The Case for Objectivist Ethics

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Thu, 2010-01-28 04:09

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


( categories: )

Fred

Richard Goode's picture

What's wrong with your argument?

Fred

Richard Goode's picture

I was wondering when you'd show up. Smiling

Is this what you wanted?

(P1) If men have rights, then it is wrong to initiate force against others.
(P2) Men have rights,
Therefore (C) it is wrong to initiate force against others.

I should have heeded the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for." Cool

@ reed

darren's picture

If we define "A" as being equal to "A", then it follows that A = A. Now, it follows that the opposite must also be true, i.e., A = A.

Conclusion:

Since A = A, then A must also equal A.

"Excellent. That closes the argument."

Leonid

seddon's picture

"Excellent. That closes the argument."

Thank You.

Fred

having fun

Brant Gaede's picture

They're having fun with you-know-who.

--Brant

Fred & Leonid - It's hard to

reed's picture

Fred & Leonid -
It's hard to tell if you guys are being serious.

Seddon

Leonid's picture

Excellent. That closes the argument.

Leonid

seddon's picture

"Prove now that men have rights."

(P1) If men are rational, they have rights (there are conditions necessary for their existence as rational beings)
(P2) Men are rational,
(P3) Therefore, Men have rights

Fred

Seddon

Leonid's picture

Prove now that men have rights.

Richard

seddon's picture

"I'd like to see a sound case made for it, and formally presented, i.e., as an argument with clearly labeled premises and a clearly labeled conclusion.
(P1)
(P2)
...
Therefore, (C) It is wrong to initiate force against others."

Is this what you wanted?

(P1) If men have rights, then it is wrong to initiate force against others.
(P2) Men have rights,
Therefore (C) it is wrong to initiate force against others.

Fred

If

Brant Gaede's picture

If you make a case for ethics per se I'll make a case for an Objectivist Ethics.

--Brant
got ethics?

Bump

Richard Goode's picture

Bump.

Happy birthday

Richard Goode's picture

It's been a year - and still no case for Objectivist ethics!

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The NIOF principle (above) is the jewel in the crown of Objectivist ethics. It's the foundation of libertarianism, the only moral system of government. I'd like to see a sound case made for it, and formally presented, i.e., as an argument with clearly labeled premises and a clearly labeled conclusion.

(P1)
(P2)
...
Therefore, (C) It is wrong to initiate force against others.

Elementary stuff

HWH's picture

By the same token none of us should have formed a concept of Baade, and what a duplicitous smart-arse he is, since there's only one Baade, but it's obvious that we all have its number and measure.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, we do classify you as human, and without a skerrick of honesty at that, and this epistemological feat of identification was made possible due to your kind being rather plentifull and common.

Same goes for balls of dirt orbiting planets in a similar way to ours in the "Milky Way" and other galaxies, ,ergo "moons"

Elementary stuff

dermoscopy

The dark side of Objectivist epistemology

Richard Goode's picture

"A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition." — ITOE

So, according to Objectivist epistemology, I can't have a concept of the Moon, because there's only one of it.

Crazy stuff.

On this occasion ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I doubt that Baade is equivocating, since I doubt it knows the distinction between a proper name and a concept. And it doesn't matter. If this Sea of Putridity existed, and it didn't refer to Baade's "philosophical" writings, it would be a unit of the concept "crater" or "moon-crater." Baade appears to be arguing here, though it's hard to believe even it would be so silly, that a concept cannot subsume the units of which it is an integration or their characteristics because they cannot literally fit inside one's head.

Not much one can say after that, really.

Concept vs. concept

Rick Pasotto's picture

"A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition." — ITOE

Sea of Putridity is a proper name, not a concept since there is only one Sea of Putridity.

Baade is equivocating. Unfortunately Kasper falls into his trap.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

A waste, Rosie, ... because applying this much energy to rational pursuits would undoubtedly lead, however significantly, to a better world.

Please forgive my delay replying to you.

Like the elves to the shoemaker, SOLO is only my night job. Eye

Goode

Kasper's picture

How, then, can your concept of the Sea of Putridity include *all* the characteristics of its referent, including its actual diameter?

Because it is an open concept. I'll try to explain as best as I can but I may need Lindsay to help out here as he's got this concept formation thing down-packed better than I.

A concept serves to identify the characteristics of a given entity distinguishing it from other concepts by identifying its distinctive characteristics. The fact that the moon is big, small, has craters, thermal activity, alien spiders etc are all subsumable into the concept – moon - without having to be actually known at the time. This is how an open concept works. The discovery of the Sea of Putridity hundreds of years later doesn't contradict our previous concept of the moon, it simply adds to it.

You may then ask me how then does one concept contradict another when all new discoveries are merely developments on what was known previously. If the new discovery contradicts everything we knew before including the distinctive characteristics then we can say the original concept has been contradicted.

For example: Man can be defined as a homo sapien or an animal with a thumb, a mammal, an animal that communicates using language, or a rational animal. Either way all are developments of the original concept, man. None of the definitions above contradict the definition that went prior; each new discovery simply develops the one that went behind it. If animal (genus) with a thumb (differentia) gets replaced with animal (genus) with a rational faculty (differentia) then all that happens is that the old differentia is subsumed into the new genus and the newly discovered distinctive characteristic becomes the new differentia. It is the concept that must correspond to reality at all times.

However, let’s say that the user of the open-concept system becomes confused and stumbles across a new discovery of a spider that possesses a rational faculty. Our confused user then proceeds to equate their new discovery of a spider possessing a rational faculty (rational animal) with the concept man (rational animal). Is this a failure of the open concept system of concept formation or is it a failure of the user’s ability to identify reality accurately? It is the latter. The spider possesses so many other distinctive qualities from man to do with the nature of its body that to label it a rational animal would be an error. It is a subspecies of animal in the arachnid family and in order to identify it as a concept the word spider must be used, or for a rational spider, then rational spider would be the corresponding concept.

(1) The diameter of your concept of the Sea of Putridity is much, much less than the crater's actual diameter, since your concept of the Sea of Putridity is in your head and your head is not large enough to accommodate a lunar crater.

This really is a daft statement. Concepts give rise to knowledge which is a mental phenomenon unique to a mind.

The moon does not require its complete recreation within the skull of the human head in order to be identified accurately. That's equivalent to me saying that if I take picture of your child’s face with my camera and the photograph isn't the size of your child’s face, then the photo is not of your child’s face. That is exactly what you are saying to Lindsay regarding the moon. That his concept of the moon is bullocks because he couldn’t fit the moon in his head and therefore you’ve implied that his concept is insufficient to identify and know that the moon is what it is.

Again ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the news for Baade is all baade. "All the characteristics of an entity" includes those as yet undiscovered. Oh, but Baade doesn't understand the meaning of "includes," so we have more than a problem, Houston.

It should be noted that the reason the ilk of Baade get so exercised when their precious analytic-synthetic dichotomy is challenged is that they think it's their coup de grace against reason and reality, both of which they despise ... as is shown by their seeking of "catharsis" from a "good pounding" by headbanging filth such as Slayer. They think their ASD sunders logic from facts, that it shows—in the gleeful cri de triomphe of Baade's soulmate Robert Nola—"logic has nothing to do with reality." They divide propositions up into those which are true in logic and those which are true in fact, and claim ne'er the twain shall meet (and thus there's no limit to what they can get away with!). In truth of course the former are simply a version of the latter.

Baade:

Perigo decided to leave after two days, telling RadioLive, "I have to be myself."
What about the above proposition? Necessarily true in virtue of its logical form? Or true in virtue of the facts? (That you decided to leave after two days, and told RadioLive, "I have to be myself.") Or both?

(Hard to believe anyone takes this seriously, isn't it?)

It is true because it is an accurate description of what happened. Wotta shock! That is, it's true "in virtue of the facts." That doesn't make it a "synthetic" or "contingent" truth as opposed to an "analytic" or "necessary" one (except in the anti-minds of contemporary witch-doctors who wish to posit nonsense in the form of logic). Perigo is a man; men have volition; Perigo chose to leave. These are simply "truths," and truths are all there are—identifications of facts. And all truths, and all propositions stating them, are in the final analysis tautological, reducing to the hated A is A, a thing is what it is (and everything that it is). Truths, after all, are truths. Horreurs!

The dichotomy-touters want something to be able to be something other than what it is for obvious enough reasons. Men live for ever after they die, goblins are real, etc., etc.

As I say, witch doctors.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Are you being deliberately thick?

No, I'm not, and neither are you.

The next thing you'll propose, no doubt, is that one can't know the moon in their mind because the moon doesn't fit into one's head.

Suppose that on the Moon there is a large crater named, in accordance with the convention for naming craters on the Moon, the Sea of Putridity. Until now, you didn't have a concept of the Sea of Putridity, because you hadn't heard of it; but now that you have, you do.

(1) The diameter of your concept of the Sea of Putridity is much, much less than the crater's actual diameter, since your concept of the Sea of Putridity is in your head and your head is not large enough to accommodate a lunar crater.

(2) You do not know the diameter of the Sea of Putridity.

How, then, can your concept of the Sea of Putridity include *all* the characteristics of its referent, including its actual diameter? I say it can't. But Linz says,

A concept includes *all* the characteristics of its referents.

It seems that it is he, not I, who is proposing that

one can't know the moon in their mind because the moon doesn't fit into one's head.

Goode

Kasper's picture

Are you being deliberately thick?

The next thing you'll propose, no doubt, is that one can't know the moon in their mind because the moon doesn't fit into one's head.

Objectivist lunacy

Richard Goode's picture

A concept includes *all* the characteristics of its referents.

What do you mean by 'include'?

I've had a concept of the Moon for the past 40 years or so. But it wasn't until I looked on Wikipedia just now that I knew the diameter of the Moon. So, given that the diameter of my head is much, much less than 3,474 kilometres, I conclude that my concept of the Moon doesn't (or, at least, didn't until just now) include this particular characteristic of its referent.

How on earth can a concept include *all* the characteristics of its referent?

Distinctly odd...

Richard Goode's picture

I had just told Baade I don't (and Objectivism doesn't) accept the phony dichotomy between "necessarily true in virtue of its logical form" and "true in virtue of the facts."

No, you hadn't. What you said was

all truth is tautological, and Baade's precious analytic/synthetic dichotomy is as mythical as its goblin.

An analytic proposition is a proposition which is true in virtue of the meanings of its terms.
A synthetic proposition is a proposition which is true in virtue of the facts.

The usual examples given are

All bachelors are unmarried. (An analytic proposition.)
All bachelors are unhappy. (A synthetic proposition.)

Whereas, a tautological proposition is a proposition which is necessarily true in virtue of its logical form.

An example is

All bachelors are bachelors. (A tautology.)

A tautology is distinct from an analytic proposition. I know that all bachelors are unmarried because I know the meanings of the terms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried'. But I don't need to know the meaning of the term 'bachelor' to know that all bachelors are bachelors, just as I don't need to know what A is to know that A is A. In logic, a tautology is a formula which is true in every possible interpretation.

But you haven't answered any of my questions. You said

all truth is tautological

Truth is a relationship of correspondence between a proposition and the facts of reality.

Do you mean, all true propositions are tautological?

Perigo decided to leave after two days, telling RadioLive, "I have to be myself."

What about the above proposition? Necessarily true in virtue of its logical form? Or true in virtue of the facts? (That you decided to leave after two days, and told RadioLive, "I have to be myself.") Or both?

More Baade Balderdash

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"A concept includes *all* the characteristics of its referents.

"The Moon has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres.

"If your concept of the Moon has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres, you must have a very big head."

I do. Much bigger than 3,474 kilometres. Even so, this must be Baade's silliest post ever. Notwithstanding the formidable stiffness of the competition.

How very odd ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I had just told Baade I don't (and Objectivism doesn't) accept the phony dichotomy between "necessarily true in virtue of its logical form" and "true in virtue of the facts."

It then came back with this:

Perigo decided to leave after two days, telling RadioLive, "I have to be myself."

What about the above proposition? Necessarily true in virtue of its logical form? Or true in virtue of the facts? (That you decided to leave after two days, and told RadioLive, "I have to be myself.") Or both?

I had also just been reading Mrs. Baade's eulogy to Baade's superior "reading comprehension." Did Baade have a lapse on this occasion?

The Whole of the Moon

Richard Goode's picture

A concept includes *all* the characteristics of its referents.

The Moon has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres.

If your concept of the Moon has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres, you must have a very big head.

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

Fair comment.

Indeed, Deb.

Jameson's picture

Indeed.

Only you know...

Jameson's picture

... when you're not taking the piss, Richard.

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

For Christ's sake, learn to take a compliment.

A waste....

Deborah Coddington's picture

Glenn, would be fucking Riddler

A waste, Rosie...

Jameson's picture

... because applying this much energy to rational pursuits would undoubtedly lead, however significantly, to a better world.

Fuck you, Riddler

Jameson's picture

...

Glenn

Rosie's picture

What a waste.

A beautifully written piece of writing, Glenn - but why that conclusion?

who could be giants in the known universe but choose to be gnat-sized puppets in a deity's play. LOL

Do you not think Christianity supports either worldly achievement or the full flight of individuality?

It does.

There are many successful Christians.

And you will rarely find a conventional true blue one; the more mature the Christian, the less conventional his reactions and behaviour becomes over time. Not necessarily as extreme as the fellow in Linz's Xtianity conversion video, however. Smiling

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

Good comment.

How fucking depressing...

Jameson's picture

Two more libertarians who stand like heroes against totalitarians but kneel as servants to an invisible nothing; who could champion the full liberty of the human soul but voluntarily shackle themselves to original sin; who acknowledge the awesome spirit of man but credit it to a self-sacrificing charlatan claiming to be the progeny of a god; who could be giants in the known universe but choose to be gnat-sized puppets in a deity's play.

Rational politically, but utterly and incomprehensibly irrational metaphysically. What a waste.

Ecclesiastes 12:1-8

Richard Goode's picture

Remember your Creator
in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
and the years approach when you will say,
"I find no pleasure in them"—
before the sun and the light
and the moon and the stars grow dark,
and the clouds return after the rain;
when the keepers of the house tremble,
and the strong men stoop,
when the grinders cease because they are few,
and those looking through the windows grow dim;
when the doors to the street are closed
and the sound of grinding fades;
when people rise up at the sound of birds,
but all their songs grow faint;
when people are afraid of heights
and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
and the grasshopper drags itself along
and desire no longer is stirred.
Then people go to their eternal home
and mourners go about the streets.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher.
"Everything is meaningless!"

Deborah - More love from me!

Rosie's picture

I'll hazard a guess that I am quite a bit older than you. Therefore, you will understand, I hope, that I value my time left on this earth more than you do.

WTF?! More illogic and presumption.
1. The assertion that to be older means to hold more value to one’s time left on earth!
2. To be older means less time left on earth! (Death is not necessarily age related. I could die tomorrow, have a disease that leaves me 6 months on earth, etc.)
3. That valuing one’s life is primarily related to time!
4. That the measure of value of one’s life is related to either age or time left on earth!

you have won this argument
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

You did not have an argument, Deborah!

I don't really care
You should given what it says.

I have better things to do than go round and round in circles
That is what you were doing. My intent was to put you on the straight and narrow!

Your nonsense about the quality of my writing is just that - you are in no position to judge because I write thousands of words every week for a living,
Spot the nonsense in the quality of writing with a non sequitur and illogic all rolled in to one half-sentence!
As I made clear in both this thread and your Lady Justice thread, I spoke in relation to the “quality” of your writing there alone (no mention of your other writing outside the criticisms of the Press Council from Wikipedia) and in this respect I am indeed in the position to judge since each concerned me in some way and contained only illogic, lack of evidence, fabrication and nonsense. There was no indication of "quality" in your writing in either thread.

You are all over the place like a mad woman's shit.
And here we have the final hilarious self defining statement - in exactly the same form as the self-defining insults directed at Richard!

Since, apart from one paragraph, I was merely responding to the words of your own post, and although I attempted to create order amongst the disorder, if they remained to your mind “all over the place” then you have simply observed the randomness of your own thoughts and, indeed, the lack of quality in your writing!

To run away from the immorality of your words and the lack of evidence in your conclusions without apology to Richard and more immoral words, to run away from the illogic of your words with more illogic, to run away from confronting your errors of your writing and to be privy to self-deceit in the form of self-justification regarding the quality of your writing is to be worthy of the full contempt of Richard’s post (and never have I ever seen him express contempt on this scale for anyone although I notice he has very kindly removed the words giving way to his characteristic subtlety and generosity for your feelings).

You mention running away from your husband/s in another of your posts. Can I suggest that this modus operandi will never assist in increasing the value of your life. What is likely to help you is to begin with a confrontation with, and discovery of, yourself, objective morality and objective reality and to live in strict adherance to these. When you value your own life it follows naturally that you will value, and give value to, other's lives also.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

all truth is tautological

Truth is a relationship of correspondence between a proposition and the facts of reality.

Do you mean, all true propositions are tautological?

Perigo decided to leave after two days, telling RadioLive, "I have to be myself."

What about the above proposition? Necessarily true in virtue of its logical form? Or true in virtue of the facts? (That you decided to leave after two days, and told RadioLive, "I have to be myself.") Or both?

Deborah

Richard Goode's picture

Your perfect smile
Betrays your lack of style

"You are all over the place like a mad woman's shit."

Kasper's picture

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rosie....

Deborah Coddington's picture

You have Wikipedia-ed me, and, frankly, I can't actually be bothered checking if you are on Wikipedia so I'll just compare our photos, but I'll hazard a guess that I am quite a bit older than you. Therefore, you will understand, I hope, that I value my time left on this earth more than you do. You may take it, from what I about to write, that you have won this argument, and I don't really care, but I have better things to do than go round and round in circles with someone who sounds like a paid up member of the teachers' union.

Your nonsense about the quality of my writing is just that - you are in no position to judge because I write thousands of words every week for a living, and I doubt you read much of it.

So I'm logging off this thread. You are all over the place like a mad woman's shit.

LOL!!!!

Rosie's picture

as never-ending as her posts.

LOL!
They will reduce in length the minute I am convinced that I will not have to pad them out with "for the avoidance of doubt..." "let me make it clear...." "so as you do not misunderstand...".

I am appalled by the poor standard of comprehension, illogic and fabrication recently witnessed. And the waste of time addressing it. Shocking. A million times worse than quacking in my opinion. And that is saying something for I abhor that also.

God. I just had a shuddering thought. Imagine if the two were combined. UUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

The bad news for Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is that all truth is tautological, and Baade's precious analytic/synthetic dichotomy is as mythical as its goblin.

A concept includes *all* the characteristics of its referents. So the truths Baade would regard as contingent, accidental, a posteriori, empirical, non-logical and all the rest, stated in a predicate, are already included in the subject.

Moreover, an entity whose own case rests on a non-existent goblin is in no position to criticise someone else's case. When the factual, real, empirical, metaphysical basis for the Objectivist case has been pointed out to it countless times—that man is a being of volitional consciousness—and it resolutely refuses to respond to the case as presented while claiming no case has been presented, and it continues merely to resort to its traditional lame sardonic sneering, then its claim to be honest and rational is beyond risible, and it is an "it" in my book. An intellectual and moral obscenity, on a par with the Goblianity it defends.

I should say it deserves a life with Rosie. Not eternal punishment, exactly, but it sure as Hell will seem like it, as never-ending as her posts.

Deborah

Richard Goode's picture

Richard Goode has missed his vocation. He'd make a brilliant politician.

I take great encouragement from your words, coming, as they do, from a former MP. But I haven't missed my vocation, my vocation's missed me! By 18,007 votes at the last General Election. Next time, I'm thinking of taking another leaf from your book, and jumping waka. After all, like you, I want to "make a difference" (did you?). But I won't be associating with any compulsion touters, as such. That would be infra dig.

Reed asks for the case for Objectivist ethics to be laid out. Read Rand's books. I haven't read all of them, and my knowledge of Objectivism is rusty to be sure, but I always say once you've learned it, you cannot unlearn it.

You make Objectivism sound like communism. Once you vote it in, you can't vote it out. Or herpes. There's truth in what you say, though. Objectivism *is* a dangerous mind-control cult, as I've said elsewhere. Part of the evil of Objectivism is that it redefines the term 'reason' in such a way that its adherents think they're being rational when they're not. Funny that. Intellectual disarmament, as I call it.

Reed doesn't ask for the case for Objectivist ethics to be laid out. He asks (as do I) for it to be laid out formally, i.e., with clearly labeled premises and a clearly labeled conclusion. I asked James Valliant three years ago to present formally Rand's derivation of an "ought" from an "is". This was on the Case against Hume thread. (Of course, there was no case against Hume on that thread, just as there is no case for Objectivist ethics on this one.) A couple of years later, Valliant popped up and proclaimed, "I Have Done That", but, actually, he hadn't.

I'm more of a political animal than a philosophical animal

It shows.

He's every politican spin doctor MPs dream of, with his weasel words, never getting to the point, answering every question with a question... In the same way today, a frightfully droll politician will issue a press release, full of oleaginous statements about his opposition, then refuse to be pinned down on what exactly the flaws are in his opposition's policy. Or what exactly his own policy might be... You remain deliberately obtuse... You don't believe in anything

Philosophy is different from politics. In politics, not only is it necessary to expose the flaws in the opposition's policy, it is necessary to present a better, alternative policy. In philosophy, the latter is not a requirement. As Reed already indicated below, my own views are irrelevant when making the case for or against Objectivist ethics.

Contrary to your exertions, I have shown exactly what are (some of) the flaws in Objectivist ethics. For one thing, there is no case for Objectivist ethics. When there's no case for something, one must believe that thing on faith, or not at all. If you think there's a case for Objectivist ethics, you're deluded. I just refuted it!

You ask why we say existence exists? Do you think existence doesn't exist? [... answering every question with a question...] And *Dr* Goode, please don't say that's tautology - go get yourself a Pee Haitch Dee in Jurisprudence before you try that cute little trick.

"Existence exists" is a tautology. A tautology is a proposition which is necessarily true in virtue of its logical form. A tautology is trivial and pointless. "Existence exists" is a tautology because "existence" is shorthand for "all that exists", and "all that exists, exists" is a necessarily true proposition, in virtue of its logical form. Contra Rand, a tautology is no basis for a system of ethics.

A Ph.D. in jurisprudence? Are you thinking of the legal term, 'tort'? Or, perhaps, you're referring to torte. Was that the cake that Ayn Rand ate while standing on one foot? Or did she?! Cute party trick.

Oh, Kaspar, Dr Goode has values alright, just like every ambitious politician. Which values do you want? It depends which electorate he is trying to woo? He's got values for this, and values for that....step right up and just see the variety - lookee here.

I have values. Christian values. Libertarian values. Academic values, such as rationality, intellectual honesty, reading comprehension, and the virtue of scholarship. And mine are non-negotiable. How about yours?

Nice to have you on SOLO, BTW.

Deborah - Maiden Speech

Rosie's picture

That speech rings with the same sincerity and resembles the same state of mind as the person whose same wonderful attributes shine in your biography of Lindsay which I described below.

Am I correct in thinking that the two events are located in the same timeframe/phase of your life?

But why should these attributes be lost? Or clouded so much that they appear to be lost? Sad

Have you really changed so much that you do not value or hold to these attributes any longer?

Deborah

Rosie's picture

I mean, there is no reality, right? Reality is what we believe it to be. Just let's love one another, regardless of how evil that one another is, and all will be well with the world.

I do wish you would make use of the paragraph. Without it, one would be forgiven for thinking that the non-sequitur was more than just a habit but an indicator of the faulty leaps of logic in your thinking!

Firstly, regarding reality, I believe there to be an objective morality and thus I also believe there to be an objective reality. It is plain, however, that not all of us have the capacity to comprehend either with accuracy or at all times. The ability to perceive objective reality at any time is directly related to the person's grasp and adherence to objective morality at that time amongst other factors. (Your want of evidence and inaccuracy in your immoral "insights" in to Dr Goode and conclusions indicate that both objective reality and objective morality were seriously awry for you at that time.)

Secondly, your simplistic understanding of the Biblical standard of morality confirms more incomprehension from you. To employ love in the face of evil (through grace) is to produce some startling results. The action that accompanies love ( a complex state of being that seems to defy most people's understanding) will depend upon, and be appropriate for, the sort of evil being dealt with. And since I feel I must be plain with you where there is room for misunderstanding, love is not simply the gushy stuff. In your case, for example, it was employed to good-humouredly point out your injustices to Dr Goode in the vain hope that your honesty would admit your breach of truth and morality and you might proffer an apology to him (which would be the correct and moral course in the face of such abject falsehood, lack of evidence and nastiness). He would forgive you and this would restore morality. I would imagaine that he will have viewed your words against him as more of a reflection of your self than him and dismissed them for lack of any truth or evidence and will have forgiven you without even the expectation of an apology.

how could I possibly misunderstand *Dr* Goode's character, comprehend any fact or context of a play, and need to get any lines correct - in indeed it is in the context of his thread that you are hinting - if there is no reality? Surely, in your zany world of relativism, anything goes?

It has become very clear to me how you could misunderstand Dr Goode's character; in the same way that it is clear that you not just misunderstand me with regard to the subject of reality but have indulged in complete fabrication with regard to it!!! (Again, not surprising for, like Dr Goode and your fabrications for him, there was no evidence from me on this subject either! - in fact, I don't believe I have ever discusssed this on SOLO!) The fact remains, however, that despite any want of intellect that might exist for you regarding the ability to comprehend abstract notions, there was not the same excuse for you with regard to your personal slights against Dr Goode's character which required no equivalent demand for intellect.

Because there was no “empirical evidence” for your puzzling conclusion of him possessing wavering and disingenuous beliefs and values - evidence I note that you require for others’ assertions (even if misread by you!) - to write this simply illustrates lack of regard for truth, twisted morality to have the dishonesty to express it and nothing less than showing the same kind of madness as we saw in the video Linz posted regarding his conversion! I am pretty sure you would be hard pressed to find one more steadfast in his beliefs and values, with an equally steadfast and strict adherence to these beliefs and values in his actions, than Dr Goode. So well do I know his consistency in this respect that I have not even bothered to reread his posts to check this for I absolutely know that if I did I would not find any inconsistency in his beliefs and values nor, indeed, any want of respect and kindness in his expression or writing (a value he to which he also strictly adheres no matter how unfair or unwarranted or aggressively and crudely expressed is any comment made against him).

That your comprehension of objective reality is so seriously awry and your need to express sarcasm and insult without evidence suggests to me that your comprehension of, and strict adherence to, objective morality is in a similar state.

Surely, in your zany world of relativism, anything goes?

I hope it is clear to you by now that, for me, anything does not go and at the same time remain moral. I am not even sure I (or you) know what you are talking about here! You don't need to try to explain however - since anything goes is not a philosophy I adhere to, it is simply wrong and not worth discussing.

No matter how much I piss you off, no matter how much you think I am slime, you still have to *love* me - love thy neighbour, Rosie!

You do not piss me off, Deborah and nor do I think you are slime! You are simply mistaken on almost everything you say and think - certainly here at least! And your adherence to objective morality and comprehension of objective reality is just quite simply seriously awry!

I know that at one time you illustrated that you were, or certainly appeared to be, the opposite in this regard. The sympathy, sincerity, honesty, loyalty, devotion to truth and extraordinary love that flows with strength and conviction in your excellent biography about Lindsay - so honest and true that it had me weeping in parts - I no longer see in your writing. To be honest with you, after reading that biography and comparing the wonderful character that emanates from that writing versus the character that emanates from your writing on SOLO, I have been greatly disenchanted and disappointed. And I wonder what has happened to you. Sad

Now do you see how your ethics measure up to Objectivism?

lol Laughing out loud

Typo corrected...

reed's picture

Do you think the case for Objectivist ethics has been laid out in this thread or not?

For the record....

Deborah Coddington's picture

Rosie, here is why I quoted the text from the statue of Liberty in my maiden speech. Sadly, the ACT Party has strayed far from what it was when I made this speech.

"While many of my friends in the media railed against the invisible hand of the market, I feared the visible boot of government. It stamps on individual liberties and puts its toe into the private lives of adults - from their employment contracts to their choice of television viewing, and latterly that most private of relationships - what is agreed in the bedroom.

But now I am a member of this Parliament and therefore, some would say, part of the force behind the bossy boot of the state.

But I am here as a member of the ACT Party, the only party that unashamedly promotes small government and a liberal vision.

Big government, like any domineering body, is most harmful to those who are vulnerable, who are struggling, those desperately seeking happiness.

I am reminded of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me.

I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

The US coastguards do not find people swimming from Florida to Cuba through shark-infested waters. And despite her many faults and aberrations, America is still a beacon of freedom and prosperity.

But what is freedom? As a crusading journalist I have seen what freedom is not..."

Incorrect psychology...

Deborah Coddington's picture

Surely you mean psychobabble, Rosie darling?

And how could I possibly misunderstand *Dr* Goode's character, comprehend any fact or context of a play, and need to get any lines correct - in indeed it is in the context of his thread that you are hinting - if there is no reality? Surely, in your zany world of relativism, anything goes? I mean, shucks, if tomatoes are sharp, and lettuces are razors, then we can shave with a salad?

I mean, there is no reality, right? Reality is what we believe it to be. Just let's love one another, regardless of how evil that one another is, and all will be well with the world. That means you love me, Rosie, remember, regardless of how much of your darling *Dr* Goode's argument and wit slides by me?

Despite my epic fail, you still have to love me, because that is your standard of *good*, you and Goode. These are your values. This is your standard of life. No matter how much I piss you off, no matter how much you think I am slime, you still have to *love* me - love thy neighbour, Rosie!

Now do you see how your ethics measure up to Objectivism?

Double negative or not?

Deborah Coddington's picture

Reed, what are you getting at? "Not been laid out in this thread or not?" That's as bad as *Dr* Richard Goode's infantile blank laying out of the case for objectivist ethics.

Deborah - Reed asks for the

reed's picture

Deborah -
Reed asks for the case for Objectivist ethics to be laid out. Read Rand's books.

Do you think the case for Objectivist ethics has not been laid out in this thread or not?

Ms Coddington

Rosie's picture

Reading this debate has taken me straight back to the House of Representatives, and reminded me why I left the place. It reminded me of someone who came down to hug me, with tears in his eyes, after my maiden speech, because he never thought he'd ever hear someone in the New Zealand House of Parliament quote the words from the Statue of Liberty.

If you said the words from the tablet in her left hand, it says in Roman Numerals,"July 4th, 1776".

If you said the words on the pedestal, you said "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I understand you were a member of ACT.

Could the tears in his eyes have been from mirth I wonder?

I am not surprised that you left "the place". Your vocation is surely on the stage!!!!

However, your completely incorrect psychology concerning both Dr Goode's beliefs and values, your absurd notion regarding the easy issue of Ph.Ds - particularly in the field of philosophy which is his field (and, indeed, ethics, so that he has spent more time considering beliefs and values, and deciding his own, than most would spend on such considerations in their lifetimes !) and your unfailing disregard for accuracy would mean that even the stage would not have been possible for you. A certain sympathy and, even, slight understanding of character, a show of some study and comprehension of fact and the context of the play and the need to get one's lines correct is not only required but essential for even the poorest players in this profession.

Given this epic fail, it is not surprising to me that both his argument and his wit has eluded you also.

Deborah

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Of course I remember that day.

It's even possible I remember who that "someone" was. Eye

Now don't you go frightening Baade away. There is value in having repulsive things like it posting here. Things like it show that Rand was not making it up.

What a treat...

Deborah Coddington's picture

To read the full quota of replies in one sitting. I'm more of a political animal than a philosophical animal and *Doctor* Richard Goode has missed his vocation. He'd make a brilliant politician. He would need no spin doctors - he's every politican spin doctor MPs dream of, with his weasel words, never getting to the point, answering every question with a question, oozing fake charm.

Do you have "Yes Prime Minister" on your ipod, Dr Goode?

He even puts out a blank blog, in the same way, many years ago, a political iconoclast published a book full of blank pages, documenting the achievements of the Labour Party. In the same way today, a frightfully droll politician will issue a press release, full of oleaginous statements about his opposition, then refuse to be pinned down on what exactly the flaws are in his opposition's policy. Or what exactly his own policy might be.

And Kaspar asks Dr Goode what are values, and where do they come from? Oh, Kaspar, Dr Goode has values alright, just like every ambitious politician. Which values do you want? It depends which electorate he is trying to woo? He's got values for this, and values for that....step right up and just see the variety - lookee here.

Reed asks for the case for Objectivist ethics to be laid out. Read Rand's books. I haven't read all of them, and my knowledge of Objectivism is rusty to be sure, but I always say once you've learned it, you cannot unlearn it. Rand's "on one foot" definition is a good start, and if you don't get it there, Dr Goode, then you're just thick!

Oh yes, you have a PhD, but those are dime a dozen. Anyone can get those these days. Aforementioned political iconoclast wrote a novel, "Degrees for All", you might enjoy it. At first, I thought you might be one of those highly intelligent political beings, not stupid at all, but one of those frustrating types who wastes his good brain by proving how terribly clever dicky he can be.

I saw them in the House all the time in debating time, frustrating us, wasting time, as we explained and explained but they "never got it", still they insisted that they did get it, but you remain deliberately obtuse. I suspected you were capable of "getting it", but now I doubt it.

People like you and Rosie give Christians a bad rep. At least the Christians I know have a bloody good sense of humour.

And X-Ray? What an apt synonym. You ask why we say existence exists? Do you think existence doesn't exist? And *Dr* Goode, please don't say that's tautology - go get yourself a Pee Haitch Dee in Jurisprudence before you try that cute little trick. Oh, maybe you have one.
You don't believe in anything, that's why you'd make a perfect politician. And that's why I was a failure as a politician.

Reading this debate has taken me straight back to the House of Representatives, and reminded me why I left the place. It reminded me of someone who came down to hug me, with tears in his eyes, after my maiden speech, because he never thought he'd ever hear someone in the New Zealand House of Parliament quote the words from the Statue of Liberty.

Remember that day, Linz?

I just noticed ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the silliest thing on this thread, which is replete with silliness: Rosie's statement that "Jesus was necessary to get mankind back on track." Glenn already accurately called it "bullshit."

Let's back up.

Gobby, Jeezy's father, who is also in some undefined way Jeezy himself, and vice versa—not forgetting that both of them are simultaneously Uncle Ghosty as well—knows that man will go off track when he creates him. He knows he will have to send Jeezy down to get man back on track, and that even that won't do the trick for most men, whom he will then damn to eternal punishment. He knows all that yet he goes through with the exercise.

Anyone who seriously believes that is simultaneously a moron and a monster.

Brant

Richard Goode's picture

I don't embrace Objectivist ethics formulations... I embrace some of it, but not the formal man qua man justifications

Right answer.

I will say this though

Doug Bandler's picture

I embrace some of it, but not the formal man qua man justifications because she left too much out of "man," apparently to stay in control of her philosophy without great knowledge of sociology, anthropology, psychology, history or even philosophy itself, especially historical philosophy.

There is something to this. Ayn Rand did pack a shit-ton of content into the word "man". So much so that I really think that some Objectivist scholar NEEDS to write a treatise on this subject. (Tara Smith, Diana Hsieh possibly as they are ethics specialists.) "Man qua Man" needs to be unpackaged more than Rand did IMO. Here, Brant is right. There is a ton of "sociology, anthropology, psychology, history or even philosophy itself, especially historical philosophy" that goes into Rand's view of man. I don't think she expounded on that as much as she could have. And I would like to see "man's life as the standard" laid out far more than I have seen it so far as it is by far the most attacked part of Rand's philosophy. Case in point is Michael Heumer's claim that rational egoism must reduce to predation. That argument is ubiquitous.

Brant - much confusion

Doug Bandler's picture

In more a more developed culture humans invented the idea of individual rights and the wrongness of initiating force as such violated rights.

Not invented, identified. Invented applies wholesale subjectivism. If you believe that, you totally surrender to collectivism. In one of Leonid's posts on ethical/political theory, he laid out exactly why the Objectivist case for rights is not arbitrary or invented. Leonid is at his best at the level of epistemology. (Just don't ask him about Islam.)

The subject you are dealing with here is the concept of rights. You are in essence saying that they are arbitrary. You are not an Objectivist if you believe that. The Objectivist position is that they are not arbitrary or supernatural but the consequence of the metaphysical fact of man's independent conceptual faculty. The problem then arises of how an independent being like man is to exist in a social setting; ie what is the ideal "socialization" of man. The answer Objectivism gives is the Objectivist politics.

Hence freedom and capitalism, the last, unfortunately, today, comes with a lot of fascism.

Wow Brant. This is sloppy ass crap. It is not "capitalism" that comes with fascism. It is socialism that brings fascism or more specifically it is the attempt at central planning implemented on top of a market framework that brings rule by government agencies. That is the form fascism is taking in America. It is what Ludwig Von Mises called "socialism along the German model" as opposed to the Soviet model.

Capitalism refers to something specific which by its very definition could never bring fascism. Technically we do not have capitalism and we never have. We have a mixture of market mechanisms with a shit-ton of central planning. I really don't think it is right, or useful, to refer to the modern industrial world as capitalism. All that does is profit the Left. We are mixed economies and we always have been. True laissez-faire would look unrecognizable from our society.

Sloppy Brant, sloppy.

I don't

Brant Gaede's picture

I don't embrace Objectivist ethics formulations as they are essentially cultural courtesy of Ayn Rand. She had her ideal man and made an ethics for him--kind of a should-be thing. I embrace some of it, but not the formal man qua man justifications because she left too much out of "man," apparently to stay in control of her philosophy without great knowledge of sociology, anthropology, psychology, history or even philosophy itself, especially historical philosophy.

I see the morality of rational self interest as legitimate basis for ethics in that it is the individual, reasoning mind that comes out of--indicated by--Objectivism's axioms. I consider that to be the basis of individualism. Now, off that base one has to consider human beings as they are while any single person needs to consider what he or she might be or ought to be from what he or she is and wants. Humans are social animals naturally interacting in various ways for various reasons. The basic idea of social existence is that one have a social existence. Tribal banishment in primitive society was an effective death sentence. In more a more developed culture humans invented the idea of individual rights and the wrongness of initiating force as such violated rights. Hence freedom and capitalism, the last, unfortunately, today, comes with a lot of fascism.

--Brant

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

"[...] that which is required for man's survival qua man" as the standard of value simply means "that which is required for man's survival as the specific entity that he is, uniquely possessed of a rational faculty whose exercise is volitional."

The specific entity that man is, is Homo sapiens.

Human nature is all our characteristics, including both those which are distinctively human and those which are not. It is arbitrary to base ethics on "that which is proper to the life of a rational being."

Man is not "uniquely possessed of a rational faculty whose exercise is volitional." Rand was wrong when she said, "there is an enormous breach of continuity between nature and man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty." As Darwin remarked, "the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."

Objectivist ethics, as a species of neo-Aristotelian perfectionism, suffers from a problem which afflicts all such ethical theories. Thomas Hurka describes perfectionism as follows.

This moral theory starts from an account of the good life, or the intrinsically desirable life. And it characterizes this life in a distinctive way. Certain properties, it says, constitute human nature or are definitive of humanity—they make humans human. The good life, it then says, develops these properties to a high degree or realizes what is central to human nature. Different versions of the theory may disagree about what the relevant properties are and so disagree about the content of the good life. But they share the foundational idea that what is good, ultimately, is the development of human nature.

Certain properties... but which ones? For the purposes of developing a moral theory, at least, there is no non-arbitrary account of which properties constitute human nature or are definitive of humanity. This is evidenced by the fact that "different versions of the theory may disagree about what the relevant properties are".

What makes humans human is their ancestry. (Assuming, of course, that the theory of evolution is correct. Rand wasn't so sure.)

Callum

Richard Goode's picture

No, it's not [arbitrary]. Not if you accept the law of identity - and that man has an identity. In Rand's definition, it's man's identity that forms "man2".

I accept the law of identity. (But let me tell you, Callum, I had to learn it the hard way. All the secret evil I dreaded to face within me and all the pain I had ever endured, came from my own attempt to evade the fact that a thing is itself. I feel so much better now. I don't miss the cake at all.)

Man's identity is Homo sapiens. But nothing could be further from Rand's concept of man—a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute—than the typical human being.

It is a fairly obvious fact that man needs to produce food in order to survive. But only if man accepts his life as the standard of value can the production of food be deemed good.

Actually, Callum, it's a fairly obvious fact that man doesn't need to produce food in order to survive. He just needs to eat it. Under socialism, ensuring that everyone has enough food to survive is achieved by the coercive redistribution of wealth. Only if man accepts his life as the standard of value can the coercive redistribution of wealth be deemed good. No, wait...

Baade's Balderdash

Lindsay Perigo's picture

There is no "Man1" or "Man2," let alone "Man33" implied by "man qua man."

"[...] that which is required for man's survival qua man" as the standard of value simply means "that which is required for man's survival as the specific entity that he is, uniquely possessed of a rational faculty whose exercise is volitional." Or, "what is required for man's survival given man's nature." Or, "man (concept) qua man (definition)." What is "built into" that is not arbitrary at all. If Baade thinks it is, and regards itself as rational/volitional, I again invite it to crawl off a tall building, and tell me in its dying gasp that the Objectivist ethics, proscribing that which is inimical to the life of man qua man, is arbitrary.

Furthermore, Baade is no position to criticise anything as arbitrary. Baade says ethics comes from a goblin, whose existence it accepts on faith even though there's no evidence for such a thing. Cain't get more arbitrary than that! That's the arbitrary on super-stilts.

And this BS was supposed to be a "refutation" of the Objectivist ethics?

[blockquote]But why is the

Callum McPetrie's picture

But why is the standard of Objectivist ethics the life of man1 qua man2? Why not the life of man1 qua man3? Or man1 qua man23? The answers Objectivist ethics gives to substantive questions about what is good and what is evil depend on what you build in to the second occurrence of 'man' in the phrase 'man qua man'. And what you build in is arbitrary. Thus, Objectivist ethics is arbitrary.

No, it's not. Not if you accept the law of identity - and that man has an identity. In Rand's definition, it's man's identity that forms "man2". To have any other 'man' (eg. man3 or man23) would be to have a man whose nature is, well, contradictory to his nature.

You see, according to Objectivism what *grounds* morality is the choice to live. The choice to live is *pre-moral*. Morality arises only consequent to that choice. But the choice to live is *not* pre-moral! All the moral virtues (at least, those virtues regarded as such by Objectivists) are built-in to the definition of man2. Moral value is already there - prior to the choice to live the life of man qua man.

No, they aren't. As I've said above, what is built into the definition of man2 is man's identity. It is a fairly obvious fact that man needs to produce food in order to survive. But only if man accepts his life as the standard of value can the production of food be deemed good.

Why don't you evangelists start a mission?

Jameson's picture

Somewhere else.

Blind faith, Rosie?

Jameson's picture

Take the logs out of your eyes and read our posts again.

Matthew 25:14-30

Richard Goode's picture

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. "Master," he said, "you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more."

His master replied, "Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!"

The man with two bags of gold also came. "Master," he said, "you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more."

His master replied, "Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!"

Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. "Master," he said, "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you."

His master replied, "You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

"So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Objectivists

Rosie's picture

Objectivists ignore what they can not answer. They choose not to answer for in so doing may risk credence to Objectivism.

Two questions of mine, specifically posed to Doug and Glenn, regarding the purpose for man, are ignored.

Richard's particular refutation of Objectivist Ethics is ignored by everyone.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

Both evidently "think" Jeezy rose from the dead and returned to Gobby, three days after said Gobby, simultaneously his father and himself, had him killed ...

Evidently? You have evidence? Bring it on.

Unfortunately it's not so easy to fix the truly infinite zero of goblinite "thought."

Fortunately, it's easy to refute Objectivist ethics. I did so below.

Rosie's hero was Jesus

Jameson's picture

Why on earth would I want to be ranked alongside a wealth-hating, enemy-loving, self-sacrificing con man?

Doug

Richard Goode's picture

one must always refute an argument by dealing with the argument and not the person (or people) that advocate it.

Agreed. By the way, did you notice that I refuted Objectivist ethics, below?

We know definitively that nothing can violate natural law... that there are no gods and no prophets and no miracles, etc.

No, we don't know this. Perhaps you mean, instead, that we have no reason to believe that there are gods, prophets and miracles, etc.?

Lindsay

Rosie's picture

Sorry for the zeroes. Why should this affect it?

Another "thinks" a faculty, choice, is a standard.

It is not the exercise of the faculty choice that is the standard, it is the understanding of morality that comes from the power and its consequences in the exercise of that faculty, choice.

Love is a standard in terms of our relationships with other forms of life and this is the means that the Bible gives us to understand morality from that aspect and provides detail of what love is in the Book of Corinthians for example.

The purpose of love is not singly to provide long term relationshps as Richard said although that will follow if the "law of love" is never deviated from. Forgiveness, for example, is another facet required of love when we do. as humans, deviate from this law. This is what God provides, and in so doing, teaches us is another important element of morality and love is forgiveness - and, for example, if one fails to exercise this aspect of love, the choice has failed the Biblical standard and the choice is not perfect in its morality. Because the Bible is not considered by many as a purveyor of truth, this is why I now would have to take a step back from the Bible and say that morality is best understood by humans and best explained by the standard I have provided: coming to learn about morality from the power of our choices and their consequences.

The power of choice and its consequences, in that respect, is not so different from the standard of morality of Objectivism, "Life", but is much more precise and far reaching.

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

Richard, I fear only Rosie cares.

Let me get this straight...

Your beliefs are demonstrably false, and you don't care?

You fall short of Rand's concept of man as a heroic being.

It *was* Rosie ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... and her zeroes who threw this page out of whack.

I just fixed it. *I* reduced the zeroes.

Unfortunately it's not so easy to fix the truly infinite zero of goblinite "thought." One of them "thinks" an injunction, to love one another, is a standard. Another "thinks" a faculty, choice, is a standard. Both evidently "think" the universe must have a prior purpose but their goblin mustn't. It was just there all along and got lonely and bored one day so decided to set in motion a process which it knew would culminate in endless torture for billions of human beings. Both evidently "think" Jeezy rose from the dead and returned to Gobby, three days after said Gobby, simultaneously his father and himself, had him killed ... and other such puerile, primitive poppycock and piffle. Pitiful.

Didn't need to log off...

Jameson's picture

... it came right after you reduced your zeros.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

Not me who has done this.

Log off.

Then Log in and it will be righted.

Man's Existence Does Not Have a Purpose

Doug Bandler's picture

And, even if you DO believe this, what do you think is the purpose for man's existence (if any)?

Purpose does not apply to "man's existence". It only applies to individual men (and by extension any organizations they construct). "Man's existence" is the consequence of mechanical factors. But once humans evolved and developed the faculty of consciousness and conceptual thought, then purpose arises in the human context. Again, only a being that faces the alternative of life or death can be said to have a "purpose". Inanimate matter has no purpose. It has a nature. Asking "what is the purpose of life" is an illegitimate question. It is like asking "why something instead of nothing." These are questions that violate the axioms. They are meaningless.

Richard...

Jameson's picture

Whatever.

On the Genetic Fallacy

Doug Bandler's picture

the Bible was written by primitive men

You just committed the genetic fallacy.

This is not a good example of the genetic fallacy. Yes, one must always refute an argument by dealing with the argument and not the person (or people) that advocate it. That being said, knowing what we know about the progression of both philosophic and scientific knowledge, we can make certain judgments about earlier cultures and what they could have realistically known given their historical era.

The people of the ancient world were primitive and we can take that into account when we analyze their mythological accounts. We know definitively that nothing can violate natural law. We know definitively that there are no gods and no prophets and no miracles, etc.. So we know that the ancients were engaging in myth-building and legend-making. So we can analyze their cultures and their stories accordingly.

This isn't to say that there isn't great wisdom to be found from the ancients. Obviously there is. But we know that the Bible is a story of mythology that may have some overlap with actual history. But even that can only be identified by a rational, non-theistic study of history.

Incidentally, it is that type of critical analysis which points very strongly, I think, to the fact that there was no historical Jesus. Instead, Christianity started as a decentralized faith movement that oriented around a salvation mythology derived from Judaism and was largely the result of the anguish and depression of near-eastern Jews at the hand of Roman expansionism. Or as the saying goes - Christianity was the Jew's revenge on the Roman Empire.

Rosie...

Jameson's picture

Your hyperbole has reformatted the page requiring us to scroll right to reply. Please do something about it — it's a enough of struggle to make these replies.

"Jesus was necessary to get mankind back on track."

Jameson's picture

Bullshit.

Doug

Rosie's picture

So you believe it is simply coincidence that should the physical laws (which include the asteroid's trajectory) be any different - even a mere factor of

.0000000000000000000000000 ad infinitum

and I could go on for the rest of my life until I wrote the 1 at the end,

human life would perish.

And, even if you DO believe this, what do you think is the purpose for man's existence (if any)?

Not Purpose

Doug Bandler's picture

That there are inorganic things that have no consciousness does not mean there is no purpose in them.

Yes it does. Purpose involves conscious choice. Where there is no conscious choice, there is no purpose. You are taking a concept - purpose - and applying it where it does not belong. What inorganic things have is identity. They behave according to that identity - an asteroid moves along its trajectory until it hits something, etc.. This is not an example of purpose as there is no supernatural being that "caused" all of this. And we have debated endlessly the errors with the god-concept.

Richard

Rosie's picture

I just refuted Objectivist ethics.

Did anyone notice? Does anyone care?

If it makes you feel better, remember that Mother Theresa's death passed by virtually unnoticed with the death of Princess Diana.

Some things are more important than others or at least the timing of them can assist in the unveiling of truth. We know Objectivism is insufficient to prove the objectivity of morality but there is a degree of truth insofar as it is a means to discover the power of choice.

So be patient. Patience is a virtue. Eye

Let me reiterate, Glenn...

Richard Goode's picture

The Bible was written by primitive men who thought a woman could conceive without impregnation, and that a man three-days dead could dematerialise and reappear at will.

You just committed the genetic fallacy.

Respawned. LOL.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

The Bible was written by primitive men who thought a woman could conceive without impregnation, and that a man three-days dead could dematerialise and reappear at will. If you believe that you need to see a doctor — a real doctor, not a pretend one like you.

I believe this may have been an error and misinterpretation of what Jesus actually said. Jesus never claimed this for himself. He claimed to be the son of God but he also claimed this for all of us. Jesus was necessary to get mankind back on track.

There is another more important misinterpretation/misunderstanding mankind has made with regard to the Bible. And that is what I am talking about here. There is not a different individual purpose for each of us but ONE purpose for ALL of us. The same purpose. To understand the power of choice and its consequences.

Purpose is a choice...

Jameson's picture

... not a given.

Richard, I fear only Rosie cares.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

Rosie...not Jesus (Though I would be happy had there been any confusion!)

(2) is a non sequitur — and quite presumptuous.

You are correct and I am pleased with your reaction.

If I have made a presumption, am I correct therefore, that you agree that man has a purpose?
If so, what is it? (in your opinion)

Hey

Richard Goode's picture

I just refuted Objectivist ethics.

Did anyone notice? Does anyone care?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.