- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And you have the right to hold that opinion, but make sure you don't mischaracterize Rand's views on the subject.
When does self-preservation become selfishness?
Never. Self-preservation is an aspect of selfishness. BTW, selfishness does not mean "greedy", which is the usual connotation the leftists give it.
Selfishness is related to egoism, and is a reflection of one's awareness of one's place in the world, one's desires, one's goals, and one's abilities. It's also an awareness that obligations imposed are not obligations but impositions by strangers that can be ignored unless the stranger is holding a gun.
"Greed" is the desire to gain unearned wealth. A selfish man who earns his wealth is not greedy so long as his accumulation of wealth did not infringe on the freedoms of others.
I never intended to and you were right to bring out that distinction as I tend to lump them together in my mind and forget to make it myself. I will probably do it again since I don't really see the distinction as all that important, at least not to my point of view.
Nope, greed is a desire to possess wealth or goods beyond necessity. Look it up. Its a sin we all commit, even the best of us (not that I am in the "best of us" category)
It is an important distinction, because if you neglect the distinction, you end up thinking Rand supported stealing, killing, and cheating for the sake of self-interest.
But you're not alone, Rand received much criticism from many areas, both academic and nonacademic, regarding her use of the term.
In that case, it is useless to even consider greed in any serious manner. Unless we're all living on communes and living on what's strictly necessary to survive, every single one of us is absolutely greedy when they come home with a paycheck that contains a surplus amount of money. Greed is therefore a nonissue and a useless term.
America, or do you not have police and law courts in your state?
I still hold that her beliefs regarding Objectivism are ethically invalid due to their basis in arbitrary discrimination.
Ideally, the needs of oneself need to be balanced with the needs of others.
If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that because of the above, I am coming to realize that political ideologies, and socio-ideologies are more flexible than most people think. Further, an ideology can be diagnosed without any indication of political, or sociological philosophy from the subject. It is my contention that ideology is a combination of one's genes and their environment, and is more about how we reason, and react to everything, than simply how we view a political, or sociological issue.
For instance, I think a test can be devised that proves my point, if one assumes that the above notion that conservatives think in black and white, and liberals in grey. Without any questions on any specific political, or sociological issues, one could tell by how the participants respond whether they are liberal, or conservative, simply by how they reason what is good, or what is bad. I think that with a great deal of accuracy, a double blind study could show that simply by their answers to non political, or sociological questions we could predict a subjects political ideology.
Before the test, the interviewers would determine the subjects ideology, and record the data. Now the testing begins, and the test scorers would not know the results of the prior interviews, and would score the tests based on multiple choice questions to various questions that relate to a black and white answering style to one that allows for grey. My guess is that conservatives will mostly choose black and white answers, and liberals will mostly choose grey. The tricky part is devising testing questions that can have multiple choice answers that are correct but appear as though only one is correct to the test taker..
Tim-
"Arbitrary discrimination?" Discrimination is not always a bad thing. You can't have free choice without some form of discrimination. When I chose a woman to marry, I discriminated against blondes, women with pale skin (I don't want to use the word white because I don't wish to recognize different "races"), women who were less intelligent than most, lazy women, large women, women without similar values, etc. We discriminate every day.
Second, you need to expand on the balance of one's needs with the needs of others. Granted, Rand was somewhat of an anarchist. But for libertarians at least, we believe that the moral obligation of the state is to protect the citizen from other citizens, not to subsidize their lifestyle or provide a system of dependence.
I never stated that discrimination was a bad thing. It can be either good, bad, or neutral. But discrimination with no basis in factual information is unethical (the easiest example would be racism, the belief that a different race is inferior for arbitrary reasons).
By nature of Objectivism, one must discriminate against everyone that is not oneself (based on the conclusion that because they are not you, they are inferior, which is arbitrary).
There's a reason most ethicists dismiss Ayn Rand.
This is an truly insightful point of view, and I think it has a good deal of merit.
Generally I've found this to be the case as well, with exceptions of course. I think that too few people stop to consider the reasons for an opposing viewpoint and just assume the worst. If there is indeed truth to this, it would help show that both sides are much closer than either cares to admit.
Thank you for taking time to consider the motivations behind an opposing viewpoint. That happens all too rarely in this day and age of extreme partisanship and every time I see it happen, it gives me hope for our future as a people.
Could you please explain where you came up with the WRONG interpreation of "the nature" of objectivism?
Ah, ok, thanks. I've never met two conservatives alike. Seriously, I mean that. There are common ideologies from both sides of the spectrum; liberals, conservatives, all seem to be fluid to some degree depending on the static issue. Let's take a glaring example of an issue people generally think has one ideological tag assigned to it. Legalizing weed. As a conservative, one might think that conservatives are diametrically opposed to legalizing pot, however, I'm a conservative and I am not against it. Conversely, almost all, if not all liberals I know are not against it either. Does it make me liberal? The answer is no. It makes me a conservative who is for legalizing marijuana.
If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that because of the above, I am coming to realize that political ideologies, and socio-ideologies are more flexible than most people think. Further, an ideology can be diagnosed without any indication of political, or sociological philosophy from the subject. It is my contention that ideology is a combination of one's genes and their environment, and is more about how we reason, and react to everything, than simply how we view a political, or sociological issue.
For instance, I think a test can be devised that proves my point, if one assumes that the above notion that conservatives think in black and white, and liberals in grey. Without any questions on any specific political, or sociological issues, one could tell by how the participants respond whether they are liberal, or conservative, simply by how they reason what is good, or what is bad. I think that with a great deal of accuracy, a double blind study could show that simply by their answers to non political, or sociological questions we could predict a subjects political ideology.
Before the test, the interviewers would determine the subjects ideology, and record the data. Now the testing begins, and the test scorers would not know the results of the prior interviews, and would score the tests based on multiple choice questions to various questions that relate to a black and white answering style to one that allows for grey. My guess is that conservatives will mostly choose black and white answers, and liberals will mostly choose grey. The tricky part is devising testing questions that can have multiple choice answers that are correct but appear as though only one is correct to the test taker..
Tim-
Erm, by studying it?
Am I wrong in stating that it argues for the ethical code of egoism(the practice of elevating self interest to a status not granted to others)?
Selfishness and self interest are 2 easily confusable terms, both have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't.
Objectivism uses self interest as it's defining term.
And you call yourself a libertarian? I think you should reconsider.
Listen to the Neal Boortz show, or go to Boortz.com for comments.
Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel of all time. It is also the greatest selling novel of all time.
Heh, as if you can peg me as any of those. :2razz:
Yeah. Exactly like communism and socialism. They have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't as well.
Not a jab. Just a commentary on specific meanings of words being important for constructive debate, NOT drawing a comparative example from your comment.:2wave:
I still hold that her beliefs regarding Objectivism are ethically invalid due to their basis in arbitrary discrimination.
Ideally, the needs of oneself need to be balanced with the needs of others.
I think you guys got sidetracked when you applied "arbitrary" to "discrimination".
If I'm right you are concerned that its problematic ifeveryone decides for themselves what is right or wrong.
According to orthodox Marxist theory, socialism is the transition period between capitalism and communism. This is why Lenin named the new state of Russia, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics because he did not feel that the state could automatically transition into the stateless utopia of communism. This is also why his policies favored a mixed private-public partnership. Anyone who claims to be a socialist or favors socialism is in favor of the eventual communist utopian dream.
I think that what an objectivist defines as "self interest" truly is "selfishness" as the word is commonly used.
A saint who sacrifices his life for others is still "self interested" because he does it out of concern for his own conscience. But this is still "selfless" behavior and is anathema to a Randian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?