Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rand and Altruism

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, from what I've read and heard from Rand, am I right to believe that she is essentially the most extreme variant of a universal ethical egoist, saying not only is it the moral thing to do to act in one's own self-interest, but any form of altruism, even if done by a person because he or she willingly chooses to do it because they think it's appropriate to do, is immoral?

Seems a bit hardline.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:31:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

It's immoral insofar as you do give up life, though. Placing the welfare of others above your own means you are trading a value for a non-value (should you act on this premise).
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:35:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My understanding is that charity or acting for others is only ethical if it is done from selfish motivation, e.g. I enjoy helping other people or I would rather live in a world where everyone is doing well. Pretty much what dylan said above.

When Rand talks about altruism she really has in her mind the stuff Kant writes about how the only way to know an action is truly in line with duty is to act against all personal motivation for the sake of duty.

I agree with Dninja that this is a strange interpretation of altruism, to say that it is the same as total self sacrifice.

I also find it strange that she embraces virtue ethics but can't see how competing formulations of the virtues are totally removed from her argument against altruism. If magnanimity is a virtue, it is ethically proper to engage in charity simply because it virtuous without being compelled to become a "sacrificial animal." Rand talks up Aristotle but he would have very ready replies to her problems with altruism.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:36:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:31:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

It's immoral insofar as you do give up life, though. Placing the welfare of others above your own means you are trading a value for a non-value (should you act on this premise).

Why is the welfare of others a non-value? (straight up question, not trying to be cheeky)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

Forget about nihilism, this is just full of non-sequiturs and logical gaps. What you mean to say is that all human actions necessarily suppose that the humans involved are alive. This is entirely limited to description. The fundamental assertion in the argument above is "you are alive therefore you ought to be alive" and I should need to explain why that's a boldfaced fallacy. You tell me nihilism is irrelevant, yet you hold on to beliefs that nihilism would posit are absurd and utterly false.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:36:51 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:31:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

It's immoral insofar as you do give up life, though. Placing the welfare of others above your own means you are trading a value for a non-value (should you act on this premise).

Why is the welfare of others a non-value? (straight up question, not trying to be cheeky)

It can be a value (family members, etc), but the welfare of someone whom you'll never meet is objectively a non-value because they do not contribute to your personal happiness.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:42:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:36:51 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:31:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

It's immoral insofar as you do give up life, though. Placing the welfare of others above your own means you are trading a value for a non-value (should you act on this premise).

Why is the welfare of others a non-value? (straight up question, not trying to be cheeky)

It can be a value (family members, etc), but the welfare of someone whom you'll never meet is objectively a non-value because they do not contribute to your personal happiness.

Ok but why is my personal happiness the only source of value? I can say that the well being of others has value without denying the value of my own well being.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:45:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

Forget about nihilism, this is just full of non-sequiturs and logical gaps. What you mean to say is that all human actions necessarily suppose that the humans involved are alive. This is entirely limited to description. The fundamental assertion in the argument above is "you are alive therefore you ought to be alive" and I should need to explain why that's a boldfaced fallacy. You tell me nihilism is irrelevant, yet you hold on to beliefs that nihilism would posit are absurd and utterly false.

You're alive, and if you want to stay alive, you need to hold yourself as a value. You can choose to not want to be alive, or view the whole thing as irrelevant, but then why are you here? Values are only possible for living beings, so if we are to act with the premise that there's SOMETHING worth striving for, we can only achieve it by being alive, and thus being alive is a value, because it is the SOURCE of values. If you want a better explanation, read the link I posted (The Virtue of Selfishness).
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:55:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:45:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

Forget about nihilism, this is just full of non-sequiturs and logical gaps. What you mean to say is that all human actions necessarily suppose that the humans involved are alive. This is entirely limited to description. The fundamental assertion in the argument above is "you are alive therefore you ought to be alive" and I should need to explain why that's a boldfaced fallacy. You tell me nihilism is irrelevant, yet you hold on to beliefs that nihilism would posit are absurd and utterly false.

You're alive, and if you want to stay alive, you need to hold yourself as a value. You can choose to not want to be alive, or view the whole thing as irrelevant, but then why are you here? Values are only possible for living beings, so if we are to act with the premise that there's SOMETHING worth striving for, we can only achieve it by being alive, and thus being alive is a value, because it is the SOURCE of values. If you want a better explanation, read the link I posted (The Virtue of Selfishness).

Yeah I've read Ayn Rand, I just fail to see how this argument a) excludes the possibility of establishing the value of others by other argument b) excludes the possibility of altruism as a virtue falling out of self preservation (as many evolutionary psychologists argue) c) deals with things we believe are worth striving for but can only be achieved through self sacrifice (e.g. the life of a child or world peace).

I just dont think the argument is very good at removing all aspects of altruism from an ethical system.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:55:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:45:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

Forget about nihilism, this is just full of non-sequiturs and logical gaps. What you mean to say is that all human actions necessarily suppose that the humans involved are alive. This is entirely limited to description. The fundamental assertion in the argument above is "you are alive therefore you ought to be alive" and I should need to explain why that's a boldfaced fallacy. You tell me nihilism is irrelevant, yet you hold on to beliefs that nihilism would posit are absurd and utterly false.

You're alive, and if you want to stay alive, you need to hold yourself as a value. You can choose to not want to be alive, or view the whole thing as irrelevant, but then why are you here? Values are only possible for living beings, so if we are to act with the premise that there's SOMETHING worth striving for, we can only achieve it by being alive, and thus being alive is a value, because it is the SOURCE of values. If you want a better explanation, read the link I posted (The Virtue of Selfishness).

That's just invalid. We have various transient, subjective values in the course of living. It is necessary to be alive in order to value anything, but the process of valuing that thing does not translate to valuing living itself. Furthermore, you don't need a reason to live in order to continue living. Living is a fact that doesn't demand any teleological justification. And even IF you subjectively valued your life, it does not follow that cannot value the lives of others above your own. I might be doing a bad job explaining it, but there's such a massive disconnect of reasoning smeared by prose.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 5:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:55:04 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:45:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

Forget about nihilism, this is just full of non-sequiturs and logical gaps. What you mean to say is that all human actions necessarily suppose that the humans involved are alive. This is entirely limited to description. The fundamental assertion in the argument above is "you are alive therefore you ought to be alive" and I should need to explain why that's a boldfaced fallacy. You tell me nihilism is irrelevant, yet you hold on to beliefs that nihilism would posit are absurd and utterly false.

You're alive, and if you want to stay alive, you need to hold yourself as a value. You can choose to not want to be alive, or view the whole thing as irrelevant, but then why are you here? Values are only possible for living beings, so if we are to act with the premise that there's SOMETHING worth striving for, we can only achieve it by being alive, and thus being alive is a value, because it is the SOURCE of values. If you want a better explanation, read the link I posted (The Virtue of Selfishness).

Yeah I've read Ayn Rand, I just fail to see how this argument a) excludes the possibility of establishing the value of others by other argument

Others have value (the potential to be of value to you). This argument concludes that only that which contributes to one's personal happiness can have value, so I don't see any room for argument outside that which is already established.

b) excludes the possibility of altruism as a virtue falling out of self preservation (as many evolutionary psychologists argue)

It would be unjustifiable.

c) deals with things we believe are worth striving for but can only be achieved through self sacrifice (e.g. the life of a child or world peace).

If it's truly worth striving for, it won't entail self-sacrifice. By my definition, self-sacrifice is trading value for non-value.


I just dont think the argument is very good at removing all aspects of altruism from an ethical system.

Why?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:55:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:45:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

Forget about nihilism, this is just full of non-sequiturs and logical gaps. What you mean to say is that all human actions necessarily suppose that the humans involved are alive. This is entirely limited to description. The fundamental assertion in the argument above is "you are alive therefore you ought to be alive" and I should need to explain why that's a boldfaced fallacy. You tell me nihilism is irrelevant, yet you hold on to beliefs that nihilism would posit are absurd and utterly false.

You're alive, and if you want to stay alive, you need to hold yourself as a value. You can choose to not want to be alive, or view the whole thing as irrelevant, but then why are you here? Values are only possible for living beings, so if we are to act with the premise that there's SOMETHING worth striving for, we can only achieve it by being alive, and thus being alive is a value, because it is the SOURCE of values. If you want a better explanation, read the link I posted (The Virtue of Selfishness).

That's just invalid. We have various transient, subjective values in the course of living. It is necessary to be alive in order to value anything, but the process of valuing that thing does not translate to valuing living itself. Furthermore, you don't need a reason to live in order to continue living. Living is a fact that doesn't demand any teleological justification. And even IF you subjectively valued your life, it does not follow that cannot value the lives of others above your own. I might be doing a bad job explaining it, but there's such a massive disconnect of reasoning smeared by prose.

If someone acts in someone else's interest, they are probably doing it because it is a value to themselves; ie 'I feel better when I help others.' Since we are only inside our own brain, only know our own thoughts, and (if you believe Cogito Ergo Sum) are the only thing we really know exists; our own value is the only value we can truly be sure about, or be the closest to being sure about as possible. If someone believes they are acting for another's value, with no value to themselves, they are simply guessing. The degree to which 'Altruism' is present is the degree to which the person is 'guessing' about the value being given to the other. What is almost certain, though, is that value is being taken away from that altruistic person. Therefore they are taking away value from themselves, with no idea about where that value is going or why. They are trading 'value I have a concept of' for 'less value and something I have no concept of,' which is effectively the same as just decreasing value.

As for the thing about life being it's own goal; it's true that there's no objective goal to the universe / existing, in the sense that there's no God applying a goal or purpose to everything. However, the most common goal, which is applicable to the things which most people find desirable, seems to be that the goal is to maximize life / live as much as possible. We could say, perhaps being dead is a lot better, but death is something we have no concept of: what it's like, in what sense it even exists, etc. Our only point of reference is life, and all signs life gives us point to maximizing life being beneficial.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That does sound far too extreme. Obviously self-interest is paramount, because if you don't look after yourself, you can't sustainably look after anyone else either, and others can take advantage.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:55:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:51:14 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
That does sound far too extreme. Obviously self-interest is paramount, because if you don't look after yourself, you can't sustainably look after anyone else either, and others can take advantage.

Self-interest goes beyond merely staying alive to stay viable as chattel lol.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:55:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

Right, but what I mean is that he's jumping right from valuing other's well-being above your own to literally dying for others, which simply doesn't happen just because you may value another's well being more than your own.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:00:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

Right, but what I mean is that he's jumping right from valuing other's well-being above your own to literally dying for others, which simply doesn't happen just because you may value another's well being more than your own.

I said "giving up life." I didn't mean literally dying per se.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:00:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

I would point out that Rand says that acting SOLELY for the interest of another person is actually immoral. So for example if the healthy farmer harvested the crops and straight up gave the sick farmer his full share and without any expectation of reciprocation (say the healthy one knew the sick one was a dick and would never repay the favor) Rand would say this is actually an immoral act.

That's where I dont see her argument getting- to the point where altruism is actually immoral.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:00:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

Right, but what I mean is that he's jumping right from valuing other's well-being above your own to literally dying for others, which simply doesn't happen just because you may value another's well being more than your own.

I said "giving up life." I didn't mean literally dying per se.

But even so, it doesn't necessitate THAT, either.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Right, but what I mean is that he's jumping right from valuing other's well-being above your own to literally dying for others, which simply doesn't happen just because you may value another's well being more than your own.

Good point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:07:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

If it would ultimately be in their self-interest, then it's not a sacrifice, and thus that does not apply. Being concerned for others' well being more than one's own is vastly different than concerning oneself with one's own well-being by means of another's. It must always tie to the individual or it's irrational.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:01:17 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:00:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:26:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:17:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 4:12:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She wasn't against charity, btw. Her issue was with people who place the welfare of others above their own.

If you want more of an understanding, read this: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in...

Believe me, I've watched many a video of her explaining that point.

However, it's ridiculous that she even said that, suggesting that a person who places the well-being of others above their own is immoral.

Why is that ridiculous? For one to want to be a sacrificial animal is immoral because it means they want to give up life - the only source which good can come from. To lose life is objectively the worst thing that could happen to a person, and thus, to give it up is the worst thing that they could do.

But you're setting up a false dichotomy between acting in your own self-interest and literally willing to die on the cross for other people. Being concerned for others' well being more than your own doesn't necessitate a complete abandonment of your own well-being.

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

Right, but what I mean is that he's jumping right from valuing other's well-being above your own to literally dying for others, which simply doesn't happen just because you may value another's well being more than your own.

I said "giving up life." I didn't mean literally dying per se.

But even so, it doesn't necessitate THAT, either.

It would insofar as people choose to be "moral" according to that premise.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:09:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:00:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

I would point out that Rand says that acting SOLELY for the interest of another person is actually immoral. So for example if the healthy farmer harvested the crops and straight up gave the sick farmer his full share and without any expectation of reciprocation (say the healthy one knew the sick one was a dick and would never repay the favor) Rand would say this is actually an immoral act.

That's where I dont see her argument getting- to the point where altruism is actually immoral.

I can actually understand her point. The healthy farmer is going to die in such a situation, since he gave his own share along with the sick man's share. If everyone but one person followed such an altruistic stance, well, no one except that one person would have anything, right? Everyone else would die.

The key word here is SOLELY...I'd like to see ninja's point answered if possible, which is a different perspective.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:17:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:09:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:00:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

I would point out that Rand says that acting SOLELY for the interest of another person is actually immoral. So for example if the healthy farmer harvested the crops and straight up gave the sick farmer his full share and without any expectation of reciprocation (say the healthy one knew the sick one was a dick and would never repay the favor) Rand would say this is actually an immoral act.

That's where I dont see her argument getting- to the point where altruism is actually immoral.

I can actually understand her point. The healthy farmer is going to die in such a situation, since he gave his own share along with the sick man's share. If everyone but one person followed such an altruistic stance, well, no one except that one person would have anything, right? Everyone else would die.

The key word here is SOLELY...I'd like to see ninja's point answered if possible, which is a different perspective.

What point is that?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:18:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:17:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:09:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:00:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

I would point out that Rand says that acting SOLELY for the interest of another person is actually immoral. So for example if the healthy farmer harvested the crops and straight up gave the sick farmer his full share and without any expectation of reciprocation (say the healthy one knew the sick one was a dick and would never repay the favor) Rand would say this is actually an immoral act.

That's where I dont see her argument getting- to the point where altruism is actually immoral.

I can actually understand her point. The healthy farmer is going to die in such a situation, since he gave his own share along with the sick man's share. If everyone but one person followed such an altruistic stance, well, no one except that one person would have anything, right? Everyone else would die.

The key word here is SOLELY...I'd like to see ninja's point answered if possible, which is a different perspective.

What point is that?

That it's not reasonable to say valuing others' well-being above your own is equivalent to giving up your life.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:09:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:00:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 7/21/2013 8:53:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I believe the reconciliation is that it's possible to advance self-interest by helping others. For example, if there were two farms and two farmers, and one farmer got sick during the harvest season. It would be in both farmers' best interests for the one healthy farmer to harvest all the crops. No matter how they distributed the sick farmer's crops, it benefits the healthy farmer.

I would point out that Rand says that acting SOLELY for the interest of another person is actually immoral. So for example if the healthy farmer harvested the crops and straight up gave the sick farmer his full share and without any expectation of reciprocation (say the healthy one knew the sick one was a dick and would never repay the favor) Rand would say this is actually an immoral act.

That's where I dont see her argument getting- to the point where altruism is actually immoral.

I can actually understand her point. The healthy farmer is going to die in such a situation, since he gave his own share along with the sick man's share. If everyone but one person followed such an altruistic stance, well, no one except that one person would have anything, right? Everyone else would die.

The key word here is SOLELY...I'd like to see ninja's point answered if possible, which is a different perspective.

No, i wasn't clear. I mean if the healthy farmer harvests the sick guys crops for him and gets nothing back. Basically the healthy guy does the sick ones work for free, I.e. altruistically, that is immoral.

The healthy guy can keep his crops so he won't die. He would probably have a crummy harvest though, since he is doing twice as much work.