires, and a lot of those incremental improvements would disappear.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 But dont get we wrong, I love America. The culture, the values etc... just think there are so many social problems that could be cured with a bit of political will. It will cost money sure.. but maybe spend but less on cruise missiles, and more on infrastructure, or health.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Oh yes, I absolutely 100% agree with you about the cruise missiles. But you see, to me that says, get rid of the stupid politicians who want to buy such crap. I've never met a politician who wasn't a self-important asshole. It's in the nature of what they do - only the corrupt aspire to power.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 I aceept its not always easy to find cause and efect.. maybe the higher rate of murder in the USA is not realted to the size of government but something else.. very complex, hence why people will never agree on whats a 'perfect' system
markgg1 1 year ago
@dkt80
You see, I will give, because when I have enough to feed myself, that is all my body needs. I do not need materialistic goods, nor do I need to hoarde my wealth. I cannot take money and things with me to my death, so what is the point in having them? When I die, I want to be able to die knowing I have aided others in my life. I would hate to die with so much junk that I dont know what to do with it.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336: People are nicer to those who are nice first. It's called optimistic tit-for-tat, and it's a good strategy. This is what is meant by *rational* self-interest. It seems to be the *rational* part that you're not acknowledging. Of course it's a good idea to try to keep society happy.
If it makes you happy to give your stuff away, well good for you. The point is that it's *your* decision, not anybody else's. And that is the essence of capitalism.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80
"rational" self interest also says that people should be selfish as a virtue. Selfishness cannot exist with charity, they are opposites and thus do not exist together. You cant keep society happy and be selfish at the same time, because if everyone in society were selfish, then everybody would be competing for resources. Thus, those who can get them (The young, healthy, strong) Win and hoarde the resources while the old, weak, and sick in the society lose out.
dionkar336 1 year ago
@dionkar336 I can't be charitable for selfish reasons? That's patently wrong. As a rational capitalist, I understand that more trade equals more wealth. Therefore it is in my interests to have people to trade with. Therefore it's worth my while to see that the illiterate are educated and the hungry are fed. More customers, more business, more money for me in the end. Wealth is *not* a one-way street. Money is *made*, not acquired.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Charity means "love," and love is not selfish. So no, you can't be charitable for selfish reasons, though you can give for selfish reasons. This is what Jesus meant when He said, "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet in front of you like the hypocrites, for they have received their reward." Those hypocrites are people who give with selfish motives, so what they have given isn't real charity, but a pretender to the title- not evil, but morally neutral, not good.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: It's evil to give charity when it is undeserved. Any gift must therefore be motivated by an estimate of recipient's worthiness. And the bald fact is that we only consider people worthwhile who have some potential worth to us. Hence any moral charity is ultimately selfish.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 It's evil for people to do as they please with their own money? If you believe that, you are no less a busybody than the socialists. It's one thing to say, "Don't give charity to someone who will hurt themselves with it," but to criticize gift giving because you personally wouldn't engage in it makes you a busybody. Concern yourself with your own house.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: Excellent point. Except you're attacking a straw man - I'm not interested at all in what other people do with their money (as I said in other posts here). I'm simply observing that any claim to "unselfish" charity is self-delusion.
dkt80 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: Actually I take that back - I *do* have an interest in what people do with their money. And I most certainly have an opinion about what they should do with it. What I have no interest in is having any say in the matter. Or in anybody else having any say in the matter. Is that precise enough?
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Yes, you are most certainly free to speak your mind, and people are free to decide whether or not they want to listen.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: Again, you're restating things that I hope everybody here believes. You haven't addressed my argument at all. I claim that charity cannot be good unless it has some selfish motivation. Instead of calling me a busybody and implying that nobody wants to hear what I have to say, please talk to the point.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 I'm saying that we have a fundamental disagreement about what is good. I believe that nothing is morally good unless it is motivated by love, and love is not and cannot be selfish. It is always directed at the object of affection, not at the self. Now, plenty of things are morally neutral- work and trade and enjoying the fruits thereof is one such thing- a licit pleasure and a just return, but not based in love.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: My question now is: what causes you to love somebody? Why do you love some people more than others?
I'm not going to get into the subject of divine morality. If you can't justify your morality here on earth, with words and reason, then I don't care where it comes from - it's wrong.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 I love others because He loved me enough to die for me. I believe in justice, but also in forgiveness and mercy. Concerning morality, what is your objective standard to measure morality against? Indeed, from where does a man's right to life come? What sets man apart from any of the animals that neither of us have qualms about eating or forcing to do our work? I contend that it is that man is created in the image and likeness of God. What say you?
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: I contend that the right to life is a choice - made by civilized men in the interest of living in a cooperative society. I further argue that making man's life (or more generally, any accepted member of society's life) paramount in the system of values is the only coherent and self-consistent choice. I believe that this is a superior basis for morality than God, since it forces us to use our reason, and is not based on the self-important assumption that we are the creator's image.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 If rights come from men, then they can be taken away by men. Minority groups can be plundered, enslaved and slaughtered, with no recourse. Sure, it may not be the most economically productive thing to do, but what does that matter to people who enjoy violence, or prefer hatred to the general prosperity? You may call Nazis and the KKK barbaric, but you will be dumbstruck when they reply with, "So?" They don't consider their enemies human, so they have no qualms about stripping them of
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@dkt80 ... their rights. If, as you say, rights are a product of civilization, what stops people from having the right to declare groups of people, "uncivilized," and therefore not protected by the law, nor possessing any rights? If, however, rights come from God, they may be taken away only by the wrath of God. One of the weapons of God's wrath is government, which is charged with punishing violence against persons and property.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: I never said I believed in majority rule. Consider that. If the founding fathers could get it right, then there's hope for man yet. One can construct a system of deontological ethics without the absolute (and arbitrary!) authority of a deity. That is precisely what Rand attempted to do. Take a premise - man's life is the source of virtue - and derive your ethics from there. It's not hard, and it's not arbitrary. And it's exactly as enforceable as "God's law".
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Anyone can conduct a system of ethics; the real question is are they right? The fact is that whoever creates rights has the intrinsic power to amend or destroy those rights. If you say that rights come from man, and that there is no one to answer to if you are powerful enough, what is the point of being moral? Someone with enough power can even commit genocide and get away with it. If, however, we must answer to our Creator, then His Word is Law, regardless of what we think.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: The trouble with divine ethics - as you should well know - is that they are ultimately up to the interpretations given by men (since God stubbornly refuses to make his presence known). There's a religious world war looming because these men are, by and large, idiot mystics. That should be no surprise, since their ethical philosophy requires no reason - it's simply appeal to an ultimate authority, no thought or judgement required.
dkt80 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz Furthermore, the reason why those with enough power don't get away with it is twofold.
First, actions have consequences, and if you piss off enough people, those consequences will be dire, no matter who you are. So the monarchs learned.
Second, it's because we structure our societies so as to prevent individuals from attaining that much power. That's what constitutions are for - to limit power. I'm for abolishing politicians and political power altogether.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 That is an is/ought fallacy. You can't get an "ought" from an "is." The questions were "Where do rights come from?" "What is good?" and "Why is being good important?" If there is no Judgment, then you can do whatever you can get away with. How did Kim Il-Sung pay for what he did? I'd say that he's burning in Hell, but from a materialistic standpoint, he lived out a full life, died in royal splendor, and now his nation is ruled by his son.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz: I'm not suggesting that an is implies an ought. One always requires a premise to bridge that gap, as in "I wish to live". And these premises are obviously different for different people (although they are arguably not equally justifiable).
The short answers to your questions - the constitution, life of man, and because it follows from your premise.
It's too late to make Kim Il-Sung pay, but that's the fault of those he ruled. For some bizarre reason, he's popular in North Korea.
dkt80 1 year ago
@ajpmathwiz No doubt you will argue that restricting political power doesn't prevent people from getting economic power, to which my response is - one can only create money by being productive and having something to sell. You can take away someone's economic power simply by refusing to trade with them.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Never would I regard a man earning wages and spending them as he pleases as evil, so long as neither the profit nor the purchase was the direct result of an evil action. However, it is fundamentally a fleshly act, and therefore morally neutral (or spiritually worthless). Likewise, giving for selfish reasons like fame, instead of out of love, guts charity of what makes it good. It is not evil to do so, but one who does so has received his reward....
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@dkt80 If you refuse to accept a morality based in spiritual truths, then you cannot even understand my argument, let alone accept it. Truly, it's not even my argument; it's the wisdom of Jesus that I am relaying to you. And what is good, anyway? If you do not accept that there is an Arbiter and Judge of good and evil, what does it matter? Ayn Rand was right about a lot of things, but she was ignorant of true wisdom, and she understood only shadows of it.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
@dionkar336: One final point - trying to distribute wealth evenly tends to destroy the wealth in question. The basic problem is that if I can't get more "stuff" by working harder, then I have no motivation to work hard at all. That's a serious oversimplification of what's going on, but it highlights the principal error (or error in principle) of redistribution.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 And why do you need more stuff? what is the point of acquiring material goods? What do you gain if you hae a job that pays you 400,000 a year? lets say half that goes to taxes and living expenses. You still have 200,000. What are you going to do with that? You cant take any of that money or any things you buy with it to your death, you can only take the actions you have committed in life. And that 200,000 extra a year you keep is 200,000 that others cant have to live with.
dionkar336 1 year ago
Objectivism is philosophically incomplete and fallacious. I can see how a doctrine of rugged individualism, anti-altruism, and unabashed hedonism would appeal to modern people, especially under the guise of "rational self-interest". There's a reason it's not taught as a real philosophy. If you think it's because it's revolutionary, it isn't - it's functionally similar to Nitzsche's philosophies... which inspired the Nazis. Then again, so did Hegel. But both are legitimized. Look deeper.
PSK11489 2 years ago
Indeed.
Objectivism in Epistemology-predated by Rationalism.
Objectivism in Ontology--predated by Existentialism.
Objectivism in Metaphysics--predated by every strand of materialist thought going back to the Axial age.
Objectivism in ethics--predated by Nietzsche's master-slave morality.
Objectivism in Aesthetics-- Schopenhauer's Romanticism,with intellectual man representing the highest subject of art.
Her influence in a country that sees Social Darwinism as good is understood,though.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Things that annoy me about the ARI and TOC are; the black and white world view of there adherents - they dismiss ambiguity just a quickly as any religious extremist. They don't acknowledge that the 'prosperity' of the US that they revere isn't a result of a free market - an introductory look at the coporate and economic policies of the 20th century shows government 'stimulation' permeated the US business world. Also their neo con outlook on world politics.
LuqmanNaq 1 year ago
Frankly, all macro problems aside, I simply have no trust in any individuals who reject evolutionarily beneficial concepts such as altruism. They are ignorant of concepts of reciprosity and cooperation. They aspire to lone wolves in a world of social networks. They wouldn't sacrifice to save their children. They are completely irrational to me. I think that people only adhere to such a doctrine when they were inherently self-involved. It's a philosophy of ex post facto justification.
PSK11489 1 year ago
@PSK11489: Aren't you letting your rationality be dictated by your evolutionary origins, there?
I think it would be impossible to be an objectivist without understanding reciprocity and cooperation very well indeed. No society (and no capitalist society in particular) could survive without them. Your use of Latin seems to exceed your grasp of what Rand had to say.
dkt80 1 year ago
@dkt80 Our evolutionary origins are in us, because they are what worked best for our survival.. therefore we should follow our altruisitic urges. We are natural creatures, and there is no harm in following our natural urges.. to coorporate, to reproduce, to love children, to show compassion for others when they need help. These are what it is to be human, and I find it worrying people reject them. We are not robots.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1: I don't think we're disagreeing about whether it's good to be charitable. The issue is, who chooses? Should the government force people to give to charity? Should the majority decide who's worthy of charity and who is not? It's not an issue about whether or not you should do good deeds, it's an issue of liberty. Do you see my point?
dkt80 1 year ago
@PSK11489
I agreed until you got to Hegel and Nietzsche. I 'm guessing you know that the part of them that inspired the Nazis was the incomplete and mistranslated part? But yea, right Hegelians did form Fascism, the left made communism, and Rand was an idiot pseudo-philosopher. But a technically decent writer. Still hate her with a passion
dionkar336 1 year ago
If charity is something you volunteer, then fine. BUT it should not be forced. There is a proverb: "True charity is anonymous." This is a virtue. Taxes are not a virtue.
quintmorrison 2 years ago
Charity reminds me of reading about worker's attitude to charity in the workhouses.
there it was seen as an insult, charity givers were beaten up.
human dignity is a right, it is not dependant on the rich. if dignity is absent. beware. it is only a matter of time before all the 'benevolence' gets a boot in the mouth.
Tax the wealthiest to keep society balanced.
do it internationally,. all human beings deserve not to be at the whim of an ignoramus oaf like this speaker.
marsCubed 2 years ago
If men with little money start stealing from those with lots, with this not make society 'balanced' under your beliefs? Do you then approve of theft, or does that theft have to be actuated by a third party (i.e. the government) and then you approve?
tothemax01 2 years ago
Norway and Sweden have the highest taxes in the world.
As a result they have the wealthiest populations in the world, the most equal, next to no crime, best education and healthcare.
educated people are difficult to push around.
they also make the most innovative and flexible workforce.. with little between them and the boss.
The theft is by shitty corps who drive people into poverty for a few quick $. it wrecks lives and markets.
profit is not wealth production. it is often the very opposite
marsCubed 2 years ago
i see two virtues in charity: as an unattached provider you are held in high esteem which contributes to your self-esteem. another is a possible connection with the reciever. intellectual and emotional intercourse, even if it's an instant.
fede2 2 years ago
We need to get rid of all currency and start a symbiotic relationship with each other and this planet. It's the only way we'll finally be happy in this world. Greed is not happiness. It only builds on itself. Has nobody noticed that? People are trapped by it. It's like a hunger that feeds itself until you've eaten away the lining of your own stomach. Greed divides you from others and isolates you, turning friends into enemies (and even lovers too). Fuck this Ayn Rand bullshit. Wake up humanity!
seanotube85 2 years ago
If we get rid of all currency, then how do we exchange resources with each other, and how do we decide who gets what resources?
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
There are enough resources for everyone on this planet to have more than what they need right now. If we work together (I know, really really crazy idea, right?) our technology will improve so that we can go beyond this planet's resources and expand into the rest of the universe. We will need massive organization which can be accomplished via the internet. Consumerism, corporate lies, and greed-based bureaucracy are all slowing this process down to a near stand-still at the moment.
seanotube85 2 years ago
Where do you think prosperity comes from? From the criteria one has to fulfill on their own in order to life -- thus each person owns their life and owes nothing to anyone for it, only what is owed to themselves. The silver bullet to these retarded "Greater good" arguments, meant to enslave all-to-all, is that there are specific things you can't give to another person.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
You owe it to yourself to help the greater good, or the greater good will become the greater bad. And then you'll be living in a world full of shit. That's just the natural occurrence of things.
seanotube85 2 years ago
And here it's important not to conflate sacrifice with benevolence. esspecially if you advocate totally free capitalism. all you would have to rely on is the compassion of others,of volentary charity. it would then be in everyone's "self-interest" to realize that we all benefit from a friendly helpful society--since no one will be forced to help one of us if something goes wrong. but you don't achieve this through sacrifice--or enouraging said irrational society to use others asa meansto an end.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
That is, to make the distinction when dealing with others whether or not something that i value is ACTUALLY at stake -- there is such a thing as mutual aid, mutual good will, mutual understanding without agreeing but still able to have complimentary differences. The context and purpose of one's action, without dropping the long-range, etc.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
(couldn't find your latest comment) It reminds me of when Piekoff (a little fanatical for my tastes but a good source of objectivist thought non-the less) took a question from the audience on, in effect, overthrowing the government for the sake of capitalism -- "revolution now!!!" -- and Piekoff just stood blankly and said, "how?" lol, "we don't have any supporters, if you can think of a better idea outside educating the public, i'm all ears."
runningfrog43 2 years ago
By NO MEANS WHATSOEVER would i ever DARE to make a character comparison when i say this but, sometimes, i feel like Jefferson who knew that slavery was evil, but knew the south just wasn't ready for it. not even the slaves were ready for such a radical culture change, and objectivism in particular teaches some pretty damn unpopular ideas. on the plus-side, people will eventually NEED to grow more rational and think more logically since information is doubling every ten years.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
You can't make people think, you can't make them respect themselves you can't make people work--its like physical fitness, you can teach someone how to get in shape but ultimately it's their responsibility. Thats something aperson is only capable of giving themselves only by their own virtue to their own values. This entails being rational, and therefore treating one another fairly, since one does not expect the opposite of existence (effects without causes, rewards without effort). thus, trade.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
"This entails being rational, and therefore treating one another fairly, since one does not expect the opposite of existence (effects without causes, rewards without effort)."
Speaking of cause and effect, what do you suppose the effect would be to tell an IRRATIONAL society that it's okay to do whatever you want as long as it's for your own self-interest? Do you think that power has no effect on rationality? Power corrupts unless you spread it equally. Give me 1 example where this is not true.
seanotube85 2 years ago
"it's okay to do whatever you want as long as it's for your own self-interest" indeed this is true, though important to distinquish between motivated action and action that is to your self-interest. a friend who wants to drive home drunk is certainly motivated to get home, but clearly they are not acting in their self-interest. If there is one thing objectivism DOES NOT teach, it's that you just go head and do what you feel like. power corrupts? corrupts...what?and why would that be corruption?
runningfrog43 2 years ago
"If there is one thing objectivism DOES NOT teach, it's that you just go head and do what you feel like."
Maybe so, but what I'm saying is that people who have the power to do whatever they feel like half the time will go ahead and do whatever they feel like. So when you're telling someone w/ power your vague idea that it's good for people to be concerned only with their self interest, they can VERY EASILY get the wrong idea and do whatever they please WITHOUT considering the damage they'll do.
seanotube85 2 years ago
While your first statement may be true, it does not address the question I asked. Besides, who would organize the labor force in putting these resources into production?
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
The only resource we will need to exchange in the not too distant future will be information. Due to the exponentially growing capacity of computers we are able to process more and more data faster and faster. We are just barely reaching that upward curve right now. This will fuel the biological revolution (i.e. human genome project etc.) and right after that we will have a revolution in nanotechnology, allowing us to manipulate the very fabric of the world around us..If we don't kill each other
seanotube85 2 years ago
Can information fill an empty stomach?
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
Maybe you don't follow me. The information that we are gaining at a rapid pace will be able to help us transform the world. Due to the vast expansion of information technology (making computers and other hardware more and more affordable at a rapid rate) and once nanotechnology truly takes off we will be able to build food replicators, so yes, in a way information will fill millions of empty stomachs. People need to be more generous with their information though at this stage.
seanotube85 2 years ago
Food cannot be created from nothing. Also, any materials used to "build" food will almost immediately become scarce. But all this is beside the point. You still haven't answered the question I asked. Even if food is plentiful, and if we eliminate all currency, how do exchange our labor or product for food if the producers of food don't want our labor or product?
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
You poor poor man.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
Is this you feeling sorry for me? Don't feel sorry for something you can't understand. Feel sorry for yourself for not being able to understand it.
seanotube85 2 years ago 2
Fail.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
I sometimes give money to homeless people just because I want to however I wonder if it is a good idea because it will encourage dependency. Not all situations are the same however I have decided to fault on being generous.
ALittleBitPregnant 2 years ago
*sigh* I agreed until he said "provided the recipient show gratitude." He already said duty was not a concern. Showing gratitude is not a duty either. And if one does what so few do, devote their life to helping victims, where does he get the judgment that "this can not be a fulfilling life"?
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
You still haven't defined your terms. There are no universal definitions for those words. We can bicker about poor paraphrasing all day, but you have to define your terms specifically.
bioperluc 2 years ago
Sorry, but "making some earnest comparisons" is just a spicy way of saying "I was name calling". Your comment had no purpose, and no real intellectual depth. When you say something more like, "I have looked it up, and the point about "x" is flawed because of "y". But saying that all objectivists are narcissistic fails to establish any true argument. Unless you give a more specific purpose and definition behind "narcissist".
bioperluc 2 years ago
Wow. I thought I wouldn't have the whole "sticks and stones" issues after I got out of public schooling. Oh well.
bioperluc 2 years ago
Though if you were to put all the kindness in the world into a slap of rock, it would still be a rock and bear no fruit. To quote a very good book, "You can want in one hand, and spit in the other, and see which one fills up first."
bioperluc 2 years ago
But see, I disagree with that last part. Charitable action can make up the entirety of one's life in the proper context, and for some people, can be incredibly fulfilling.
What is most surprising is that the main tenent of Rand's beliefs seems to have been left out. Charity should be provided not *becase* the people are needy, but because they have some good qualities past this neediness. Tsunamis are accidental, so aiding victims in any form will not create a consistent drain on society.
SnapeSoul 3 years ago
Great comment, ty.
bioperluc 2 years ago
Man has no instincts, nor does man survive automatically, or even want to survive automatically. So human nature consists of controlling fear? Fear of what?
shovelcharge 3 years ago
/watch?v=owpNc-yMIpI
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"some desperate ideological incentive toward controlling our ever persistent fears."
And what fears might these be?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"I never said that servitude should be unconditional"
...immediately contradicted by...
"but kindness should be, as it is by definition unconditional."
So servitude CAN be made unconditional, providing one dresses it up as "kindness".
And kindness is not unconditional "by definition".
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Yup.
Listen to this jerk everyone: He's trying to pretend that he's the compassionate one, the caring one, the giving one, yet he tells me "you're not so important ya know." Where's your kindness and compassion towards me? When you gallavant around the world trying to save everyone, do you do it because they're all "not so important?" Are we all just 1/6000000000 important? OH the endless contradictions of altruism! Take your implicitly admitted unimportance to its logical conclusion, okay?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"You're not so important, ya know."
That's what it comes down to. Damn right I am important! In fact, I am literally the most important thing in the world to myself. When I die it is literally ALL over, and this life is the only one I've got, so I'm going to suck the most out of life that I can.
When you ask questions of value or of importance, you have to ask, value or importance TO WHOM. No other kind of value or importance is even possible.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
I give and receive selfishly. I love someone because they are a value to me, and this is the highest honor I can bestow upon another person. I wouldn't give to someone who wasn't a value to me, nor would I expect gifts from someone to whom I wasn't valuable.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Dude, why don't you look up something, anything at all, about Objectivism? These are such silly, superficial criticisms, the kind Objectivists get and deal with all the time so easily and are god-damn sick of hearing.
I "serve" in the Navy for the purpose of protecting my own life, liberty, property, family, rights, loved ones, etc.. Entirely for my own selfish benefit.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
So if you loved someone and got married to them, would you say, "Honey, this is the biggest, most unselfish sacrifice I've ever made in my life!" Yeah, she'd love to hear that....
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Guilt isn't justified unless you're the cause. And last time I checked, nothing I did caused anyone to starve or live on the streets.
Altruism, elevated to a political level, isn't unconditional kindness, it's unconditional servitude.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
I can't tell MYSELF that I don't have a moral obligation? And if I do? WTF are you going to do about it your egg-headed moron?
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
No; that wasn't said at all. He said you should not tell yourself that you have a moral obligation to provide charity.
Not that you cannot.
Just as you are free to cut your own arm off, you are free to hold wrong morals.
tito2502 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I picture him getting pissed off at someone he helped who didn't thank him quickly enough.
RevAlex 3 years ago
So true benevolence means enslaving yourself to someone else and receiving nothing in return?
When this is the kind of thing that morality calls for from people, no wonder everyone acts so immorally.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
you haven't shown why altruism is a virtue, nor have you shown selfishness isn't a virtue.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
@shovelcharge One who denies that there is a God cannot be convinced that selflessness and love, or indeed anything, is inherently virtuous.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
Ghandi said something in the effect that help people when you can but if you can't do not hurt them.
cochisestronghold 3 years ago
If anybody wants to watch the entire video including the Q & A just message me and ill tell you where you can see it.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I'm not coming to your house... :)
Kurtyoungblood 3 years ago