[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not complicated. My happiness comes from being with the people I love, and if I didn’t love I would not have that happiness.[/quote]
Thats not entirely the point you were trying to make earlier. Where does being with the people you love automatically mean you have to sacrifice?
V
I never suggested it meant you have to sacrifice; according to Rand’s definition, there is no such thing as sacrifice.
I think of it in terms of the scope of self. Some people confine themselves within a very narrow circumference, while others include more people within their scope. I believe those with a narrow scope are less likely to be truly happy in the long run.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Does Objectivism allow for any act to be truly selfless, then? Couldn’t you dismiss all acts as ultimately following what the person values most, and thus failing to qualify as a true sacrifice?[/quote]
If you cease to exist, then anything and everything is of no value to you. You revert back to a mass of chemicals. Therefore, an action that would cause you to cease to exist would have no ultimate value to you.
Now, the pain of surviving the passing of a loved one may be intolerable (for ex) so giving one’s life to save a loved one may ultimately be a selfish act, though most would regard such as selfless. Throwing yourself on a grenade to save your fellows may fit in there as well. Ms. Rand discusses these ideas in an essay – ‘The Ethics of Emergencies’. It is indeed a very tricky topic; though the problems there pale by comparison with an ethic that demands you adhere to a very unnatural ethics.
Idiocracy was onto something after all…
Every trouble that our society has is a result of our leaders trying to evade the fact that ‘A is A’.
People will not work for their own injury. A is A.
You cannot continually spend more than you earn. A is A.
Using taxes (force) to get one group to finance another, no matter how ‘worthwhile’ the cause, cannot work for very long. A is A.
You cannot say that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while at the same time regulating and taxing them. A is A.
Ms. Rand’s philosophy WILL win in the end for the simple reason that A is A.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Ms. Rand predicts all of this, almost spot on. The fault is not in the system but in the philosophy that forms the foundation OF the system – unselfishness.
Unselfishness is at the heart of every major religious and ethical system. It makes life richer and more meaningful, try it some time.[/quote]
Not if it is a moral obligation.
And that is what she is very much against.
You also might want to look up altruism as envisioned by August Comte. Most people assume that she did not “get” altruism when in reality she took it right out of the horses mouth and it is actually most people who misinterpret altruism.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not complicated. My happiness comes from being with the people I love, and if I didn’t love I would not have that happiness.[/quote]
So then you not only admit your selfishness, you revel in it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If you cease to exist, then anything and everything is of no value to you. You revert back to a mass of chemicals. Therefore, an action that would cause you to cease to exist would have no ultimate value to you.
Now, the pain of surviving the passing of a loved one may be intolerable (for ex) so giving one’s life to save a loved one may ultimately be a selfish act, though most would regard such as selfless. Throwing yourself on a grenade to save your fellows may fit in there as well. Ms. Rand discusses these ideas in an essay – ‘The Ethics of Emergencies’. It is indeed a very tricky topic; though the problems there pale by comparison with an ethic that demands you adhere to a very unnatural ethics.[/quote]
What if, as I said earlier, your sense of self extends beyond your immediate person to include other people? For example, it’s not uncommon for parents to consider their children an extension of themselves. If you give your life for your child, might it not be because you truly value the life of your child as part of your “expanded identity”, rather than merely trying to avoid the pain of losing the child?
[quote]orion wrote:
Not if it is a moral obligation.
And that is what she is very much against.
[/quote]
What if you love people for the sake of the act itself, rather than because you feel it is a moral obligation?
[quote]orion wrote:
So then you not only admit your selfishness, you revel in it?
[/quote]
It depends how you define selfishness. I see it differently than Rand, at least from my sketchy understanding of her ideas. I think everyone acts in the best interest of the “self”, but that we vary in the scope with which we define the “self”. Some people are so constricted that they literally cannot make a decision favoring another human being over their own narrow interests, while others spend their entire lives in the services of others. I think people in the latter case are equally “selfish” in a sense, they just have a broader sense of self.
[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
Not if it is a moral obligation.
And that is what she is very much against.
What if you love people for the sake of the act itself, rather than because you feel it is a moral obligation?[/quote]
Then you are just being selfish :-).
[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
So then you not only admit your selfishness, you revel in it?
It depends how you define selfishness. I see it differently than Rand, at least from my sketchy understanding of her ideas. I think everyone acts in the best interest of the “self”, but that we vary in the scope with which we define the “self”. Some people are so constricted that they literally cannot make a decision favoring another human being over their own narrow interests, while others spend their entire lives in the services of others. I think people in the latter case are equally “selfish” in a sense, they just have a broader sense of self.[/quote]
I can only pass on what a professor once said to me, that it is futile to argue over definitions.
I was just pointing out that Rand was very much against a moral obligation to serve other human beings and even more so against being forced to serve other human beings at gunpoint. Welfare would be a good example.
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?
[quote]orion wrote:
I can only pass on what a professor once said to me, that it is futile to argue over definitions.
I was just pointing out that Rand was very much against a moral obligation to serve other human beings and even more so against being forced to serve other human beings at gunpoint. Welfare would be a good example.
[/quote]
It’s a quandary, because if you truly value other people, you have to take from the unwilling in order to best help them. Some people believe in the Robin Hood model, while others are only concerned about their personal well being.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?[/quote]
Helping another person is on a sliding scale in how important that other person is to our happiness. The example she gives is diving into a raging river to save your child compared to diving into that river to save a random stranger. The choice is yours to make.
You have to be free to choose to help anyone is her main point. Being forced to help takes morality out of the choosing.
An example I argued about years ago was over New Orleans and Katrina. Who has the right to force someone to help the hurricane victims? Suppose I have absolutely no interest in helping the victims. Does that means that someone now has a right to hold a gun on me and FORCE me to turn over my money? What’s the justification for that?
It was amazing how many people thought that it was fine to force the rest of the country to help Katrina victims, and called me an evil prick because I don’t think force is moral.
[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
I can only pass on what a professor once said to me, that it is futile to argue over definitions.
I was just pointing out that Rand was very much against a moral obligation to serve other human beings and even more so against being forced to serve other human beings at gunpoint. Welfare would be a good example.
It’s a quandary, because if you truly value other people, you have to take from the unwilling in order to best help them. Some people believe in the Robin Hood model, while others are only concerned about their personal well being.[/quote]
Violence (taxes) is immoral. “All relationships between human beings must be voluntary on all sides or one person is the slave and the other the master.” – Ayn Rand
Government is legalised criminality insofar as it initiates force.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You have to be free to choose to help anyone is her main point. Being forced to help takes morality out of the choosing.[/quote]
What if the force is in the interest of the greater good? If you can inconvenience 1% of the wealthiest in order to literally save lives that would otherwise not be saved, are you wrong to do so?
I think it ultimately goes to whether love or personal freedom are at the top of your value hierarchy. For me, love is usually more important, but not always.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s a quandary, because if you truly value other people, you have to take from the unwilling…[/quote]
But that means you do not really value other people because you would respect their wishes too.
You are selfish and you do not even realize it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But that means you do not really value other people because you would respect their wishes too.
You are selfish and you do not even realize it.[/quote]
No, it means the math is in favor of the people you are trying to help, vs the people that are inconvenienced by involuntarily providing the help. If the harm caused to the wealthy is 10% and the benefit produced for the poor is 90%, you are doing what is in the greater good.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?[/quote]
No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.