Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Survival Qua Man

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life. As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value. What does everyone think of this? It seems Rand doesn't get enough love around here.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life. As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value. What does everyone think of this? It seems Rand doesn't get enough love around here.

The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems. It's a non-sequitur to then assert than one ought value their own life as the highest value over all else. We should be able to realize that we are one of many and that to place our own well-being as having far greater moral importance than all other life is just irrational. That's just the surface of it, Ayn Rand usually doesn't even make it into university-level philosophy courses.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:35:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life.

ok.. my continuing to live is a requirement of my continuing to value.. and living was a prerequisite for my valuing in the first place.

As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value.

does not follow.

If I value continuing to value things over everything else... then it follows.

However I may At This Moment care more for the survival of my children (not that I have any) than I do for my continuing to value things... and so I may give up my life to save them, ending my ability to value things through dying.

Just because something's a pre-requisite to valuing doesn't mean it should itself be valued.. or valued highest.

Another, perhaps simpler, example..

Someone doesn't like pain (magine that!)..
but they find that continuing to live is near constant pain with no real enjoyment.

They value not feeling pain... They don't value the continued ability to have values.. and don't value continuing to live.

They kill themselves for the sake of their values... Despite the fact that that prevents them from continuing to value.

There's no reason to say this is somehow contradictory... It's straightforward and, though depressing, and perhaps unlikely that someone Really couldn't find any hope of enjoying things, makes sense.

Rand asserts it doesn't make sense.. suggests it's clear from the fact that life is a pre-requisite to valuing things... but life (or the ability to continue valuing) being the highest value doesn't follow that doesn't follow from life being a prereq. to valuing... it's a non-sequitur.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 4:33:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rand is over rated. She doesn't really get to the root of things.

However, I think that most can agree that it is in our own best interests if we are able to put ourselves in the shoes of another and realize that it is best not to be quick to judge.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 4:43:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life. As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value. What does everyone think of this? It seems Rand doesn't get enough love around here.

Although I disagree with many of Rand's conclusions, I subscribe to many of her premises, this being one of them.

Much like OMG, I contend that this applies to the preservation of one's life exclusively. Perhaps, the preservation of life in general is more accurate.

Moreover, I believe that egotism, of which I consider Rand thoroughly guilty, is rather irreverent of life. It's more concerned with constructs and satisfying emotions tied to abstract concepts.

On the other hand, one way or another, one must admit that in order to have any philosophy or ethical construct, one must first accept that life is paramount.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 9:49:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 3:35:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life.

ok.. my continuing to live is a requirement of my continuing to value.. and living was a prerequisite for my valuing in the first place.

As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value.

does not follow.

If I value continuing to value things over everything else... then it follows.

However I may At This Moment care more for the survival of my children (not that I have any) than I do for my continuing to value things... and so I may give up my life to save them, ending my ability to value things through dying.

Just because something's a pre-requisite to valuing doesn't mean it should itself be valued.. or valued highest.

Another, perhaps simpler, example..

Someone doesn't like pain (magine that!)..
but they find that continuing to live is near constant pain with no real enjoyment.

They value not feeling pain... They don't value the continued ability to have values.. and don't value continuing to live.

They kill themselves for the sake of their values... Despite the fact that that prevents them from continuing to value.

There's no reason to say this is somehow contradictory... It's straightforward and, though depressing, and perhaps unlikely that someone Really couldn't find any hope of enjoying things, makes sense.

Rand asserts it doesn't make sense.. suggests it's clear from the fact that life is a pre-requisite to valuing things... but life (or the ability to continue valuing) being the highest value doesn't follow that doesn't follow from life being a prereq. to valuing... it's a non-sequitur.

I think this is a good deconstruction of Rand's proposition. I wonder what her retort would have been.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 10:10:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree that it does not follow. Continuing to remain alive does not have to be one of my values just because it is a prerequisite for my having values. That fact that I will cease have to values if I die is just a statement about biology. It doesn't have any normative implications.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:20:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems.

My ought's are not based in a respect for sentience.

I would squash intelligent, evil, alien bugs with as much sympathy as I squash ants...
Probably less.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:27:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:20:40 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems.

My ought's are not based in a respect for sentience.

I would squash intelligent, evil, alien bugs with as much sympathy as I squash ants...
Probably less.

I have empathy for socially intelligent animals.. animals that care about the states of others and their relations to them.

I have empathy for those in pain.. and so.. even with the evil, intelligent alien bugs (given that it seems they experience pain similarly to us)...I would, all things being equal, pick the quickest manner of squashing them if it's just as convenient/effective as other manners.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:20:40 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems.

My ought's are not based in a respect for sentience.

I would squash intelligent, evil, alien bugs with as much sympathy as I squash ants...
Probably less.

You don't have any oughts in any meaningful sense.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:45:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:35:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:20:40 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems.

My ought's are not based in a respect for sentience.

I would squash intelligent, evil, alien bugs with as much sympathy as I squash ants...
Probably less.

You don't have any oughts in any meaningful sense.

I ought to squash Intelligent, unempathetic, alien bugs who would care to devour humans by the truckload because I wouldn't care to see humans devoured by the truckload.

The "ought" there suggests that there's Good Reason for doing the action that I say "ought" be done...
The reason is made clear after the word "because"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:04:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 8:52:46 AM, Ren wrote:
Isn't the "because" implicit by the nature of the "ought?"

He was saying I didn't have "meaningful" oughts...

I showed him the manner in which they're meaningful... what they represent.

That is, when I say "I ought to do xyz" I mean "There's Good Reason for my doing XYZ"....
I can also say "Jane ought to.." but only given that I know jane rather well and/or assume certain things about what she would care for.

now, the "b/c" is there to suggest that that Reason that the ought implies is to be said explicitly. The ought certainly suggests there's a reason.. but it doesn't, of itself, make clear what the particular reason in this particular circumstance is..

The "b/c" lets the listener know that I'm going to explain the implied reason.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:49:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:45:17 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:35:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:20:40 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems.

My ought's are not based in a respect for sentience.

I would squash intelligent, evil, alien bugs with as much sympathy as I squash ants...
Probably less.

You don't have any oughts in any meaningful sense.

I ought to squash Intelligent, unempathetic, alien bugs who would care to devour humans by the truckload because I wouldn't care to see humans devoured by the truckload.

The "ought" there suggests that there's Good Reason for doing the action that I say "ought" be done...
The reason is made clear after the word "because"

Any normative statement based purely on your personal cares or desires is absurd. You know this.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 5:08:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:49:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Any normative statement based purely on your personal cares or desires is absurd.

I didn't claim this particular ought was a standard which holds true in all possible valuers... And don't think any ought could qualify.

I'm not claiming that any kind of Universal standard of rational action is based in My cares... Such standards don't exist.

I'm explaining the manner in which someone can have good reason to do something... How it is one can say that they Ought to.
That is they have good reason to pursue something if it accords with the satisfaction of their cares.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 6:25:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 5:51:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:25:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ought Objectively?

Objection?

Of course I object! Contradictions in terms are MY domain!!!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 7:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 6:25:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:51:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:25:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ought Objectively?

Objection?

Of course I object! Contradictions in terms are MY domain!!!

Oh, well, I contend that ought can have an objective application.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 12:23:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 7:59:45 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/17/2012 6:25:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:51:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:25:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ought Objectively?

Objection?

Of course I object! Contradictions in terms are MY domain!!!

Oh, well, I contend that ought can have an objective application.

Ah, so I see that's your opinion. Not very objective then, is it?

Nature don't give a shit about your opinions.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:24:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life. As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value. What does everyone think of this? It seems Rand doesn't get enough love around here.

The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems. It's a non-sequitur to then assert than one ought value their own life as the highest value over all else. We should be able to realize that we are one of many and that to place our own well-being as having far greater moral importance than all other life is just irrational.
We don't decide what we do. I decide what I do. You decide what I do.

I receive the benefits of what happens to me.

I do not necessarily receive the benefits of what happens to you.

You receive the benefits of what happens to you

You do not necessarily receive the benefits of what happens to me.

Your benefits are not as such accessible to me, hence, they are not as such relevant to my agency, and vice versa.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:25:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You decide what you do

fixing
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 9:00:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 12:23:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/17/2012 7:59:45 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/17/2012 6:25:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:51:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:25:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ought Objectively?

Objection?

Of course I object! Contradictions in terms are MY domain!!!

Oh, well, I contend that ought can have an objective application.

Ah, so I see that's your opinion. Not very objective then, is it?

Nature don't give a shit about your opinions.

That sir, was an assumption. I agree that opinions are likely inaccurate, but assumptions are surely inaccurate.

"Ought" can certainly have an objective application... what I state that ought may be could be subjective, although there is an objectively correct "ought," whether or not you figure it out.

Finally figured that shit out, btw. Your sort of revolution is my absolute favorite. Perhaps, now, they'll just get rid of the stupid fucking filter.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 9:28:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 9:00:41 AM, Ren wrote:
That sir, was an assumption. I agree that opinions are likely inaccurate, but assumptions are surely inaccurate.

"Ought" can certainly have an objective application... what I state that ought may be could be subjective, although there is an objectively correct "ought," whether or not you figure it out.

Finally figured that shit out, btw. Your sort of revolution is my absolute favorite. Perhaps, now, they'll just get rid of the stupid fucking filter.

You're such a dummy ren.

Such A Dummy.

How bout explaining yourself some..
Wait, don't...
I should know better than to ask.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:32:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 2:24:53 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2012 3:00:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/15/2012 2:14:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rand's justification for her ethical egoism came axiomatically. She argued that the necessary and universal pre-requisite or any value system or even values at all was life. As such, one's life ought objectively to be valued as the highest value. What does everyone think of this? It seems Rand doesn't get enough love around here.

The intrinsic value of sentient beings is really a pre-requisite to all moral systems. It's a non-sequitur to then assert than one ought value their own life as the highest value over all else. We should be able to realize that we are one of many and that to place our own well-being as having far greater moral importance than all other life is just irrational.
We don't decide what we do. I decide what I do. You decide what I do.

I receive the benefits of what happens to me.

I do not necessarily receive the benefits of what happens to you.

You receive the benefits of what happens to you

You do not necessarily receive the benefits of what happens to me.

Your benefits are not as such accessible to me, hence, they are not as such relevant to my agency, and vice versa.

Take "we" as a collection of individuals. I'm making a normative statement - am I committing some fallacy in objectivist metaphysics by using the term "we"?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:38:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 10:32:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Take "we" as a collection of individuals.

Are you claiming that everyone comes to the same decision?

Because, it would seem to me, people differ in what they think should be done in a whole bunch of circumstances.

Who's we? Is it not just some people, perhaps the majority... or perhaps it was decided by some people a long time ago and most people just go along with tradition... but Do you mean Society as a whole? b/c that's silly.

Instead... Some people decide.. and force their decisions on others...

That describes what happens.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:39:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 9:28:26 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/18/2012 9:00:41 AM, Ren wrote:
That sir, was an assumption. I agree that opinions are likely inaccurate, but assumptions are surely inaccurate.

"Ought" can certainly have an objective application... what I state that ought may be could be subjective, although there is an objectively correct "ought," whether or not you figure it out.

Finally figured that shit out, btw. Your sort of revolution is my absolute favorite. Perhaps, now, they'll just get rid of the stupid fucking filter.

You're such a dummy ren.

Such A Dummy.

How bout explaining yourself some..
Wait, don't...
I should know better than to ask.

If you consider "ought" subjective, then you're confusing the limitations of those applying the term with the limitations of the term itself.

It is not impossible to establish an "ought" clause that is objective. Whether you or I can come up with one, particularly hypothetically, is irrelevant.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:41:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 10:38:24 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Instead... Some people decide.. and force their decisions on others...

It is almost impossible to force decisions on people. It requires morality for everyone to have a degree of peacefully maintained power over one another.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:49:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 10:38:24 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/18/2012 10:32:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Take "we" as a collection of individuals.

Are you claiming that everyone comes to the same decision?

Because, it would seem to me, people differ in what they think should be done in a whole bunch of circumstances.

Who's we? Is it not just some people, perhaps the majority... or perhaps it was decided by some people a long time ago and most people just go along with tradition... but Do you mean Society as a whole? b/c that's silly.

Instead... Some people decide.. and force their decisions on others...

That describes what happens.

No. I'm making a normative statement. It applies universally.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:54:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 10:32:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We should be able to realize that we are one of many

I realize I am one of many.

and that to place our own well-being as having far greater moral importance than all other life is just irrational.

I don't claim my well being is somehow Objectively of Greater importance than that of others...

However.. what I care about is, by nature of the meaning of the words, what is important to me.

My cares are my own.. And they do not enfold the Multitude of people's cares... They are based in my emotions, feelings, and understanding of the world... They are based in my perspective.

The extent to which I care about Your cares... the extent to which what is important to you is important to me.. depends upon our level of similarity and upon my being empathetic.

I don't necessarily care for what you do... There's no reason it's Necessarily of importance to me. What's important to me is important to me... This depends upon my emotional and sensational reactions to things and my understanding of how those responses link up with things in the world.. my understanding of the nature of things.

You, or some psychopath, might genuinely enjoy skinning people alive.... I wouldn't.. and wouldn't enjoy seeing/hearing/knowing of others doing such things.
And your enjoyment in this matter is not going to, in the least bit whatsoever, have any weight upon what I would have happen.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."