[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The principle is nonaggression.[/quote]
Again, setting one principle among all others, irrespective of the situation, is a sure road to fanaticism and will ultimately do more harm than good.
Nonagression is important, but so are other values. You can’t unilaterally deify one above all the others.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I prefer the extremes described by Forlife and Sloth, to these extremes.[/quote]
Why are you presenting a false choice? It’s not as if you need to choose one extreme or the other. How about holding both values, and determining their relative weight, which will vary based on the particular situation at hand?
[quote]Unaware wrote:
Now you are the one making assumptions. Who is to say that Mr. Gates would not have contributed an even larger sum had his cumulative tax burden instead been in his bank account? [/quote]
The question isn’t whether Gates would contribute a larger sum if not taxed, it’s whether he would contribute more than the entire amount saved from taxes that would otherwise be used to save lives. I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue that every single penny saved from removing his taxes would be handed back out to the poor.
In your society, I would become a criminal. Not one that you could put your finger on. But I would befriend all the down trodden, I would arm and train them. I would rule your utopia
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508510
It sounds so cold on the outside, that is, the idea of selfishness. But once one reads more than a simple outline, it just clicks. If your are REASONable , than it will for you too. Socialistic parasites and Mystics will have a hard time with her concepts.
She never states that you cannot help someone. You can help anyone you want… if that said person allows you to help them. However, you cannot infringe on other’s Right To Life… ie their property and right to trade. Basically, you cannot set goals outside yourself that others are not agreeable with. You cannot take the rich’s money to give to the poor. You, yourself, can give to the poor as well as anyone else, but as HH said, forcing it takes all the morality out of it.
Self-Sacrifice, ie choosing a lower value over higher value, only occurs when one is conditioned to believe in Altruism or through force. So, example, as a Jehovah Witness, you feel its your duty and obligation to commit others to your faith as well as supress your sexual urges and desires solely because your religion. Or, born in Soviet Union, you must give yourself to society or face the consequences. I guess some would say the higher value is “staying alive” so they must do whatever is possible… but I don’t believe in compromising yourself. And neither does Rand.
and ForLife, what is the greater good? I look out for me, my family, my friends, and to a very lesser extent my countrymen. I do not care if 2000 chinese die in a mine collapse or any other ‘tragic’ event that someone loses their life unless: Its someone I have a relationship with , for that is what life is … Relationships. On that note- I expect any rational person to not sacrifice their self in any moral dilemma that requires them to do so for ‘the greater good’ unless relationships are involved – for as Rand aludes to, life can become unliveable (lower value) after one dies.[/quote]
Wish I wrote this well. This is a very good summation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I prefer the extremes described by Forlife and Sloth, to these extremes.
Why are you presenting a false choice? It’s not as if you need to choose one extreme or the other. How about holding both values, and determining their relative weight, which will vary based on the particular situation at hand?
[/quote]
Morality is a set of principles to which parties agree on and which one person may invoke against another. What you’re describing is allowing each person to make a subjective judgment of what is right and wrong. This must lead to conflict.
Imagine a society where some believe a woman is guilty of a sex crime, if she is raped and there are fewer than 4 male adult witnesses, while at the same time other members of that society think judgment of rape requires/accepts other facts? (England, today)
Imagine a society where half were fine with slavery while the other half thought it repugnant.
Ms. Rand is describing a moral code that is based on human nature, not on mystical wishes or the magical words of some long ago prophets. It is the setting up of AN UNNATURAL MORALITY that is leading to the state of the world. That is the point of Atlas Shrugged.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In your society, I would become a criminal. Not one that you could put your finger on. But I would befriend all the down trodden, I would arm and train them. I would rule your utopia [/quote]
We would have reason on our side and you would have mindless brutes. You’d be crushed pretty quickly. Read close to the end of Galt’s speech.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Morality is a set of principles to which parties agree on and which one person may invoke against another. What you’re describing is allowing each person to make a subjective judgment of what is right and wrong. This must lead to conflict.
[/quote]
You just described the judicial system, which is all about making judgments on the relative application of values, given the details of the particular situation.
What is the alternative?
Mindless application of a single value, with no regard for mitigating circumstances or the ultimate cost of doing so.
Simpler? Yes. More moral? Undeniably no.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Morality is a set of principles to which parties agree on and which one person may invoke against another. What you’re describing is allowing each person to make a subjective judgment of what is right and wrong. This must lead to conflict.
You just described the judicial system, which is all about making judgments on the relative application of values, given the details of the particular situation.
What is the alternative?
Mindless application of a single value, with no regard for mitigating circumstances or the ultimate cost of doing so.
Simpler? Yes. More moral? Undeniably no.[/quote]
It is more moral because you are never interfering with someones freedom and no one is interfering with yours. How can it be any more moral than that? Because someone doesn’t help you if you get your ass in a jam you think it’s less good, well that is only what you think There is however, no question as to which is more moral.
V
[quote]forlife wrote:
I value personal freedom as well, but not to the degree that I think people should be allowed to die due to a rich man’s utter selfishness.[/quote]
Compared to those in Africa, I’m willing to bet that you are extremely “rich”, it would be for the “greater good” if you were divested of all your wealth, and maintained only a subsistence lifestyle, your wealth could be funneled towards more human beings, and thus the greater good is established. You rich selfish bastard.
Lets say you make 50K a year. You could be forced to give up 45K a year to help those in need, while you have enough for food and to live under a bridge. However, that 45K can make dozens in impoverished nations live like kings. Great system right? Until you decide to say “Fuck it” and stop living like a slave for others benefit.
Obviously an extreme example, but one thing that I thought was quite interesting about Atlas Shrugged is that everyone has a breaking point, and each marginal increase may or may not result in that person saying “fuck it”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The principle is nonaggression.
Again, setting one principle among all others, irrespective of the situation, is a sure road to fanaticism and will ultimately do more harm than good.
Nonagression is important, but so are other values. You can’t unilaterally deify one above all the others.[/quote]
But if you allow aggression even once you are saying it is okay in any circumstance because how does one justify it in one case but not any other.
If you allow for aggression specifically to tax people then you allow for your own property to be robbed by anyone. Consistency matters.
Aggression is either good in all circumstances or it isn’t good at all. There is no in between. You can call that fanaticism and I am fine with it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In your society, I would become a criminal. Not one that you could put your finger on. But I would befriend all the down trodden, I would arm and train them. I would rule your utopia [/quote]
No one is claiming it isgoing to be Utopia. But nice of you to keep showing up in these threads and claiming that.
But really, you have access to those kind of arms? Why would you not instead form your own private security/defense company?
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
forlife wrote:
I value personal freedom as well, but not to the degree that I think people should be allowed to die due to a rich man’s utter selfishness.
Compared to those in Africa, I’m willing to bet that you are extremely “rich”, it would be for the “greater good” if you were divested of all your wealth, and maintained only a subsistence lifestyle, your wealth could be funneled towards more human beings, and thus the greater good is established. You rich selfish bastard.
Lets say you make 50K a year. You could be forced to give up 45K a year to help those in need, while you have enough for food and to live under a bridge. However, that 45K can make dozens in impoverished nations live like kings. Great system right? Until you decide to say “Fuck it” and stop living like a slave for others benefit.
Obviously an extreme example, but one thing that I thought was quite interesting about Atlas Shrugged is that everyone has a breaking point, and each marginal increase may or may not result in that person saying “fuck it”.[/quote]
Or for the good of Africa he can be sent to live there to take care of AIDS babies. And since it is for the greater good it is just if we command him to do so.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Unaware wrote:
Now you are the one making assumptions. Who is to say that Mr. Gates would not have contributed an even larger sum had his cumulative tax burden instead been in his bank account?
The question isn’t whether Gates would contribute a larger sum if not taxed, it’s whether he would contribute more than the entire amount saved from taxes that would otherwise be used to save lives. I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue that every single penny saved from removing his taxes would be handed back out to the poor.[/quote]
I don’t think any reasonable person would suggest that every single penny taxed from Mr. Gates goes towards “saving lives”. In fact I would wager a very small fraction of the tax revenue form Mr. Gates actually “saves lives”; Certainly the tax revenue saves far less lives than his foundation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
forlife wrote:
I value personal freedom as well, but not to the degree that I think people should be allowed to die due to a rich man’s utter selfishness.
Compared to those in Africa, I’m willing to bet that you are extremely “rich”, it would be for the “greater good” if you were divested of all your wealth, and maintained only a subsistence lifestyle, your wealth could be funneled towards more human beings, and thus the greater good is established. You rich selfish bastard.
Lets say you make 50K a year. You could be forced to give up 45K a year to help those in need, while you have enough for food and to live under a bridge. However, that 45K can make dozens in impoverished nations live like kings. Great system right? Until you decide to say “Fuck it” and stop living like a slave for others benefit.
Obviously an extreme example, but one thing that I thought was quite interesting about Atlas Shrugged is that everyone has a breaking point, and each marginal increase may or may not result in that person saying “fuck it”.
Or for the good of Africa he can be sent to live there to take care of AIDS babies. And since it is for the greater good it is just if we command him to do so.[/quote]
The practioners of altruism rarely practice it at its extremes. Kant advocated that, saying only when you are in intense pain or depression from an act can you be sure that you are acting morally (complete selflessness). You ‘burn out’ all the selfishness.
What kind of morality advocates that its practioners seek out and embrace pain and suffering? Jesus did it and I guess some saints did. I think I’ll pass.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, you’re not immoral for wanting to help a man. You are immoral for taking something that does not belong to you. Ultimately, you are the one who has to sleep at night…I think you’ll be fine. I am just pointing out the moral distinctions that need to be clear.
Why does taking something that doesn’t belong to you trump every other moral, in all situations, and to all degrees? Isn’t it a question of doing the math and looking at individual circumstances?
How far would you go with that?
For example, let’s say a hurricane is about to hit an island and a guy owns the one bridge leading from the island. For the sake of this example, there is no other safe way off the island except by taking the bridge. The 100 people on the island will inevitably die unless they are allowed to escape across the bridge.
Should the guy be forced to allow people to use the bridge? What if nobody else is using the bridge, the people are all penniless and can’t pay for it, and the guy would not be harmed in any way if people were to use the bridge? If he refuses out of sheer obstinacy, would it be moral to take the gate key from him and allow people to access to the bridge, against his will?
You take that key away from him and, poof, concentration camps popping up everywhere. Concentration camps, dude…Concentration camps.[/quote]
Excuse me, you brought in the most absurd hypothetical scenario you could possibly think of that too much “selfishness” might lead too.
I brought up the very real examples of “altruist” ideologies going to extremes.
It is the very nature of collectivist ideologies that if our masters are a tad confused on what the “higher good” actually is they fuck up on a big scale.
One of the reasons why I prefer the occasional hyper individualist asshole any day.
How many people can he kill on any given day?
[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
How do you measure greater good?
Hint: That has been tried and is logically impossible as far as we know.
What you are really saying is that you will substitute your judgment for somebody else’s and if he refuses to fork his income over he will, at the risk of repeating myself be imprisoned or killed.
Interestingly enough you so not like it when people deny you a piece of paper, but you are perfectly willing to take part of their income by force.
Obviously, there is no objective measure of the greater good. I never suggested there was. The determination of the greater good is entirely, subjectively defined by the person casting the vote.
I don’t advocate killing people who refuse to pay their taxes, where did you get that idea?[/quote]
Are you that naive?
What do you think will happen if someone will not pay the taxes you need to pursue you “greater good”?
That he will be sent to bed without dinner?
No, men with guns will come and get him and his stuff and if he resists he will be shot dead.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, you’re not immoral for wanting to help a man. You are immoral for taking something that does not belong to you. Ultimately, you are the one who has to sleep at night…I think you’ll be fine. I am just pointing out the moral distinctions that need to be clear.
Why does taking something that doesn’t belong to you trump every other moral, in all situations, and to all degrees? Isn’t it a question of doing the math and looking at individual circumstances?
How far would you go with that?
For example, let’s say a hurricane is about to hit an island and a guy owns the one bridge leading from the island. For the sake of this example, there is no other safe way off the island except by taking the bridge. The 100 people on the island will inevitably die unless they are allowed to escape across the bridge.
Should the guy be forced to allow people to use the bridge? What if nobody else is using the bridge, the people are all penniless and can’t pay for it, and the guy would not be harmed in any way if people were to use the bridge? If he refuses out of sheer obstinacy, would it be moral to take the gate key from him and allow people to access to the bridge, against his will?
You take that key away from him and, poof, concentration camps popping up everywhere. Concentration camps, dude…Concentration camps.
Excuse me, you brought in the most absurd hypothetical scenario you could possibly think of that too much “selfishness” might lead too.
I brought up the very real examples of “altruist” ideologies going to extremes.
It is the very nature of collectivist ideologies that if our masters are a tad confused on what the “higher good” actually is they fuck up on a big scale.
One of the reasons why I prefer the occasional hyper individualist asshole any day.
How many people can he kill on any given day?
[/quote]
Your hyper individualism would lead right back to hyper collectivism. Liberaltarians are their own worst enemies.
Speaking of religion, I was just thinking, how do u think Puff would react if he realized that Big isn’t really smiling down from heaven?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, you’re not immoral for wanting to help a man. You are immoral for taking something that does not belong to you. Ultimately, you are the one who has to sleep at night…I think you’ll be fine. I am just pointing out the moral distinctions that need to be clear.
Why does taking something that doesn’t belong to you trump every other moral, in all situations, and to all degrees? Isn’t it a question of doing the math and looking at individual circumstances?
How far would you go with that?
For example, let’s say a hurricane is about to hit an island and a guy owns the one bridge leading from the island. For the sake of this example, there is no other safe way off the island except by taking the bridge. The 100 people on the island will inevitably die unless they are allowed to escape across the bridge.
Should the guy be forced to allow people to use the bridge? What if nobody else is using the bridge, the people are all penniless and can’t pay for it, and the guy would not be harmed in any way if people were to use the bridge? If he refuses out of sheer obstinacy, would it be moral to take the gate key from him and allow people to access to the bridge, against his will?
You take that key away from him and, poof, concentration camps popping up everywhere. Concentration camps, dude…Concentration camps.
Excuse me, you brought in the most absurd hypothetical scenario you could possibly think of that too much “selfishness” might lead too.
I brought up the very real examples of “altruist” ideologies going to extremes.
It is the very nature of collectivist ideologies that if our masters are a tad confused on what the “higher good” actually is they fuck up on a big scale.
One of the reasons why I prefer the occasional hyper individualist asshole any day.
How many people can he kill on any given day?
Your hyper individualism would lead right back to hyper collectivism. Liberaltarians are their own worst enemies.[/quote]
Well historically it did but societies always move in that direction. Religion, nationalism, socialism, they’ll find something.
Not that that really makes a case for you, it just shows that too many people are too stupid for their own good and prefer short term gain and long term pain to more sustainable alternatives.