In a free society, the rational way to deal with the senerio you just described, is to call the local police and pursue the issue in court. Someone violated your property and legal action must be taken. The guy had no right to punch the other in the gut unless it was in self defense. Force is only morally justified for defense purposes only and not initiation. You can't just go around punching other people just because your are angry. In this case, the guy who got punched now has a counter claim
In a free society, an individual can do what He/She wants with His/Her life (including being altruistic and immoral) so long as that individual does not violate the rights (including property rights) of others - so long as He/She does not initiate force or fraud on another individual.
Part 3. Since rights don't come from governments, (because that which can be granted by fiat can be retracted by fiat, which contradicts the definition of a right), then I can't honor individual rights or human rights unless they apply everywhere to everyone. By serving my values in the armed forces, I served my own integrity. We did not go to war against the nation of Iraq, but rather against the crime family gov of Iraq. Toppling totalitarian murder regimes is the right thing to do.
The likely hood of that happening is very slim. I believe that liberated conscious human beings when totally free and happy are benevolent by nature. We are so concerned with other people's safety that we now have seat-belt laws etc. Unless there is something mentally wrong with a person to the point where he is detached from reality and needs treatment, he should not be held accountable. But I think you would agree me that if YOU saw a baby drowning in a lake that you would jump in a save it.
I never said it was. My point is that altruism is often embraced in anti-abortion arguments. Any self-interest of the impregnated is vilified. The reaction to such arguments is often unwitting Objectivism.
Part 2. ...participate because *I* am honoring my own value system. Saddam filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. He nerved gassed the Christian Kurds to impress Muslim leaders of surrounding nations. He had official rape & torture rooms (ostensibly interrogation rooms) for people not officially charged of any crime. The list goes on. As Ayn Rand said in "Collectivist Rights" of the VoS. Such a nation's gov is not a legitimate gov, but a crime syndicate.
Obviously, a fetus in the first trimester is not autonomous. And again, "living" is a red herring. The question isn't is the tissue alive, the question is, is this a person or being that would have individual rights. A fertilized egg is neither a being, nor has it any rights. A mole on someone's shoulder is growing, living human tissue. It has no rights. But the unborn in the 3rd trimester, for instance, is a being with individual rights, as noted by our courts.
Comte's philosophy of altruism "social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... [cont]
"Furthermore, self interest is not objective, what I find as in my self interest may not be your's, therefore altruism is objectivist" huh? That's subjective not objective. You have to use your own knowledge of the world and your values to find what is in your self interest. Objective does not mean that everyone has the same interest. Also there is a difference between temporary relief from the stress of relying on your own mind and true happiness.
A slave is coerced by definition. Say whatever you want, but a non-coercive altruist isn't a slave. Furthermore, self interest is not objective, what I find as in my self interest may not be your's, therefore altruism is objectivist -> It is the self interest of a person to see people getting help from him because it makes his brain release nice feeling chemicals.
Cool. Is taking the neighbor's ride-on mower for a joy ride "initiating force", or is the neighbor later punching the joyrider in the gut "initiating force"? An impartial observer - unable to make queries of the involved parties - would conclude that the latter was, but the former wasn't. An impartial inquisitor may come to a different conclusion, depending on whether or not they believe in re-punitive justice. Ultimately "initiating force" is subjective, requiring external judgement calls.
Atrus, this is what's wrong with libertarianism. Libertarianism presumes to deal with what is just & unjust, right & wrong, when it comes to freedom, coercion, rights, laws etc, but is not only morally agnostic, but actually morally bereft in any consideration other than liberty. A man could watch a 9yr old girl drown for 4 minutes, standing there, doing nothing about it, & libertarianism would say it's wrong to hold the man in any way legally responsible for his apathetic psychopathy.
....then it is NOT altruism. If you get pleasure from doing something for others, you are NOT being altruistic. Being altruistic requires you get NOTHING in return for doing something for others. Being charitable to Nazi Pedophiles would be altruistic, assuming you don't find Nazi Pedophiles worthy of your charity.
It's not Objectivism unless it's complete-context Objectivism. Applying altruism and self interest to a subject does not = Objectivism. Objectivism considers individual rights as a primary value. It's when the unborn develops into a being, a person that it has individual rights. However, a fertilized egg is not a person.
It is not selfish to persue short term emotional pleasure. like drinking or doing drugs, donating your money to whatever. That will not make you happy. It might give you a short moment of feeling good. But it goes away quickly. To be rational-selfish is hard and requeres you live by rational principles. If you are interested read: the virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand
I was expecting a bit more from this one. The overwhelming amount of people who practice "altruism" today do not do so by Kant's purist definition. Since people generally lack conviction at best, and are hypocrites at worse, I would have thought that Dr. Brook would have addressed the question based on the reality of how people practice altruism. That is to say that people DO accept helping their fellow man as moral, but they typically don't put their fellow man before themselves...
Part 4 Serving one's interests, upholding one's values, serving one's integrity, is not a sacrifice. A sacrifice is to lose on purpose, thinking that it's a moral ideal to surrender a larger value for a lesser value or a non-value. A sacrifice would be to surrender to despots like Hussein. A sacrifice would be to listen to "Jesus", to "resist not evil" & if anyone beats one side of your head, invite them to beat the other side too. (Mat 5:39)
...This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely. (Catéchisme positiviste)
Dear Yaron, aren't many of the common anti-abortion arguments basically just altruism? It also seems like many of the pro-abortion arguments are basically just self-interest, some even approach Objectivism. When you consider the stereotypical groups that make each of these arguments, the irony is somewhat delicious.
[[ The brain needs to be conditioned to view having a big house and 5 cars as "excessive" if you honestly earned it.]] - The idea that transactions are zero sum, win-lose, is a primitive one. Win-win seems to be a difficult and counter-intuitive perspective for a lot of people, oddly enough. Of course, the truth is, if my prosperous neighbor has a huge house, it aids my property value. I'm better off when OTHERS are wealthy & successful, especially if they're dentists, surgeons, etc.
Let's take our thinking a step larger so that we see a bigger picture. I sent you a pm of something I composed covering a larger area of interest. Fee free to pin-point something you don't understand. I want to see where you stand as an independent thinker.
[[Say whatever you want, but a non-coercive altruist isn't a slave.]] - Irrelevant. "Altruism" was coined by socialist philosopher Auguste Comte, and defined as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others, as a means of morally justifying one's own existence. It portrays self-abnegation & self immolation as a virtue because it follows the false dichotomy of zero sum, lose-win. Losing on purpose is viewed as making a "win" for others possible. That's false, & cannot be Objectivism.
Sorry, but altruism IS possible, but not RATIONALLY possible. I'll give the example of the book character, gospel Jesus. It was not his will to suffer and die for the "unworthy". It was his will for "this cup" to be "taken" from him. His will was to follow the will of 'god' the father, whatever that turned out to be, and it turned out to be that Jesus was to be a virgin sacrifice, at which Jesus asked why 'god' the father had "forsaken" him. (Yes, I know, mirroring David in the Psalms).
Also, I do see how Objectivism can only result in non-coercive society, but I don't see how altruism (as it is practiced rather than Kant's definition) inevitably leads to coercion. Sure, there will always be people out there who want to force charity on other people, but how is that a product of an individual choosing to be charitable? Con't
Altruism is voluntary by definition--it comes from within. "Coerced altruism" is collectivism and extortion--welfare is not altruistic. Altruism is the inverse of egoism and intrinsic to human nature as every parent knows. The human species would have gone extinct long ago without altruism since humans are born completely dependent on others. It's telling that Rand had no children. But egoism does take precedence. If one doesn't care for oneself, one can't be altruistic toward others.
Im a bit confused, if you are being charitable to help people who are disadvantaged because it makes you happy to see them helped is that not being ruled by your emotions? I find the distinction a little hard to see here.
+Dean Harris They are not ruled by emotions. They just experience this emotion. We are not robots. If you have a certain emotion , it does not mean that emotion must rule you.
If you do something because you feel compelled to by your emotions then it is immoral. If you help others who are in need because you are objectively aware that you value human life to the extent that you want to help disadvantaged innocents then it is rational and therefore moral.
A voluntary slave is still a slave. What's your point? If it is evident to you that it is morally good to accommodate the needs of people you don't value, whatever these needs may be, then you have bought into the slave/master mentality as described in the video. Who said self-interest is not objective? What is that even supposed to mean? You do understand that Objectivism does by no means proclaim that subjectivity is false? Do your reading before you start spouting nonsense.
This is bollocks. Non-coercive altruism is called 'kindness'. If I choose to be kind, that is my decision. I do not have to defer to someone else's 'philosophy.'
You just kicked the can down the road. If "initiating force" is the metric by which we're to judge the joyrider's actions, the court will have to decide if borrowing your neighbors mower without permission is an example of it. And what if the joyrider disagrees? The court will need the power to enforce their decision or there's no point having a court. Wouldn't that be "initiating force"? Or does the chain of "initiation" go back centuries? There's a reason why no law recognizes this concept.
I don't disagree with you, but I like to take on anyone who claims a fetus is a person because it doesn't make their argument any stronger. Suppose an adult required you to risk your life, endure bodily changes that cause you to suffer for months, and, even if everything goes well, take on a terrible burden for decades, would you have an obligation to them? The idea that we have a right to live life in pursuit of our own happiness seems to be revoked, by some, when talking of the impregnated.
In a free society, the rational way to deal with the senerio you just described, is to call the local police and pursue the issue in court. Someone violated your property and legal action must be taken. The guy had no right to punch the other in the gut unless it was in self defense. Force is only morally justified for defense purposes only and not initiation. You can't just go around punching other people just because your are angry. In this case, the guy who got punched now has a counter claim
In a free society, an individual can do what He/She wants with His/Her life (including being altruistic and immoral) so long as that individual does not violate the rights (including property rights) of others - so long as He/She does not initiate force or fraud on another individual.
Part 3.
Since rights don't come from governments, (because that which can be granted by fiat can be retracted by fiat, which contradicts the definition of a right), then I can't honor individual rights or human rights unless they apply everywhere to everyone. By serving my values in the armed forces, I served my own integrity. We did not go to war against the nation of Iraq, but rather against the crime family gov of Iraq. Toppling totalitarian murder regimes is the right thing to do.
The likely hood of that happening is very slim. I believe that liberated conscious human beings when totally free and happy are benevolent by nature. We are so concerned with other people's safety that we now have seat-belt laws etc. Unless there is something mentally wrong with a person to the point where he is detached from reality and needs treatment, he should not be held accountable. But I think you would agree me that if YOU saw a baby drowning in a lake that you would jump in a save it.
I never said it was. My point is that altruism is often embraced in anti-abortion arguments. Any self-interest of the impregnated is vilified. The reaction to such arguments is often unwitting Objectivism.
Part 2.
...participate because *I* am honoring my own value system. Saddam filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. He nerved gassed the Christian Kurds to impress Muslim leaders of surrounding nations. He had official rape & torture rooms (ostensibly interrogation rooms) for people not officially charged of any crime. The list goes on. As Ayn Rand said in "Collectivist Rights" of the VoS. Such a nation's gov is not a legitimate gov, but a crime syndicate.
Obviously, a fetus in the first trimester is not autonomous. And again, "living" is a red herring. The question isn't is the tissue alive, the question is, is this a person or being that would have individual rights. A fertilized egg is neither a being, nor has it any rights. A mole on someone's shoulder is growing, living human tissue. It has no rights. But the unborn in the 3rd trimester, for instance, is a being with individual rights, as noted by our courts.
Comte's philosophy of altruism "social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... [cont]
"Furthermore, self interest is not objective, what I find as in my self interest may not be your's, therefore altruism is objectivist"
huh? That's subjective not objective. You have to use your own knowledge of the world and your values to find what is in your self interest. Objective does not mean that everyone has the same interest.
Also there is a difference between temporary relief from the stress of relying on your own mind and true happiness.
A slave is coerced by definition.
Say whatever you want, but a non-coercive altruist isn't a slave.
Furthermore, self interest is not objective, what I find as in my self interest may not be your's, therefore altruism is objectivist -> It is the self interest of a person to see people getting help from him because it makes his brain release nice feeling chemicals.
Cool. Is taking the neighbor's ride-on mower for a joy ride "initiating force", or is the neighbor later punching the joyrider in the gut "initiating force"? An impartial observer - unable to make queries of the involved parties - would conclude that the latter was, but the former wasn't. An impartial inquisitor may come to a different conclusion, depending on whether or not they believe in re-punitive justice. Ultimately "initiating force" is subjective, requiring external judgement calls.
Atrus, this is what's wrong with libertarianism. Libertarianism presumes to deal with what is just & unjust, right & wrong, when it comes to freedom, coercion, rights, laws etc, but is not only morally agnostic, but actually morally bereft in any consideration other than liberty. A man could watch a 9yr old girl drown for 4 minutes, standing there, doing nothing about it, & libertarianism would say it's wrong to hold the man in any way legally responsible for his apathetic psychopathy.
There is not a better feeling in the world than being altruistic...
....then it is NOT altruism. If you get pleasure from doing something for others, you are NOT being altruistic. Being altruistic requires you get NOTHING in return for doing something for others. Being charitable to Nazi Pedophiles would be altruistic, assuming you don't find Nazi Pedophiles worthy of your charity.
It's not Objectivism unless it's complete-context Objectivism. Applying altruism and self interest to a subject does not = Objectivism. Objectivism considers individual rights as a primary value. It's when the unborn develops into a being, a person that it has individual rights. However, a fertilized egg is not a person.
Yes, where "initiate force" is so weakly defined that we can recast it at will to make ourselves righteous.
If by stop, you mean coerce, then no. There might be a cause to argue against it, but that is all. People have a right to commit suicide...
Give me an example and we can rationally define it in a realistic manner. I'm here to think and idealize.
A link to the AR lexicon bit on Duty may be useful in the description of this one.
So, it seems like an important follow up question to ask; does an objectivist have any cause or right to stop a "non-coercive altruist?"
It is not selfish to persue short term emotional pleasure. like drinking or doing drugs, donating your money to whatever. That will not make you happy. It might give you a short moment of feeling good. But it goes away quickly.
To be rational-selfish is hard and requeres you live by rational principles. If you are interested read: the virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand
I was expecting a bit more from this one. The overwhelming amount of people who practice "altruism" today do not do so by Kant's purist definition. Since people generally lack conviction at best, and are hypocrites at worse, I would have thought that Dr. Brook would have addressed the question based on the reality of how people practice altruism. That is to say that people DO accept helping their fellow man as moral, but they typically don't put their fellow man before themselves...
Part 4
Serving one's interests, upholding one's values, serving one's integrity, is not a sacrifice. A sacrifice is to lose on purpose, thinking that it's a moral ideal to surrender a larger value for a lesser value or a non-value. A sacrifice would be to surrender to despots like Hussein. A sacrifice would be to listen to "Jesus", to "resist not evil" & if anyone beats one side of your head, invite them to beat the other side too. (Mat 5:39)
...This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely. (Catéchisme positiviste)
Dear Yaron, aren't many of the common anti-abortion arguments basically just altruism? It also seems like many of the pro-abortion arguments are basically just self-interest, some even approach Objectivism. When you consider the stereotypical groups that make each of these arguments, the irony is somewhat delicious.
[[ The brain needs to be conditioned to view having a big house and 5 cars as "excessive" if you honestly earned it.]]
-
The idea that transactions are zero sum, win-lose, is a primitive one. Win-win seems to be a difficult and counter-intuitive perspective for a lot of people, oddly enough. Of course, the truth is, if my prosperous neighbor has a huge house, it aids my property value. I'm better off when OTHERS are wealthy & successful, especially if they're dentists, surgeons, etc.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I figured you weren't actually trying to be rude, but obviously I was wrong.
Please show a little more respect.
Let's take our thinking a step larger so that we see a bigger picture. I sent you a pm of something I composed covering a larger area of interest. Fee free to pin-point something you don't understand. I want to see where you stand as an independent thinker.
[[Say whatever you want, but a non-coercive altruist isn't a slave.]]
-
Irrelevant. "Altruism" was coined by socialist philosopher Auguste Comte, and defined as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others, as a means of morally justifying one's own existence. It portrays self-abnegation & self immolation as a virtue because it follows the false dichotomy of zero sum, lose-win. Losing on purpose is viewed as making a "win" for others possible. That's false, & cannot be Objectivism.
Sorry, but altruism IS possible, but not RATIONALLY possible. I'll give the example of the book character, gospel Jesus. It was not his will to suffer and die for the "unworthy". It was his will for "this cup" to be "taken" from him. His will was to follow the will of 'god' the father, whatever that turned out to be, and it turned out to be that Jesus was to be a virgin sacrifice, at which Jesus asked why 'god' the father had "forsaken" him. (Yes, I know, mirroring David in the Psalms).
Also, I do see how Objectivism can only result in non-coercive society, but I don't see how altruism (as it is practiced rather than Kant's definition) inevitably leads to coercion. Sure, there will always be people out there who want to force charity on other people, but how is that a product of an individual choosing to be charitable? Con't
Altruism is voluntary by definition--it comes from within. "Coerced altruism" is collectivism and extortion--welfare is not altruistic. Altruism is the inverse of egoism and intrinsic to human nature as every parent knows. The human species would have gone extinct long ago without altruism since humans are born completely dependent on others. It's telling that Rand had no children. But egoism does take precedence. If one doesn't care for oneself, one can't be altruistic toward others.
Im a bit confused, if you are being charitable to help people who are disadvantaged because it makes you happy to see them helped is that not being ruled by your emotions? I find the distinction a little hard to see here.
+Dean Harris Who made this argument?
Me.
+Dean Harris They are not ruled by emotions. They just experience this emotion. We are not robots. If you have a certain emotion , it does not mean that emotion must rule you.
Sergi Yavorski Yes but, if the emotion is the reason that you partake in an action then it isn't ruling you if it is you guide to action.
If you do something because you feel compelled to by your emotions then it is immoral.
If you help others who are in need because you are objectively aware that you value human life to the extent that you want to help disadvantaged innocents then it is rational and therefore moral.
Um, Objectivism is not Conservatism, so what is your point
A voluntary slave is still a slave. What's your point?
If it is evident to you that it is morally good to accommodate the needs of people you don't value, whatever these needs may be, then you have bought into the slave/master mentality as described in the video.
Who said self-interest is not objective? What is that even supposed to mean? You do understand that Objectivism does by no means proclaim that subjectivity is false?
Do your reading before you start spouting nonsense.
This is bollocks. Non-coercive altruism is called 'kindness'. If I choose to be kind, that is my decision. I do not have to defer to someone else's 'philosophy.'
You just kicked the can down the road. If "initiating force" is the metric by which we're to judge the joyrider's actions, the court will have to decide if borrowing your neighbors mower without permission is an example of it. And what if the joyrider disagrees? The court will need the power to enforce their decision or there's no point having a court. Wouldn't that be "initiating force"? Or does the chain of "initiation" go back centuries? There's a reason why no law recognizes this concept.
hehe... he speaks funny
I don't disagree with you, but I like to take on anyone who claims a fetus is a person because it doesn't make their argument any stronger. Suppose an adult required you to risk your life, endure bodily changes that cause you to suffer for months, and, even if everything goes well, take on a terrible burden for decades, would you have an obligation to them? The idea that we have a right to live life in pursuit of our own happiness seems to be revoked, by some, when talking of the impregnated.