Does this quote represent represent something Rand believes? That's my assumption, though I'm not sure. It's an interesting line, but I'd like to have a fuller understanding of its meaning.

So what of the psychopath? Yes, there's a dumb psycopaths that can't escape reality anyway. They do eventually get caught if they murder someone for example, and they can't escape what they've done just as the non-psychpath - they will have to behave differently as a result of the murder than they would otherwise, liking being on the run, constantly having to lie, and so on. I realize that most psychopaths still can't escape rand's ethics and show that she's still right.

But... how does that explain the psychopath who has no need to worry? This is not a straw man argument - at least I hope it's not - but there's seems to be people, however few, that to get away with a great amount of evil and they live well until the end of their days. Some of these people are the most well-connected and powerful in the political sphere, and they are basically untouchable. They figured seemed to really figure out how to avoid the negative consequences of reality.

Maybe this is a straw man after all - I can't really gleem into the mind of an evil, powerful, well-connected psychopath... maybe they have a whole lost of problems I am not aware of - but I just don't understand why so many powerful people don't have it coming to them, and they seem to have everything in life. It seems that by living an alternative to Rand's ethics - a drastically different one in fact - they have prospered anyway.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.

I am new to this forum and was told by the administrator that it is not very active, but I thought I would start this topic with hope someone will be able to discuss the issue.

As the thread title states, I would like to discuss environmental ethics and how Rands Objectivist philosophy would deal with some currect issues. I will provide a possible circumstance that I would like to use for discussion, please keep responses within the context of the example provided.

==

Rand holds property rights as being fundamental to a more fundamental right to life (see AR Lexicon under property rights). She claims that without property rights (outside of the more fundamental right to life) no other rights are possible. Thus a proper role of government would be to protect property rights within a society based on an Objectivist ethics.

==

Suppose a company named AJ owns property near a stream and produces a product for profit. During the manufacturing process a liquid waste is produced that contains heavy metals at such concentrations that it is known via experiments that the waste water will kill living organisms.

:

Next, suppose that the owner of AJ decides to discharge the waste water into a stream that flows onto land property owned by a farmer Jones, and that 80% of the cows owned by Jones die from drinking the stream water that contains the toxic waste (this fact is determined by the vet hired by the farmer to investigate the cause of death). Testing of the sediment in the stream on Jones property finds only heavy metals released by the company to be at toxic levels. Here I assume Rand would define the cows as property owned by the farmer. In this circumstance the stream water is owned by the government via state law.

My question is: Under an Objectivist ethics, what is the proper role of government to protect the property rights (land and cows) of farmer Jones ?

I hope that someone with interest will enter the discussion.

From http://www.drhurd.co...e-You-Hate.html

I remember back to the days of my youth - late 60s and early 70s especially - when I would hear my aunts say things like "You can't eat money. You can't wear money." And, I assume that some sort of commie, Keynesian ideals gripped the public school system back in those times and really blinded a generation, and possibly the generation they raised.

Do you, in your work or personal lives, run into this attitude? And, how do you react? For me, the reaction is almost physical; stomach-turning.

Govt's all over the world and for centuries, have TRIED taxing the better off in order to give money/goods to the poor, and it CAN'T be done (enough to really stop poverty) Poor people just have MORE kids whenever they get more "stuff";., or make other equally bad life decisions( gambling, dope, drink, extravagant housing, cars, clothing, etc).

I have only grossed over 20k for 1 year of my life, do don't think that I don't know poverty. I've spent 10k over the last 2 years, helping people in SE Asia. So don't think that I don't have compassion/empathy, either. But if you tax corporations or individuals too much, they just LEAVE your country, taking their money(and our jobs) with them. England found out this truth, the hard way, in the 70's. This rarely happens,tho, because the wealthy SEE TO IT that the gov't is in their control.

So you will never be able to inflate the currency, tax the rich, etc, enough to help the poor (enough to really matter). The only viable option is to (greatly) reduce the numbers of the poor by helping them not produce more people who also have no means of escaping poverty. When there is no longer an excess of workers/renters, etc, wages will go up and rents will come down. You have two choices with which to save this overburdened Earth,, decrease the birth rate or increase the death rate. Where does your vote go? Mother Nature WILL(eventually),create crop failures, pandemics, etc, to ease the burden that our species imposes upon our planet.

Offering young, childless women say, 5k each, to undergo a couple of injections and fingerprinting. is NOT the use of force. It is offering a reward. They should be free to not take it, but then neither they nor their children have any claim upon anyone else., No person has any valid, rational claim on any other person's time, thought, effort, or money, ever. We CAN reduce our population. we just have to find the will power to do so, and do it swiftly.

In a situation where one has far more debts than he or she can service, what are the responsibilities of a debtor to his or her creditors? Is it moral to prioritize creditors who are willing to accept substantially less than the full amount owed? How does one decide things like how much to spend or how much to keep aside for emergencies? If self-employed, how does one decide how much money to use for the growth and operation of a business?

I explained how our emotional responses are reactions resulting from our chosen values, and that Rand wasn’t overlooking happiness. Since it is the result of choosing and achieving values that are good for the life of the individual, happiness and morality are inextricably linked. He was much more pleased with this account.

But his concern was a reminder that many people believe that ethical choices revolve around what bring happiness. Understandably, they aren’t aware of the cause and effect relationship between emotions and values and that happiness is largely conceptual in nature.

The more I thought about this though, a question came to mind. Are all types of happiness the result of achieving values that have life as their standard? I don’t think so.

Here are two examples that do:

1) A person enjoys computer programming, not intrinsically, but because he values how the product of his labor can be used to improve some aspect of his life.

2) A researcher enjoys her work searching for a cure to a disease, because she stands to gain financially if she is successful, and because that cure will help those inflicted with the disease.

But it seems as though there are values that we hold that do not have life as their standard. For example:

3) Many people get pleasure from playing sports.

4) We get pleasure from having friendships and romantic relationships.

5) Listening to music is a value to many because of the pleasure it brings.

So would it be considered hedonistic to pursue these pleasures? (I don’t mean as a way of life, but the way most people do in their free time.) If so, then there is some place for hedonism within Objectivism. Or does hedonism only refer to a code of action in which pursuing pleasures is one’s way of life?

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/02/21/a-reason-for-faith-6-fatal-misconceptions/?singlepage=true

The title of the talk, Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System, was irresistible to a newborn activist bred from the Tea Party. As a lifelong conservative, I had always felt as though capitalism was morally superior to any alternative, but had not encountered a claim as bold as this. The speaker was Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard. His thesis was not that capitalism was the best social system, or the most efficient, or the most tolerable among acceptable choices. His claim was that capitalism is the one true good, the only way to go, and that any other system proves profoundly bad.

Biddles argument was compelling, built upon observation of reality and application of reason. He took us through the minds eye to a far-flung island where we were marooned alone without a single piece of technology. He asked us how such a castaway would survive. What would have to be done? Through what means would it be done? What could prevent it?

In order to survive and thrive, human beings must act rationally to obtain and keep values. A castaway requires food, shelter, sanitation, recreation, and a means to escape or attract rescue. To obtain these things, the castaway cannot rely upon instinct like an animal. Rather, he must apply his mind to the task at hand. He must discern what can be safely eaten, how to fashion tools, how to construct shelter, how to trap and kill animals, how to effectively use the raw materials around him to affect his survival. Ultimately, the only thing which could prevent the castaway from doing these things, aside from his willingness and ability, is brute force from another human being.

Therein lies the objectivist ethic. What human beings need in order to survive and thrive is not provision, but the liberty to act upon their own judgment. Put another way, liberty is life. To deprive a man of his liberty is to deprive him of his life, to drain or contain him. Therefore, the recognition and protection of individual rights are essential.

Hearing this for the first time, I felt as though I had found the Holy Grail of conservative apology. While natural law evoked a Creator which secular leftists could simply deny, this objectivist argument stood firmly upon reason and the uncontestable facts of reality. How is it that this was not being echoed across conservative media, I asked myself. Then I got my answer.

So true.

ruveyn

"One of the most fundamental laws of nature is that if you are going to be an altruist, give it up to your closest relatives," said William "Ned" Friedman, co-author of the paper and professor at Harvard University who helped conduct research. "Altruism only evolves if the benefactor is a close relative of the beneficiary. When the endosperm gives all of its food to the embryo and then dies, it doesn’t get more altruistic than that."

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/45554

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/02/01/can-plants-be-altruistic-you-bet-says-new-cu-boulder-led-study

Humans on the cob unite for sacrifice!

An interesting read, it is too bad he is such a mixed bag. While Dr. Harris is very effective in tearing down religion, he, like other new atheists, falls flat in advocating a positive philosophy.

“When you get divorced, all the truths come out, you sit there and go, ‘What the f— was I doing?”

Luckily for Penn, he was able to utilize a good cause to put his heartache in perspective. His role as the founder of J/P Haitian Relief Organization has helped overcome the bump in the road.

The road started with the most obvious kind of trauma — my son’s head — and then to get to a place that had been just so devastated and traumatized, and then to see that in fact most of the trauma actually predated the earthquake,” Penn explained. “You had a country that had never experienced anything that related to comfort, and out of that you had great trauma — but also this great strength that, I think, we all benefited from.

Penn

The story goes that Rand concludes that you would not be doing anything wrong if you decided not to throw the rope down the well to help the man. Does anyone know whether there is such a passage in Rand's writings, and if so, where it appears?

Thanks.

I understand that humans must use reason to pursue and achieve and keep values, and that force is the opposite of reason. Force is permissible in situations of self-defense when force has been initiated against oneself. And ideally, the state will handle retaliatory use of force. However, are there situations when initiation of force is possible?

If we take, as a hypothetical, a situation in which two people are poisoned and locked into a room with an antidote dose large enough for only one person, and both people wish to continue existing, is it moral to initiate force to obtain the antidote?

I have been thinking of this situation, among others, and considered a few things:

1. These kinds of hypotheticals are vacuous or impossible in some way, but how?
   
2. What role does conscience play in moral decisions? Surely most people might feel guilt enough to ruin quality of life after, but if conscience is not a major factor, does this mean it would be moral to initiate force to attain a value?
   

I'm usually able to think through these, but I got stuck on this one and can't quite see what premises I'm depending on here.

The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose.

How would Ayn Rand define "productive"? What makes a purpose a productive one?

For example, let's say someone won the lottery and was set for life financially. Would it be a productive purpose if that person chose to go to college for the rest of his life to learn everything he could? It seems to me that one could make this the purpose of one's life, though I'm not sure I'd consider it productive. What if instead the person decided to make playing video games the purpose of his life? Could these choices lead to a fulfilling life?

Dominique’s character begins the story with a fear of people in general. As a child, she destroys the piece of art she obtained from a museum so that others couldn’t see it. As an adult, she works to destroy Roark, not because she dislikes what he represents, but because she’s certain he’s going to be hurt and destroyed by a society that won’t let someone like him succeed. (There may be more to have motives; correct me if I’m wrong on this point.)

This fear goes well beyond Dominique’s character; it’s a major theme running through the novel. Steven Mallory and Henry Cameron are victims of it as well. And it’s this fear that I don’t fully understand.

Speaking of the Enright house, Dominique says, “I think the man who designed this should have committed suicide. A man who can conceive a thing as beautiful as this should never allow it to be erected.” … “He shouldn’t have offered it for men like you to look at. For men like you to talk about. He’s defiled his own work by the first word you’ll utter about it. He’s made himself worse than you are.” … “A man who knows this should not have been able to remain alive.” (Page 230 of 690, according to Kindle)

I have a hard time identifying the premises that would allow Dominique to have this attitude. Rand does a masterful job of capturing the essence of many types of people in this book. I see elements of Keating, Wynand, and Roark in lots of people. I don’t see this quality of Dominique in people—the desire to destroy the good out of fear of the bad.

Later in the book she says, “He’s beating you, Ellsworth. Ellsworth, what if we were wrong about the world, you and I?” “You’ve always been, my dear.” (Page 300 of 690)

In what respect is Roark beating Toohey? What regarding the world is Dominique wrong about?

Later Mallory says, “How did you know what’s been killing me? Slowly, for years, driving me to hate people when I don’t want to hate…” (316 of 690)

Here Mallory echoes the same sentiment, but again, I can’t fully identify his premises or his mistake. A major theme of the book is second-handedness, and apart from Roark, every major character in the book suffers from some variation of it. But I don’t see it clearly yet.

After Roark’s first trial, he says to Dominique, “They won’t destroy me, Dominique. And they won’t destroy you. You’ll win because you’ve chosen the hardest way of fighting for your freedom from the world.” (362 of 690)

Two questions come to mind: What do they mean by “destroy”? And how has Dominique chosen to fight?

Later on, when Roark comes to Dominique for help to destroy Cortlandt, “She knew that he did not need help for the thing he was going to do, he could find other means to get rid of the watchman; that he had let her have a part in this, because she would not survive what was to follow if he hadn’t; that this had been the test.” … “She was free and he knew it.” (599 of 690)

Why would Dominique not survive the bombing if Roark hadn’t involved her in it? What does Rand mean by this?

And why was Dominique now free? What had changed? Was it simply that enough time had passed and Dominique had seen that Roark was not destroyed by the world—that there was something different about him and she was mistaken?

And completing her enlightenment, Dominique says, “I have never been able to enjoy it before, the sight of the earth, it’s such a great background, but it has no meaning except as a background, and I thought of those who owned it and then it hurt me too much. I can love it now. They don’t own it. They own nothing. They’ve never won. I have seen the life of Gail Wynand, and now I know.” (651 of 690)

It’s interesting that she cites Gail’s life as a lesson, and not Roark’s. I don’t know why she does. But more importantly, the idea that the masses “own the world” is an important glimpse into her earlier psychology and fear. I don’t know exactly what it means, but I can relate to the feeling.

And, “Howard, if you win the trial—even that won’t matter too much. You’ve won long ago…. I’ll remain what I am, and I’ll remain with you—now and ever—in any way you want….” (654 of 690)

The implication is that even if Roark goes to jail, he has still won. I assume that’s because, even if that happens, Roark hasn’t allowed the world to hurt him. This is a common ideal represented in Rand’s work, though I have not yet fully understood it or learned how to implement it. Why wouldn’t going to jail hurt him? This quality can be seen not just in Rand’s work. It can be seen in Socrates just before he is to die. And I have also seen persecuted enlightenment individuals. It’s an inspiring quality.

What is unique to Roark that the other heroes are lacking? What caused Cameron’s and Mallory’s suffering? Early in the book, there’s a line “Heller knew that he had found the best friend he would ever have; and he knew that the friendship came from Roark’s fundamental indifference.” (121 of 690, emphasis mine) I know the key to all of this lies here, though I haven’t grasped its full nature.

Any thoughts on these questions are appreciated.

Parents who accept the teachings of religion are very likely to infect their children with the disastrous notion that there are such things as "evil thoughts" or "evil emotions"--and thus fill the child with moral terror of his inner life.

Thus a child can be led to the conclusion that his feelings are potentially dangerous, that sometimes it is advisable to deny them, that they must be "controlled."

I'm not sure which of two things we should conclude from this passage:

1) There are no evil thoughts.

2) There are some evil thoughts, but we need to be very careful about which ones we do consider evil.

I lean towards 1, but hesitantly, probably because I was raised religious--so I want to clarify. If we accept the first conclusion, then just actions are labeled as good or bad. And insofar as we default on thinking (which falls under the category of action/inaction), we can develop bad (or false) thoughts. But we can also accept bad thoughts accidentally; honest errors can occur.

That being the case, I am still tempted to label some thoughts as evil. If I plan to murder someone, that seems like an evil thought. I consider communism an evil theory, though I realize one can hold that belief honestly (at least for a while). There is probably some context switching from talking about evil thoughts to evil theories. The former is relative, while the latter is judged objectively.

I'd appreciate any feedback.

A friend recently said to me that one of the actions that most impresses him is when someone adopts a child from an underdeveloped nation, that is, when someone “saves” the life of a child that probably would have had a pretty low quality of life.

My friend is a devout Christian, and obviously this comment is largely (if not solely) driven by an altruistic morality. It would have been easy for me to dismiss this comment as nothing more than that. But I do feel some sympathies to this sentiment. After thinking about it for a while, I found it difficult to completely dismiss his evaluation. I too on some level “like” if someone is motivated to adopt a child that is in that situation. I have considered that I have some lingering altruistic tendencies, but I don’t think that is the case (though I haven’t ruled it out).

But I don’t want to evaluate this action as moral--for two reasons:

1) It does not satisfy the standard of promoting the adopter’s life.

2) Once we label an action as “moral,” it falls under the category of “something that we ought to do.”

A thought on the second point: One might concede that this action is still moral or good, but if it falls low enough on one’s hierarchy of values, that action could be put off. As an analogy, I think it would be good to learn Latin, but that value is low enough on my list of values that I may never do it. There are other things I’d rather do first. I see this as the only way that an action deemed good or moral cannot be taken. Otherwise anything I deem moral, I ought do.

The problem with this concession is that one could argue that those that have significantly more resources could and therefore should save many of these lives. Bill Gates could adopt many of these types of children, and even if he doesn’t want to raise these children personally, he could even pay others to do so. I don’t feel comfortable agreeing with this as all, so I am very comfortable holding to both reasons 1 and 2.

So that leaves me wondering why I still am sympathetic with my friend’s evaluation. Here’s my theory:

We probably all know someone that is benevolent, generous and that we find admirable. Maybe it is a family member or maybe a teacher we had. Most people would praise this person for being altruistic. But I think there is another cause for admiration. I think this type of benevolence is motivated by a respect for oneself and by happiness in one’s own life. People who are happy and enjoy their lives seem to want the same for others and act accordingly in proportion to the value others are to them. The implicit principle in action is “my life is good, therefore life is good.” This seems to motivate a lot of charitable (or “altruistic”) behavior.

What’s admirable about this type of person is not that they are helping other people, but that they have developed the character prerequisite for benevolent behavior, i.e., genuine self-love. In other words, it’s selfishness, not altruism that is really being admired here.

I’m pretty confident in saying that what most people admire as kind, benevolent, charitable, or “altruistic” behavior is really a reversal of cause and effect. Successful rational selfishness is the cause of the positive moral evaluation, and the benevolent behavior is the effect. Most people mistakenly label the effect (the benevolent behavior) as the primary, as that which is morally praiseworthy. This would explain why altruism, which has no rational foundation, has such a broad superficial appeal.

Looking at the adoption example in this light, I can admire the person who has the desire to help another human being. The behavior reflects this person’s view towards human life. That I admire. Choosing to adopt is the form in which their sentiment (sense of life?) manifests. And as so far as adopting is within their means, it is acceptable, but not praiseworthy in and of itself.

So here are my first questions:

Do you have sympathies for admiring this behavior, as I do? Or when you hear my friend’s statement, do you place no moral worth on this behavior? (I wonder if some Objectivists believe that they ought not admire this, when there might be room for some admiration. And I also wonder if I do have some lingering altruistic tendencies.)

Does my account of these sympathies seem correct?

Are there any other disagreements with any of these comments? I’d like to know what seems correct and incorrect in what I said.

Thanks.

http://www.ncpa.org/...tm_campaign=DPD

http://www.manhattan...g/pdf/ir_12.pdf

AN AUDACIOUS PROMISE: THE MORAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM

James R. Otteson, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

... markets allow us to “serve” one another even when we do not love one another—even when we do not know of one another’s existence. That implies an extensive, deep, and pervasive interdependence—which is a real, if different kind of, community.

"We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their own advantages.” Some read that and hear selfishness. But Smith saw in the dynamics of such exchanges not selfishness but respect.

With service to others as the basis there is nothing to stop us from adopting something else if it is claimed to 'work' for the collective:

Capitalism is not perfect. But no system created by human beings is, or ever will be, perfect. The most we can hope for is continuing gradual improvement. To this end, we must honestly examine the prospects of the available systems of political economy... We should wish to extend these benefits rather than to curtail them.

I feel much better after posting this. My oxytocin must be high.

'Now consider this line of Wainwright's: "this vast picnic crowd had gathered to see the booster belch out its tremendous power and hurl likenesses of themselves at the Moon." It is disgusting [...] I would use a word like "belch" only if I wanted to degrade something [...] And "likenesses of themselves" provides a disgusting glimpse of his ideas about human motivation.'

I see right away why the word "belch" is inappropriate. Its connotation is negative. But I've so far been unable to find anything disgusting about the notion of people wanting to see "likenesses of themselves hurled at the Moon". I took it to mean that the spectators wanted to see and project themselves onto this great achievement. Ayn Rand did like Wainright's line about people being there to "watch 30 seconds of history", and in the book she describes why, but on this point she didn't elaborate.

What am I missing?

Speeding kills. It is well the the spectators are protected from the Speed Freaks.

ruveyn