User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 207

  1. #101
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    For example?
    His comments on TARP, education, Bernanke, and what I suspect is his view on individual freedom.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #102
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    This more contemporary view of the Rand topic is interesting.
    "What if Atlas shrugged?!" "The book is Long!". hahah. I find his style of speech very odd and distracting.

    I still think there are glossing over the idea of competition. Sure helping the client helps the business but how should you treat other businesses. You have to out compete them to be successful and that can't be a win-win situation.

  3. #103
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    I'll say that the banker failed to deal with the ethics of rescuing someone who fell over the side of the yacht. He evaded the question by appealing to the fact that Rand does take a long-range view of happiness. But that's not the question here. The question (which Rand would have more deftly answered) is whether one has a duty to rescue the person, not whether or not it would make me happy in the short or long run.

    Her answer is: no such duty exists. However, if you don't rescue the person, then you will suffer some consequence. In that sense, it may or may not affect your long-range happiness.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #104
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    His comments on TARP, education, Bernanke, and what I suspect is his view on individual freedom.
    Being forced to sign on with TARP was a good thing then?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #105
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I'll say that the banker failed to deal with the ethics of rescuing someone who fell over the side of the yacht. He evaded the question by appealing to the fact that Rand does take a long-range view of happiness. But that's not the question here. The question (which Rand would have more deftly answered) is whether one has a duty to rescue the person, not whether or not it would make me happy in the short or long run.

    Her answer is: no such duty exists. However, if you don't rescue the person, then you will suffer some consequence. In that sense, it may or may not affect your long-range happiness.

    Do you think that Rand would explain that affect on your long range happiness as a hold over form altruistic social conditioning. Or as an innate appreciation for life?

  6. #106
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Do you think that Rand would explain that affect on your long range happiness as a hold over form altruistic social conditioning. Or as an innate appreciation for life?
    I can't predict what her exact wording would have been. Just that a normal person would feel bad about doing nothing, perhaps permanently, and in some rare jurisdictions could even be legally punished. I take it we're talking about rescuing a stranger? The audience member didn't say. But if word got around that you stood by while someone was left to drown or be eaten alive by sharks, then it may negatively impact your social and/or business reputation.

    She wouldn't have anything to do with any notion of altruistic social conditioning and would consider it an anti-concept used as a theoretical excuse to ram duties toward self-sacrifice down people's throats. But she wouldn't put it that way.

    In my view, there may be such conditioning, but Rand would have nothing to do with it.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #107

    Default

    Pseudo

    "Will have to agree to disagree about the issue of force. I'm not convinced."

    No. I disagree, period! You have conflated aggressive force that takes or destroys the values of others with defensive force that merely protects that which is yours. And you are doing so without bothering to ground it in the facts. Acting on that error will cost you your life in any society, Objectivist or not.

    "If a fetus has rights they aren't dependent on out "granting" them such rights but on their status as a person/non-person/potentially person. And you stated before that even as infants we make the choice to live before being cognizant of the value of life. So isn't a fetus, by the simple fact that it continues to develop, choosing life and their for entitled to rights?"

    No. The granting of political rights is a necessity only in the context of a society. In the absence of an organized society governed by an independent third party institution, political rights do not exist. But in the context of a society, political rights are necessitated by the moral rightness of autonomy that derives from the nature of an individual human being.

    The fetus, however, is not an individual human being. Its existence is not contingent on the validity of its own volitional choices. The concepts of morality and reciprocity in a social relationship are wholly inapplicable to a fetus until it becomes an individual (and separate) human being.

    Those concepts do apply, however, to the mother-to-be, who does have individual rights that I must recognize. The mother and the fetus cannot both have rights, because they could be mutually contradictory—a violation of the law of identity: A is A; B is B; A cannot be both A and B at the same time, in the same context.

  8. #108
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.simaruba View Post
    Pseudo

    "Will have to agree to disagree about the issue of force. I'm not convinced."

    No. I disagree, period! You have conflated aggressive force that takes or destroys the values of others with defensive force that merely protects that which is yours. And you are doing so without bothering to ground it in the facts. Acting on that error will cost you your life in any society, Objectivist or not.

    "If a fetus has rights they aren't dependent on out "granting" them such rights but on their status as a person/non-person/potentially person. And you stated before that even as infants we make the choice to live before being cognizant of the value of life. So isn't a fetus, by the simple fact that it continues to develop, choosing life and their for entitled to rights?"

    No. The granting of political rights is a necessity only in the context of a society. In the absence of an organized society governed by an independent third party institution, political rights do not exist. But in the context of a society, political rights are necessitated by the moral rightness of autonomy that derives from the nature of an individual human being.

    The fetus, however, is not an individual human being. Its existence is not contingent on the validity of its own volitional choices.
    Neither does that of a baby or toddler.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Neither does that of a baby or toddler.
    A baby acquires rights on becoming a separate human individual, but the extent of those rights is limited then, becoming complete on reaching the age and/or capacity of self-sufficiency.

    So too is learning and choosing primitive at first and just the start of the long-term cumulative process. Also remember that "existence" in this context refers to one's life qua man—not to mere physical existence.

  10. #110
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.simaruba View Post
    Pseudo

    "Will have to agree to disagree about the issue of force. I'm not convinced."

    No. I disagree, period! You have conflated aggressive force that takes or destroys the values of others with defensive force that merely protects that which is yours. And you are doing so without bothering to ground it in the facts. Acting on that error will cost you your life in any society, Objectivist or not.

    "If a fetus has rights they aren't dependent on out "granting" them such rights but on their status as a person/non-person/potentially person. And you stated before that even as infants we make the choice to live before being cognizant of the value of life. So isn't a fetus, by the simple fact that it continues to develop, choosing life and their for entitled to rights?"

    No. The granting of political rights is a necessity only in the context of a society. In the absence of an organized society governed by an independent third party institution, political rights do not exist. But in the context of a society, political rights are necessitated by the moral rightness of autonomy that derives from the nature of an individual human being.

    The fetus, however, is not an individual human being. Its existence is not contingent on the validity of its own volitional choices. The concepts of morality and reciprocity in a social relationship are wholly inapplicable to a fetus until it becomes an individual (and separate) human being.

    Those concepts do apply, however, to the mother-to-be, who does have individual rights that I must recognize. The mother and the fetus cannot both have rights, because they could be mutually contradictory—a violation of the law of identity: A is A; B is B; A cannot be both A and B at the same time, in the same context.
    I don't believe I'm conflating anything. You said yourself that there is a situation like this:

    " your life is threatened by an emergency circumstance in which sustaining the right of another would result in your immediate death. In that case, rights cease to be a consideration. It would be a self contradiction for an individual or a society to define the right to life in such a way that sustaining it would result in one's death."

    You have stated there that under certain conditions the rights of others are subjugated to the desire of the individual to live. Then we have to define what are those conditions? What is considered immediate? Since we already established that it is the long-term happiness to be considered, I don't see anything in objectivism that prevents me from rationally deciding to kill people who develop nuclear weapons, or over reproduce or even just have the potential to out compete me for a job that would provide my livelihood.

    . The choice is to think or not to think—to act to sustain life or not. Actually you already made that choice as an infant before scoundrels taught you to doubt the value of life.


    How is an infant's existence any more "contingent on the validity of it's own volitional choices" than a fetus'? Infants cannot survive as lone individuals and are completely dependent on a parent of some sort. If the definition of being human is the ability to sustain ones own life solely through ones own choices we could consider anyone below the age of 5 to be a non-human.

    Your "proof" at the end is unclear. I assume that you are arguing that the fetus cannot be both part of the mother and it's own entity at the same time? I feel like a biological explanation of reproduction gets around that, the fetus, though residing in the mother and affecting her greatly is genetically distinct.

    Or if your suggesting that, because there could be a conflict between the two set of rights, it is more convenient to deny the one party political rights to avoid conflict regardless of wether or not it does inherently have rights that seems out of line with the whole idea of objectivist philosophy being a reaction to reality.

Similar Threads

  1. Ayn Rand is undoubtedly an ENTJ not an INTJ
    By Harlow_Jem in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 12:55 AM
  2. Ayn Rand: The Ultimate INTJ
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 09:44 PM
  3. AYN RAND'S VAGINA SMOKING A BONG
    By Ginkgo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:01 AM
  4. Ayn Rand fandom and type
    By Economica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 01:45 AM
  5. [INTJ] The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand's Objectivism and INTJ's
    By Harlow_Jem in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 01:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO