Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My principles are better than yours

Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd like to start a two-part thread to enlighten others towards my way of thinking. The first part is going to be an assumption that I will defend and base the second part upon.

Contention 1: The most important aspect of a person's character is his or her moral state. More specifically, a person can be judged primarily on the intentions behind their actions, which are in turn manifestations of the principles they are able to clearly articulate and adhere to. Intentions are the mot vital part of the equation, because they determine the morality of your actions, however your principles minimize error in your intentions when there is ambiguity in how to act.

Contention 2: My principles are more morally sound than yours. I put myself out there quite a lot on DDO, as opposed to being someone who sits back and simply criticizes. I would like to see others do the same and tell me what your principles are. I've noticed that some have political principles (e.g., conservative principles), economic principles, and religious principles. Now is your chance to tell others why your principles are vital to being a moral individual.

I have found that fortitude, justice, temperance, and prudence are great intentions to have, although the problem I have encountered with this system is that they are extremely difficult to define. Instead of this positive intention system, therefore, I have concentrated more on the negative intentions (and trying to avoid them at all costs). The "seven deadly sins," or lust, wrath, envy, sloth, gluttony, pride, and greed, have proven themselves to me to be completely negative. Although they are fine emotions to have (and are shared by all of us) the rub comes when you act on these ideas, or IOWs, when you use them as the main intention for an action. For example, violence can be justified if it is not based on anger and sexual intercourse is just when you are considering the other person's feelings and not your own (lust-based sex is purely for your own gain which is immoral, but sex that is based on intentions of pleasing the other person, intimacy, or child-rearing is moral).

There are at least two main reasons why my principles are ideal. First, they are simple and easily utilized in almost every circumstance. Name me any problem in your life and these principles will unfailingly guide you to moral success. Second, they are absolutely flawless. Acting on one of these "chief vices," as I like to call them, always produces dissonance and failure in one's life.

Does anyone have a better system to explain? Are there any short-falls of my system? One extrapolation of my system is that honesty is really of no consequence to morality, so there should definitely be some room to argue.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 11:05:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Does anyone have a better system to explain? Are there any short-falls of my system? One extrapolation of my system is that honesty is really of no consequence to morality, so there should definitely be some room to argue.:

Those all seem virtuous to me, but then again, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things? Relative morality is subjective, and reducing it fraction by fraction, what you have left is an opinion. This of course leads to the veritable, endless epistemological argument.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Calling those sins is damning life itself. Life relies on greed.

All the so-called seven deadly sins contradict your straw-manning of "doing it for the emotion alone." The emotion is means to keep going toward an end, not an end in itself. Anger is not there to justify violence, but to fuel it. Retaliation is its justification. Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it (and it is no matter whether someone "intends" that the other person enjoy it, what matters is that there is consent. If the other person doesn't enjoy it, they needn't consent.

Envy fuels modelling one's actions after success. And so on.

It is worthless to focus on the negative without identifying the positive.

Since following your principle of avoiding greed leads to death, clearly, it is not a solution for anything. Your principles are indeed flawless-- flawlessly evil :P

The starting point for worthwhile principles is identifying that one seeks to live (If one doesn't, one needs no principle, one needs no actions). From there, identify what advances one's life-- one's life as oneself of course, clearly you don't seek to live as say a vegetable.This requires recognizing that one's life is one of reason, and relies on producing values. Boom, virtue of productivity. Introduce other people into the equation, you will learn if you want to benefit from them, you must offer something in return-- the trader principle. Notice that some will harm you anyway-- make use of wrath, eliminate them, as a corollary to productivity. Notice that others will not harm you unless you harm them, principle of non-initiation of force follows.
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 11:40:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'd like to start a two-part thread to enlighten others towards my way of thinking. The first part is going to be an assumption that I will defend and base the second part upon.

Contention 1: The most important aspect of a person's character is his or her moral state. More specifically, a person can be judged primarily on the intentions behind their actions, which are in turn manifestations of the principles they are able to clearly articulate and adhere to. Intentions are the mot vital part of the equation, because they determine the morality of your actions, however your principles minimize error in your intentions when there is ambiguity in how to act.

Contention 2: My principles are more morally sound than yours. I put myself out there quite a lot on DDO, as opposed to being someone who sits back and simply criticizes. I would like to see others do the same and tell me what your principles are. I've noticed that some have political principles (e.g., conservative principles), economic principles, and religious principles. Now is your chance to tell others why your principles are vital to being a moral individual.

I have found that fortitude, justice, temperance, and prudence are great intentions to have, although the problem I have encountered with this system is that they are extremely difficult to define. Instead of this positive intention system, therefore, I have concentrated more on the negative intentions (and trying to avoid them at all costs). The "seven deadly sins," or lust, wrath, envy, sloth, gluttony, pride, and greed, have proven themselves to me to be completely negative. Although they are fine emotions to have (and are shared by all of us) the rub comes when you act on these ideas, or IOWs, when you use them as the main intention for an action. For example, violence can be justified if it is not based on anger and sexual intercourse is just when you are considering the other person's feelings and not your own (lust-based sex is purely for your own gain which is immoral, but sex that is based on intentions of pleasing the other person, intimacy, or child-rearing is moral).

There are at least two main reasons why my principles are ideal. First, they are simple and easily utilized in almost every circumstance. Name me any problem in your life and these principles will unfailingly guide you to moral success. Second, they are absolutely flawless. Acting on one of these "chief vices," as I like to call them, always produces dissonance and failure in one's life.

Does anyone have a better system to explain? Are there any short-falls of my system? One extrapolation of my system is that honesty is really of no consequence to morality, so there should definitely be some room to argue.

They are crudely the same as mine. So...you are wrong they are not better than yours.

Also, to better understand the negatives (the seven deadly sins - which are exactly what i use), you need to know that they are only a maladjustment (sin seems to connote other things) if they are out of balance. Each to a mild degree are important to a person, but when out of balance, like lust that creates great difficulties to the happiness of a person's relationships, or whatever. A little is okay, but when the person's identity is consumed by one it is a problem. We are not perfect - another of my principles, so i give myself a break when i make a mistake.

Also, there are spiritual principles that can correspond so you are not left in a void, such as charity, gratitude, acceptance, tolerance, contrition, to name a few and the mother of them all is humility. I have come to know, that for me the more humility i attain, the happier i will be.

So, since i have mine a little better defined, i would say mine is better, but out of humility, i will say that mine are best for me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 11:46:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have come to know, that for me the more I manage to look upon myself as something despicable, the happier i will be.
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.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 11:53:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it.

What kind of Objectivist are you?

"Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." http://aynrandlexicon.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 12:06:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 11:53:47 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it.

What kind of Objectivist are you?
The kind that doesn't like ad authoritatem.


"Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.
Are you saying celebration isn't pleasurable? It certainly isn't an end in itself.

Note that justifications can be overridden by anti-justifications :P
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 12:11:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 11:53:47 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it.

What kind of Objectivist are you?

"Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." http://aynrandlexicon.com...

Nice quote
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 12:17:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Incidentally, it's a damn good thing Ayn Rand wasn't a biologist ;P
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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 1:03:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
There are at least two main reasons why my principles are ideal. First, they are simple and easily utilized in almost every circumstance. Name me any problem in your life and these principles will unfailingly guide you to moral success.
Barack Obama seems to be plunging this country into a financial and political nightmare. Any suggestions, o wise Rob1Billion?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 1:17:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 12:06:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:53:47 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it.

What kind of Objectivist are you?
The kind that doesn't like ad authoritatem.

If you mean an Appeal to Rand sort of thing, I'd like to point out that the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is only a fallacy when the authority to whom you appeal is either not an expert concerning the point being made, or the expert is trusted as an absolute authority by virtue of his experience in the field. In appealing to Rand, you have to keep in mind that she formulated Objectivist principles; therefore, it isn't a fallacy to look to her when her principles come into question.

I mean, say that I created a philosophy - Franklinism, for the sake of convenience. It obviously wouldn't be a fallacious appeal to look to me when questions of Franklinist principles arise.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 1:42:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 12:06:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:53:47 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it.

What kind of Objectivist are you?
The kind that doesn't like ad authoritatem.

I'm quoting Ayn Rand's own words on her own philosophy; that's like quoting the Bible on matters of Christian theology.

"Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.
Are you saying celebration isn't pleasurable? It certainly isn't an end in itself.

Note that justifications can be overridden by anti-justifications :P

That doesn't make any sense; what does that even mean?
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 3:02:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 11:05:42 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Does anyone have a better system to explain? Are there any short-falls of my system? One extrapolation of my system is that honesty is really of no consequence to morality, so there should definitely be some room to argue.:

Those all seem virtuous to me, but then again, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things? Relative morality is subjective, and reducing it fraction by fraction, what you have left is an opinion. This of course leads to the veritable, endless epistemological argument.

You are assuming relative morality without argument!
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 3:21:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'd like to start a two-part thread to enlighten others towards my way of thinking. The first part is going to be an assumption that I will defend and base the second part upon.

Contention 1: The most important aspect of a person's character is his or her moral state. More specifically, a person can be judged primarily on the intentions behind their actions, which are in turn manifestations of the principles they are able to clearly articulate and adhere to. Intentions are the mot vital part of the equation, because they determine the morality of your actions, however your principles minimize error in your intentions when there is ambiguity in how to act.

Compare two people,
A Christian who walks past a homeless man. He could give him cash, he could give him the use of his spare room, he knows his brother in law is looking for staff. He instead walks on by and feels guilty for it. He knows he has done wrong.

A concentration camp commandant, every prisoner he kills draws his country closer to a utopian future. He strives constantly to maximise the efficiency of his killing machines knowing that to do so will create a decent world for him, his children and the human race.

According to what you have posted the Nazi war criminal would be a superior being to the common garden Christian.


Contention 2: My principles are more morally sound than yours. I put myself out there quite a lot on DDO, as opposed to being someone who sits back and simply criticizes. I would like to see others do the same and tell me what your principles are. I've noticed that some have political principles (e.g., conservative principles), economic principles, and religious principles. Now is your chance to tell others why your principles are vital to being a moral individual.

I have found that fortitude, justice, temperance, and prudence are great intentions to have, although the problem I have encountered with this system is that they are extremely difficult to define. Instead of this positive intention system, therefore, I have concentrated more on the negative intentions (and trying to avoid them at all costs). The "seven deadly sins," or lust, wrath, envy, sloth, gluttony, pride, and greed, have proven themselves to me to be completely negative. Although they are fine emotions to have (and are shared by all of us) the rub comes when you act on these ideas, or IOWs, when you use them as the main intention for an action. For example, violence can be justified if it is not based on anger and sexual intercourse is just when you are considering the other person's feelings and not your own (lust-based sex is purely for your own gain which is immoral, but sex that is based on intentions of pleasing the other person, intimacy, or child-rearing is moral).

There are at least two main reasons why my principles are ideal. First, they are simple and easily utilized in almost every circumstance. Name me any problem in your life and these principles will unfailingly guide you to moral success. Second, they are absolutely flawless. Acting on one of these "chief vices," as I like to call them, always produces dissonance and failure in one's life.

Does anyone have a better system to explain? Are there any short-falls of my system? One extrapolation of my system is that honesty is really of no consequence to morality, so there should definitely be some room to argue.

It seems reasonable.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 3:53:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'd like to start a two-part thread to enlighten others towards my way of thinking. The first part is going to be an assumption that I will defend and base the second part upon.

Contention 1: The most important aspect of a person's character is his or her moral state. More specifically, a person can be judged primarily on the intentions behind their actions, which are in turn manifestations of the principles they are able to clearly articulate and adhere to. Intentions are the mot vital part of the equation, because they determine the morality of your actions, however your principles minimize error in your intentions when there is ambiguity in how to act.

Contention 2: My principles are more morally sound than yours. I put myself out there quite a lot on DDO, as opposed to being someone who sits back and simply criticizes. I would like to see others do the same and tell me what your principles are. I've noticed that some have political principles (e.g., conservative principles), economic principles, and religious principles. Now is your chance to tell others why your principles are vital to being a moral individual.

I have found that fortitude, justice, temperance, and prudence are great intentions to have, although the problem I have encountered with this system is that they are extremely difficult to define. Instead of this positive intention system, therefore, I have concentrated more on the negative intentions (and trying to avoid them at all costs). The "seven deadly sins," or lust, wrath, envy, sloth, gluttony, pride, and greed, have proven themselves to me to be completely negative. Although they are fine emotions to have (and are shared by all of us) the rub comes when you act on these ideas, or IOWs, when you use them as the main intention for an action. For example, violence can be justified if it is not based on anger and sexual intercourse is just when you are considering the other person's feelings and not your own (lust-based sex is purely for your own gain which is immoral, but sex that is based on intentions of pleasing the other person, intimacy, or child-rearing is moral).

There are at least two main reasons why my principles are ideal. First, they are simple and easily utilized in almost every circumstance. Name me any problem in your life and these principles will unfailingly guide you to moral success. Second, they are absolutely flawless. Acting on one of these "chief vices," as I like to call them, always produces dissonance and failure in one's life.

Does anyone have a better system to explain? Are there any short-falls of my system? One extrapolation of my system is that honesty is really of no consequence to morality, so there should definitely be some room to argue.

After reading John Rawls, Peter Singer, Derek Parfit and Thomas Nagel, I can't say that this is best ethical system I have ever encountered. However, it seems like you're off to a good start.

Here's a little piece of an argument I'm putting together:

There are objective facts to be known about the way in which human societies flourish (i.e., there are objectively better and worse ways to promote psychological health and happiness within human communities). For example, it is an objective fact that murdering people for adultery is a very poor way to provide for human wellbeing. Likewise, it is an objective fact that slavery negatively contributes to human wellbeing. As such, we can determine that both of these actions are wrong. Conversely, it is objectively true that there are certain behaviors, cultural practices, and emotions that positively affect the wellbeing of many sentient creatures. Ergo, we can deem actions that generally promote human wellbeing to be morally good.

Of course, it is possible to ask: Why is promoting human wellbeing important to ethical questions? But this question is simply uniformed and probably meaningless. Insofar as we value anything in this world (e.g., freedom of speech, constitutional protections, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment etc.), we value these things because they provide for human wellbeing. With this in mind, we can come up with the following basis for an ethical system: Actions that positively affect human wellbeing can be considered good/ethical. Actions that negatively affect human wellbeing can be considered wrong/unethical. Actions that don't affect wellbeing at all can be considered morally neutral. Therefore, we can rightfully say that some cultures and ethical systems are superior to other cultures and ethical systems.

Some cultures and ethical systems are simply very poor at providing for human wellbeing. And some cultures are perfectly suited for promoting human misery. Consider, for example, the treatment of women under the Taliban. Little girls in Afghanistan have gotten battery acid thrown in their faces simply for trying to learn how to read. http://blogs.tampabay.com... If people want to be impartial about such things, then that is their right. However, I don't think their impartiality is justified or justifiable.

It's rough, I know, but I'm still developing it.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 4:03:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 1:03:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
There are at least two main reasons why my principles are ideal. First, they are simple and easily utilized in almost every circumstance. Name me any problem in your life and these principles will unfailingly guide you to moral success.
Barack Obama seems to be plunging this country into a financial and political nightmare.

Could you explain?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 4:11:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 10:53:19 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:

I have found that fortitude, justice, temperance, and prudence are great intentions to have

You are a Jane Austen novel? In that case I suggest you find your Mr Darcy before someone else snaps him up.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 4:23:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 1:17:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/12/2010 12:06:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:53:47 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/12/2010 11:20:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lust fuels sex, pleasure justifies it.

What kind of Objectivist are you?
The kind that doesn't like ad authoritatem.

If you mean an Appeal to Rand sort of thing, I'd like to point out that the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is only a fallacy when the authority to whom you appeal is either not an expert concerning the point being made, or the expert is trusted as an absolute authority by virtue of his experience in the field. In appealing to Rand, you have to keep in mind that she formulated Objectivist principles; therefore, it isn't a fallacy to look to her when her principles come into question.

I mean, say that I created a philosophy - Franklinism, for the sake of convenience. It obviously wouldn't be a fallacious appeal to look to me when questions of Franklinist principles arise.

If it was called Randism I'd be more inclined to keep this in mind. By naming it Objectivism instead she rendered it just that-- objective results from certain premises, which may not agree with her own conclusions. If she were in favor of socialized theater, would that mean socialized theater was Objectivist? No,it contradicts what she identified as the essence of Objectivist politics-- laissez-faire capitalism.

Likewise, if abstinence outside the context of romance is not conducive to one's hapiness, clearly, it is not an Objectivist thing to engage in, since an Objectivist has their own happiness as the moral purpose of their existence

Now, pleasure is not equivalent to happiness, but something being pleasure is a prima facie case that it is conducive to happiness-- specific reasons not to do something pleasurable are needed.

that's like quoting the Bible on matters of Christian theology.
"
Christianity: The belief in an omnipotent omniscient benevolent dude who inspired the Bible. Whats missing to make one like another?
That doesn't make any sense; what does that even mean?
It is justified to respond to force with force.

This is overridden by the fact that the perp will die tomorrow of cancer and it would take me 23 hours 55 mins to get there, it no longer makes sense to respond to hisparticular force with force. So pleasure does not guarantee it to be moral. But it is certainly the initial goal.
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
7/12/2010 4:25:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*it is certainly the initial goal of sex.
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
7/12/2010 4:31:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Incidentally, I highly doubt Rand never ate food except when celebrating her values, and did not limit her food to the absolute minimum necessary to maintain her body's health
Especially considering a few things she wrote in We the Living about a desire for buttered eggs.
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
7/12/2010 4:38:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
wolf bites the troll for 6 damage, using its smite evil. It fails to trip and Edwina yellls "Run," realizing it wouldn't get another AoO. It gets its tail outta tha way.
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.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 4:42:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 4:23:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If it was called Randism I'd be more inclined to keep this in mind. By naming it Objectivism instead she rendered it just that-- objective results from certain premises, which may not agree with her own conclusions. If she were in favor of socialized theater, would that mean socialized theater was Objectivist? No,it contradicts what she identified as the essence of Objectivist politics-- laissez-faire capitalism.

Fail hard.

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine—an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons). I chose the name 'Objectivism' at a time when my philosophy was beginning to be known and some people were starting to call themselves "Randists." I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name…

"What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own." - Ayn Rand (http://www.aynrand.org...)


Likewise, if abstinence outside the context of romance is not conducive to one's hapiness, clearly, it is not an Objectivist thing to engage in, since an Objectivist has their own happiness as the moral purpose of their existence

Rand was ardently anti-hedonism and extremely dogmatic about it. Don't like it? See above.

Now, pleasure is not equivalent to happiness, but something being pleasure is a prima facie case that it is conducive to happiness-- specific reasons not to do something pleasurable are needed.

"Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love—and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool's self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one's code of values . . . . Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.

"The man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can't be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man's sense of his own value . . ." (http://aynrandlexicon.com...)


that's like quoting the Bible on matters of Christian theology.
"
Christianity: The belief in an omnipotent omniscient benevolent dude who inspired the Bible. Whats missing to make one like another?

I have no idea. Try speaking in coherent sentences.

That doesn't make any sense; what does that even mean?
It is justified to respond to force with force.

This is overridden by the fact that the perp will die tomorrow of cancer and it would take me 23 hours 55 mins to get there, it no longer makes sense to respond to hisparticular force with force. So pleasure does not guarantee it to be moral. But it is certainly the initial goal.

Why do you feel the need to distinguish between "justifications" and "anti-" justifications?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 5:13:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 4:23:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If it was called Randism I'd be more inclined to keep this in mind. By naming it Objectivism instead she rendered it just that-- objective results from certain premises, which may not agree with her own conclusions. If she were in favor of socialized theater, would that mean socialized theater was Objectivist? No,it contradicts what she identified as the essence of Objectivist politics-- laissez-faire capitalism.

Here's the thing, though: people weren't citing Rand's personal beliefs (like the fact that Rand abhorred homosexuality, for example); they were citing the principles that she, as the founder of Objectivism, laid out. Specifically, the fact that sex, when divorced from romance, is immoral. Objectivism, as you well know, would tell you that indulging a desire devoid of love is just as depraved as indulging a "love" without the desire. I mean, doing either is the acceptance of the mind-body dichotomy to which Objectivism is so diametrically opposed.

Likewise, if abstinence outside the context of romance is not conducive to one's hapiness, clearly, it is not an Objectivist thing to engage in, since an Objectivist has their own happiness as the moral purpose of their existence.

Keep in mind the fact that your happiness can't be achieved by any random means you might have the urge to pursue. Happiness can only be achieved by rational means, of which sex, as an isolated indulgence, is not one. Recall that the proper place of sex is only as a response to the values of the woman you love within the confines of a romantic relationship. You'd be tarnishing the value that Objectivism ascribes to sex if you divorce it from romance for the sake of bodily gratification.

Ultimately, it's important to remember that, especially for Objectivists, the ends don't justify the means. What you believe to be your happiness can't rationally be achieved by pursuing sex with any beautiful woman who crosses your path. If you want to exercise your right to pursue happiness, exercise it by pursuing a romantic relationship in which you both can legitimately celebrate your existence upon a foundation of shared values.

Now, pleasure is not equivalent to happiness, but something being pleasure is a prima facie case that it is conducive to happiness-- specific reasons not to do something pleasurable are needed.

I've already given you the ethical anti-justification.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 5:25:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 4:38:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
wolf bites the troll for 6 damage, using its smite evil. It fails to trip and Edwina yellls "Run," realizing it wouldn't get another AoO. It gets its tail outta tha way.

Hahahaha
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 5:32:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To answer OP:

My life principle is very simple and morality really has nothing to do with it, and neither do intentions. As Kinesis likes to say, "If morality is subjective then it is ultimately meaningless." (Paraphrased) I do believe this to be the case. Therefore my only principal is that one should only do to another what is consented to by all parities directly involved. It doesn't matter what that action is.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 6:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 5:25:58 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/12/2010 4:38:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
wolf bites the troll for 6 damage, using its smite evil. It fails to trip and Edwina yellls "Run," realizing it wouldn't get another AoO. It gets its tail outta tha way.

Hahahaha

Oh god dammit did I seriously mix up the threads like that?
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.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 6:05:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 6:02:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2010 5:25:58 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/12/2010 4:38:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
wolf bites the troll for 6 damage, using its smite evil. It fails to trip and Edwina yellls "Run," realizing it wouldn't get another AoO. It gets its tail outta tha way.

Hahahaha

Oh god dammit did I seriously mix up the threads like that?

I was actually wondering what the hell that was.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2010 6:15:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/12/2010 4:42:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/12/2010 4:23:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If it was called Randism I'd be more inclined to keep this in mind. By naming it Objectivism instead she rendered it just that-- objective results from certain premises, which may not agree with her own conclusions. If she were in favor of socialized theater, would that mean socialized theater was Objectivist? No,it contradicts what she identified as the essence of Objectivist politics-- laissez-faire capitalism.

Fail hard.

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy
If anyone had tried to claim that was a definition, had it been said by anyone by Rand, Rand would have laughed them out of the room. Therefore, her words here being used as such are an argumentum ad hoc.

Rand was ardently anti-hedonism and extremely dogmatic about it
Hedonism is not identical with what I am saying. And "happiness is the moral purpose of man's existence" is her words not mine.

"Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love—and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool's self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one's code of values . . . . Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.
I do not extol the former. So clearly there's something wrong with this picture.


"The man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures
I do not argue that should be done.

I have no idea.
omniscience and omnipotence.

That doesn't make any sense; what does that even mean?
It is justified to respond to force with force.

This is overridden by the fact that the perp will die tomorrow of cancer and it would take me 23 hours 55 mins to get there, it no longer makes sense to respond to hisparticular force with force. So pleasure does not guarantee it to be moral. But it is certainly the initial goal.

Why do you feel the need to distinguish between "justifications" and "anti-" justifications?
Justification-- a prima facie case that an action should be done done, a case that it is in principle moral.

Anti-justification-- a specific instance of action, though justified, should nevertheless be avoided.

Here's the thing, though: people weren't citing Rand's personal beliefs (like the fact that Rand abhorred homosexuality, for example); they were citing the principles that she, as the founder of Objectivism, laid out.
That isn't what I gather is trying to be done at all.

Objectivism, as you well know, would tell you that indulging a desire devoid of love is just as depraved as indulging a "love" without the desire.
Rand would. Objectivism, not so much, at least not so far as I can see. I regard it as an error.

I mean, doing either is the acceptance of the mind-body dichotomy

That's just silly. Romantic love is not the only thing to be found in the human mind. The notion that one's mind should be ignore when it actively tells you not to engage in some instance of sex might be, but again, eating food without loving the food manufacturer is not an instance of the mind-body dichotomy.

Keep in mind the fact that your happiness can't be achieved by any random means you might have the urge to pursue.
This is hardly random, nor is it "any."

Happiness can only be achieved by rational means, of which sex, as an isolated indulgence, is not one.
What's irrational about it?

Recall that the proper place of sex is only as a response to the values of the woman you love

Assuming what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, it's important to remember that, especially for Objectivists, the ends don't justify the means.
That relies on a different definition of "justify." Under this definition of justify, it does. If the means achieve the end, and sacrifice no greater end (the qualifier lacking in the traditional "the ends justify the means" straw man)-- clearly, there is no problem
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
7/12/2010 6:21:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Note, too, Rand's position on sex without love may not have been the same when not writing for a mass market :

"I remember once being in her apartment when Leonard was there. He had acquired a new girlfriend and Ayn asked him: is it a romance, or is it an affair, or is it an enjoyable sexual encounter? I don't remember the words verbatim, but she gave him a choice of three. She also said it in a way that implied that any answer was acceptable. And Leonard almost fell off the sofa in shock. He said, "You mean you would approve?" Ayn said, "Why not?" Anybody who had read her books would also have fainted. You're shocked, aren't you?"
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
7/12/2010 6:24:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of course, Branden could be lying. I dunno. anyone wanna ask Peikoff?

Anyone find him more trustworthy?
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.