2 ms·

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

by 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?

ThomPete 16y ago
Given that Rand tries to make universal claims your attempt to make exceptions are rather ironic. Basically your argument about kids are not any different than the religious people trying to explain how a child that haven't been baptized can go to heaven if they die early. What about the victims that meet the an enemy with overwhelming power. Are they heroic when they flee because that is the rational thing to do? Or are they irrational because they take the risk and attack the enemy? What about the retarded? Are they not humans because they aren't rational? You simply skip over all the problematic part with Rands philosophy. That's fine with me, just don't call it careful thinking. The point about no man is an island is that the idea of the individual is not just naive it's flat out wrong. With regards to your easily observable biological functions. Let me remind you that the body is a colony of cells that all work together to ultimately maintain the idea of you as an individual. To claim that the individual is somehow a well defined thing is simply showing the same kind of ignorance that the religious people have towards science. The survival instinct is hardwired into you only to the extent that it's not being suppressed by a severe depression. The brain is not a mechanical thing it's moldable. Obviously being young and immortal Rand makes some sense. This explains why she is so popular to young people who lack any fidelity and experience outside the campus. If anything Rands thinking is that of a immature human being who lack any desire to really understand the world around them because it is to occupied with themselves. Existence exist, but the question is what is existence. Rand goes from description to prescription but forget to do the check and balances of her premise.
- Tycho 16y ago
  Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says 'man' it is shorthand for an adult human capable of rational thought. If the human in question is not capable of rational thought (infant, retarded person), then most of Rand's theory does not apply. It consists of qualified universal claims, all depending on the nature of the organism (on a case by case basis, but we generalize for convenience). Meeting an overwhelming foe in war is an ethical emergency where there is no good outcome, just a choice of bad ones. As such, do whatever seems to best protect that which you value most, either fleeing or fighting (or even dieing to save others) could be moral decisions. These are not the problematic parts of Rand's philosophy, the rules themselves don't change - but they are in fact the problematic parts of almost every other philosophy I come across: ie. the unhelpful focus on emergencies and exceptions, rendering the 'answers' irrelevant to everyday life. See Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies' for more on this. You say the concept of the individual is wrong but just as morality only has meaning to the living, this very discussion only has meaning if it involves conscious, self-aware individuals, so there's literally no point entertaining any idea to the contrary (even though I'd like to point out that molecules still exist as unique entities even though they're made up of quarks). Also it's irrelevant whether there is a hardwired survival instinct in place or not - as I said the whole thing rests on a conditional premise, a choice. Look at what Rand's saying like this: Do you, lifeform, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong. I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her definition. There is a world of difference. Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined what that means. This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are not reality, words are simplifications of reality. No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable individual when you start to really dig into it. "Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]" This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life. Religion being one of them.

by Tycho 16y ago

ThomPete 16y ago

Given that Rand tries to make universal claims your attempt to make exceptions are rather ironic. Basically your argument about kids are not any different than the religious people trying to explain how a child that haven't been baptized can go to heaven if they die early. What about the victims that meet the an enemy with overwhelming power. Are they heroic when they flee because that is the rational thing to do? Or are they irrational because they take the risk and attack the enemy? What about the retarded? Are they not humans because they aren't rational? You simply skip over all the problematic part with Rands philosophy. That's fine with me, just don't call it careful thinking. The point about no man is an island is that the idea of the individual is not just naive it's flat out wrong. With regards to your easily observable biological functions. Let me remind you that the body is a colony of cells that all work together to ultimately maintain the idea of you as an individual. To claim that the individual is somehow a well defined thing is simply showing the same kind of ignorance that the religious people have towards science. The survival instinct is hardwired into you only to the extent that it's not being suppressed by a severe depression. The brain is not a mechanical thing it's moldable. Obviously being young and immortal Rand makes some sense. This explains why she is so popular to young people who lack any fidelity and experience outside the campus. If anything Rands thinking is that of a immature human being who lack any desire to really understand the world around them because it is to occupied with themselves. Existence exist, but the question is what is existence. Rand goes from description to prescription but forget to do the check and balances of her premise.

Tycho 16y ago
Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says 'man' it is shorthand for an adult human capable of rational thought. If the human in question is not capable of rational thought (infant, retarded person), then most of Rand's theory does not apply. It consists of qualified universal claims, all depending on the nature of the organism (on a case by case basis, but we generalize for convenience). Meeting an overwhelming foe in war is an ethical emergency where there is no good outcome, just a choice of bad ones. As such, do whatever seems to best protect that which you value most, either fleeing or fighting (or even dieing to save others) could be moral decisions. These are not the problematic parts of Rand's philosophy, the rules themselves don't change - but they are in fact the problematic parts of almost every other philosophy I come across: ie. the unhelpful focus on emergencies and exceptions, rendering the 'answers' irrelevant to everyday life. See Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies' for more on this. You say the concept of the individual is wrong but just as morality only has meaning to the living, this very discussion only has meaning if it involves conscious, self-aware individuals, so there's literally no point entertaining any idea to the contrary (even though I'd like to point out that molecules still exist as unique entities even though they're made up of quarks). Also it's irrelevant whether there is a hardwired survival instinct in place or not - as I said the whole thing rests on a conditional premise, a choice. Look at what Rand's saying like this: Do you, lifeform, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]
- ThomPete 16y ago
  It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong. I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her definition. There is a world of difference. Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined what that means. This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are not reality, words are simplifications of reality. No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable individual when you start to really dig into it. "Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]" This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life. Religion being one of them.