I think Teek means that anything "good" is only good if it doesn't harm anyone else's existence either. xD
I think Teek means that anything "good" is only good if it doesn't harm anyone else's existence either. xD
Why, of course that's what I meant. How else could good exist, unless men lived by force?Originally Posted by The Man
So when someone is starving and asks you for food and you refuse, you are "evil". But if you accept, you lose something you worked for, which harms you and is therefore "evil". Argh, the dilemna.Why, of course that's what I meant. How else could good exist, unless men lived by force?
Edit:
Let's suppose the person starving above decides to steal apples from your garden, your money or whatever to get food and survive. Rationally, if his choice is dying or stealing, which will he pick? As far as he's concerned, not stealing amounts to dying, which is "evil" since it leads to his utter destruction. So stealing, from his point of view is "good".
Using The Man's explanation of your view, what happens if you use retaliatory force? You hurt someone else who was threatening you. Tada, you're "evil".
Last edited by Endless; 07-04-2005 at 07:35 AM.
And then there is Death
No, I don't think if I refuse I am evil at all.
Morality exists on choice. But situations are amoral. If someone is starving and asks me for food, it is not evil if I give it or otherwise. If I accept, that is my own decision - it doens't harm me if I choose to do it. I mean, the only time an immoral action occurs is if that person steals the bread or if I hit him for asking.
I wouldn't steal it, because those aren't mine. I'd offer a service - any service - and most people would probably give me an apple. If that person didn't (for whatever reason), I'd move on for the next. I recognize I cannot use force on another no matter what - that is "evil", or immoral.Let's suppose the person starving above decides to steal apples from your garden, your money or whatever to get food and survive. Rationally, if his choice is dying or stealing, which will he pick? As far as he's concerned, not stealing amounts to dying, which is "evil" since it leads to his utter destruction. So stealing, from his point of view is "good".
How am I evil for protecting that which is mine? Violence is only evil if I initiate it.Using The Man's explanation of your view, what happens if you use retaliatory force? You hurt someone else who was threatening you. Tada, you're "evil".
Letting someone die in front of you is good?No, I don't think if I refuse I am evil at all.
If you are truly rational, giving something for nothing isn't an option since it's a net loss of property/wealth/money.Morality exists on choice. But situations are amoral. If someone is starving and asks me for food, it is not evil if I give it or otherwise. If I accept, that is my own decision - it doens't harm me if I choose to do it. I mean, the only time an immoral action occurs is if that person steals the bread or if I hit him for asking.
Yet if everyone refuses, you die. Is that "good" or "evil"?I wouldn't steal it, because those aren't mine. I'd offer a service - any service - and most people would probably give me an apple. If that person didn't (for whatever reason), I'd move on for the next. I recognize I cannot use force on another no matter what - that is "evil", or immoral.
How convenient. Besides, where are the limits once you can use violence to retaliate? What is enough to give you the right to use violence? Direct violence? Direct threat? Indirect threat? Insults? An angry look? Against you? Against your family? Against anyone?How am I evil for protecting that which is mine? Violence is only evil if I initiate it.
What about situations where both happen? I mean, your action has both a beneficial effect on your life and a negative effect on others around you? Is it good, or evil? The opposite action has a negative effect on you and a positive effect on the others, is it good or evil? And if we push this a little further, a decision you take is neutral to you, beneficial to everyone save one person around, is it good? Evil? Not taking that decision is detrimental to everyone except that one person just mentioned, is it good? Evil?
And I see you forgot to tell me why everyone should agree to your definition, and if everyone does or ever will.
And then there is Death
If I don't have anything to spare, the death is not on my hands.
Yeah, that's true. But, there are times when helping a person can benefit you in the long run. Say, helping a man who would later help me.If you are truly rational, giving something for nothing isn't an option since it's a net loss of property/wealth/money.
But, no, that's a very true statement. Quite refreshing to hear.
No, that's reality.Yet if everyone refuses, you die. Is that "good" or "evil"?
OK, I wasn't clear enough. Force in general is only moral when it's used in self-defense. But that is the government's domain. And do not tell me that somehow by using force on someone seeking to use force on me is "stooping to their level". A man who points a gun at me and demands my money is seeking a value through violence; if I shoot a gun at him (I'm being abstract) I'm not seeking anything at all except to retain my value.How convenient. Besides, where are the limits once you can use violence to retaliate? What is enough to give you the right to use violence? Direct violence? Direct threat? Indirect threat? Insults? An angry look? Against you? Against your family? Against anyone?
This depends. Am I negatively impacting others as in, say, putting them out of business? That's "good". If I put them out of business on less-than-honest terms (as in I shot them to take their money) that is evil. Why is this hard to understand.What about situations where both happen? I mean, your action has both a beneficial effect on your life and a negative effect on others around you? Is it good, or evil?
For myself, it's bad. I imagine that most dishonest people would be fine with it, though.The opposite action has a negative effect on you and a positive effect on the others, is it good or evil?
You are context dropping. You are making the same mistake that most people make in regards to morality - you are only looking at results. Said decision depends on the decision. As in... taking all of our money and giving it to one soul? That's bad, obviously. I still don't understand how you're seeking to usurp me.And if we push this a little further, a decision you take is neutral to you, beneficial to everyone save one person around, is it good? Evil? Not taking that decision is detrimental to everyone except that one person just mentioned, is it good? Evil?
Because I am acting according to natural human life, which is, rational self-interest. I owe nothing to anyone else except that same basic right (they they retain their rights; that I am unable to touch them; that I may not initiate force).And I see you forgot to tell me why everyone should agree to your definition, and if everyone does or ever will.
People do accept the creed that one cannot live for another man nor ask another man to live for theirs every generation, but unfortunately most people will never accept it because they are taught from birth that the world is a constant "morally gray" slate, and that reality is unknowable, and that nothing is good or evil.
Let me rephrase it in terms of intent then. Person wants to do something which intent is to help everyone in the city. The outcome is that it can negatively impact one person (which, in terms of wealth may even be beneficial) and will help all the others (and to some extent the one negatively impacted). The intent is "good", isn't it?
Depends on what? The outcome? The method used? The intent?This depends. Am I negatively impacting others as in, say, putting them out of business? That's "good".
If the other person is a rational person, you're a sucker for helping him. He just got something for nothing, and since his life is his end, he has no reason to help back again. Why did you help him again?Yeah, that's true. But, there are times when helping a person can benefit you in the long run. Say, helping a man who would later help me.If you are truly rational, giving something for nothing isn't an option since it's a net loss of property/wealth/money.
But, no, that's a very true statement. Quite refreshing to hear.
Now that statement I made earlier might be true if everyone is truly rational. Thing is, we aren't. Some might think they are, most don't even worry about it, and others know we aren't (people who took Economics past 101, I'd say).
Can you prove that rational self interest is "natural human life"?Because I am acting according to natural human life, which is, rational self-interest.
And then there is Death
First off, unless I am the person who wants to do something, his intent is none of my concern. I owe nothing to him. I would think it's moral if he's looking for a profit, but then, his morality is nothing I need to be concerned with.
Again, this situation is too hypothetical to be certain. I read that as in that the person wants to make a pile of money by offering a better product than his competition (which would be "negative" to the competition). That is good. If someone wants to murder a rich person and distribute his money equally because he had no right to his wealth, that is bad.
The outcome itself can be good or bad, but is never a gauge for an action. I could murder 49% of the population (the minority) and free up a lot more resources and area for the rest of us. Obviously, this is bad. The method used is another area. Am I doing something for the profit motive (either materially or spiritually), and as a result I've created a hundred jobs? That's good, too. Or the intent - perhaps I am doing it so I can make a ton of money which I plan on keeping, greedily? That's good, too.Depends on what? The outcome? The method used? The intent?
I would say that for an action to be morally just all of those needs to be kept in check, but really, if the man is acting according to his own accord and is not infringing on the rights of others, I could frankly give a damn whether or not he's acting morally or not. I have no concern for immoral people.
If the man is rational, he knows he can take nothing unearned - and he knows that he owes me. I don't deal with burglars and I don't deal with looters - and likewise, I don't deal with people who mooch off the good will of others. If I give him good will, I expect it in return.If the other person is a rational person, you're a sucker for helping him. He just got something for nothing, and since his life is his end, he has no reason to help back again. Why did you help him again?
Now that statement I made earlier might be true if everyone is truly rational. Thing is, we aren't. Some might think they are, most don't even worry about it, and others know we aren't (people who took Economics past 101, I'd say).
If you're trying to make me sound uneducated, I will not play. All I can offer is that I will never regard any form of "intellectualism" that states that I am fodder for the rest of the world. I will not condone force used against me, no matter how many Master Economists think it's all right.
Any and all animals live according to their life.Can you prove that rational self interest is "natural human life"?
The human is different, becuase he posseses reason. Reason is what allows him to view the world in the light he does. He is able to make abstract theory, create art, and build empires that benefits millions of people - because of his reason.
The man that acts against himself for the good of others is acting against himself. He builds his own funeral pyre and expects others to deem him virtuous. He is a thief, as well - he is looking for reflected glory, without realizing that he has done nothing except knock himself off because the collective demanded it. Would you call this good? It's being done every day, as in philosophy (where reality is unknowable, and it's a sin to not consider all people's feelings and urges at all time, and reason is outdated because people are "suckers" for being rational), as in economics (where such a simple view must be immoral, because it's based off the idea that people are not slaves nor slave-owners, where people can use their money as they see fit, where we exist in voluntary consent), as in politics (where as the government - a collective - has the right to steal your house for another with no regard to your property title; where all property is considered owned by the government the moment that they want it; the rule of the public).
Pretend the guy is the mayor and has to decide that an hospital is needed. The city can afford to pay the market value plus a little for the land needed but the owner of the possible location wants double the market price. What is he supposed to do?
Why does it have to be about making money? Pursuing satisfaction is rational too, and seeing your citizens happy is a possible source of satisfaction.Again, this situation is too hypothetical to be certain. I read that as in that the person wants to make a pile of money by offering a better product than his competition (which would be "negative" to the competition). That is good. If someone wants to murder a rich person and distribute his money equally because he had no right to his wealth, that is bad.
As far as I can see, that's the intent, not the method.The outcome itself can be good or bad, but is never a gauge for an action. I could murder 49% of the population (the minority) and free up a lot more resources and area for the rest of us. Obviously, this is bad. The method used is another area. Am I doing something for the profit motive (either materially or spiritually), and as a result I've created a hundred jobs? That's good, too.
But yet you'll agree with me that "making money to keep greedily" is bad if it results in someone losing his basic rights?Or the intent - perhaps I am doing it so I can make a ton of money which I plan on keeping, greedily? That's good, too.
Thing is, people don't necessarily have all the same idea of what the "basic rights" are, and can act accordingly to them and of their own accord. Within their moral axioms, they are doing "good".I would say that for an action to be morally just all of those needs to be kept in check, but really, if the man is acting according to his own accord and is not infringing on the rights of others, I could frankly give a damn whether or not he's acting morally or not. I have no concern for immoral people.
But you have no insurance that he will.If the man is rational, he knows he can take nothing unearned - and he knows that he owes me. I don't deal with burglars and I don't deal with looters - and likewise, I don't deal with people who mooch off the good will of others. If I give him good will, I expect it in return.
They don't say whether it's good or not to be incompletely rational, they say it's reality. You should read some of Herbert Simon's works for example, it's quite interesting.If you're trying to make me sound uneducated, I will not play. All I can offer is that I will never regard any form of "intellectualism" that states that I am fodder for the rest of the world. I will not condone force used against me, no matter how many Master Economists think it's all right.
And build weapons, pollute, disregard the effects of his actions on the next generation...Any and all animals live according to their life.
The human is different, becuase he posseses reason. Reason is what allows him to view the world in the light he does. He is able to make abstract theory, create art, and build empires that benefits millions of people - because of his reason.
Acting for for the good of others doesn't mean acting against yourself. Even then, what is "acting against yourself"? Losing some money? Like when I give a birthday gift to my sister. Ah wait, I'm doing this for "glory". Or maybe I'm not the self-interested egocentrical person you think everyone should be? I call this good, hell yeah.The man that acts against himself for the good of others is acting against himself. He builds his own funeral pyre and expects others to deem him virtuous. He is a thief, as well - he is looking for reflected glory, without realizing that he has done nothing except knock himself off because the collective demanded it. Would you call this good?
Or maybe you meant the firemen, who risk their lives to save others'? They must be doing this for "reflected glory", clearly.
People give birth to kids too, do they do it for "glory"? For wealth?
Dunno about philosophy, but then, you're generalizing. Objectivism is a philosophy, after all. Not sure what philosophy you're referring to. About economics, maybe in a simple vision of it, where people maximize their monetary wealth, your view holds, yes. There's much, much more to Economics than this though. And about politics, as far as the US goes, it was by voluntary consent that the Bill of Rights passed, wasn't it?It's being done every day, as in philosophy (where reality is unknowable, and it's a sin to not consider all people's feelings and urges at all time, and reason is outdated because people are "suckers" for being rational), as in economics (where such a simple view must be immoral, because it's based off the idea that people are not slaves nor slave-owners, where people can use their money as they see fit, where we exist in voluntary consent), as in politics (where as the government - a collective - has the right to steal your house for another with no regard to your property title; where all property is considered owned by the government the moment that they want it; the rule of the public).
Last edited by Endless; 07-05-2005 at 08:16 PM.
And then there is Death
Pay it, convince the man otherwise, or find another spot. If that was happening and I owned land, I would say I want to sell for less. There is no justification for stealing.
Sure, but I'll say the same thing. Money is practical and easy to see the results.Why does it have to be about making money? Pursuing satisfaction is rational too, and seeing your citizens happy is a possible source of satisfaction.
I've been harping on method all along. Like, not allowing people to steal my money for everyone's good.As far as I can see, that's the intent, not the method.
Yes, because the only right I owe another person is that they have a right to their own pursuit of happiness. (Don't tell me that because the people need it they have a right to it. That's wrong.)But yet you'll agree with me that "making money to keep greedily" is bad if it results in someone losing his basic rights?
I believe that capitalism cannot exist spare in a free society.Thing is, people don't necessarily have all the same idea of what the "basic rights" are, and can act accordingly to them and of their own accord. Within their moral axioms, they are doing "good".
That is, people are allowed to hold whatever code of morality they wish, but that the government's basic (and only) action is to protect the rights of other. This is the basis of my entire argument. Tell me you think rights and reason are outdated all you want, but a government has to have basic rights laid out. It's something America lacks in some regard, but is specific in others. We do recognize the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most of the time, anyway.
Like an investment, that is a risk that I would have to decide.But you have no insurance that he will.
I'll read him, but I don't think reality is to disregard reality at times. (Obvious contradiction).They don't say whether it's good or not to be incompletely rational, they say it's reality. You should read some of Herbert Simon's works for example, it's quite interesting.
Weapons are natural, and not good, but a free, autonomous society would have no need for war.And build weapons, pollute, disregard the effects of his actions on the next generation...
Pollution is bad, but that's not a product of reason. It needs to be fought on technological grounds. Just like destroying the factories of the 1800s would have destroyed pollution (and progress), destroying our wasteful ventures today would destroy our current way of life. If we want to fight pollution, let's find new ways to help the enviornment technologically.
His actions would not impede on the next generation if he's acting for his rational good (and in a society that recognizes that right).
Give a gift to your sister. I do. That's because I want to see her happy. That's not acting against myself. And go for the glory, if you want; nothing morally agaisnt that. I think that if you give gifts becasue you believe you have to, and put yourself in the poor house doing it, that is acting against yourself.TActing for for the good of others doesn't mean acting against yourself. Even then, what is "acting against yourself"? Losing some money? Like when I give a birthday gift to my sister. Ah wait, I'm doing this for "glory". Or maybe I'm not the self-interested egocentrical person you think everyone should be? I call this good, hell yeah.
Or maybe you meant the firemen, who risk their lives to save others'? They must be doing this for "reflected glory", clearly.
People give birth to kids too, do they do it for "glory"? For wealth?
A fireman should be well-paid. And they are. So you know why they are helping society.
I want children desperately, becuase I believe in human life, and I'd like to teach my children that they have to live for themselves. This is a spiritual investment.
?Dunno about philosophy, but then, you're generalizing. Objectivism is a philosophy, after all.
Such as?Not sure what philosophy you're referring to. About economics, maybe in a simple vision of it, where people maximize their monetary wealth, your view holds, yes. There's much, much more to Economics than this though.
Since no one had the right to impede on those rights in the first place, then it doesn't matter if it was voluntary or not. You do not have the right to take away my rights.And about politics, as far as the US goes, it was by voluntary consent that the Bill of Rights passed, wasn't it?
And I believe I don't have the right to impede on their happiness at all costs in order to fulfill mine.
I agree, but maybe not in he exact same way as you, since I define freedom a bit differently, and I'm not sure it's working only this way. I mean, capitalism is happening in China, which I think is a good thing, but China is far from a free society, and hopefully, capitalism will make it a free society, not the other way around.I believe that capitalism cannot exist spare in a free society.
And my point is that the government is run by people, who as you said, "hold whatever code of morality they wish". With that code of conduct, and their own rationality, they won't necessarily act for your good, but for their own, with disrespet for quite a lot of things. As soon as they have the power to vote laws that affect themselves, there is a possibility they will act in their own interest.That is, people are allowed to hold whatever code of morality they wish, but that the government's basic (and only) action is to protect the rights of other. This is the basis of my entire argument. Tell me you think rights and reason are outdated all you want, but a government has to have basic rights laid out.
Maybe if we had an universal knowledge at all times it would be a contradiction, but the idea is that in a lot of situations, you are making decisions based on limited knowledge (in particular the outcome, what others will do and just unforeseen events) and in that case, you can at best use probabilities and statistics. In that case, they stop being "fully" rational (maximizing satisfaction), but adopt a behavior that while still rational, consists in aiming for a satisfaction level that isn't necessarily the best. the other idea is that, even though we are capable of thought, we are still limited in our capacity to calculate and integrate all the data necessary to take the best decision.I'll read him, but I don't think reality is to disregard reality at times. (Obvious contradiction).
Leaving the question of direct legacy (parents > children) aside, do we really always think about what will happen in a hundred years because of a decision we're taking today? Do we even have the ability to do so?His actions would not impede on the next generation if he's acting for his rational good (and in a society that recognizes that right).
And would you do something that would make her unhappy?Give a gift to your sister. I do. That's because I want to see her happy. That's not acting against myself.
Not all are well paid. Voluntary firemen come to mind, and they certainly aren't doing it for the money nor for fame.A fireman should be well-paid. And they are. So you know why they are helping society.
I want children desperately, becuase I believe in human life, and I'd like to teach my children that they have to live for themselves. This is a spiritual investment.
That was in your reply that "philosophy" says "we cannot comprehend everything" or whatever. Not all philosophies say that, so philosophy in general doesn't.?Dunno about philosophy, but then, you're generalizing. Objectivism is a philosophy, after all.
Well, to quote you: to "want to see [one's sister] happy", for example. To take into account the effect of my actions on my neighbor and reciproqually (externalities), to study the effect of rationality inside a group (the free rider problem), the suboptimality of mono/duo/oligopolies (1, 2, a small number of sellers), of monopsones (1 buyer), the conditions of stability of cartels, how individual rationality leads to group irrationality (the sheep instinct on stock markets), why do we see altruism and gifts. Macro economics, economic policy, insurance economics, game theory (decisions in uncertainty), organizational (in)efficiency, voting systems, development, (un)employement, taxes...Such as?Not sure what philosophy you're referring to. About economics, maybe in a simple vision of it, where people maximize their monetary wealth, your view holds, yes. There's much, much more to Economics than this though.
See, that's an example of something done generations ago that affects you. The States in 1791 chose to give up part of that right in order to facilitate the development of basic infrastructures (roads, hospitals mostly). If they hadn't chosen to do so, would the US be better off today? I'm not so sure. As I said earlier, it might be morally wrong, but a lot of the early US history is based on denying those rights to some categories of people, and it wouldn't be the same today if they hadn't.Since no one had the right to impede on those rights in the first place, then it doesn't matter if it was voluntary or not. You do not have the right to take away my rights.
And then there is Death
Neither do I; that would be anarchy (and gang warfare). I mean, I've made that clear.
Oh, sure. So do I. It goes both way.I agree, but maybe not in he exact same way as you, since I define freedom a bit differently, and I'm not sure it's working only this way. I mean, capitalism is happening in China, which I think is a good thing, but China is far from a free society, and hopefully, capitalism will make it a free society, not the other way around.
Well, I'm arguing that their role has to be highly defined. I'm not a political major, so I admit I don't know a lot about this (this is admitting quite a bit), but I thought that was the point of having a limited government.And my point is that the government is run by people, who as you said, "hold whatever code of morality they wish". With that code of conduct, and their own rationality, they won't necessarily act for your good, but for their own, with disrespet for quite a lot of things. As soon as they have the power to vote laws that affect themselves, there is a possibility they will act in their own interest.
Well, sure. No one can argue that reality is always obvious (it's never obvious when you want to take it as a whole). But, I get the feeling that you're therefore justifying irrationality. We have to aim with what knowledge we have, you know? I can't give up on reason because I might make an error of knowledge. That's like giving up on a diet because you consumed an extra calorie one day. You have to keep going.Maybe if we had an universal knowledge at all times it would be a contradiction, but the idea is that in a lot of situations, you are making decisions based on limited knowledge (in particular the outcome, what others will do and just unforeseen events) and in that case, you can at best use probabilities and statistics. In that case, they stop being "fully" rational (maximizing satisfaction), but adopt a behavior that while still rational, consists in aiming for a satisfaction level that isn't necessarily the best. the other idea is that, even though we are capable of thought, we are still limited in our capacity to calculate and integrate all the data necessary to take the best decision.
I don't know. My point I was trying to make was that if we act according to reason to the best of our ability, there's not a whole lot of chance we're going to royally smurf things up.Leaving the question of direct legacy (parents > children) aside, do we really always think about what will happen in a hundred years because of a decision we're taking today? Do we even have the ability to do so?
No, unless she started holding her happiness based on my unhappiness. In fact, she wants to see me happy, so we're both really happy, haha. Where are you going with this, by the way?And would you do something that would make her unhappy?
First off, they should be. And, I don't think doing things for others is necessarily a bad thing, I just don't like the basis that that is the reason for doing things (i.e. it is moral because I did it for another). If you are able to know your own goals, and retain yourself, and feel really nice when you help others (as in you really aren't being pushed into helping others because people tell you you have to), then by all means. That's the case with me. I help people because I enjoy helping others; I wouldn't help others if they were asking for me to kill myself.Not all are well paid. Voluntary firemen come to mind, and they certainly aren't doing it for the money nor for fame.
Philosophy was the wrong word. "General thinking", maybe.That was in your reply that "philosophy" says "we cannot comprehend everything" or whatever. Not all philosophies say that, so philosophy in general doesn't.
OK, time for you to understand this.Well, to quote you: to "want to see [one's sister] happy", for example. To take into account the effect of my actions on my neighbor and reciproqually (externalities), to study the effect of rationality inside a group (the free rider problem), the suboptimality of mono/duo/oligopolies (1, 2, a small number of sellers), of monopsones (1 buyer), the conditions of stability of cartels, how individual rationality leads to group irrationality (the sheep instinct on stock markets), why do we see altruism and gifts. Macro economics, economic policy, insurance economics, game theory (decisions in uncertainty), organizational (in)efficiency, voting systems, development, (un)employement, taxes...
If you have been trying from the beginning to imply that my economic views are overly simplified, well, you're right. I am going to be going to college in the fall to major in International Business, and economics is a high part of that (I checked today, actually; I'm at the college in Hawaii to register). While my main view of reality will always stay the same, the technicalities might change, sure. Ask me again in a few years how I feel about certain issues; I'll answer them then best. Or, you could explain those a bit better now, but my answer will still be a bit simplified.
However, I won't be changing my personal view of the world based on this. I still think the world could be a better place if we adopted a "live and let live" attitude; you called me a fundamentalist earlier, but in reality, I'm only holding myself up to this attitude. I think that people have to use thier brains more than their heart, and that they should consider themselves their highest value. Therefore, I reject the notions that your feelings are valuable (at least, more valuable than your mind) and that you can't think of yourself ever because you have to think of others at all times. I think we'd all benefit if we remembered to keep ourselves in reverence, and likewise respected others based on their own importance.
You might tell me, "That's great, but stay the hell away from politics," but that'd be foolhardy. Just as I can't give up on rationality just because I'm not omniprescent, likewise, I can't let the government act contrary to my ideals based on my not having a Ph.D. in political science. My main goal is that the government stays the living hell out of my way and let me live and produce. Do I plan on killing anyone? No; that'd be going against my personal philosophy, which is to let others live their own life to their own code. Will I force my beliefs on others? Not at all, because people have to let others think for themselves (even when they choose not to live for themselves).
Therefore, unless you can really convince me of it, I don't think the Supreme Court is doing anything good by legalizing, in effect, looting. The public good doesn't figure in; if I am part of the public, I don't like it for a second, and would gladly drive around a man's house for ten miles as long as the man wasn't forced to sell his house so they could build a road through it.
Of course, he's stupid. He should sell because he is being offered so much (in your example, the price of the house plus a little extra). But that's his decisions; I honor other decisions.
But does that make it good? I mean, I like the world around me today, but I wouldn't hate them if they had kept those rights (as they should have). Besides, the things you are bringing up are part of the "morally gray" area I think you are talking about, and I'd be willing to argue with you when the chance comes up. At the moment, we have to talk about other, more urgent things. Such as whether or not Wal-Mart has the right to steal my house, and throw some money so as to imply I sanctioned the act.See, that's an example of something done generations ago that affects you. The States in 1791 chose to give up part of that right in order to facilitate the development of basic infrastructures (roads, hospitals mostly). If they hadn't chosen to do so, would the US be better off today? I'm not so sure. As I said earlier, it might be morally wrong, but a lot of the early US history is based on denying those rights to some categories of people, and it wouldn't be the same today if they hadn't.
So far, I have no idea how anyone can really justify that.
As far as I know I don't think any one was really saying that walmart taking the land was a good thing(cept for a comment about the places won't abuse it due to public outcry.. but maybe I read that elsewhere).
What I was getting is the government taking land that is important to the development of a hospital, or other life saving places and the like.
The only example I have heard of a road being made that may have used emninant domain(I don't know if it did.. may have) was a road that while cutting down blockage times also made traveling in that area several times safer(possibly due to lack of tension and irritation while waiting :rolleyes2 ). Anyways with a hospital I am for(if it is needed and can be shown so) for a road... less so. But I can possibly see some sense in it in some very rare instances.
Anyways I try to take everything on a seperate basis, which leads me to my view that everything is grey and that everything is actually quite complex, including what is simple.
STILL Updating the anime list. . . I didn't think I was that much of an anime freak! I don't even want to consider updating the manga list!
Woah, much of this conversation is pretty side-tracked.
Anyway, I just read the first chapter in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It is an astounding book. I couldn't find the essay("What is Capitalism?") online, and I'm sure as hell not typing it out - but I suggest you both read it.
Back to the topic:
"Freedom" is the right to live your own life. When a lot of people get together, freedom becomes the right to live your own life - and you can't interfere with that right in others, as others can't do to you. The only way to interfere with another's right to live their own life is by using force. Force and freedom are opposites.
Communism holds a subjective morality - meaning nothing is good or bad in and of itself, things are judged by their consequences. "The end justifies the means." As it is subjective, reason(i.e., any claims based on reality) is invalidated, and the only means of enforcement on subjective laws are by force. Every collectivist ideology necessitates the use of force.
Capitalism is the exact opposite. As it is based on the premise of freedom, it holds an objective morality. Reason is the encouraged means of persuasion. Force is banned outright, as it is objectively against freedom.
Things like income tax and eminent domain are parts of collectivist ideology - and guess what? Are enforced by brute force. If I don't pay income taxes, I can lose all of my money, my house, my car, etc. If I don't want to sell to the government, they'll take my house anyway.
They are also dictated around the premise that I have an obligation to the government, to the "public good." What is the public? Is it everybody? But everybody doesn't agree about every issue. The majority? Who decides the majority? The "public good" is a subjective term based around a subjective morality - it means whatever the hell someone wants it to mean in any given situation. It could mean one person or a million people, and when you allow yourself to go into the realm of the subjective, you get this "economic development" eminent domain crap which doesn't tangibly benefit anyone. The government, in order to protect against force, has a legal monopoly on the use of retalitory force(police, army, etc.) - it cannot initiate force, since the initation of force is against freedom. Therefore, it cannot initiate the use of force against me when I don't let them steal my property.
NOBODY can make a claim on another person's right to live their own life. Saying I have an obligation to my neighbor is horrible enough, but saying I have an obligation to my government or the undefinable "society" is disgusting by any moral standard that values life. The "public" or "society" are only a collection of individuals, and the only common interest, the only possible "common good" is freedom.
I am alive. My life has value in and of itself - it is an end in itself, not the means to the end of others. I have no obligation outside of myself - to say that I have a "higher obligation" devalues my life. I refuse to subordinate my life to any person or any collective that demands payment for my existence.
Maybe someday we'll manage that and that would do some good. I find it unlikely (that we'll manage to properly limit the gov't powers), though; maybe I'm pessimistic, maybe realistic, depends how you look at it. Maybe it'll take a revolution.
Showing two things: first, that you aren't a complete objectivist in my opinion, because you can base some of your decisions based on someone else's happiness (your sister (and I suppose your close family aswell?)). After that, we might disagree on how much we'd allow ourselves to do for our family, but it's minor. Second, you might limit this "making someone happy" to your close family, but if it works for family, it can work for friends, acquaintances... up to strangers.No, unless she started holding her happiness based on my unhappiness. In fact, she wants to see me happy, so we're both really happy, haha. Where are you going with this, by the way?
Agreed about the pay thing, and I'm not saying doing things for others is the only reason for doing things. I'm saying it's one possible reason, and sometimes, just something to factor in. In pure objectivism, it's all about you, not the others. Also, morality (hence my vision of shades) can't be based solely on "did it do good to my neighbor", because in that case, I'd find eminent domain immoral at all time. ;p In economics, I think we can sum it up to, you look for Pareto optimal situations (it's optimal if you can't raise anyone satisfaction without lowering at one other person's), whereas I prefer Rawls' vision for some things (raising the lowest satisfaction). Nothing bad in either, and Pareto optimality is pretty much the standard anyway.First off, they should be. And, I don't think doing things for others is necessarily a bad thing, I just don't like the basis that that is the reason for doing things (i.e. it is moral because I did it for another).
I pretty much agree.If you are able to know your own goals, and retain yourself, and feel really nice when you help others (as in you really aren't being pushed into helping others because people tell you you have to), then by all means. That's the case with me. I help people because I enjoy helping others; I wouldn't help others if they were asking for me to kill myself.
kPhilosophy was the wrong word. "General thinking", maybe.
I'm not sure I'd be a good Economics teacher, honestly. If there are specific things you'd like me to detail, I can try, though. At any rate, I hope you'll enjoy your classes, that'll make even more interesting arguments in a few years.OK, time for you to understand this.
If you have been trying from the beginning to imply that my economic views are overly simplified, well, you're right. I am going to be going to college in the fall to major in International Business, and economics is a high part of that (I checked today, actually; I'm at the college in Hawaii to register). While my main view of reality will always stay the same, the technicalities might change, sure. Ask me again in a few years how I feel about certain issues; I'll answer them then best. Or, you could explain those a bit better now, but my answer will still be a bit simplified.
I'd fully agree if I was convinced everyone would adhere to that idea, however, I'm not. I think that sadly, it's also in human nature to cheat others.However, I won't be changing my personal view of the world based on this. I still think the world could be a better place if we adopted a "live and let live" attitude; you called me a fundamentalist earlier, but in reality, I'm only holding myself up to this attitude.
I think they can use both, brain more than heart, yes, but I think it's good when can use our heart too sometimes.I think that people have to use thier brains more than their heart, and that they should consider themselves their highest value.
And I reject the idea that you can't think of others ever because you have to think of yourself at all times. If we take both these statements, what we get is that we can think of ourselves, and we can think of others, which is what I think we do, and should be doing.Therefore, I reject the notions that your feelings are valuable (at least, more valuable than your mind) and that you can't think of yourself ever because you have to think of others at all times.
If you mean reverence as in respect, yes. If you mean as in worship, no. Would you mind explaining the second part of the sentence, I'm not sure I undertsand what you mean by "based on their own importance".I think we'd all benefit if we remembered to keep ourselves in reverence, and likewise respected others based on their own importance.
I don't have anything against you talking about it, heck, it's interesting to have something to debate about, even if I disagree. However, I'm quite pessimistic about getting your main goal achieved short of a revolution.You might tell me, "That's great, but stay the hell away from politics," but that'd be foolhardy. Just as I can't give up on rationality just because I'm not omniprescent, likewise, I can't let the government act contrary to my ideals based on my not having a Ph.D. in political science. My main goal is that the government stays the living hell out of my way and let me live and produce. Do I plan on killing anyone? No; that'd be going against my personal philosophy, which is to let others live their own life to their own code. Will I force my beliefs on others? Not at all, because people have to let others think for themselves (even when they choose not to live for themselves).
Yet it happens. What I think is that some people choose not to sell not because they'd lose wealth or not, but because they let their emotions in their decision. We were talking about the sentimental value with The Man earlier, that's this. If everyone was thinking only about market value, we'd never need eminent domain, however, sometimes people give things a very different subjective value.Therefore, unless you can really convince me of it, I don't think the Supreme Court is doing anything good by legalizing, in effect, looting. The public good doesn't figure in; if I am part of the public, I don't like it for a second, and would gladly drive around a man's house for ten miles as long as the man wasn't forced to sell his house so they could build a road through it.
Of course, he's stupid. He should sell because he is being offered so much (in your example, the price of the house plus a little extra). But that's his decisions; I honor other decisions.
And as I said in one of my previous post, I think that this decision by the SC was stupid, because it doesn't benefit the public, it benefits the private entity that's getting the land (and I would expect benefit the official who took the decision).But does that make it good? I mean, I like the world around me today, but I wouldn't hate them if they had kept those rights (as they should have). Besides, the things you are bringing up are part of the "morally gray" area I think you are talking about, and I'd be willing to argue with you when the chance comes up. At the moment, we have to talk about other, more urgent things. Such as whether or not Wal-Mart has the right to steal my house, and throw some money so as to imply I sanctioned the act.
So far, I have no idea how anyone can really justify that.
And then there is Death
Posting Permissions
