6 ms·

What is wrong with what she was -- teaching?

by dualogy 16y ago

ThomPete 16y ago
There are so many things that are wrong with it. "The individual "must exist for his own sake" That "must" in there is basically undermining her own claims about rationality. It might very well be that the individual exist for his own sake. But "must"? That's a pretty unsupported moral claim and by no metrics rational. Her focus on the individual is in itself a very naive interpretation of reality. What individual is she talking about. No man is an island. The very existence of what we call individuals depends on so many factors from our ancestors to the existence of a live-able planet to the air we are breathing. If anything she wrote self-help books. To call it philosophy would be a crime to philosophy. Or what about A = A. Existence exist. But what is existence? That is the question you must answer before you venture out from the premise and start prescribing what is right and what is wrong.
- grandalf 16y ago
  must is used the same way should is frequently used. Moral philosophy allows that concept.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    Which makes it no less problematic. It's still an unsupported moral claim.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      What is a supported moral claim?
      - ThomPete 16y ago
        One that claims to be based on rationality.
        grandalf 16y ago
        Rand's one premise is "Rationality is good" and she derives the rest from that.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        Which is nothing but yet another unsupported claim. Rationality is also not good just as irrationality is both good and bad. Context determines not ideology. It's not rational to claim that the individual should exist for his own sake anymore than to claim that the individual should exist to pro-create or to secure the continuation of it's genes.
        grandalf 16y ago
        Well you might as well be arguing that the entire notion of "good" and "bad" is useless, which would make all of moral philosophy useless. That's a valid claim, but it's sort of tangential to a critique of Rand b/c most people who critique her simply prefer some other type of moral philosophy. Any notion of good and bad must start with something... Rand tries to back-fill rationality being good based on what is essentially an evolutionary argument. Not the strongest argument, but probably stronger than the premises used by most moral philosophers.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        But even from an evolutionary point of view this doesn't follow. Even from an evolutionary point of view there isn't any "should" or "must". The theory of evolution does not consider itself with morals or ethics. There are no prescriptive moral in evolution. It's a model to explain, retrospectively, how things evolve not how it should or must evolve.
        grandalf 16y ago
        You're not responding to the argument Rand makes. I am not attempting to make that argument, merely mentioning how she gets there. It's an interesting argument, but you have to buy the premise in order to find it remotely persuasive. I find it more persuasive than any argument invoking God (as most other moral philosophers do) but not completely persuasive.
    - Tycho 16y ago
      Rand does actually support this claim. Basically what an organism should do is determined by its nature, ie. what actions are necessary for survival. This is what's good for the organism. Human nature is neither automatic (like plants) or instinctual (like animals), but rational - to survive, man must use reason. Therefore the right/moral/good path is adherence to reason. The only thing is that it rests on a conditional premise of choosing life over death, but that's hardly necessary to discuss
      - ThomPete 16y ago
        I am sorry but don't force your premise down on me. Choosing life over death is for thousands who commit suicide not such a simple question. What actions are necessary for survival. In a war what do you think? When you get born who takes care of you? Besides her actions being obviously wrong (no man exist in isolation) she is also showing a very poor understanding of basic evolutionary theory. You can't prescribe anything based on evolution. I can see that the Rand fanboys are roaming this thread. Instead of just downvoting perhaps (not you Tycho) you should show some cohonas and actually make an argument.
        Tycho 16y ago
        Well the thing is, morality is for the living, if you choose death then it's a moot point really. In a war you need to take risks to ensure long-term survival (and survival 'qua' man btw, not as a slave or prisoner), there's nothing irrational about that. When you're first born you have only the pleasure/pain mechanism to tell good from bad, and that alone is not sufficient for survival, so as your mind develops you must use reason to live. Rand never mentioned evolutionary theory as far as I remember, the argument is based simply on the easily observable biological functions that support life. No knowledge of evolution is necessary in order to act morally or come up with a similar moral theory. Meanwhile you keep saying 'no man is an island,' 'no man exists in isolation,' but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. I could just as easily say 'no man shares the mind of any other' - it's a bit of a platitude - what's your argument exactly?
        16y ago

What is wrong with what she was -- teaching?

by dualogy 16y ago

What is wrong with what she was -- teaching?

There are so many things that are wrong with it. "The individual "must exist for his own sake" That "must" in there is basically undermining her own claims about rationality. It might very well be that the individual exist for his own sake. But "must"? That's a pretty unsupported moral claim and by no metrics rational. Her focus on the individual is in itself a very naive interpretation of reality. What individual is she talking about. No man is an island. The very existence of what we call individuals depends on so many factors from our ancestors to the existence of a live-able planet to the air we are breathing. If anything she wrote self-help books. To call it philosophy would be a crime to philosophy. Or what about A = A. Existence exist. But what is existence? That is the question you must answer before you venture out from the premise and start prescribing what is right and what is wrong.

grandalf 16y ago
must is used the same way should is frequently used. Moral philosophy allows that concept.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  Which makes it no less problematic. It's still an unsupported moral claim.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    What is a supported moral claim?
    - ThomPete 16y ago
      One that claims to be based on rationality.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        Rand's one premise is "Rationality is good" and she derives the rest from that.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        Which is nothing but yet another unsupported claim. Rationality is also not good just as irrationality is both good and bad. Context determines not ideology. It's not rational to claim that the individual should exist for his own sake anymore than to claim that the individual should exist to pro-create or to secure the continuation of it's genes.
        grandalf 16y ago
        Well you might as well be arguing that the entire notion of "good" and "bad" is useless, which would make all of moral philosophy useless. That's a valid claim, but it's sort of tangential to a critique of Rand b/c most people who critique her simply prefer some other type of moral philosophy. Any notion of good and bad must start with something... Rand tries to back-fill rationality being good based on what is essentially an evolutionary argument. Not the strongest argument, but probably stronger than the premises used by most moral philosophers.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        But even from an evolutionary point of view this doesn't follow. Even from an evolutionary point of view there isn't any "should" or "must". The theory of evolution does not consider itself with morals or ethics. There are no prescriptive moral in evolution. It's a model to explain, retrospectively, how things evolve not how it should or must evolve.
        grandalf 16y ago
        You're not responding to the argument Rand makes. I am not attempting to make that argument, merely mentioning how she gets there. It's an interesting argument, but you have to buy the premise in order to find it remotely persuasive. I find it more persuasive than any argument invoking God (as most other moral philosophers do) but not completely persuasive.
  - Tycho 16y ago
    Rand does actually support this claim. Basically what an organism should do is determined by its nature, ie. what actions are necessary for survival. This is what's good for the organism. Human nature is neither automatic (like plants) or instinctual (like animals), but rational - to survive, man must use reason. Therefore the right/moral/good path is adherence to reason. The only thing is that it rests on a conditional premise of choosing life over death, but that's hardly necessary to discuss
    - ThomPete 16y ago
      I am sorry but don't force your premise down on me. Choosing life over death is for thousands who commit suicide not such a simple question. What actions are necessary for survival. In a war what do you think? When you get born who takes care of you? Besides her actions being obviously wrong (no man exist in isolation) she is also showing a very poor understanding of basic evolutionary theory. You can't prescribe anything based on evolution. I can see that the Rand fanboys are roaming this thread. Instead of just downvoting perhaps (not you Tycho) you should show some cohonas and actually make an argument.
      - Tycho 16y ago
        Well the thing is, morality is for the living, if you choose death then it's a moot point really. In a war you need to take risks to ensure long-term survival (and survival 'qua' man btw, not as a slave or prisoner), there's nothing irrational about that. When you're first born you have only the pleasure/pain mechanism to tell good from bad, and that alone is not sufficient for survival, so as your mind develops you must use reason to live. Rand never mentioned evolutionary theory as far as I remember, the argument is based simply on the easily observable biological functions that support life. No knowledge of evolution is necessary in order to act morally or come up with a similar moral theory. Meanwhile you keep saying 'no man is an island,' 'no man exists in isolation,' but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. I could just as easily say 'no man shares the mind of any other' - it's a bit of a platitude - what's your argument exactly?
        16y ago