A Soldier Is A Selfish Individual
Paul Wharton
"sacrifice", and when killed in uniform, honored as "selfless". But,
this is inaccurate. A soldier is a very selfish human being - fighting
for a goal that gives a fulfilling reward if that soldier fights for a
desirable cause. Every individual who walks into a recruiting office
knows that death may occur before victory. But, one who signs up to be
a soldier, selfishly chooses to fight hard for the fruits of victory,
despite the risk of losing one's life. Every American soldier is
taking a gamble that some have to take to save The United States of
America. And, there is great honor in that selfish pursuit.
Paul Wharton
American
Robert J. Kolker
> despite the risk of losing one's life. Every American soldier is
> taking a gamble that some have to take to save The United States of
> America. And, there is great honor in that selfish pursuit.
The Way of the Warrior is the best way. The Warrior knows what he values
and to what extent he values it. His highest values may even be worth
his life to him. I have naught but respect and awe for the Warrior. In
doing what he is doing for himself, he is granting me a great value; my
life and my liberty.
Bob Kolker
Puppet_Sock
[snip soldier is selfish, and so moral, paragraph]
Well, maybe. Many soldiers, especially in past wars, probably
didn't think about it nearly that clearly. They probably signed
up, when they were not drafted, due to such things as peer
pressure, parental pressure, fear of being seen as a coward,
an unrealistic view of how vulnerable they were, belief in
the supernatural and thus a life after death, and many other
dillusions, illusion, and gross misinformations. Possibly,
as modern armies move more and more towards high tech, this
may change to some extent.
I wish it were as you describe. _Starship Troopers_ by
R.A. Heinlein is one of my fave books. (Though that damn
movie was basically pretty vile.)
Socks
Gordon Sollars
Paul_Wharton...@msn.com says...
> Throughout history, military soldiers have been admired for
> "sacrifice", and when killed in uniform, honored as "selfless". But,
> this is inaccurate. A soldier is a very selfish human being - fighting
> for a goal that gives a fulfilling reward if that soldier fights for a
> desirable cause.
So when a soldier falls on a grenade, killing himself to save his
comrades from harm, this is a selfish act? When does he get the reward?
And, just as a check, are there circumstances in which his falling on
the grenade would not be selfish?
--
Gordon
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> So when a soldier falls on a grenade, killing himself to save his
> comrades from harm, this is a selfish act? When does he get the reward?
> And, just as a check, are there circumstances in which his falling on
> the grenade would not be selfish?
This was never a big issue for Rand. The closest she ever
got to it was the risks that Ragnar took in his superficially
piratical activities. Why would Ragnar ever take such risks
as running around opposing the combined navies of the world?
Even with his advanced tech he got into trouble at least once.
The answer is not very extensive in AS. You can't do all of
philsophy with all its sub-categories in one book, even when
the book is as long as AS.
For an answer to this see R.A. Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_.
The book, not the movie, as the movie was terrible.
The basic idea is this: A person who values society is
going to be willing to do things to protect that society.
And, in order to inspire such actions, the society has
to be such as to be valued by the people in it. A fundamental
fact involved is that each person realizes they are mortal,
that they will die eventually. And that they thus have a
payment to make, a final coinage they can apply to some
cause. If the society they live in is worthy, they
may choose to make that payment to support society.
Socks
Gordon Sollars
puppe...@hotmail.com says...
...
> The answer is not very extensive in AS. You can't do all of
> philsophy with all its sub-categories in one book, even when
> the book is as long as AS.
>
> For an answer to this see R.A. Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_.
> The book, not the movie, as the movie was terrible.
The movie will never get my money! "The Puppet Masters" was bad enough.
The books I have right here.
> The basic idea is this: A person who values society is...
I don't wish to challenge your explanation, but I don't think that Mr.
Heinlein agreed that soldiers were selfish.
In any event, I was having a little fun with the original poster, who
seems to be a sort of reverse troll. If falling on a grenade to save
your comrades is an example of "selfishness", some might begin to wonder
what /wasn't/ an example.
--
Gordon
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> I don't wish to challenge your explanation, but I don't think that Mr.
> Heinlein agreed that soldiers were selfish.
You'd be wrong.
Look at what earning vet status was supposed to demonstrate.
It was meant to show that, in the opinion of the veteran,
the safety of society was more important than the vet's
own life. And that this qualified him as suitable to have
the franchise.
Note that: in the vet's own opinion. The risk of his or her
own life being ended violently was less important than the
risk to society that being in the service mitigated. Thus,
acting on their own system of values, acting to gain or
keep those things they themselves thought most valuable,
in other words their own selfishness, would cause them to
do what they sincerely thought was important for society.
In another book, Heinlein defined love: That emotional
condition where your own happiness is contingent on the
happiness of another. Thus, your own selfishness will
drive you to do what you sincerely believe is best for
the person you love. That, by the way, is why love is
also exception making, as Rand pointed out.
Socks
Scott Stephens
> The basic idea is this: A person who values society is
> going to be willing to do things to protect that society.
> And, in order to inspire such actions, the society has
> to be such as to be valued by the people in it. A fundamental
> fact involved is that each person realizes they are mortal,
> that they will die eventually. And that they thus have a
> payment to make, a final coinage they can apply to some
> cause. If the society they live in is worthy, they
> may choose to make that payment to support society.
That's a good point. Mel Gibson (an actor I know we all know and love)
in "Braveheart" put it this way:
http://www.tartans.com/articles/famscots/wallace.html
"
Quote from Wallace's fight speech in movie:
Aye, fight and you may die.
Run, and you'll live... at least a while.
And dying in your beds many years from now,
would you be willing to trade all the days,
from this day to that,
for one chance,
just one chance,
to come back here and tell our enemies
that they may take our lives,
but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!
"
The best battle-speech I can remember.
Like most Gibson's movies its maudlin, but at least the fighting is
brutal and there's lots of hacking and blood and a few laughs.
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
There is no giant behind the devastation of the worldonly a shriveled
creature with the wizened
face of a child who is out to blow up the kitchen because he cannot
steal his cookies and eat them, too. - Ayn Rand
**********************************
Scott Stephens
> Well, maybe. Many soldiers, especially in past wars, probably
> didn't think about it nearly that clearly. They probably signed
> up, when they were not drafted, due to such things as peer
> pressure, parental pressure, fear of being seen as a coward,
> an unrealistic view of how vulnerable they were, belief in
> the supernatural and thus a life after death, and many other
> dillusions, illusion, and gross misinformations.
I think "nationalism" is probably a good reason. That gets people
recruited. What makes keeps them fighting is fraternity. Clausewitz said
something to the effect its not too hard to get soldiers into the first
battle, bet keeping them going back is tougher.
Scott Stephens
> So when a soldier falls on a grenade, killing himself to save his
> comrades from harm, this is a selfish act?
If a soldier reflexively takes such action to sustain their life, as
keeping their fellows alive, reflexively jumping on a grenade would be a
logical (if not egoist) act.
> When does he get the reward?
See the next post.
> And, just as a check, are there circumstances in which his falling on
> the grenade would not be selfish?
After the soldier has been demoralized and hopeless, an honorable way to
escape the horror.
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
There is no giant behind the devastation of the worldâ"only a shriveled
Robert J. Kolker
>
> In any event, I was having a little fun with the original poster, who
> seems to be a sort of reverse troll. If falling on a grenade to save
> your comrades is an example of "selfishness", some might begin to wonder
> what /wasn't/ an example.
Suppose I value ten of my buddies more than I value one of me. Falling
on the grenade is then an investment, not a sacrifice.
Let me extend that a bit. If the well being of my descendents is
entwined with the continuation of the social order, then doing whatever
I can to preserve the social order is acting toward the well being of my
descendents. I can live only so long. But the total years of my
descendents far exceed the number of years I have left. So if I value my
descendents, particularly children and grand-children if I make a fatal
move to protect them, again it is an investment and not a sacrifice.
I can even extend this to cherishing the values embodied in and by the
society. If I love and cherish those values protecting them, even at the
cost of my life, is in investment and not a sacrifice.
The following scene in -Atlas Shrugged- comes to mind. John Galt tells
Dagny that if they ever threaten to torture her to get their way with
him, he would commit suicide. Of course there are some flaws with this
strategy. If the Nasties tell Galt that if he does not comply or kills
himself they will mess up Dagny, what should he do? My answer would be
to pretend, rescue Dagny by whatever means in the future, then make a
break for it, maybe living, maybe dying.
Bob Kolker
Paul Wharton
Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In any event, I was having a little fun with the original poster, who
> seems to be a sort of reverse troll. If falling on a grenade to save
> your comrades is an example of "selfishness", some might begin to wonder
> what /wasn't/ an example.
What if the soldier survives the grenade, and receives a high military
medal? Perhaps he joined the military to mainly pursue military
decorations. What if the grenade doesn't go off at all, winning him a
medal without any suffering? Many of you do not understand the
meaning, and importance, of the military decoration, and promotion
system.
Paul Wharton
American
Robert J. Kolker
>
> What if the soldier survives the grenade, and receives a high military
> medal? Perhaps he joined the military to mainly pursue military
> decorations. What if the grenade doesn't go off at all, winning him a
> medal without any suffering? Many of you do not understand the
> meaning, and importance, of the military decoration, and promotion
> system.
Could it be that he valued the life of his buddies?
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
You don't get out much, do you.
Ken
Gordon Sollars
puppe...@hotmail.com says...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> [snip]
> > I don't wish to challenge your explanation, but I don't think that Mr.
> > Heinlein agreed that soldiers were selfish.
>
> You'd be wrong.
It would not be the first time. But let's not be hasty.
> Look at what earning vet status was supposed to demonstrate.
> It was meant to show that, in the opinion of the veteran,
> the safety of society was more important than the vet's
> own life. And that this qualified him as suitable to have
> the franchise.
>
> Note that: in the vet's own opinion. The risk of his or her
> own life being ended violently was less important than the
> risk to society that being in the service mitigated. Thus,
> acting on their own system of values, acting to gain or
> keep those things they themselves thought most valuable,
> in other words their own selfishness,
I see. So Mother Teresa was selfish. Just as I thought! ;-)
Far be it from me - given my definition of "knowledge" - to strongly
militate against such word play, but I don't see any reason to think
that Mr. Heinlein thought that anyone who acted to achieve their goals,
regardless of the content of those goals, was "selfish". The word seems
to have just a tinge of the notion that "selfish" goals are focused
directly on the self, not simply goals /of/ a self - if common English
usage counts for anything.
Now, my unusual definition of knowledge is intended to solve a problem.
What problem is your use of "selfish" intended to solve?
--
Gordon
Objectivism Blows
Or the many, many times in history where battalions went into battle
knowing there was little or no chance of personal survival? It's
ludicrous to think of a soldier as selfish, putting one's ass on the
line for the survival of some greater vision is the most altruistic
thing a person can do. The fact that a goal is "desirable" doesn't make
it "selfish" or even "self-interested" for that matter.
Objectivism Blows
Paul Wharton wrote:
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > In any event, I was having a little fun with the original poster, who
> > seems to be a sort of reverse troll. If falling on a grenade to save
> > your comrades is an example of "selfishness", some might begin to wonder
> > what /wasn't/ an example.
>
> What if the soldier survives the grenade, and receives a high military
> medal? Perhaps he joined the military to mainly pursue military
> decorations. What if the grenade doesn't go off at all, winning him a
> medal without any suffering?
Unforseen consequences or flukes, both irrelevant. The soldier's
expectation of dying and his indifference to it is what defines the
act.
.
.
.
.
Paul Wharton
Objectivism Blows wrote:
It's
> ludicrous to think of a soldier as selfish, putting one's ass on the
> line for the survival of some greater vision is the most altruistic
> thing a person can do. The fact that a goal is "desirable" doesn't make
> it "selfish" or even "self-interested" for that matter.
Please, don't ever join the military of your country. If you reside in
a dictatorship, it's one less enemy to target, and kill. If you are in
an ally of American, we don't need you corrupting the minds of the
soldiers.
Paul Wharton
American
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Please, don't ever join the military of your country. If you reside in
> a dictatorship, it's one less enemy to target, and kill. If you are in
> an ally of American, we don't need you corrupting the minds of the
> soldiers.
I suggest we have to clean up the language describing the death of
soldiers in battle or battle related operations. The usually crapdoodle
phrase is -- they made the supreme sacrifice-- etc, etc. If the soldiers
behaved rationaly that took actions to protect that which is dear to
them, such actions being dangerous and therefore on occasion lead to
death or injury. War is a dangerous business. People get killed during
wars, regardless of their motives.
Just about any Warrior worthy of the name is out there to protect that
which is nearest and dearest to him; himself, his family, his friends
and those instutitions whose values are highest in his hierarchy of
values. When a soldier dies while protecting the country, he may have
done me a good turn, but I hope he his done it for himself first and
foremost. I would never want to be the reason that a stranger has died.
Generally soldiers fight because it is necessary to fight at times, and
in fighting they sometimes die.
Bob Kolker
TC
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."
http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Dulce.html
Poet Wilred Owen was killed by machine-gun fire while l
eading his men across the Sambre Canal on
November 4th 1918
fred...@papertig.com
> Just about any Warrior worthy of the name is out there to protect that
> which is nearest and dearest to him; himself, his family, his friends
> and those instutitions whose values are highest in his hierarchy of
> values. When a soldier dies while protecting the country, he may have
> done me a good turn, but I hope he his done it for himself first and
> foremost. I would never want to be the reason that a stranger has died.
> Generally soldiers fight because it is necessary to fight at times, and
> in fighting they sometimes die.
Well stated.
There is another factor. Assuming they are volunteers, which of course
ideally they are, they have chosen such risks. Thus the same issue
applies to policeman and fireman who often take similar risks to save
people in trouble.
Incidentally, I wonder if this may also be a matter of temperament,
some of it possibly even being genetic, that some people enjoy/crave
"thrill-seeking" and enjoy putting themselves in danger. They get a
"rush" from it (while the rest of us watch biting our nails).
I recently met a young man (my cleaning lady's grandson) who badly
wants to join the Marines. His best friend was just badly injured in
Iraq. I asked her if that had changed his mind. She said, "No, dammit,
now he wants to go even more!"
Fred Weiss
Scott Amspoker
Why must HPO endure these types of threads? I get tired of reverse
engineering an act to its egoist/altruist premises.
I haven't been to our local army recruiting office lately, but I doubt
they have recruitment poster in the window showing a soldier splattered by
a grenade with the caption "Be all that you can be."
I can think of a bazillion selfish reasons to be a soldier. Just for
starters, how about the desire to kill one's enemies? Let's face it, even
the soldier of the suicidal variety believes there is some great reward
waiting in the afterlife.
I see no point in founding a debate of soldier morality on an extremely
rare moment involving a grenade and an immediate unthinking reaction.
--
sda_mail Scott | Yields over 30 blasts or
@comcast.net Amspoker | 80 gentle honks per charge!
^ my email |
fred...@papertig.com
> I see no point in founding a debate of soldier morality on an extremely
> rare moment involving a grenade and an immediate unthinking reaction.
Presumably the grenade would kill him also anyway. So, what is he
sacrificing? That, incidentally, is also why I don't consider it
sacrificial for bees to sting intruders near their hives or for mother
birds or other animals to try and lure predators away from their
babies.
Fred Weiss
TC
> Scott Amspoker wrote:
> > I see no point in founding a debate of soldier morality on an extremely
> > rare moment involving a grenade and an immediate unthinking reaction.
> Presumably the grenade would kill him also anyway. So, what is he
> sacrificing?
Fred, Bob and Scott have a grenade thrown in their midst.
If no-one does anything all die. If one jumps on the grenade
the other two survive.
Probably this should be called the soldier's dilemma.
In general in battle, if all are willing to die,
then a higher percentage will survive.
> That, incidentally, is also why I don't consider it
> sacrificial for bees to sting intruders near their hives or for mother
> birds or other animals to try and lure predators away from their
> babies.
Bees are hardly high enough up the philogenetic tree to count.
That is like saying that a platelet is not being sacrificial when
it clots to stoop the wound in your finger from bleeding.
But mother bird Ayn, were she to fly away and leave her
baby to the predator, would live to breed another day as
the predator would eat the baby and the mother would be long
gone by the time lunch was over.
Tom
Joe Teicher
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> Scott Amspoker wrote:
>
> > I see no point in founding a debate of soldier morality on an extremely
> > rare moment involving a grenade and an immediate unthinking reaction.
>
> Presumably the grenade would kill him also anyway. So, what is he
> sacrificing?
He is sacraficing the chance that someone else will choose to be a hero
and jump on the grenade.
That, incidentally, is also why I don't consider it
> sacrificial for bees to sting intruders near their hives or for mother
> birds or other animals to try and lure predators away from their
> babies.
>
> Fred Weiss
If it is not sacrificial for a bee to commit suicide to save its
society, were the kamikazee pilots in WW2 sacraficial? How about the
terrorists on the planes on 9/11?
Joe Teicher
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> If it is not sacrificial for a bee to commit suicide to save its
> society, were the kamikazee pilots in WW2 sacraficial? How about the
> terrorists on the planes on 9/11?
They were religiously crazed murderers. No one was threatening them.
They had no cause to kill other than their god damned Jihad.
Bob Kolker
fred...@papertig.com
> But mother bird Ayn, were she to fly away and leave her
> baby to the predator, would live to breed another day as
> the predator would eat the baby and the mother would be long
> gone by the time lunch was over.
And live to see her babies eaten again and again. It's not as if the
behavior is chosen, presumably it's instinctual - and presumably it
increases the survival rate of the young.
The question isn't about this behavior. The question is about having
children at all which supposedly is sacrificial in itself - although
many/most human mothers don't seem to think it is and they normally
*can choose it freely* whereas animals can't.
Fred Weiss
TC
But it worked. Didn't it?
Our moron president has withdrawn US troops for Saudi Arabia
which is precisely one of the things the terrorists hoped
to accomplish.
Tom
fred...@papertig.com
> If it is not sacrificial for a bee to commit suicide to save its
> society, were the kamikazee pilots in WW2 sacraficial? How about the
> terrorists on the planes on 9/11?
Oh, definitely. By their values, no. But their values are fundamentally
sacrificial through and through. In the case of the Japanese, to serve
the Emperor. In the case of the Islamists, to serve Allah.
It's an error to think that merely because you are doing something you
want that it is therefore egoistic. You have to ask, what is it that
you want. If you want to be sacrificial, that can hardly be considered
egoistic. Then everything you do is "really" egoistic and it renders
the concept meaningless. I believe Gordon noted that in an earlier
post.
Someone who gives up all his values, everything he loves, in order to
devote his life to washing the feet of lepers because he thinks that's
his Kantian duty is not being egoistic because that's what he wants to
do. Presumably he wouldn't do it unless he wanted to do it. But what he
wants is profoundly sacrificial. In this instance he's elevating the
value of lepers above his own and sacrificing his values for theirs.
Fred Weiss
TC
> TC wrote:
> > But mother bird Ayn, were she to fly away and leave her
> > baby to the predator, would live to breed another day as
> > the predator would eat the baby and the mother would be long
> > gone by the time lunch was over.
> And live to see her babies eaten again and again. It's not as if the
> behavior is chosen, presumably it's instinctual - and presumably it
> increases the survival rate of the young.
Whatever strategy the animal takes, produce a gazillion young
and let them fend for themselves (like sea turtles) or
produce a few young and take good care of them, even at
increased risk to one's self, yes, the result is increased
survival rate or else a strategy with higher survival rate
would come to dominate.
> The question isn't about this behavior. The question is about having
> children at all which supposedly is sacrificial in itself - although
> many/most human mothers don't seem to think it is and they normally
> *can choose it freely* whereas animals can't.
That wasn't the question you raised above.
The soldier is trained to do things that are dangerous,
not because they are dangerous, but because doing them will
increase the survival of the group.
[I am assuming that war is necessary. Once one is on a wartime
footing then some soldiers throwing themselves on granades
will increase the survival of the army. Paradoxically, to live
you have to be willing to die when you are at war.
While I'm ranting the Starship Trooper example is only so-so
since the context for war is pretty well give - war agains
alien insectoids. The problem with most wars is generally
why there is a war in the first place.
And back to the critters. Reproduction, having babies is
a given context even more than warfare is. WIthout reproduction
the person choosing not to reproduce would not exist.
You could almost say that a person who chooses not to reproduce
is stealing the context of life itself.]
Tom
Malrassic Park
>Someone who gives up all his values, everything he loves, in order to
>devote his life to washing the feet of lepers because he thinks that's
>his Kantian duty is not being egoistic because that's what he wants to
>do.
But, fortunately, such a person evidently has no idea what a Kantian
duty consists of. Because it is impossible to universalize the alleged
moral principle of washing the feet of lepers, or more generally,
giving up everything one loves in order to devote one's life to
aimless pursuits.
--
Anti-Troll ID: MAL20050525134643J2r2CwR1
fred...@papertig.com
> And back to the critters. Reproduction, having babies is
> a given context even more than warfare is. WIthout reproduction
> the person choosing not to reproduce would not exist.
> You could almost say that a person who chooses not to reproduce
> is stealing the context of life itself.
That's an interesting point actually. If I recall correctly - and
understand it - Harry Binswanger makes a similar one in his book on
"teleology". It's been awhile since I've read it, though, so you can't
go by me.
It might be similar to someone who enjoys and takes advantage of all
the benefits of freedom - and then is unwilling to fight for it, if it
is threatened.
Fred Weiss
Joe Teicher
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
> > And back to the critters. Reproduction, having babies is
> > a given context even more than warfare is. WIthout reproduction
> > the person choosing not to reproduce would not exist.
> > You could almost say that a person who chooses not to reproduce
> > is stealing the context of life itself.
>
> That's an interesting point actually.
No its not. A person choosing not to reproduce has no chance of
subsequently not being born, just like a person jumping on a grenade to
protect his buddies has no chance that someone is going to return the
favor. Trying to turn these into tit-for-tat scenarios is ridiculous
because time only flows in one direction. Failing to have children if
you don't want them or failing to jump on a grenade and die are only
bad for you if your actions influence the previous actions of others,
and I don't believe they do.
Also, saying that a person failing to reproduce is "stealing the
context of life" is basically saying that people have a duty to
reproduce, regardless of what they actually want to do, and that is
definitely not egoism.
Joe Teicher
fred...@papertig.com
What's aimless about it? The universal principle in this case is that
one should devote oneself selflessly to those in greater need than
oneself. One would almost have to do something like that on Kantian
principles since to pursue anything *because* you want to or get any
pleasure out of it is to that extent lacking in moral worth. So you
virtually *have to* pursue something that you get nothing out of.
Washing the feet of lepers seems like just the perfect thing. Plus this
would surely put you in good with God, though that can't be any part of
your motivation. In fact, if that self-indulgent thought even crossed
your mind, you should probably rush out and tell a few murderers where
their innocent victims are hiding.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
I don't think this point applies literally to man in the same way as it
does for animals for the reasons that you give.
But the applicability to man might be a more general interest we take
in children, the enjoyment we take in them, our willingness to protect
them and look out for their welfare - not as a sacrificial duty, but
because they represent the future of our species. That would apply even
if we didn't have children of our own.
I assume even a crusty character like yourself likes children - or at
least some of them. I assume that if you saw a child apparently lost,
crying on a street, that you wouldn't just indifferently walk past it.
Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:40:05 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>>
>> >Someone who gives up all his values, everything he loves, in order to
>> >devote his life to washing the feet of lepers because he thinks that's
>> >his Kantian duty is not being egoistic because that's what he wants to
>> >do.
>>
>> But, fortunately, such a person evidently has no idea what a Kantian
>> duty consists of. Because it is impossible to universalize the alleged
>> moral principle of washing the feet of lepers, or more generally,
>> giving up everything one loves in order to devote one's life to
>> aimless pursuits.
>
>What's aimless about it? The universal principle in this case is that
>one should devote oneself selflessly to those in greater need than
>oneself. One would almost have to do something like that on Kantian
>principles since to pursue anything *because* you want to or get any
>pleasure out of it is to that extent lacking in moral worth.
Objectivism wouldn't try to make a principle out of whim-worship
anyway, it has no moral worth to it either, so I don't see what your
complaint is about. There is nothing in Objectivism which says you
should pursue something *because* you get pleasure out of it.
On the other hand, that doesn't make pleasure immoral. But if you seek
it out of irrational whim-worship, that would be immoral in either
view. But you make it sound like, as long as you get pleasure out of
washing lepers' feet, then that would be moral for Objectivism.
>So you virtually *have to* pursue something that you get nothing out of.
Lol. At this point. Rand or Peikoff would then declare that at least
Christianity offers eternity in Heaven as an incentive, where Kant
allegedly offered nothing, as you claimed.
In fact, happiness (or general pleasure) is universalizable under
Kantian rules as long as you also make it the rule for all others and
pursue it for all to benefit from, including yourself. If you excluded
yourself, the maxim of your will to happiness couldn't very well be
universalized, could it?
That principle breaks the Randian criticism in half like a toothpick,
where she offered a false alternative between benefitting oneself
(selfishness) versus making only others the beneficiaries of one's
actions (altruism). If, by your actions, your goal is to benefit
everybody's happiness including your own, whether they know
about it or not, then the aim of your will has been, in principle,
maximized. To wit:
"For example, let the matter be my own happiness. This (rule), if I
attribute it to everyone (as, in fact, I may, in the case of every
finite being), can become an objective practical law only if I include
the happiness of others. Therefore, the law that we should promote
the happiness of others does not arise from the assumption that this
is an object of everyone's choice, but merely from this: that the form
of universality which reason requires as the condition of giving to a
maxim of self-love the objective validity of a law is the principle
that determines the will. Therefore it was not the object (the
happiness of others) that determined the pure will, but it was the
form of law only, by which I restricted my maxim, founded on
inclination, so as to give it the universality of a law, and thus to
adapt it to the practical reason. And it is this restriction alone,
and not the addition of an external spring, that can give rise to
the notion of the obligation to extend the maxim of my self-love to
the happiness of others." (critique of practical reason)
You may pursue happiness all you want, as long as you include the
happiness of others as your goal. But, as Kant said, that happiness is
not the "spring" of your action. It is not washing the leper's feet
that is the impetus (assuming his feet haven't fallen off yet, and
assuming he wouldn't simply get angry and bop you over the head at
your attempts). That impetus of the will comes from reason, not from
the inclination toward happiness, whether in oneself or others. That
is all Kant is saying. Morality comes from reason. But furthermore, he
has managed to include our highest subjective aspiration, happiness,
as an objectively universalizable principle and not a mere inclination
(urge) traditionally considered moral and universalizable simply
because everyone wants it.
Randroids have their heads up their collective ass over the
relationship of happiness and reason in Kantian morality.
>Washing the feet of lepers seems like just the perfect thing. Plus this
>would surely put you in good with God, though that can't be any part of
>your motivation. In fact, if that self-indulgent thought even crossed
>your mind, you should probably rush out and tell a few murderers where
>their innocent victims are hiding.
In Kantian religion, God knows nothing of your actions. God doesn't
even know about the sparrow that falls from a limb. God doesn't know
what you had for breakfast this morning (and neither do you). So God
would know nothing about your feet-washing activities. God's knowledge
is limited to the noumenal, in this case, the possibility for moral
action which lies in your heart of hearts. God knows if you are a man
of virtue without having to know a single detail about you or your
life. That is because, in this view, God does not think the same way
we do. He does not look at actions and determine virtuosity from them,
that is man's method. He simply knows if you are virtuous, or not,
because he can see into the depths of your noumenal soul where your
own efforts at observation can only fail. Thus God's observations are
limited to the noumenal (your soul), just as ours are limited to the
range of the phenomenal (your behaviors).
Randroids have their head up their collective ass over the nature of
God in Kantian morality.
--
Anti-Troll ID: MAL20050525134643J2r2CwR1
Atlas Bugged
>> They were religiously crazed murderers. No one was threatening them.
>> They had no cause to kill other than their god damned Jihad.
"TC" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:1118345580.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>But it worked. Didn't it?
> Our moron president has withdrawn US troops for Saudi Arabia
> which is precisely one of the things the terrorists hoped
> to accomplish.
Oh, yes, Top-Cat, we played right into their hands. They knew we would
drain our resources by bombing the fuck out of them, hunting and killing
their leaders, and toppling their governments. Boy, did they get the best
of us!
With all of those benefits it is curious that there has not been a single
domestic attack since 9/11. No serious attempts, even. Oh well, go figure!
Atlas Bugged
news:1118353332.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Also, saying that a person failing to reproduce is "stealing the
> context of life" is basically saying that people have a duty to
> reproduce, regardless of what they actually want to do, and that is
> definitely not egoism.
Have to agree here. Never wanted kids, not for a second, period. Entire
threads about selfish genes have made me laugh out loud. Plenty of nothing.
Atlas Bugged
news:d8ajmr$3b7$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> I have children, and I take care of them--I look to no one else to take
> care of them for me. When someone says "oh the children, the children" I
> say: *whose* children?
One of my pettest of peeves is that I have zero interest in children -
always have, from day one. I don't mind (as much as I often mention) this
idea of a bit more concern for protecting children, since they are a bit
less able to protect themselves. But the various programs that make me
subsidize other peoples' reproduction pisses me off beyond blind rage.
If you want to have children, you need to plan for their support. For those
who don't, my view is that I'd just as soon see them and their kids die. My
forced role in helping their kids is nothing less than robbery at gunpoint,
and they can go straight to hell. Get a rubber, you fucking thieves.
Property taxes, therefore, are on my double-secret, extra-texture,
beyond-usual shit list, even though income taxes have that wonderful quality
of utter personal invasion.
Mark N
> If you want to have children, you need to plan for their support. For those
> who don't, my view is that I'd just as soon see them and their kids die.
Atlas is a meanie.
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
He may be a meany, but he is right.
Bob Kolker
Paul Wharton
Man is mortal
Paul Wharton
Objectivist
Mark N
Is this a koan? :-/
Mark
x
x
Mark N
You're just as bad, Bob! You guys are heartless! You don't care about
THE CHILDREN!
Mark
x
x
Robert J. Kolker
>> Man is mortal
>
>
> Is this a koan? :-/
No. Nathan is a Cohen. This is a Levi.
Bob Kolker
Mark N
Ah, I see! Thanks for clearing that up, Bob! :-)
Mark
fred...@papertig.com
> >What's aimless about it? The universal principle in this case is that
> >one should devote oneself selflessly to those in greater need than
> >oneself. One would almost have to do something like that on Kantian
> >principles since to pursue anything *because* you want to or get any
> >pleasure out of it is to that extent lacking in moral worth.
>
> Objectivism wouldn't try to make a principle out of whim-worship
> anyway,...
Only a Kantian would equate pursuing something because you want to or
for pleasure as equivalent to "whim worship".
> ... it has no moral worth to it either,...
Oh, but it does - so long as it is consistent with one's longer term
rational values and one's longer term happiness.
> ...There is nothing in Objectivism which says you
> should pursue something *because* you get pleasure out of it.
You're kidding, right? You should pursue it because you get pain out of
it? What Objectivism says on this subject, as you well know, (and
contra hedonism) is that pleasure, per se, is not the basis for a
rational *standard of value*. However, we're all for enjoying one's
life, which certainly includes pleasure, including it's active pursuit.
<snip Kantian blather>
Fred Weiss
TC
> TC wrote:
> > But it worked. Didn't it?
> > Our moron president has withdrawn US troops for Saudi Arabia
> > which is precisely one of the things the terrorists hoped
> > to accomplish.
> And drawn their fire into Iraq, and away from the homeland, which is
> what *we* want.
At the cost of capitulating to terrorists and making the
deaths at the WTC only meaningful for the terrorists.
Sheesh.
Tom
TC
> >> Joe Teicher wrote:
> >> They were religiously crazed murderers. No one was threatening them.
> >> They had no cause to kill other than their god damned Jihad.
> "TC" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> news:1118345580.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >But it worked. Didn't it?
> > Our moron president has withdrawn US troops for Saudi Arabia
> > which is precisely one of the things the terrorists hoped
> > to accomplish.
> Oh, yes, Top-Cat, we played right into their hands. They knew we would
> drain our resources by bombing the fuck out of them, hunting and killing
> their leaders, and toppling their governments. Boy, did they get the best
> of us!
And when will we see the trial of Osama on Court TV?
They actually did quite well. What would their losses have been
had they tried a frontal assault on the bases in Saudi Arabia.
The bases would still be there and lots more Al Qaeda would have
been killed.
> With all of those benefits it is curious that there has not been a single
> domestic attack since 9/11. No serious attempts, even. Oh well, go figure!
Yeah. We sold out. We gave them what they wanted.
Tom
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:55:08 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>> >What's aimless about it? The universal principle in this case is that
>> >one should devote oneself selflessly to those in greater need than
>> >oneself. One would almost have to do something like that on Kantian
>> >principles since to pursue anything *because* you want to or get any
>> >pleasure out of it is to that extent lacking in moral worth.
>> Objectivism wouldn't try to make a principle out of whim-worship
>> anyway,...
>Only a Kantian would equate pursuing something because you want to or
>for pleasure as equivalent to "whim worship".
It sounds to me like you're just making up reasons to be disagreeable.
<snipped droning babble>
--
"Sometimes his trolling proves useful to make a
point. A foil for my sword. =)"
fred...@papertig.com
> >> Objectivism wouldn't try to make a principle out of whim-worship
> >> anyway,...
>
> >Only a Kantian would equate pursuing something because you want to or
> >for pleasure as equivalent to "whim worship".
>
> It sounds to me like you're just making up reasons to be disagreeable.
It's hard to hear good, Malenoid, when your head is up your ass.
Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
wrote:
See, you're just a disagreeable type of person.
At least Kant is clear about whether you are to use reason and
philosophy as your moral guide, or your dinkus. His choice is reason.
Objectivism would also say to use reasoning to decide your values, yet
you are now saying that in Objectivism reason makes this decision on
the basis of feelings (pleasure or pain) in the long run. That's not
even about happiness, just your dinkus. So Objectivism is all over the
board on this issue too, just like it is with so many other issues.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> At the cost of capitulating to terrorists and making the
> deaths at the WTC only meaningful for the terrorists.
The only way to redeem the loss at WTC is to exterminate the Moslems to
the last man, woman and child. We will probably have to settle for less.
Bob Kolker
TC
We could have at least confiscated Saudi Arabia's oil.
Tom
Mark N
> TC wrote:
>
>> At the cost of capitulating to terrorists and making the
>> deaths at the WTC only meaningful for the terrorists.
>
> The only way to redeem the loss at WTC is to exterminate the Moslems to
> the last man, woman and child.
Nice collectivist sentiment there, Bob.
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
That would necessitate killing a large part of the Saudi population
(which is not a bad idea). If there a sufficient number left alive we
get an insurrectionist scenario as in Iraq. In any case the wells and
pipe lines will be sabotaged before we can secure the fields.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
No it is a simplification. If we kill them all, we automatically kill
the Bad Wogs. Showing scruples in attack is a weakness. During WW2 which
everyone our our side considers a Just War, German cities were bombed to
reduce the efficiency of the German workforce. Women and children were
killed or injured. I am sure that Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris did not
lose a wink of sleep over the matter. BTW, Harris and Curtiss LeMay are
among my most special heroes.
Was wrecking Berlin collectivism? Was burning Dresden collectivism? Was
reducing Hamburg to flinders and cinders collectivism? Were the dispatch
of Hirsonima and Nagasaki collectivism? I think not. In a war the idea
is to kill the enemy, but up his shit and in general ruin his life. I
cannot think of a better way to ruin the lives of the Bad Wogs than to
kill their women, children and family members.
What you call collectivism, I call necessary action to prosecute a war.
Bob Kolker
TC
There you go, being practical again.
Tom
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>>> The only way to redeem the loss at WTC is to exterminate the Moslems
>>> to the last man, woman and child.
>>
>> Nice collectivist sentiment there, Bob.
>
> No it is a simplification. If we kill them all, we automatically kill
> the Bad Wogs. Showing scruples in attack is a weakness.
Well, it looked to me as if you were advocating the killing of all the
Moslems as an end in itself, as some kind of "revenge." If you were
really only referring to (what you believe to be) a practical necessity,
then I will withdraw the charge of collectivism. :-)
[...]
> [...] I
> cannot think of a better way to ruin the lives of the Bad Wogs than to
> kill their women, children and family members.
Hmmm. Are we still talking about some (alleged) practical necessity
here? In any case, you do seem to be reaffirming that Plan Kolker calls
for the deliberate targetting of civilians. :-(
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Hmmm. Are we still talking about some (alleged) practical necessity
> here? In any case, you do seem to be reaffirming that Plan Kolker calls
> for the deliberate targetting of civilians. :-(
The wide targetting of Bad Wogs which has the effect of killing many
Wogs. The best way to have killed the Emporer of Japan would have been
to obliterate Tokyo. Since we could not be sure where in Tokyo the
emporer was, wide targetting of the emporer is justified. But wait! We
could not tell exactly where in Japan the emorer was, so the obvious
thing to do is kill everyone in Japan. etc. etc. You get the idea.
Collateral damage is insurance that the right people will be killed.
The nature of modern war necessitates some unpleasant actions. I echo
the sentiments of Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris: The Germans has sowed the
wind and in due course they shall reap the whirlwind. And also the
sentifments of Curtiss LeMay -- The only difference between war and
peace is where we put our bombs. These two are excellent men and well
worth learning from.
Bob Kolker
David Buchner
> When someone says "oh the children, the children" I say: *whose* children?
> Where are their parents? I think my attitude is not uncommon among
> parents.
Good. And when someone says "we in the community must look after our
children," I say: *our* children? Did I have sex with you people at some
time in the past and forget?
I don't want to risk blowing one or more of Bugged's gaskets, so I won't
go into the various attempts by bureaucrats to seek us out and sign us
up for various government "help" since we had our kid.
I've spent so many years railing against breeders who expect their kids
to be my responsibility, that I anticipate having to go out of my way to
reassure folks that I'm not asking anything of them.
Malrassic Park
<buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
>
>I don't want to risk blowing one or more of Bugged's gaskets
It's too late to worry about that.
Scott Stephens
> There is another factor. Assuming they are volunteers, which of course
> ideally they are, they have chosen such risks. Thus the same issue
> applies to policeman and fireman who often take similar risks to save
> people in trouble.
Well, we know too well that really isn't the case. Who was that young
woman that got shot up, Jessica Lynch? She comes to mind as a logistics
support person that I really doubt was the kind of gung-ho carnivorous
Marine that enjoys hunting down and killing the enemy.
And the wussy media makes a hero out of her, not those that rescued her,
because she's was the victim.
> Incidentally, I wonder if this may also be a matter of temperament,
> some of it possibly even being genetic, that some people enjoy/crave
> "thrill-seeking" and enjoy putting themselves in danger. They get a
> "rush" from it (while the rest of us watch biting our nails).
Google ["thrill seeking" dopamine]
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
There is no giant behind the devastation of the worldonly a shriveled
creature with the wizened
face of a child who is out to blow up the kitchen because he cannot
steal his cookies and eat them, too. - Ayn Rand
**********************************
Gordon Sollars
Paul_Wharton...@msn.com says...
>
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
...
> > If falling on a grenade to save
> > your comrades is an example of "selfishness", some might begin to wonder
> > what /wasn't/ an example.
>
> What if the soldier survives the grenade, and receives a high military
> medal?
What if he crosses the international dateline and has to live the day
over again?
--
Gordon
Gordon Sollars
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> >
> > In any event, I was having a little fun with the original poster, who
> > seems to be a sort of reverse troll. If falling on a grenade to save
> > what /wasn't/ an example.
>
> on the grenade is then an investment, not a sacrifice.
You are free to call that "being selfish" if you like. But why?
> Let me extend that a bit. If the well being of my descendents is
> entwined with the continuation of the social order, then doing whatever
> I can to preserve the social order is acting toward the well being of my
> descendents.
Assuming you care about your descendents. But, again, why?
--
Gordon
Gordon Sollars
says...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > So when a soldier falls on a grenade, killing himself to save his
> > comrades from harm, this is a selfish act?
>
> If a soldier reflexively takes such action to sustain their life, as
> keeping their fellows alive, reflexively jumping on a grenade would be a
> logical (if not egoist) act.
What is "logical" about it?
> > When does he get the reward?
>
> See the next post.
I can't seem to find it.
> > And, just as a check, are there circumstances in which his falling on
> > the grenade would not be selfish?
>
> After the soldier has been demoralized and hopeless, an honorable way to
> escape the horror.
How is that not being selfish?
--
Gordon
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Assuming you care about your descendents. But, again, why?
For a generation or two one's children and grandchildren carry some of
one's attitudes and values. It is a way of reaching beyond the grave. In
China the veneration of ancestors extends that even further.
In Jewish culture it is considered extra-nifty to be remembered for a
blessing. Thus if one has led a virtuous life, it is a model so extent
for the generations that follow.
Clearly there is no -direct- benefit that flows from being remembered,
but the comfort of the thought, for those who are so comforted, counts
for something.
I am reminded of a scene in the movie -Deep Impact- where the crew of a
ship that has gone out to interdict a large meteor or asteroid heading
to earth can only carry out their mission if they go into a crevace of
the body and detonate nuclear weapons to break it up. The crew is dead
in either case, the only difference is that if they return to earth they
will live a few hours untill the big honker hits earth. The captain of
the ship says to his crew --- hey look. The will name High Schools after
us. There it is in the essence. Sometime we do things because they will
name high schools after us or dedicate toilet seats and library shelves
in synagogues in our names.
Bob Kolker
>
Scott Stephens
>>If a soldier reflexively takes such action to sustain their life, as
>>keeping their fellows alive, reflexively jumping on a grenade would be a
>>logical (if not egoist) act.
>
>
> What is "logical" about it?
They are exercising the learned reflex to act, at ones risk, to preserve
one's fellows. Teens and young adults often don't take mortality
seriously. In fact none of us really know what it means to be dead,
because we haven't experienced it.
>>>When does he get the reward?
>>See the next post.
> I can't seem to find it.
Sorry, things got out of sequence. I was referring to my post of William
Wallaces speech from the movie Braveheart where he admonishes his
soldiers that its worthwhile to risk a sure, limited life subjected to
English tyranny to a chance of dying for either freedom, or the honor of
having at least fought and died trying to be free.
>>>And, just as a check, are there circumstances in which his falling on
>>>the grenade would not be selfish?
>>
>>After the soldier has been demoralized and hopeless, an honorable way to
>>escape the horror.
>
>
> How is that not being selfish?
That is being selfish. I mis-understood the question.
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
There is no giant behind the devastation of the worldâ"only a shriveled
Gordon Sollars
says...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> >>If a soldier reflexively takes such action to sustain their life, as
> >>keeping their fellows alive, reflexively jumping on a grenade would be a
> >>logical (if not egoist) act.
> >
> >
> > What is "logical" about it?
>
> They are exercising the learned reflex to act, at ones risk, to preserve
> one's fellows. Teens and young adults often don't take mortality
> seriously. In fact none of us really know what it means to be dead,
> because we haven't experienced it.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this explains why such action is
"logical".
> >>>When does he get the reward?
> >>See the next post.
>
> > I can't seem to find it.
>
> Sorry, things got out of sequence. I was referring to my post of William
> Wallaces speech from the movie Braveheart where he admonishes his
> soldiers that its worthwhile to risk a sure, limited life subjected to
> English tyranny to a chance of dying for either freedom, or the honor of
> having at least fought and died trying to be free.
And this honor is enjoyed in the after life?
...
> > How is that not being selfish?
>
> That is being selfish. I mis-understood the question.
This is my point. It seems that all manner of actions are "selfish",
even dying so that others can be free. As I said earlier, I am not
opposed to definitions that run counter to common usage, I just want to
know what purpose they serve.
--
Gordon
Scott Stephens
> In article <wZSdnYeLRb6...@comcast.com>, sco...@comcast.net
>>Gordon Sollars wrote:
>>
>>>>If a soldier reflexively takes such action to sustain their life, as
>>>>keeping their fellows alive, reflexively jumping on a grenade would be a
>>>>logical (if not egoist) act.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is "logical" about it?
>>
>>They are exercising the learned reflex to act, at ones risk, to preserve
>>one's fellows. Teens and young adults often don't take mortality
>>seriously. In fact none of us really know what it means to be dead,
>>because we haven't experienced it.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see how this explains why such action is
> "logical".
Understandable would be a better term? Causal perhaps?
>>>>>When does he get the reward?
>>>>
>>>>See the next post.
>>
>>>I can't seem to find it.
>>
>>Sorry, things got out of sequence. I was referring to my post of William
>>Wallaces speech from the movie Braveheart where he admonishes his
>>soldiers that its worthwhile to risk a sure, limited life subjected to
>>English tyranny to a chance of dying for either freedom, or the honor of
>>having at least fought and died trying to be free.
>
>
> And this honor is enjoyed in the after life?
> ...
The honor is enjoyed in this, even if brief, life. Otherwise the misery
is suffered for as long as the coward lives a cowardly existence.
>>>How is that not being selfish?
>>
>>That is being selfish. I mis-understood the question.
>
>
> This is my point. It seems that all manner of actions are "selfish",
> even dying so that others can be free. As I said earlier, I am not
> opposed to definitions that run counter to common usage, I just want to
> know what purpose they serve.
Yes, I agree that altruistic self-sacrifice is done for the basically
selfish motive of enjoying (usually miserable, victimizing and
humiliating) altruism.
Paul Wharton
> > >>>When does he get the reward?
> > Sorry, things got out of sequence. I was referring to my post of William
> > Wallaces speech from the movie Braveheart where he admonishes his
> > soldiers that its worthwhile to risk a sure, limited life subjected to
> > English tyranny to a chance of dying for either freedom, or the honor of
> > having at least fought and died trying to be free.
>
> And this honor is enjoyed in the after life?
> ...
> Gordon
The rewards of a life lived in greatness are recognized, with
precognition, in existence, before one no longer exists.
Paul Wharton
American