Ethical Egoism and "Objectivism"
Gandalf Grey
perhaps some of its variations. In the interests of brevity and relevance
to a discussion of morality and rights, insofar as I have occasion to remark
on the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it will be only her
doctrine of selfishness that I address and not the greater and more fatal
flaws of her epistemology. For those who are interested in so complete a
treatment and for a more detailed refutation of her ethics, Scott Ryan's
excellent and very detailed book, *Objectivism and the Corruption of
Rationality* may be found on his website at
http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/
....particularly, the chapter *Values and Volition: The Objectivist Ethics.*
For the purposes of this discussion, the numerous errors and logical flaws
in Objectivism are simply too extensive for any one post to do justice to
the subject.
As always, my remarks will be general and are not, with the exception of
Rand, addressed to the particular work of any individual thinker.
ETHICAL EGOISM:
Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his own
self interest, and only his own self interest. It should be made clear at
the outset that Ethical Egoism is not Psychological Egoism. Psychological
Egoism is a theory that purports to explain why people actually do the
things they do. Ethical Egoism is about what human beings 'ought' to do.
As such, Ethical Egoism is a moral theory with relevance to the subject of
human rights that hopefully will become apparent in later posts.
It should also be made clear at the outset that Ethical Egoism does not
state that one ought to promote one's self interests AS WELL AS the
interests of others. There would be nothing particularly novel about such a
viewpoint. Ethical Egoism is a radical moral theory which states that we
should ONLY pursue what is in our own interests. This does not mean that an
Ethical Egoist should NEVER help someone else. It may well be that the
interests of another might coincide with our own interests, or it may be
that furthering their interest might serve as a MEANS to secure our
interests. In those cases, Ethical Egoism would in fact demand that we
'help' someone else, but it can never be BECAUSE of their interests and
their interest alone that we act.
The first argument for Ethical Egoism relies on variations of the three
arguments that follow.
1. Each one of us is individually better able to determine what is best for
us than someone else is. By the same token, our knowledge of what is really
in someone else's best interests is vague and always imperfect. By the
light of this argument, who better to serve our interests than ourselves
rather than someone else?
2. Serving others by way of a kind of personal charity is degrading to them.
Various arguments concerning the Welfare State should occur to the reader at
this point. Serving others robs them both of personal pride and personal
dignity. How can anyone take joy in that which they have not accomplished
for themselves? Serving the needs of others merely perpetuates a kind of
loser mentality that becomes more pervasive with every new act of charity.
3. Serving others is a kind of intrusion into the privacy of other people.
It's a matter of telling them that their lives and their affairs aren't
really THEIRS, but are really OUR business. By serving others, we set
ourselves up as not only the benefactors of their futures but the judges of
their futures, robbing them of the ultimate liberty of personal privacy, the
knowledge that one's life is exclusively one's own business.
The problem with all three of these variations on the argument is that they
don't really describe Egoism at all. The claim is made in each of the three
arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they are
altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
better in some measurable fashion. Although Ethical Egoists tend to make
their arguments AGAINST altruism, these arguments demonstrate that Ethical
Egoism as it is stated in them is merely a subvariety of altruism itself.
AYN RAND
The Objectivist variation on Ethical Egoism can be illustrated by the
following quote from Rand herself.
"Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since
he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with
one's own interests is evil, means that man's desire to live is evil---that
man's life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.
Yet that is the meaning of altruism."
---The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964.
Rand defines her Ethical Egoism by contrasting it with what she considers to
be it's only alternative, altruism. She considers anything other than
Ethical Egoism to be a matter of sacrificing one's life. Sacrificing one's
life need not be a matter of dying because Rand considers all those aspects
that make up a human life, such as projects, goods made and earned, etc. to
be valid parts of that life. Any demand that we give up any of these
possessions or projects are calls for the sacrifice of our life.
The argument can by roughly outlined as follows:
1. Each one of us has only one life. IF we place any kind of value on life
at all, it must begin with the supreme importance of the individual.
2. The doctrine of altruism requires that the life of the individual has to
be sacrificed for the good of others.
3. Therefore the doctrine of altruism CANNOT take the supreme value of the
individual life seriously. I.e., altruism CANNOT value life.
4. Ethical Egoism, does take the individual life as being of supreme
importance.
5. Hence, Ethical Egoism is the only appropriate philosophy of individual
morality.
The immediate problem with the Randian view is that it pictures the
available alternatives in such an extreme fashion that a false choice is
offered to us. In reading any of Rand's ideas about the subject, altruism
is always pictured as offering NO respect for the value of the individual.
One's own interests have NO value and ANY demand by others calls for an
immediate sacrifice of one's life.
It is as a consequence of Rand's prosy picture of the necessary and
automatic EVIL of any instance of altruism that Ethical Egoism ends up
looking good in comparison with any alternative. But it is at least as
likely that the truth lies somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints of
either sacrificing one's whole life or deliberately ignoring any and all
interests of others. Though Rand always insists that her doctrine is
strictly rational, it is in fact an extremist view that largely ignores the
reality that a balance between the needs of ourselves and others will result
in situations in which one should rationally act in one's own interests and
occasionally rationally act in the interests of others. Even if we are to
accept Rand's extremist picture of the evils of Altruism, it does not
logically entail that Egoism is the only alternative. Rand's individual
failure to realize this fact appears to be linked with her illogical
insistence on defining any part of an individual's life as, for all
practical purposes, their life itself in any particular circumstance.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON WHY ETHICAL EGOISM DOESN'T WORK
There are two primary reasons for rejecting Ethical Egoism as a moral
doctrine. The first comes about when we ask ourselves why we have moral and
ethical systems in the first place. For any rational individual: moralities
are those devices for securing some desirable behavior that would not be
obtainable without the cooperation of others. Now, it is quite acceptable
for thinkers to ponder about what might work out best for any individual in
any particular situation. To stretch a point, it might be said that a con
artist who is attempting to swindle a group of individuals out of their life
savings and escape with the proceeds is, after a fashion, wrestling with a
problem in situational ethics. But such individual ethics are manifestly
NOT what such writers as Rand have in mind. Rand did not entitle any of her
books "How You Can Get Away With Being Selfish." Ethical Egoist theories do
not describe what some one individual might profitably get away with in
their behavior within a society. Their doctrines are principles intended to
apply to groups and so, once again, such doctrines will require the
cooperation of other individuals to attain their ends.
This being the case, it is difficult to see how Ethical Egoism can survive
the slightest conflict of interest between any two of it's adherents. If
Jim and JoAnn are both Ethical Egoists and they have a distinct conflict of
interest, how can ANY solution to that conflict be acceptable to both of
them.
Should Jim tell JoAnn that it is her duty, under the circumstances, to do
what is in her interests, his interests, or both? The first case will be
wholly unacceptable to Jim because it is not in his interests. The second
case will be wholly unacceptable to JoAnn because it is not in her
interests. The third case is impossible because their interests do not
coincide. When Rand states that there is NO conflict of interest between
rational men she is stretching the concept of "interest" to the point where
it loses the very meaning that it requires for a moral system to have any
practicality. Far from somehow guaranteeing that rational men never have
conflicts of interest, Rand's doctrine ensures that virtually every human
interaction will generate such a conflict by definition.
But perhaps Rand really means that men ought to try to act in their own best
interests, conflicts or no, and that the results are less important than a
sense of striving for personal ends. In this case, one might realistically
ask the question, don't the results of a moral system matter? In such a
case, morality would be turned into a kind of game and morality is really
not a game in which we all get into the spirit of the thing and root for the
other side. Even if it could be granted that, for the Ethical Egoist, the
conflict will be just a matter of someone winning and someone losing, the
same can hardly be said for the society that, as a whole, decides to adopt
the doctrine. The end result of Ethical Egoism is that very state of Nature
that Locke perceived Man creating society to escape from.
People do have self interests and there are things that are in the interests
of individuals. These two facts and the fact that we are inclined, ceteris
paribus, to pursue our interests are basic truisms concerning human nature
and lead to the theory of Psychological Egoism: that man tends to do what he
does out of some form of self interest. Because rational men perceive the
kernel of descriptive truth in Psychological Egoism AND because they
recognize that moralities are cooperative ventures by definition, Ethical
Egoism fails and Rational Egoism takes its place.
Rational Egoism, in recognizing the pre-eminence of self interest as a
psychological phenomenon AND recognizing the requirement to cooperate in any
moral system generally leads to some form of Contractarianism which will
balance the desires of the individual against what others can be
realistically expected to agree to. It is for this reason that Rational
Egoism as a philosophical standpoint, rejects Ethical Egoism as being of no
practical value to a moral, ethical system. From Hobbes and Mandeville to
Locke and onward, Rational Egoism has been a driving force in western
political and social philosophy that recognizes both man's desire to work
his own will as well as the interests and cooperation of others. Ethical
Egoism stands in relation to Rational Egoism much as Nihilism stands in
relation to Subjectivism: as an extremist viewpoint that fails by way of the
logical consequences and undesirable social and individual outcomes I have
outlined above.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>ETHICAL EGOISM:
>
>Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his own
>self interest, and only his own self interest.
No, !Dick, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
education.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a357f...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
> >
> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his
own
> >self interest, and only his own self interest.
>
> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> education.
More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved Dana
status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars who
have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
Unfortunately, I've got the entire tradition of modern Western philosophy
and nearly all of its writers to back me up, point for point.
You've got Rand, and a group of nearly as ridiculous
not-really-anarcho-greedists.
So the best you can say is that the Lunatic Fringe thinks I'm wrong. The
problem is, you can't even say that because Rand's pseudo-philosophy leads
exactly where I've described, to the extent that the Objectivist movement as
well as not-really-anarcho-greedism are currently cracked down the middle
with blind adherents to these fatally-flawed pseudo-philosophies and those
objectivists and libertarians who have come to realize that it's not
possible to adhere to Ethical Egoist principles and still live in the real
world.
You're between a rock and a Rand place, Junior.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
>> >
>> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his
>> >own self interest, and only his own self interest.
>>
>> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>> education.
>
>More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved Dana
>status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars who
>have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
Big difference. Categorical.
Get to work.
bu...@appointed.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>ETHICAL EGOISM:
>>
>>Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his own
>>self interest, and only his own self interest.
>
> No, !Dick, it's not. You're wrong.
And, pray tell, what ever gave you the idea that what you "think" has
any crediblity, BURGERKING
What with your lying, cowardly, bragging, halfwitted death threat
behavior?
========================================================
BurgerKing Beck, Kurt Knicklas friend writes:
"Shut the f**k up, Lucybaby, you miserable drunken sot."
bu...@appointed.com
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>> education.
>
>More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved Dana
>status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars who
>have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
Don't forget he's got his own hand to stroke himself. A cowardly,
deaththreat, burgerking narc lost most of his credibility when he HAD
to resort to publishing personal information------a temper tantrum, if
you will.
>
>You're between a rock and a Rand place, Junior.
As long as he keeps bent over, he's gonna be aware of a hard place.
****************************************************
"And the thing that has you, Roselles, and Hanson in a writhing
twist is that someone actually pointed it out to one of your victims.
Burger King does *not* run segregated serving lines -- in Alabama, or
anywhere else -- and there was no way in life I was going to sit here
and watch you lie about them for weeks on end without pointing it out
to them.
Billy "burgerking" Beck explaining why he became a Narc for BurgerKing
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a3c56...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>
> >> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
> >> >
> >> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue
his
> >> >own self interest, and only his own self interest.
> >>
> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> >> education.
> >
> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
Dana
> >status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
who
> >have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>
> When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
> and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
It makes no difference since you're wrong on the subject matter. I can site
any number of philosophical sources that will agree on my definition of
Ethical Egoism. How many can you come up with?
You see, Junior. You're right where you always are: making groundless,
knee-jerk assertions without any support, with the majority of intelelctual
authority against you.
Gandalf Grey
<bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a3d65...@news.enetis.net...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:16:10 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> >> education.
> >
> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
Dana
> >status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
who
> >have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>
> Don't forget he's got his own hand to stroke himself.
Junior's essential problem is that his 'philosophy' is nothing but a mass of
poorly understood, ad hoc justifications for his own abberant behavior.
That being the case, it's not surprising that he can't really defend most of
what he pretends he believes.
Gandalf Grey
Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1df3c$quh$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
With apologies to all. That should be "cite" and "intellectual."
>
>
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
<snips>
>The claim is made in each of the three
>arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
>and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
>somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
>From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they are
>altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
>better in some measurable fashion.
You're not trying to pass that off as rational thought, are you, Dick?
It would be more interesting if you'd try to explain why you think
obfuscating your ignorance into twisted propaganda is worth all the
hours you devote to it.
On the other hand, if you're just trying to get into Zepp's pants, it
might take less effort if you just bought him some lard-on-a-stick.
Ooops, sorry. I mean, ask your Congressman to 'produce' him some
lard-on-a-stick.
Mike
Gandalf Grey
msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ibek3u4jvs6jf27vs...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:31:25 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>
> <snips>
>
> >The claim is made in each of the three
> >arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
> >and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
> >somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
> >From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they
are
> >altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
> >better in some measurable fashion.
>
I'll let the argument speak for itself, especially since you don't seem to
be able to deal with it in any other way than via an ad hom.
>
> It would be more interesting if you'd try to explain why you think
> obfuscating your ignorance into twisted propaganda is worth all the
> hours you devote to it.
Is this graffiti your idea of a refutation?
>
> On the other hand, if you're just trying to get into Zepp's pants, it
> might take less effort if you just bought him some lard-on-a-stick.
I'm still seeing nothing but graffiti.
>
> Ooops, sorry. I mean, ask your Congressman to 'produce' him some
> lard-on-a-stick.
I'll take it you concede the arguments of the post.
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
> >
> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his own
> >self interest, and only his own self interest.
>
> No, !Dick, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> education.
Asserting he is wrong after he has posted so many quality
thoughts on the subject is not enough. You have to explain why,
and build a rational argument. There have been many points in
this debate where Gandalf and I have had differences on what
something means and how it applies to context, but if I told
Gandalf, "you're wrong" and didn't explain myself, he'd be
justified to press me to explain why -- otherwise, I wouldn't
have a point. Same goes for you.
BTW, Gandalf, as usual with your long, well thought out articles
I saved it and reply when I'm not just taking a break from work
to jot off quick replies to other posts. Your work is
appreciated.
Scott D. Erb
reply with no argument, just personal insults directed at him.
If you can't substantiate your position, it makes you look rather
petty and trollish to respond as you do.
Captain Compassion
"Ethical Egoism". Is that sortta like Enlightened self interest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Civilization is the interlude between Ice Ages"
--Will Durant
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@verizon.net
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> >> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
>> >> >
>> >> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue
>> >> >his own self interest, and only his own self interest.
>> >>
>> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>> >> education.
>> >
>> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
>> >Dana status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
>> >who have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>>
>> When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
>> and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
>
>It makes no difference since you're wrong on the subject matter.
It establishes the thing that *you* were wrong about as well as
your general method around here, !Dick.
>I can site any number of philosophical sources that will agree on my
>definition of Ethical Egoism.
But you didn't. You only cited Rand. And it's not what you said
it was.
Billy Beck
msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>
><snips>
>
>>The claim is made in each of the three
>>arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
>>and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
>>somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
>>From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they are
>>altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
>>better in some measurable fashion.
>
>You're not trying to pass that off as rational thought, are you, Dick?
You know what's *really* funny about it?
Bloody *Langford* beat him to this angle by at least a year.
Billy Beck
bu...@appointed.com wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:16:10 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
>>> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>>> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>>> education.
>>
>>More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved Dana
>>status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars who
>>have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>
>Don't forget he's got his own hand to stroke himself. A cowardly,
>deaththreat, burgerking narc lost most of his credibility when he HAD
>to resort to publishing personal information------a temper tantrum, if
>you will.
<snicker> Yeah: not like the "temper tantrum" that you cranked up in
order to start forging a userid with my name and someone else's .com
domain. And you stopped doing it, too.
Gandalf Grey
Captain Compassion <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3c3a4b06...@news.verizon.net...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:31:25 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Ethical Egoism". Is that sortta like Enlightened self interest?
That is more like what most philosophers would call Rational Egoism, on
which, I've made a few remarks toward the end of the article. Rand's
position completely eliminates enlightened self-interest almost by
definition save in the very specific case in which helping someone else out
in the short term would serve to achieve a long term goal for the egoist.
All varieties of enlightened self-interest end up cashing in ethical egoism
for more contractarian goals.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a4d0d...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>
> >> >> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to
pursue
> >> >> >his own self interest, and only his own self interest.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> >> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> >> >> education.
> >> >
> >> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally
achieved
> >> >Dana status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other
people liars
> >> >who have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
> >>
> >> When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
> >> and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
> >
> >It makes no difference since you're wrong on the subject matter.
>
> It establishes the thing that *you* were wrong about
Actually, it establishes the things that you're wrong about, Jelloboy, since
your only response is an unsupported assertion.
>as well as
> your general method around here, !Gandalf.
Yeah, I actually support my assertions, Jelloboy.
>
> >I can site any number of philosophical sources that will agree on my
> >definition of Ethical Egoism.
>
> But you didn't. You only cited Rand. And it's not what you said
> it was.
Prove it, Junior.
Gandalf Grey
>
> msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
> >
> ><snips>
> >
> >>The claim is made in each of the three
> >>arguments that individuals should always follow a course of
self-interest
> >>and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
> >>somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this
principle.
> >>From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they
are
> >>altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
> >>better in some measurable fashion.
> >
> >You're not trying to pass that off as rational thought, are you, Dick?
>
> You know what's *really* funny about it?
Yeah, I do. What's *really* funny about it is that you can't argue against
a word of what I've written, Junior.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3A4DF8...@worldnet.att.net...
> Mike, Gandalf posted a very well thought out piece. And you
> reply with no argument, just personal insults directed at him.
> If you can't substantiate your position, it makes you look rather
> petty and trollish to respond as you do.
>
> msoja wrote:
Mikey gave up all pretense of rationality long ago in favor of vying with
the Troll element for the yearly Vulgarian Award.
bu...@appointed.com
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
><bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message
>news:3c3a3d65...@news.enetis.net...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:16:10 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>> >> education.
>> >
>> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
>Dana
>> >status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
>who
>> >have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>>
>> Don't forget he's got his own hand to stroke himself.
>
>Junior's essential problem is that his 'philosophy' is nothing but a mass of
>poorly understood, ad hoc justifications for his own abberant behavior.
>That being the case, it's not surprising that he can't really defend most of
>what he pretends he believes.
I see.
Would that explain why he threatens death, publishes personal
information, narcs for people who laugh at him, brags about his
"adoring public", and exhibits the worst examples of human behavior
on the usnet?
bu...@appointed.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>
>bu...@appointed.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:16:10 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>>>> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>>>> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>>>> education.
>>>
>>>More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved Dana
>>>status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars who
>>>have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>>
>>Don't forget he's got his own hand to stroke himself. A cowardly,
>>deaththreat, burgerking narc lost most of his credibility when he HAD
>>to resort to publishing personal information------a temper tantrum, if
>>you will.
>
><snicker> Yeah: not like the "temper tantrum" that you cranked up in
>order to start forging a userid with my name and someone else's .com
>domain. And you stopped doing it, too.
What the fuck are you babbling about now?
=================================================================
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Maybe he wants to blow up the planet. Its his property.
>> Don't come around here anymore talking about "demonizing",
>>Emma.
>
>Billy, you must first realize the person you are addressing.
Yo, Smith: "Emma" had a chance to sort out her ethics and give
up a life of Tit-Sucking at my expense.
*You* are in line for the smokey end of a 7.62.
Keep pushing it, pal. You have no idea what you're fooling
around with, and I'm not talking about *me*.
Billy
Gandalf Grey
<bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a5689....@news.enetis.net...
And those are his good points.
Captain Compassion
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Captain Compassion <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:3c3a4b06...@news.verizon.net...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:31:25 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ethical Egoism". Is that sortta like Enlightened self interest?
>
>That is more like what most philosophers would call Rational Egoism, on
>which, I've made a few remarks toward the end of the article. Rand's
>position completely eliminates enlightened self-interest almost by
>definition save in the very specific case in which helping someone else out
>in the short term would serve to achieve a long term goal for the egoist.
>All varieties of enlightened self-interest end up cashing in ethical egoism
>for more contractarian goals.
>
Ethical egoism = Irrational self interest = Selfishness?
Captain Compassion
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
You miss the point. It's not whether "people as a whole" would be
better off it is if the *Individual* would be better off. Arguments
are not against altruism. The argument is that there is *no* altruism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gandalf Grey
That would have to be proved. The argument certainly does not prove it.
Billy Beck
res0...@verizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>The problem with all three of these variations on the argument is that they
>>don't really describe Egoism at all. The claim is made in each of the three
>>arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
>>and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
>>somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
>>From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they are
>>altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
>>better in some measurable fashion. Although Ethical Egoists tend to make
>>their arguments AGAINST altruism, these arguments demonstrate that Ethical
>>Egoism as it is stated in them is merely a subvariety of altruism itself.
>>
>You miss the point. It's not whether "people as a whole" would be
>better off it is if the *Individual* would be better off. Arguments
>are not against altruism. The argument is that there is *no* altruism.
Excellent. You didn't buy the premise. You didn't jump into the
pit of separating value from valuer, and thereby stipulating to an
argument defective definitions.
(Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over
for years, now. This person understands the point and has stated it
correctly. There is no such thing as "altruism". This is a necessary
implication of the fact that there is simply no such thing as an
unselfish act. *Everything* we do is principally selfish, even when
it bears a superficial resemblance to the contrary. The difference
between the rational egoist and everyone is that he knows this and
doesn't care to disguise it with florid nonsense. This is why I
maintain that "sacrifice" is a corrupt concept: it actually means a
*betrayal* of one's values, and in this, I'm down with That Woman:
there is very little more degenerate that I can think of than
sacrifice. I don't trade greater values for lesser ones, I say that
anyone who does is also fundamentally sick.)
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>Mike, Gandalf posted a very well thought out piece.
That's pretty fucking funny. Dick's "piece" is as shoddy as anything
he's ever written. His argument in the paragraph I didn't snip is
that the self-interest is invalid if it should have any other benefit
than self-interest. That's horseshit and the fact that you pipe up
with how "very well thought out" it is says volumes about what a cheap
piece of intellectual shit you yourself are. Get it? Good.
Mike
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>BTW, Gandalf, as usual with your long, well thought out articles
>I saved it and reply when I'm not just taking a break from work
>to jot off quick replies to other posts. Your work is
>appreciated.
Dick's entire "article" is complete and utter horseshit from start to
finish, and that's being kind. The only thing separating Hanson from
Yeadon is that he manages to string his idiocies together into
multi-sentence abominations.
Mike
Gandalf Grey
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 01:32:50 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>
> >Mike, Gandalf posted a very well thought out piece.
>
> he's ever written. His argument in the paragraph I didn't snip is
> that the self-interest is invalid if it should have any other benefit
> than self-interest.
You misread the argument. Not a big surprise. Plus the first argument is a
minor point that highlights to the contradictory nature of the usual
defenses of ethical egoism. The major arguments against ethical egoism are
based, of course, on it's inability to resolve [and tendency to create]
moral conflict.
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> (Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over
> for years, now. This person understands the point and has stated it
> correctly. There is no such thing as "altruism". This is a necessary
> implication of the fact that there is simply no such thing as an
> unselfish act. *Everything* we do is principally selfish, even when
> it bears a superficial resemblance to the contrary. The difference
> between the rational egoist and everyone is that he knows this and
> doesn't care to disguise it with florid nonsense. This is why I
> maintain that "sacrifice" is a corrupt concept: it actually means a
> *betrayal* of one's values, and in this, I'm down with That Woman:
> there is very little more degenerate that I can think of than
> sacrifice. I don't trade greater values for lesser ones, I say that
> anyone who does is also fundamentally sick.)
BIG YAWN
It has LONG been understood that assumptions of self-interest
have a problem in that they are unfalsifiable. It is always
possible to define every act as self-interested if you assume
that people are choosing to do what they do because of some
personal set of values. One can always say Mother Theresa helps
the poor because she gets personal satisfaction from it, it is
always possible to interpret every act as one of self interest.
Again, that's NOTHING NEW or profound.
It raises of question of HOW and WHY some acts get understood as
being within ones' interests and others do not. That is the
interest issue for both cultural studies and psychology.
You're saying something very mundane and acting as if it is
profound.
Scott D. Erb
You sound like a fourth grader calling names. If you have a
mind, you can go through and try to actually prove what you say.
Are you up to that task? Do you even understood Gandalf's
article?
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>
> >> >> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue
> >> >> >his own self interest, and only his own self interest.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> >> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> >> >> education.
> >> >
> >> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
> >> >Dana status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
> >> >who have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
> >>
> >> When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
> >> and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
> >
> >It makes no difference since you're wrong on the subject matter.
>
> It establishes the thing that *you* were wrong about as well as
> your general method around here, !Dick.
Please substantiate your assertion.
I suspect you can't (but will pretend you can but just say you
won't).
Prove me wrong, I DARE you!
Gandalf Grey
>
>
> Billy Beck wrote:
> >
> > (Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over
> > for years, now. This person understands the point and has stated it
> > correctly. There is no such thing as "altruism". This is a necessary
> > implication of the fact that there is simply no such thing as an
> > unselfish act. *Everything* we do is principally selfish, even when
> > it bears a superficial resemblance to the contrary. The difference
> > between the rational egoist and everyone is that he knows this and
> > doesn't care to disguise it with florid nonsense. This is why I
> > maintain that "sacrifice" is a corrupt concept: it actually means a
> > *betrayal* of one's values, and in this, I'm down with That Woman:
> > there is very little more degenerate that I can think of than
> > sacrifice. I don't trade greater values for lesser ones, I say that
> > anyone who does is also fundamentally sick.)
>
> BIG YAWN
The part I love is that Billy has to get into this same predictable behavior
with the memos and the asides because he remains so far from the actual
subject as to be unable to actual participate. Hence, he has to be
satisfied with holding imaginary conversations McPhillips, his dad, etc.
Dana
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1ddn9$aof$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3a357f...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> > Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >ETHICAL EGOISM:
> > >
> > >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue
his
> own
> > >self interest, and only his own self interest.
> >
> > No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> > talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> > education.
>
> More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
Dana
> status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
who
> have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
Maybe you ought to read what you post, and take the time to learn what it
means.
>
> Unfortunately, I've got the entire tradition of modern Western philosophy
> and nearly all of its writers to back me up, point for point.
You mean cut and paste. Why not go and read those texts besides just
cutting and pasting them.
>
> You've got Rand, and a group of nearly as ridiculous
> not-really-anarcho-greedists.
Yawn, look another allegation he cannot back up. We also have Locke,
Jefferson, while all you have is Stalin, Lennin, Marx, and Hitler.
Captain Compassion
Not to mention Hagel and Plato.
Gandalf Grey
Gandalf Grey
Hagel?
Amazing!
Who Cares?
> being within ones' interests and others do not. That is the
> interest issue for both cultural studies and psychology.
>
> You're saying something very mundane and acting as if it is
> profound.
It's also meaningless and contradictory, given
Beck's previous claims. If it's impossible
to be altruistic, then Billy sure as hell has
no issue with me for calling him an altruist,
since, by his definition, it's not possible.
Gad, what rot. Beck, you're just merging
labels and proclaiming victory. If a mother
sacrifices her life for her child, you argue
that it's still a "selfish" act.
All you've done is muddle the issue by
defining all actions with the same name, when
it's quite clear to most everyone else
that there are differences.
Some actions promote the interests of
the group over the individual.
Some don't.
Call it whatever you want, but there's a
qualititative difference between actions that
promote the group and actions that promote
the individual.
Criminy, you don't even make any sense anymore.
I did all this crap in college. Kant, Plato, the
cave and the blindfold, all that baloney. It's
hardly something to kill or be killed about.
Captain Compassion
Sorry Hegel, you know that German guy.
classicliberal2
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You've got Rand, and a group of nearly as
>>>> ridiculous not-really-anarcho-greedists.
>>>
>>> Yawn, look another allegation he cannot
>>> back up. We also have Locke, Jefferson,
>>> while all you have is Stalin, Lennin, Marx,
>>> and Hitler.
>>
>> Not to mention Hagel and Plato.
>
> Hagel?
>
> Amazing!
___
Wasn't he that fighter? Marvelous Marvin Hagel?
(lol)
Gandalf Grey
This is an example of the kind of delusion that's necessary when people like
Junior REQUIRE certain conclusions in order to adhere to their ad hoc
beliefs. Note carefully Beck's phrase "....even when it bears a superficial
resemblance to the contrary." That phrase is descriptive of the theory's
Achilles heel though Billy, as usual, doesn't know enough about the theory
to avoid using such a phrase.
The Psychological Egoist states from the outset that his intention is to
interpret behavior as selfishness REGARDLESS of what people actually do.
Hobbes committed the same error long before these people came along and came
to the same mistaken conclusion. Human experience demonstrates that people
act out of a wide variety of motivations, but psychological egoism simply
states that experience lies and that what they're REALLY doing is acting out
of selfishness. Since no evidence but selfishness is accepted does not go
through this re-interpretation, psychological egoists set up a theory that
cannot be disproven. Any theory of which that can be said is false by
definition.
Such a fundamentally dishonest theory is perfect for those, like Billy, who
can't take their reality straight, but have to filter it through some
transformational ideology to make it more palatable to their preconceptions.
Ethical Egoists need a "theory" of human nature that supports their
contentions. Psychological Egoism presents itself as a theory, but is
nothing more than an unsupported assertion writ large.
Gandalf Grey
classicliberal2 <classic...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:8BB53EF2DE3B4033.5615F0CE...@lp.airnews.net...
Nah. He's a philosopher, like that Epidermis guy and Aristotle Onassis.
You know, like the ancient Geeks, only more modern.
Gandalf Grey
Dana <t...@w.com> wrote in message news:3c3a7...@news1.meganetnews.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a1ddn9$aof$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > You've got Rand, and a group of nearly as ridiculous
> > not-really-anarcho-greedists.
>
> Yawn, look another allegation he cannot back up. We also have Locke,
> Jefferson,
Actually, you don't have them either, Dana. If you actually knew anything
about either, you'd have been smart enough not to bring that up. Neither
Locke nor Jefferson were Ethical Egoists in any sense of the term.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a64ba...@news.mindspring.com...
>
This is an example of the kind of delusion that's necessary when people like
Junior REQUIRE certain conclusions in order to adhere to their ad hoc
beliefs. Note carefully Beck's phrase "....even when it bears a superficial
resemblance to the contrary." That phrase is descriptive of the theory's
Achilles heel though Billy, as usual, doesn't know enough about the theory
to avoid using such a phrase.
The Psychological Egoist states from the outset that his intention is to
interpret behavior as selfishness REGARDLESS of what people actually do.
Hobbes committed the same error long before these people came along and came
to the same mistaken conclusion. Human experience demonstrates that people
act out of a wide variety of motivations, but psychological egoism simply
states that experience lies and that what they're REALLY doing is acting out
of selfishness. Since no evidence but selfishness is accepted and no
behavior is considered which does not go through this re-interpretation,
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> (Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over
>> for years, now. This person understands the point and has stated it
>> correctly. There is no such thing as "altruism". This is a necessary
>> implication of the fact that there is simply no such thing as an
>> unselfish act. *Everything* we do is principally selfish, even when
>> it bears a superficial resemblance to the contrary. The difference
>> between the rational egoist and everyone is that he knows this and
>> doesn't care to disguise it with florid nonsense. This is why I
>> maintain that "sacrifice" is a corrupt concept: it actually means a
>> *betrayal* of one's values, and in this, I'm down with That Woman:
>> there is very little more degenerate that I can think of than
>> sacrifice. I don't trade greater values for lesser ones, I say that
>> anyone who does is also fundamentally sick.)
>
>BIG YAWN
>
>It has LONG been understood that assumptions of self-interest
>have a problem in that they are unfalsifiable.
<blink> That's a "problem" to you, Erb? Why is it a "problem"?
>It is always possible to define every act as self-interested if you assume
>that people are choosing to do what they do because of some
>personal set of values. One can always say Mother Theresa helps
>the poor because she gets personal satisfaction from it, it is
>always possible to interpret every act as one of self interest.
>Again, that's NOTHING NEW or profound.
Then, tell me why there is such a hue & cry in this culture over
"selfishness".
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@home.net> wrote:
> Gad, what rot. Beck, you're just merging
> labels and proclaiming victory. If a mother
> sacrifices her life for her child, you argue
> that it's still a "selfish" act.
That exactly right. And it's a mystery to you because you have
no idea what values are, Langford.
Anybody who has watched you in this group for six years
understands this fact.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> >> >> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue
>> >> >> >his own self interest, and only his own self interest.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
>> >> >> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
>> >> >> education.
>> >> >
>> >> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
>> >> >Dana status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
>> >> >who have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
>> >>
>> >> When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
>> >> and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
>> >
>> >It makes no difference since you're wrong on the subject matter.
>>
>> It establishes the thing that *you* were wrong about as well as
>> your general method around here, !Dick.
>
>Please substantiate your assertion.
It's right here in the quoteback text, Erb, and you can bloody
read it for yourself.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a8ec4...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Who Cares?" <vene...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > Gad, what rot. Beck, you're just merging
> > labels and proclaiming victory. If a mother
> > sacrifices her life for her child, you argue
> > that it's still a "selfish" act.
>
Because it's not true. As I noted, this inability for the psychological
egoists to accept any evidence that could, even in principle, disprove their
theory is the surest indication that it is not a theory at all, merely a way
to make an assertion look scientific.
That's why no credible philosopher will accept it as worth more than the
time it takes to point out that it's a dead letter.
Gandalf Grey
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> (Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over
> >> for years, now. This person understands the point and has stated it
> >> correctly. There is no such thing as "altruism". This is a necessary
> >> implication of the fact that there is simply no such thing as an
> >> unselfish act. *Everything* we do is principally selfish, even when
> >> it bears a superficial resemblance to the contrary. The difference
> >> between the rational egoist and everyone is that he knows this and
> >> doesn't care to disguise it with florid nonsense. This is why I
> >> maintain that "sacrifice" is a corrupt concept: it actually means a
> >> *betrayal* of one's values, and in this, I'm down with That Woman:
> >> there is very little more degenerate that I can think of than
> >> sacrifice. I don't trade greater values for lesser ones, I say that
> >> anyone who does is also fundamentally sick.)
> >
> >BIG YAWN
> >
> >It has LONG been understood that assumptions of self-interest
> >have a problem in that they are unfalsifiable.
>
> <blink> That's a "problem" to you, Erb? Why is it a "problem"?
Because it violates the very condition it would have to fulfill to be
considered a valid theory, you moron.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a8ffa...@news.mindspring.com...
Er, ah Junior.......?
"<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>ETHICAL EGOISM:
>
>Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his
own
>self interest, and only his own self interest.
No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
talking about. "
You never substantiated that assertion. And you're not going to, either,
because you're a liar and an intellectual coward.
Man, you are getting boring.
Find a new routine or hit the road.
John H. McCloskey
>From: "Gandalf Grey" ganda...@infectedmail.com
>Date: 1/8/2002 1:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a1e22l$97m$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Hey, Gandalf, why keep shooting at this wild turkey when he's already reduced
himself to calling up his Tame Daddy for an airstrike that ain't ever gonna
come?
"(Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over for years,
now. This person understands the point and has stated it correctly. There is
no such thing as "altruism". &c. &c.)"
To divide the foe and then whip them down and reduce them to dynastic
whimpering of this sort is A VERY GLORIOUS VICTORY, Gandalf.
Can't you see it?
Happy days.
--JHM
Gandalf Grey
John H. McCloskey <elchipod...@aol.com2600> wrote in message
news:20020108013324...@mb-dd.aol.com...
Yes, but I'm concerned for Billy. He seems to be engaging in this sort of
behavior more and more frequently. I wouldn't want our friend to stumble
into some sort of 'existential crisis.' I feel that concerned, altruistic
citizens should watch him carefully lest he start writing (Memo)s to Ayn
Rand or Von Mises.
Alternatively, Beck may just be attempting an innovative use of the
Shakespearean aside as applied to political debate.
Zino
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a4dec...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> bu...@appointed.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:16:10 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> ><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
> >
> >>> No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
> >>> talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for your
> >>> education.
> >>
> >>More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally achieved
Dana
> >>status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other people liars
who
> >>have really taken the time to know what they're talking about.
> >
> >deaththreat, burgerking narc lost most of his credibility when he HAD
> >to resort to publishing personal information------a temper tantrum, if
> >you will.
>
> <snicker> Yeah: not like the "temper tantrum" that you cranked up in
> order to start forging a userid with my name and someone else's .com
> domain. And you stopped doing it, too.
>
>
> Billy
Don't you love it when Mr. Moron decides to show off his inteligence? Is
he the famous Rosell, or just a clone?
>
> VRWC Fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
John H. McCloskey
>reduced
>> himself to calling up his Tame Daddy for an airstrike that ain't ever
>gonna
>> come?
>>
>> "(Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over for
>years,
>> now. This person understands the point and has stated it correctly.
>There is
>> no such thing as "altruism". &c. &c.)"
>>
>> To divide the foe and then whip them down and reduce them to dynastic
>> whimpering of this sort is A VERY GLORIOUS VICTORY, Gandalf.
>>
>> Can't you see it?
>
>Yes, but I'm concerned for Billy. He seems to be engaging in this sort of
>behavior more and more frequently. I wouldn't want our friend to stumble
>into some sort of 'existential crisis.' I feel that concerned, altruistic
>citizens should watch him carefully lest he start writing (Memo)s to Ayn
>Rand or Von Mises.
>
>Alternatively, Beck may just be attempting an innovative use of the
Shakespearean aside as applied to political debate.
>
Oh for Pete's sake, Gandalf, you're "concerned for Billy" about like I'm
concerned about the long-term stability of the rings of Saturn!. Turn it off,
that faked compassion! PLEASE TURN IT OFF.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
The (very old) argument here is that because something is true,
it can't be true.
That's what this boils down to.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >ETHICAL EGOISM:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to
>> >> >> >> >pursue his own self interest, and only his own self interest.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, !Dick, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what
>> >> >> >>you're talking about. Perhaps you need to log a different Website for
>> >> >> >>your education.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >More unsupported assertions from the Jelloboy. You've finally
>> >> >> >achieved Dana status, Junior. All you can do at this point is call other
>> >> >> >people liars who have really taken the time to know what they're talking
>> >> >> >about.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When you get to that point, you'll someday look back at this post
>> >> >> and realize that I said you're ignorant. I didn't say you lied.
>> >> >
>> >> >It makes no difference since you're wrong on the subject matter.
>> >>
>> >> It establishes the thing that *you* were wrong about as well as
>> >> your general method around here, !Dick.
>> >
>> >Please substantiate your assertion.
>>
>> It's right here in the quoteback text, Erb, and you can bloody
>> read it for yourself.
>
>Er, ah Junior.......?
"All you can do at this point is call other people liars who have
really taken the time to know what they're talking about."
That's what you said, and it's not true. I did not "call you a
liar", and it's all right there where anyone can see it.
Gandalf Grey
John H. McCloskey <elchipod...@aol.com2600> wrote in message
Oh, all RIGHT!
Killjoy.
John H. McCloskey
>
>(lol)
>
Indeed, sir. Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel was a Fighter, sir, and a very
formidable one, but .....
Who Cares?
>
> "Who Cares?" <vene...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > Gad, what rot. Beck, you're just merging
> > labels and proclaiming victory. If a mother
> > sacrifices her life for her child, you argue
> > that it's still a "selfish" act.
>
> That exactly right. And it's a mystery to you because you have
> no idea what values are, Langford.
You really believe this?
And you call ME the cynic?!
> Anybody who has watched you in this group for six years
> understands this fact.
In other words, I was spot-on about your
whining about your lost love. Tell me, Billy,
was it really just about you?
Just fucking DEAL with it already, okay? You're
supposed to be a grown man by now. The days
when you can blame your dad are long gone.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy as if to prove that he never read or understood
Ayer <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a9e36...@news.mindspring.com...
The very true point here is that non-falsifiable hypotheses are contrived
garbage created by deluded minds.
THAT'S what this boils down to, and anyone who ACTUALLY understood Ayer
would have understood that, Jelloboy. Ayer and his little friends in the
Vienna Circle consigned crap theories like Psychological Egoism to the
garbage can by definition long ago [but then that's just another thing you
don't know].
Back to the drawing board, Junior.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a9ed4...@news.mindspring.com...
Gandalf: :ETHICAL EGOISM:
Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to
pursue his own self interest, and only his own self interest."
Jelloboy: "No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what
you're talking about."
Where's the proof of that assertion, Jelloboy?
Cough it up, retract the statement or take a hike.
[Alternatively, write another (memo) to your dad.]
Those are your options, Jelloboy.
Get off the dime.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> It seems the time has come to make some remarks on "Ethical Egoism" and
> perhaps some of its variations. In the interests of brevity and relevance
> to a discussion of morality and rights, insofar as I have occasion to remark
> on the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it will be only her
> doctrine of selfishness that I address and not the greater and more fatal
> flaws of her epistemology. For those who are interested in so complete a
> treatment and for a more detailed refutation of her ethics, Scott Ryan's
> excellent and very detailed book, *Objectivism and the Corruption of
> Rationality* may be found on his website at
>
> http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/
Thanks for the link. In my experience Rand often influences
mostly young males through her books which are inspirational and
convey a sense that one should control ones' life and take
responsibility for it. That is an important lesson for young
people, but the inspirational message has been turned into a
philosophy that, while being disdained by most in the field as
dilettantish at best, retains cult like status for those who
don't grow out of the Randian perspective. It's important to
recognize that there are grains of truth in her approach, or at
least bits of wisdom, even if the whole edifice as constructed
fails.
> ....particularly, the chapter *Values and Volition: The Objectivist Ethics.*
>
> For the purposes of this discussion, the numerous errors and logical flaws
> in Objectivism are simply too extensive for any one post to do justice to
> the subject.
These have been debated in newsgroups over the years, to be sure.
> As always, my remarks will be general and are not, with the exception of
> Rand, addressed to the particular work of any individual thinker.
>
> ETHICAL EGOISM:
>
> Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to pursue his own
> self interest, and only his own self interest. It should be made clear at
> the outset that Ethical Egoism is not Psychological Egoism. Psychological
> Egoism is a theory that purports to explain why people actually do the
> things they do. Ethical Egoism is about what human beings 'ought' to do.
> As such, Ethical Egoism is a moral theory with relevance to the subject of
> human rights that hopefully will become apparent in later posts.
The distinction is noted. IMO, the idea that humans act out of
self-interest is a viable but unfalsifiable assumption. In
social theory (which is where my experience is), assumptions of
self-interest beg the question of where that interest comes from:
why does Mother Theresa have an interesting in helping the poor
while Donald Trump has an interest in building golden showers.
That difference ties directly into the moral issue. The reason
self-interest is different for each is because each has a
different ethical perspective. That makes it false to simply
assert that they are each acting as ethical egoists since, since
such an assertion ignores the difference between a theory of
action and a theory of ethics. They both act out of
self-interests, humans do that. But the ethical issue determines
who and why self-interest is defined as it is (and that's why
Beck's glib 'you described ethical egoism' response to me was off
base).
> It should also be made clear at the outset that Ethical Egoism does not
> state that one ought to promote one's self interests AS WELL AS the
> interests of others. There would be nothing particularly novel about such a
> viewpoint. Ethical Egoism is a radical moral theory which states that we
> should ONLY pursue what is in our own interests. This does not mean that an
> Ethical Egoist should NEVER help someone else. It may well be that the
> interests of another might coincide with our own interests, or it may be
> that furthering their interest might serve as a MEANS to secure our
> interests. In those cases, Ethical Egoism would in fact demand that we
> 'help' someone else, but it can never be BECAUSE of their interests and
> their interest alone that we act.
Which raises an interesting possibility. Let's say person A sees
person B in trouble. A has no "objective" interest in helping B;
A would be late for work, get docked in pay and perhaps lose his
job, B is poor and irrelevant to A's life, and B's actions got B
into the situation at no fault of A or anyone else. By your
definition an ethical egoist SHOULD NOT help B. But if A feels
bad about not helping B, and is tormented by his lack of action,
then arguably doing the ethical egoist thing would be against A's
true self-interest.
> The first argument for Ethical Egoism relies on variations of the three
> arguments that follow.
>
> 1. Each one of us is individually better able to determine what is best for
> us than someone else is. By the same token, our knowledge of what is really
> in someone else's best interests is vague and always imperfect. By the
> light of this argument, who better to serve our interests than ourselves
> rather than someone else?
Or as a piece of graffiti I saw said: if we think only about
ourselves than at least everyone is thought about. (It was in
German, on a wall in Berlin, I'm probably not giving the best
translation).
> 2. Serving others by way of a kind of personal charity is degrading to them.
> Various arguments concerning the Welfare State should occur to the reader at
> this point. Serving others robs them both of personal pride and personal
> dignity. How can anyone take joy in that which they have not accomplished
> for themselves? Serving the needs of others merely perpetuates a kind of
> loser mentality that becomes more pervasive with every new act of charity.
There is some truth to this, though not to the extreme form most
in that school take it. If you look at the former USSR and East
bloc the kind of total state control of people's lives bred a
kind of 'dependent mentality' where people expected to be taken
care of and lacked the initiative and creativity to go and build
and construct their own lives. That led to depression,
alcoholism, and an inability to deal with real challenges. To
some extent, you see that in the social programs in the West if
they are focused only on transfering income to people in need.
Even Gingrich and the GOP has a point when they criticize some of
the ways we 'liberals' have approached social welfare programs.
That can and should be a lesson; it doesn't mean social welfare
is bad or people shouldn't be helped, but the help must have a
goal of increasing the ability of people to pursue their goals,
not just giving them money to make up for a deficiency. It's one
of the tidbits that makes sense superficially (hence making the
ideology so appealling to novices) but taken to an extreme
doesn't work.
More later!
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Continuing
> 3. Serving others is a kind of intrusion into the privacy of other people.
> It's a matter of telling them that their lives and their affairs aren't
> really THEIRS, but are really OUR business. By serving others, we set
> ourselves up as not only the benefactors of their futures but the judges of
> their futures, robbing them of the ultimate liberty of personal privacy, the
> knowledge that one's life is exclusively one's own business.
>
> The problem with all three of these variations on the argument is that they
> don't really describe Egoism at all. The claim is made in each of the three
> arguments that individuals should always follow a course of self-interest
> and yet the foundational premise of each of the three arguments is that
> somehow people as a whole will be better off by following this principle.
> From this standpoint, Ethical Egoists aren't egoists at all, rather they are
> altruists attempting to do something that will make the lives of others
> better in some measurable fashion. Although Ethical Egoists tend to make
> their arguments AGAINST altruism, these arguments demonstrate that Ethical
> Egoism as it is stated in them is merely a subvariety of altruism itself.
I see your point, and it actually is similar to the point I made
in the last post about how if A feels bad and tormented for not
helping B, then he has acted against his self-interest to be an
egoist, something you define here as 'altruistic' (though in my
example A felt bad because B was not helped, here A is acting
egoistically so that B can be a better person). I can't really
buy the idea that this is altruism, as altruism to me is a
particular form of action where one sacrifices of the self in
order to help another without regard to the benefits for the
self. That still can be self-interest (and one could call it a
form of 'enlightened self-interest,' the buzz word of the Social
Democrats now in Europe), but I wouldn't say altruism.
My critique of the point is that ethical egoists, to the extent
they believe what you write, are simply wrong. Society is not
just a group of egoist individuals choosing to interact, but
rather built on relations and interactions that connects them at
various levels (cultural understandings, power differentials,
expectations, obligations, etc.) which makes the idea of strictly
dividing self-interest from other-interest an illusion, a fake
separation of the individual from his or her social context.
That fake separation is one thing that appeals to young folk who
want to assert their freedom and define it as "I am separate from
everything else." True freedom comes from recognizing that human
happiness, self-interest, and identity comes from being an
individual in a social context, and recognizing the meaning to
the self of that relationship. That is more complex, and not the
quick rush of self-esteem that the egoist approach can provide
those wanting to feel empowered.
> AYN RAND
>
> The Objectivist variation on Ethical Egoism can be illustrated by the
> following quote from Rand herself.
>
> "Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since
> he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with
> one's own interests is evil, means that man's desire to live is evil---that
> man's life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.
> Yet that is the meaning of altruism."
> ---The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964.
She made one of the stupidest quotes in history there, debunked
not only by psychologists but anyone studying altruism. But
that's Rand. She defines terms in ways that don't make sense,
then builds on those definitions to create linguistic jumps that
seem to prove her point, but prove nothing. It's a philosophy
built on definitional slides and tautologies, one of the reasons
it gets little philosophical respect.
Altruism is an act of self-interest via empathy with the other,
recognition that acts of sacrifice are an essential part of the
human existence, be it risking life to help a Jew in nazi
Germany, or going into a burning building to save a child. It
isn't living ones' whole life for others, that's a false
extension of what altruism is; it's a rational choice to
sacrifice for others in particular circumstances. I'd even call
it a self-interested choice in many cases as the altruist
receives psychological rewards (subjective) for the act.
> Rand defines her Ethical Egoism by contrasting it with what she considers to
> be it's only alternative, altruism. She considers anything other than
> Ethical Egoism to be a matter of sacrificing one's life.
Another major flaw in Rand's thought is her tendency (and the
tendency of many) to use false dichotomies to set up "either A or
B" choices, with the idea that if one isn't A then one must be
B. In reality, often A and B are extremes, and there is a vast
set of possibilities both between and outside them, and these get
pushed aside. To be fair, while Rand does this at times, it
really is with those claiming to follow her ideas that this
mistake gets made most frequently.
> Sacrificing one's
> life need not be a matter of dying because Rand considers all those aspects
> that make up a human life, such as projects, goods made and earned, etc. to
> be valid parts of that life. Any demand that we give up any of these
> possessions or projects are calls for the sacrifice of our life.
>
> The argument can by roughly outlined as follows:
>
> 1. Each one of us has only one life. IF we place any kind of value on life
> at all, it must begin with the supreme importance of the individual.
>
> 2. The doctrine of altruism requires that the life of the individual has to
> be sacrificed for the good of others.
>
> 3. Therefore the doctrine of altruism CANNOT take the supreme value of the
> individual life seriously. I.e., altruism CANNOT value life.
>
> 4. Ethical Egoism, does take the individual life as being of supreme
> importance.
>
> 5. Hence, Ethical Egoism is the only appropriate philosophy of individual
> morality.
>
> The immediate problem with the Randian view is that it pictures the
> available alternatives in such an extreme fashion that a false choice is
> offered to us.
Exactly. The argument is illogical on its face, at least as
stated above. If a Randian believes it is misstated, they
certainly can and should restate it as they think it should be.
In fact, altruistic acts are taken within a framework of
enlightened self-interest, they are done in particular
circumstances when a person judges that it is something that
should be done for the good of both the other and perhaps the
families of the other, society, and ones' own belief in following
principle even at the point of sacrificing material or physical
security. (Arguably a tax dodger who risks going to jail rather
than pay a few bucks taxes is making a similar risk, making that
a doctrine that would fail for the same reason as a doctrine of
altruism would, according to the logic above).
> In reading any of Rand's ideas about the subject, altruism
> is always pictured as offering NO respect for the value of the individual.
> One's own interests have NO value and ANY demand by others calls for an
> immediate sacrifice of one's life.
Which is not what altruism is; altruism is offen driven by a
sense of self-interest, a commitment to principle and a belief
that if one doesn't act one will regret it and it will haunt
them, while if one acts, if one lives one can be proud of doing
right, if one dies, one knows that hey, we all die sometime, I
died doing what is right. That certainly may not describe all
altruistic acts, but it's hard to say Mother Theresa didn't have
respect for her own life, or that the firefighters at the WTC who
died trying to douse a blaze and prevent a collapse were acting
unethically.
More later.
> It is as a consequence of Rand's prosy picture of the necessary and
> automatic EVIL of any instance of altruism that Ethical Egoism ends up
> looking good in comparison with any alternative. But it is at least as
> likely that the truth lies somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints of
> either sacrificing one's whole life or deliberately ignoring any and all
> interests of others. Though Rand always insists that her doctrine is
> strictly rational, it is in fact an extremist view that largely ignores the
> reality that a balance between the needs of ourselves and others will result
> in situations in which one should rationally act in one's own interests and
> occasionally rationally act in the interests of others. Even if we are to
> accept Rand's extremist picture of the evils of Altruism, it does not
> logically entail that Egoism is the only alternative. Rand's individual
> failure to realize this fact appears to be linked with her illogical
> insistence on defining any part of an individual's life as, for all
> practical purposes, their life itself in any particular circumstance.
>
> GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON WHY ETHICAL EGOISM DOESN'T WORK
>
> There are two primary reasons for rejecting Ethical Egoism as a moral
> doctrine. The first comes about when we ask ourselves why we have moral and
> ethical systems in the first place. For any rational individual: moralities
> are those devices for securing some desirable behavior that would not be
> obtainable without the cooperation of others. Now, it is quite acceptable
> for thinkers to ponder about what might work out best for any individual in
> any particular situation. To stretch a point, it might be said that a con
> artist who is attempting to swindle a group of individuals out of their life
> savings and escape with the proceeds is, after a fashion, wrestling with a
> problem in situational ethics. But such individual ethics are manifestly
> NOT what such writers as Rand have in mind. Rand did not entitle any of her
> books "How You Can Get Away With Being Selfish." Ethical Egoist theories do
> not describe what some one individual might profitably get away with in
> their behavior within a society. Their doctrines are principles intended to
> apply to groups and so, once again, such doctrines will require the
> cooperation of other individuals to attain their ends.
>
> This being the case, it is difficult to see how Ethical Egoism can survive
> the slightest conflict of interest between any two of it's adherents. If
> Jim and JoAnn are both Ethical Egoists and they have a distinct conflict of
> interest, how can ANY solution to that conflict be acceptable to both of
> them.
>
> Should Jim tell JoAnn that it is her duty, under the circumstances, to do
> what is in her interests, his interests, or both? The first case will be
> wholly unacceptable to Jim because it is not in his interests. The second
> case will be wholly unacceptable to JoAnn because it is not in her
> interests. The third case is impossible because their interests do not
> coincide. When Rand states that there is NO conflict of interest between
> rational men she is stretching the concept of "interest" to the point where
> it loses the very meaning that it requires for a moral system to have any
> practicality. Far from somehow guaranteeing that rational men never have
> conflicts of interest, Rand's doctrine ensures that virtually every human
> interaction will generate such a conflict by definition.
>
> But perhaps Rand really means that men ought to try to act in their own best
> interests, conflicts or no, and that the results are less important than a
> sense of striving for personal ends. In this case, one might realistically
> ask the question, don't the results of a moral system matter? In such a
> case, morality would be turned into a kind of game and morality is really
> not a game in which we all get into the spirit of the thing and root for the
> other side. Even if it could be granted that, for the Ethical Egoist, the
> conflict will be just a matter of someone winning and someone losing, the
> same can hardly be said for the society that, as a whole, decides to adopt
> the doctrine. The end result of Ethical Egoism is that very state of Nature
> that Locke perceived Man creating society to escape from.
>
> People do have self interests and there are things that are in the interests
> of individuals. These two facts and the fact that we are inclined, ceteris
> paribus, to pursue our interests are basic truisms concerning human nature
> and lead to the theory of Psychological Egoism: that man tends to do what he
> does out of some form of self interest. Because rational men perceive the
> kernel of descriptive truth in Psychological Egoism AND because they
> recognize that moralities are cooperative ventures by definition, Ethical
> Egoism fails and Rational Egoism takes its place.
>
> Rational Egoism, in recognizing the pre-eminence of self interest as a
> psychological phenomenon AND recognizing the requirement to cooperate in any
> moral system generally leads to some form of Contractarianism which will
> balance the desires of the individual against what others can be
> realistically expected to agree to. It is for this reason that Rational
> Egoism as a philosophical standpoint, rejects Ethical Egoism as being of no
> practical value to a moral, ethical system. From Hobbes and Mandeville to
> Locke and onward, Rational Egoism has been a driving force in western
> political and social philosophy that recognizes both man's desire to work
> his own will as well as the interests and cooperation of others. Ethical
> Egoism stands in relation to Rational Egoism much as Nihilism stands in
> relation to Subjectivism: as an extremist viewpoint that fails by way of the
> logical consequences and undesirable social and individual outcomes I have
> outlined above.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Continuing...
> It is as a consequence of Rand's prosy picture of the necessary and
> automatic EVIL of any instance of altruism that Ethical Egoism ends up
> looking good in comparison with any alternative.
Similar how some in these newsgroups try to make it seem like
there is a choice between radical capitalism or
anarcho-capitalism on the one hand, and socialism and theft as a
way of life on the other -- it's either their way or a way
defined as evil, as if there were no difference between Stalinist
horror and George W. Bush's particular policy preferences.
Obviously, such a statement is absurd on its face (and one reason
why these folk don't get too far), but it's a rhetorical trick
that even folk like Goebbels used: define two alternatives as the
only ones, and then make the one you don't like seem like an evil
and unacceptable path.
>But it is at least as
> likely that the truth lies somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints of
> either sacrificing one's whole life or deliberately ignoring any and all
> interests of others. Though Rand always insists that her doctrine is
> strictly rational, it is in fact an extremist view that largely ignores the
> reality that a balance between the needs of ourselves and others will result
> in situations in which one should rationally act in one's own interests and
> occasionally rationally act in the interests of others. Even if we are
Exactly. Of course there are many times where it is obviously
rational to cooperate and work with others, altruism is when the
act is in denial of one's obvious physical and material interests
(though again, it still could be psychologically self-interested
behavior). Yet if you look at history, acts of altruism be it the
attempts to protect Jews in Germany to trying to rescue people
and fight the blaze at the WTC, are the acts remembered as heroic
and defining of a people. The natural way in which humans choose
to see altruistic acts as self-interested and honorable gives
testimony to an understanding we have that individuals exist in a
social context and that there is no contradiction between an
individualism and social responsibility -- the stark separation
of the individual and society is another false dichotomy.
>to
> accept Rand's extremist picture of the evils of Altruism, it does not
> logically entail that Egoism is the only alternative. Rand's individual
> failure to realize this fact appears to be linked with her illogical
> insistence on defining any part of an individual's life as, for all
> practical purposes, their life itself in any particular circumstance.
Indeed. Though if that is a misstating of Rand's views, those
Randians out there should post their perspective and explain it
with the care Gandalf does his.
> GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON WHY ETHICAL EGOISM DOESN'T WORK
>
> There are two primary reasons for rejecting Ethical Egoism as a moral
> doctrine. The first comes about when we ask ourselves why we have moral and
> ethical systems in the first place. For any rational individual: moralities
> are those devices for securing some desirable behavior that would not be
> obtainable without the cooperation of others. Now, it is quite acceptable
> for thinkers to ponder about what might work out best for any individual in
> any particular situation. To stretch a point, it might be said that a con
> artist who is attempting to swindle a group of individuals out of their life
> savings and escape with the proceeds is, after a fashion, wrestling with a
> problem in situational ethics. But such individual ethics are manifestly
> NOT what such writers as Rand have in mind. Rand did not entitle any of her
> books "How You Can Get Away With Being Selfish." Ethical Egoist theories do
> not describe what some one individual might profitably get away with in
> their behavior within a society. Their doctrines are principles intended to
> apply to groups and so, once again, such doctrines will require the
> cooperation of other individuals to attain their ends.
>
> This being the case, it is difficult to see how Ethical Egoism can survive
> the slightest conflict of interest between any two of it's adherents.
Billy said that there can be in conflict of interest between
rational people. That seems a glib way to deny the existence of
the problem you identify (and typical randian) simply define the
problem as non-existent. That's why in debating with Randians I
always have the feeling they are trying to pull rabbits out of
their hats, defining away possibilities via false dichotomies or
simply denying the possibility of something which would create
difficulties for their philosophy.
>If
> Jim and JoAnn are both Ethical Egoists and they have a distinct conflict of
> interest, how can ANY solution to that conflict be acceptable to both of
> them.
The best solution is a recognition that in the long run processes
of working out the disagreement via compromise and mutual
obligation would be in their self-interest, and that implies
society and a sense of social moral obligations.
Agreed.
> Rational Egoism, in recognizing the pre-eminence of self interest as a
> psychological phenomenon AND recognizing the requirement to cooperate in any
> moral system generally leads to some form of Contractarianism which will
> balance the desires of the individual against what others can be
> realistically expected to agree to. It is for this reason that Rational
> Egoism as a philosophical standpoint, rejects Ethical Egoism as being of no
> practical value to a moral, ethical system. From Hobbes and Mandeville to
> Locke and onward, Rational Egoism has been a driving force in western
> political and social philosophy that recognizes both man's desire to work
> his own will as well as the interests and cooperation of others. Ethical
> Egoism stands in relation to Rational Egoism much as Nihilism stands in
> relation to Subjectivism: as an extremist viewpoint that fails by way of the
> logical consequences and undesirable social and individual outcomes I have
> outlined above.
Well put. Thanks again for taking the time to post the article,
even if a few non-thinkers simply call it names while refusing to
engage it.
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
> >It is always possible to define every act as self-interested if you assume
> >that people are choosing to do what they do because of some
> >personal set of values. One can always say Mother Theresa helps
> >the poor because she gets personal satisfaction from it, it is
> >always possible to interpret every act as one of self interest.
> >Again, that's NOTHING NEW or profound.
>
> Then, tell me why there is such a hue & cry in this culture over
> "selfishness".
Is there a hue and cry? Well, I'm not part of it, I think
people are self interested by nature and there isn't anything
wrong with that.
Captain Compassion
The reality is that to exist is to be selfish. You cant stand atop
Maslow's Pyramid shouting love to the world without all that stuff
thats below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Civilization is the interlude between Ice Ages"
--Will Durant
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@verizon.net
Captain Compassion
(classicliberal2) wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:23:13 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
><ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You've got Rand, and a group of nearly as
>>>>> ridiculous not-really-anarcho-greedists.
>>>>
>>>> Yawn, look another allegation he cannot
>>>> back up. We also have Locke, Jefferson,
>>>> while all you have is Stalin, Lennin, Marx,
>>>> and Hitler.
>>>
>>> Not to mention Hagel and Plato.
>>
>> Hagel?
>>
>> Amazing!
>___
>
>Wasn't he that fighter? Marvelous Marvin Hagel?
>
>(lol)
That was Hagler, not to be confused with Hager the Horrible.
Dana
> Gandalf: :ETHICAL EGOISM:
> Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to
> pursue his own self interest, and only his own self interest."
>
> Jelloboy: "No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what
> you're talking about."
>
> Where's the proof of that assertion, Jelloboy?
The problem with little ricky, is he does not understand what he posts. Had
little ricky done some further reading on Ethical Egoism, he would have
realized that the article he cut and pasted was based on incorrect
assumptions.
But little ricky does not read the articles, he only cuts and pastes the
flashy sounding parts.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/egoism.htm#Normative%20Egoism:%20Ethical%2
0Egoism
Normative Egoism: Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is the theory that the promotion of one's own good is in
accordance with morality. In the strong version it is held that it is always
moral to promote one's own good and it is never moral not to promote it. In
the weak version, it claims that whilst it is always moral to promote one's
good, it is not necessarily never moral not to do so-that is, there may be
conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral
action.
In the imaginary construction of a world inhabited by a single being, it is
possible that the pursuit of morality is the same as the pursuit of
self-interest. What is good for the agent is the same as what is in the
agent's interests. Arguably, there could never arise an occasion when the
agent ought not to pursue self-interest in favor of another morality. Whilst
it is possible for the creature to lament previous choices as not conducive
to self-interest (enjoying the pleasures of swimming all day and not
spending necessary time producing food), the mistake is not a moral mistake
but a mistake of identifying self-interest. Presumably this lonely creature
will begin to comprehend the distinctions between short and long run
interests. However, it can be countered that in this world duties still
apply; (Kantian) duties are those actions reason dictates ought to be
pursued regardless of any gain or loss to the self or others. The
deontologist asserts another moral sphere, namely impartial duties, which
ought to be pursued. The problem with complicating the creature's world with
duties, is defining an impartial task in a purely subjective world.
Impartiality, it can be retorted, can only exist where there are competing
selves, otherwise the attempt to be impartial in judging one's actions is a
redundant exercise.
If we move away from the imaginary construct of a single being's world,
ethical egoism comes under fire from more pertinent arguments. In complying
with ethical egoism, the individual aims at his or her own greatest good.
Ignoring a definition of the good for the present, it may justly be argued
that pursuing one's own greatest good can conflict with another's pursuit,
thus creating a situation of conflict. In a typical example, a young person
may see his greatest good in murdering his rich uncle to inherit his
millions. It is the rich uncle's greatest good to continue enjoying his
money, as he sees fit. Accordingly conflict is an inherent problem of
ethical egoism, and the model seemingly does not possess a conflict
resolution system. With the additional premise of living in society, ethical
egoism has much to respond to. Obviously there are situations when two
people's greatest goods, their own self-interests, will conflict, and a
solution to such dilemmas is a necessary element of any theory attempting to
provide an ethical system.
The first resolution proceeds from a state of nature examination. If, in the
wilderness, two people simultaneously come across the only source of
drinkable water a dilemma arises if both make a claim to it. With no
recourse to arbitration they must either accept an equal share of the water,
which would comply with rational egoism (i.e., it is in the interests of
both to share, for both may enjoy the water and each other's company, and if
the water is inexhaustible, neither can gain from monopolising the source),
but a critic can maintain that it is not necessarily in compliance with
ethical egoism. Arguably, the critic continues, the two have no possible
resolution and must therefore fight for the water. This is often the line
taken against egoism, that it results in insoluble conflict that implies or
necessitates a resort to force. The proffered resolution is therefore an
acceptance of the might is right principle, that the stronger will take
possession and thereby gains proprietary rights. But ethical egoism does not
have to logically result in a Darwinian struggle between the strong and the
weak; the two could co-operate (as rational egoism would require) and
thereby both could mutually benefit. Against the critic's pessimism, the
ethical egoist can retort that each can recognize that their greatest
interests are served more through co-operation than conflict.
A second resolution to seemingly intractably moral dilemmas concerns the
fears of critics that ethical egoists could logically pursue their interests
at the cost of others. This however is a misreading of ethical egoism and an
attempt to re-insert the might is right premise and thereby chastise the
theory on the basis of a straw-man argument. In the case of the rich uncle
and the greedy nephew, it is not the case that the nephew would act
ethically by killing his uncle. The confusion results from conflating ethics
with personal gain and criticising personal gain from another ethical
standpoint that condemns murder. A counter-argument is that personal gain
logically cannot be in one's best interests if it entails doing harm to
another: doing harm to another is to accept the principle of doing harm to
others as being ethical (i.e., equating to one's own best interests),
whereas reflection on the principle shows it to be illogical on universalist
criteria. If the nephew were to attempt to do harm to further his interests,
he would find that his uncle, or others, would do harm in return, and the
argument returns to the conclusion of the first resolution: either accept
the principle of might is right (which in most cases would be evidentially
contrary to one's best interests) or accept that co-operation with others is
a more successful approach to improving one's interests.
A third resolution entails the insertion of another standard-rights. This
incorporates the conclusions of the first two resolutions by stating that
there is an ethical framework that can logically be extrapolated from
ethical egoism. Rights incorporate boundaries to behavior that reason or
experience has shown to be contrary to the pursuit of self-interest.
However, the logical extrapolation is the difficult bit. Whilst it is facile
to argue that the greedy nephew does not have a right to claim his uncle's
money, because it is not his but his uncle's, and that it is wrong to
aggress against the person of another because that person has a legitimate
right to live in peace (thus providing the substance of conflict-resolution
for ethical egoism), the problem lies in the intellectual arguments required
to substantiate the claims for the existence of rights and that they are
somehow intricately connected to the pursuit of individual's greatest good.
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
When engaging in a serious discussion, and you see the names of people like
Billy Beck, Soja, Dana, and King Pineapple, just to name a few, just read
their shit, shake your head and move on. I've seen several interesting
threads just go by the wayside, while the intelligent people engage these
idiots in what they laughingly call "debate".
Just a thought.
Hank
veronica floss
ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
> It seems the time has come to make some remarks on "Ethical Egoism" and
> perhaps some of its variations. In the interests of brevity and relevance
> to a discussion of morality and rights, insofar as I have occasion to remark
> on the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it will be only her
> doctrine of selfishness that I address and not the greater and more fatal
> flaws of her epistemology. For those who are interested in so complete a
> treatment and for a more detailed refutation of her ethics, Scott Ryan's
> excellent and very detailed book, *Objectivism and the Corruption of
> Rationality* may be found on his website at
>
> http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/
You really like punishment, don't you?
It's enough for me to know that Libertarianism/Objectivism/
Randism simply doesn't work because it is so illogical, and
that's why so many loonietarians are sooooo frustrated all the
time.
Does anyone here understand that Ayn Rand was a Russian Fascist,
and that's why she had to leave Russia?
Does anyone here understand that Rand created "Libertarianism" as
a propaganda ploy, to lure Conservatives to Fascism? It was not
meant to be a viable political ideology when it began.
Libertarians are suckers.
kk
Scott D. Erb
There are some people I have permanently kill filed because they
made it clear they have no interest in real debate. Others I
reply to once or twice, either as a foil to at least state my
position, or to see if they might not want to step away from
their trollishness and actually engage in serious talk. If they
keep up the insults, I tend to stop replying.
However, it's probably good that there are those who will jump in
the trenches and fight them on their own terms, if for anything
but to cancel out their trollishness and make clear the
difference between posters like you who put thought into your
post, and those like Dana who do not.
King Pineapple
"Abu Siveto Ritewingers" <humbol...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:ztE_7.57837$fo.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> Here's something you might consider;
>
> When engaging in a serious discussion, and you see the names of people
like
> Billy Beck, Soja, Dana, and King Pineapple, just to name a few, just read
> their shit, shake your head and move on.
What "shit" of *mine* are you talking about? Give me some examples.
johnz~
Why discourage Mr. Hanson? It's amusing to see what old textbook he'll
lift entire paragraphs from, unattributed (but slightly revised) , in
order to look "erudite".
>
> "(Memo to Dad: this is the point that you and I have argued over for years,
> now. This person understands the point and has stated it correctly. There is
> no such thing as "altruism". &c. &c.)"
>
> To divide the foe and then whip them down and reduce them to dynastic
> whimpering of this sort is A VERY GLORIOUS VICTORY, Gandalf.
It's painfully obvious that that's not what's going on, but anyone can
read the posts in question and decide for themselves. Why say things
like that? Why assert what isn't true?
The spectacle of you acting as cheerleader for a plagiarist, mental case
and robotic agitprop-spewer like Gandalf/Hanson is, on the other hand,
not A VERY GLORIOUS VICTORY but sadly revealing.
>
> Can't you see it?
What I see is rather depressing.
JS
>
> Happy days.
> --JHM
>
>
>
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
xofpi
Ritewingers says...
Granted, many of those you mentioned have nothing new or interesting to say. But
isn't that the condition of right-wingedness in general? I mean there are a few
people in these groups of the conservative persuasion who are more thoughtful
than average and can even manage to maintain a degree of civility, but those are
extremely (no pun intended) rare qualities on the right. On Usenet, anyway.
>
xofpi
Pineapple says...
You're a one-trick pony, your highness. Well, maybe two-trick: poll regurgitator
and "liberal media" lie propagator.
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3B1D67...@worldnet.att.net...
I would say that is a good idea in many threads. I'm only talking about
threads such as this one, in which people are trying to speak intelligently
on somewhat non-political subjects. I'm just watching several really good
exchanges put to a halt, because Beck and others are injecting their
ADHD-derived rantings into the discussion, and are obviously either not up
to the task of debating intelligently, or trolling. I suspect the former,
but who can tell?
Hank
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4UF_7.13993$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"xofpi" <xo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W4G_7.8866$cD4....@www.newsranger.com...
for engaging them in political discussions, and showing them for the
imbeciles they are. But I really think the approach to serious, theoretical
discussions is to pat them on the head and tell them to go play in the
street.
Hank
xofpi
Sometimes it is irresistable to puncture gas-filled wingers. They're sort of
like the bubbles in Jiffy-Pak packing material.
Gandalf Grey
Abu Siveto Ritewingers <humbol...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:ztE_7.57837$fo.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Well taken.
Gandalf Grey
LOL.
>
>
The Patriot
..and Hank's thinking, like Gandalf's involves thinking that stating
that
"no legislature = no laws"
means that
"legislature = laws."
hence..
Abu-dabba displays the usual lefty inability to understand simple
logic...
--
"I never said there was any evidence" -Rich Hanson (Gandalf)
Gandalf Grey
Dana <t...@w.com> wrote in message news:3c3b0...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a1e82b$qtd$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Gandalf: :ETHICAL EGOISM:
> > Ethical Egoism is the notion that each human being 'ought' to
> > pursue his own self interest, and only his own self interest."
> >
> > Jelloboy: "No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what
> > you're talking about."
> >
> > Where's the proof of that assertion, Jelloboy?
>
> little ricky done some further reading on Ethical Egoism, he would have
> realized that the article he cut and pasted was based on incorrect
> assumptions.
The problem with you righties is that you're getting all of your 'truth'
from the web and that you're not even actually reading the sources you're
going to. The article I wrote is based on a definition shared by the vast
majority of philosophers working in the field of morality as reflected by
five separate sources for the definitions involved. Additionally, your own
web-article agrees with the conclusions I reach.
Gandalf Grey
To the extent that Beck actually knows what's going on in philosophy, my
guess is that he's mistaken proofs for the errors in such
pseudo-philosophies as Rand's for a general 'hue-and-cry.'
For Beck, ANY disagreement with his dogmatic beliefs is a call for a
hysterically aggressive response. Individuals like that tend to define all
disagreement as outright war.
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"The Patriot" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote in message
news:phcm3u487nimuatq1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:44:31 GMT, "Abu Siveto Ritewingers"
> <humbol...@musician.org> wrote:
>
> >Here's something you might consider;
> >
> >When engaging in a serious discussion, and you see the names of people
like
> >Billy Beck, Soja, Dana, and King Pineapple, just to name a few, just read
> >their shit, shake your head and move on. I've seen several interesting
> >threads just go by the wayside, while the intelligent people engage these
> >idiots in what they laughingly call "debate".
> >
> >Just a thought.
> >
> >Hank
> >
>
> ..and Hank's thinking, like Gandalf's involves thinking that stating
> that
> "no legislature = no laws"
> means that
> "legislature = laws."
Thank you for proving my point. He didn't state that. He ststed that you
implied that. And as I showed in the other thread, you did.
>
> hence..
> Abu-dabba displays the usual lefty inability to understand simple
> logic...
>
And you do more to prove my point than to refute it. Unwittingly, I'm sure.
Hank
Gandalf Grey
Captain Compassion <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3c3b002a...@news.verizon.net...
Only in one rather technically biological sense of the word. Psychological
egoists take that purely biological definition of selfishness and twist it
into a social definition that doesn't apply and isn't valid. Psychological
Egoism is a non-falsifiable theory that could not possibly have any
credibility due to it's basic foundational assumption. Science wouldn't
"work" if it accepted theories that are based on hypotheses that can't be
falsified. That fact, and the fact that Ethical Egoism cannot be used to
deal with the conflicts that moral and ethical systems are in fact created
to deal with dooms these two notions as a garbage theory and a useless moral
system.
BellTelcoUser
in a flame war, are non-voters, wouldn't know a politicians' political
persuasion if it weren't for the perverbial (D) and (R) accompanying their
name and last but not least, would not know how to form an honest opinion on
their own if their lives depended on it. In other words, they have become
very boring and that is probably why the usenet service appears to be going
down the tubes at the end of this year. Of course, no one on here reads any
business news, so they would not be aware of that, would they?
The other 10%? I think they, as I do, just say to hell with it because of
the childish manner in which people approach their arguments in-as-much as
it does not matter what the subject might be, they have to opine with a
patented second guess, and when asked what solution they might have, you
never see them in that thread again, unless to start the name calling. And
then, you
have the Hopes and the Greys and a few others. They are promo artists for
newspaper organizations trying to sell print publications. See
www.promomagazine.com
Serious minded people would be discussing things like the Daschle statement
about the Democrats claims that the 2001 surplus was shrinking because of
the tax rebate and how he tried to back track when it was pointed out that
the rebates were the Democrats deal that they insisted on. That's a matter
of record, but no one wants to talk about that. Not Democrats and not
Republicans. Why is that?
--
If you're having trouble accepting the fact
that local government is better than centralized
government, ask your Grandmother why she
cooled her homemade pies on her "own"
windowsill.
C Asa James
Proud to have served.
56th Air Commando Wing
PACAF '66 - '68
Scott D. Erb
Abu Siveto Ritewingers wrote:
>
>
> I would say that is a good idea in many threads. I'm only talking about
> threads such as this one, in which people are trying to speak intelligently
> on somewhat non-political subjects. I'm just watching several really good
> exchanges put to a halt, because Beck and others are injecting their
> ADHD-derived rantings into the discussion, and are obviously either not up
> to the task of debating intelligently, or trolling. I suspect the former,
> but who can tell?
>
> Hank
Good point. Perhaps they don't want a detailed discussion of
rights and various approaches, since that will get people to
question their assertions. What better way to get people to stop
reading the thread is than to bog everyone down in little flame
wars and hope readers skip over the substantive posts as well.
Tricky, the dark side can be :)
Gandalf Grey
veronica floss <vero...@hygene.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.16a4658a7...@ca.news.verio.net...
> In article <a1db3k$v51$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> ganda...@infectedmail.com says...
> > It seems the time has come to make some remarks on "Ethical Egoism" and
> > perhaps some of its variations. In the interests of brevity and
relevance
> > to a discussion of morality and rights, insofar as I have occasion to
remark
> > on the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it will be only
her
> > doctrine of selfishness that I address and not the greater and more
fatal
> > flaws of her epistemology. For those who are interested in so complete
a
> > treatment and for a more detailed refutation of her ethics, Scott Ryan's
> > excellent and very detailed book, *Objectivism and the Corruption of
> > Rationality* may be found on his website at
> >
> > http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/essays_on_objectivism/
>
> You really like punishment, don't you?
Veronica.
It's not that I like punishment. I'm aware of the fact that most of the
right wingers that haunt these groups do not hold principled beliefs that
are more complicated than the kind of principles we see in the mentality and
social life of rapists and serial killers. I'm also aware of the fact that
most of the so-called philosophies they ascribe to are nothing more than
propaganda vehicles wrapped up in rhetorical flourishes.
Nevertheless, I believe it's critical to demonstrate, from time to time,
that such philosophies are either empirically or logically wrong regardless
of their intent or their status as gift-wrapped propaganda. Look at it this
way. Most of the time what we see coming from the right wing on this group
are outright lies that are offered up as truth. These lies [I'm speaking in
particular of the kind of lies we see coming from trolls like Dana, Bill
Beck, Msoja, Patriot, etc.] do not come with any kind of supportive evidence
to suggest that they might be based on fact. And so, we properly label them
as lies and pass on.
But when the right starts talking about "self-evident" truths like their
principle of selfishness and their dogma on rights, they say they are
referring to well-known philosophical truths. It's not and it cannot be the
same kind of thing to call a philosophy 'a lie' as it is to call an
unsupported assertion or accusation 'a lie.' Philosophies presumably have
arguments and other kinds of evidence to support their conclusions. In
order to accurately label them as lies, we have to offer some kind of
counter-argument or empirical proof that these philosophies came to false
conclusions, or we need to demonstrate that the philosophies themselves are
nothing more than unsupported assertions. Think of it this way, Beck's
comment to me on the Ethical Egoism piece I wrote is that I was wrong and I
don't know what I'm talking about. His comment was a simple lie without
foundation. Objectivism as a philosophy is also a kind of 'statement' that
is also a lie, but it's an extremely complicated lie, the falseness of which
is not immediately apparent. We're justified in calling both of those
'statements' lies, but we cannot treat the lie of Objectivism the same way
as we treat a simple unsupported assertion.
It doesn't matter WHY the right wing presents these philosophies as
subtantiation for their postions on various issues. I mean this in the
sense that it doesn't matter if they actually believe in the philosophies or
not. I'm well aware that at least some right wingers are smart enough to
know that objectivism and 'anarcho'--capitalism are fictions. The onus
probandi is still upon us to demonstrate why such pernicious philosophies
are fictions in the first place.
Once we have done this, we cut off any foundational limb for the right wing
to cling to. That's why you're seeing the furor over these articles that
you're seeing. These pseudo-dogmas are the only basis for a claim to
legitimacy for the right wing. Without an accepted philosophical
foundation, the right wing is nothing more than a collection of financial
buccaneers and anti-American malcontents. Anytime these systems are
attacked, the right wing's political legitimacy is attacked, and without
that legitimacy, the rest of their claims become nothing more than the
hysterical jabbering of a social cult.
The Patriot
<humbol...@musician.org> wrote:
>
>"The Patriot" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote in message
>news:phcm3u487nimuatq1...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:44:31 GMT, "Abu Siveto Ritewingers"
>> <humbol...@musician.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Here's something you might consider;
>> >
>> >When engaging in a serious discussion, and you see the names of people
>like
>> >Billy Beck, Soja, Dana, and King Pineapple, just to name a few, just read
>> >their shit, shake your head and move on. I've seen several interesting
>> >threads just go by the wayside, while the intelligent people engage these
>> >idiots in what they laughingly call "debate".
>> >
>> >Just a thought.
>> >
>> >Hank
>> >
>>
>> ..and Hank's thinking, like Gandalf's involves thinking that stating
>> that
>> "no legislature = no laws"
>> means that
>> "legislature = laws."
>
>Thank you for proving my point. He didn't state that. He ststed that you
>implied that.
LOL, using a logical fallacy for an argument...
>And as I showed in the other thread, you did.
Hahahaha, no fool, I never said or implied any such thing... I said
"no legislature = no laws," which is completely logical and dumb ass
Gandalf said that meant that "legislature = laws" which is totally
illogical and you were too dumb to understand the fallacy of it.
>> hence..
>> Abu-dabba displays the usual lefty inability to understand simple
>> logic...
>>
>And you do more to prove my point than to refute it. Unwittingly, I'm sure.
It's always such fun to watch you lefties try to pull your heads out
of your butts once you realize your error.
"No legislature = no laws" does nor more imply that "legislature =
laws" than does "no food = no poop" implies that "food = poop."
...as I showed you in the other thread,
>Hank
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
See what I mean? He's wrong, and he bogs the whole thread down with his
insipid rantings.
He didn't use the logical fallacy; YOU did.
Your argument was (as you yourself stated it);
no legilsature = no laws
no laws = no responsibilities
In order for you to believe that, you would have to believe that legislature
= laws. That'sw hat he said, and he's right.
>
> >And as I showed in the other thread, you did.
>
> Hahahaha, no fool, I never said or implied any such thing... I said
> "no legislature = no laws," which is completely logical and dumb ass
It is dumbass, not logical. A lot of kingdoms have had laws, and no
legislature. A dictator can abolish the legislature, and still have plenty
of laws.
> Gandalf said that meant that "legislature = laws" which is totally
> illogical and you were too dumb to understand the fallacy of it.
It does mean that. And you are too dumb to see the fallacy in that.
If you say that no legislature = no laws, the only way to make that a true
statement is if you believe that legislature = laws. If you believe that law
can exist without a legislature, then you cannot say that no legislature =
no laws.
>
> >> hence..
> >> Abu-dabba displays the usual lefty inability to understand simple
> >> logic...
> >>
> >And you do more to prove my point than to refute it. Unwittingly, I'm
sure.
>
> It's always such fun to watch you lefties try to pull your heads out
> of your butts once you realize your error.
Seems to me that it's your head I'm pulling out of my butt. And I'm kind of
tired of you putting it there, frankly.
>
> "No legislature = no laws" does nor more imply that "legislature =
> laws" than does "no food = no poop" implies that "food = poop."
It also no less implies that. In order for no food = no poop to be true, you
have to believe that food = poop.
How the hell do you determine the truth of your statement. Please exoplain
another possible proof that no legislature = no laws. (That ought to set his
head spinning.
>
> ...as I showed you in the other thread,
Yes, that's right folks. This fuckwit has, rather than check to see if he's
right, as any intelligent person would do, simply restated the same fallacy
over and over, and called anyone who saw it as illogical names.
Okay, here you go;
PROVE that no legislature = no law.
Hank
Scott D. Erb
Abu Siveto Ritewingers wrote:
>
> > LOL, using a logical fallacy for an argument...
>
> See what I mean? He's wrong, and he bogs the whole thread down with his
> insipid rantings.
>
> He didn't use the logical fallacy; YOU did.
>
He knows that. The guy you're responding to is one of those who
learned that rule of usenet trolls: no matter how wrong you are
shown to be, just assert loudly and long that the other guy is
wrong and heap some insults. His goal is just to jerk you
around. He's not worth it, no one takes him seriously.
Billy Beck
veronica floss <vero...@hygene.org> wrote:
>Does anyone here understand that Ayn Rand was a Russian Fascist,
>and that's why she had to leave Russia?
Astounding. Just when I think I've seen the whole catalog of
ridiculous slanders that imbeciles can throw at her, along comes
VeeVee with something both new and transparent.
She was nineteen years old when she left Leningrad, not quite two
years out of the university. She had worked as a tour guide at the
Peter and Paul Fortress, for bare physical survival. Some "Fascist".
But it probably would have been the safest move to send her to
Siberia.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Lightning
news:tSG_7.109177$2b1.4...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
Not to be inflammatory, but what is there to discuss about it?
NuQ
"BellTelcoUser" <emai...@telco.net> wrote in message
news:tSG_7.109177$2b1.4...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> in a flame war, are non-voters, wouldn't know a politicians' political
> persuasion if it weren't for the perverbial (D) and (R) accompanying their
> name and last but not least, would not know how to form an honest opinion
on
> their own if their lives depended on it. In other words, they have become
> very boring and that is probably why the usenet service appears to be
going
> down the tubes at the end of this year. Of course, no one on here reads
any
> business news, so they would not be aware of that, would they?
Does Giganews, Supernews, Usenetserver, Easynews, Newsguy, etc. know the end
is near?
People have been predicting the death of Usenet as long as Usenet has been
around.
Lightning
news:DdG_7.57874$fo.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
[snip]
> > Granted, many of those you mentioned have nothing new or interesting to
> say. But
> > isn't that the condition of right-wingedness in general? I mean there
are
> a few
> > people in these groups of the conservative persuasion who are more
> thoughtful
> > than average and can even manage to maintain a degree of civility, but
> those are
> > extremely (no pun intended) rare qualities on the right. On Usenet,
> anyway.
> >
> >
> I would say it's a definite condition of the right wing mentality. I'm all
> for engaging them in political discussions, and showing them for the
> imbeciles they are. But I really think the approach to serious,
theoretical
> discussions is to pat them on the head and tell them to go play in the
> street.
How utterly condescending. Since you are by your own self-aggrandizement
capable of lofty theoretical political discussions, perhaps you would care
to explain what you mean by the "right wing mentality."
Jeffrey Davis
I don't know enough about Rand's life one way or the other.
She was a devoted anti-Communist, a boring novelist, and a
square-peg-round-hole technical philosopher. Other than
that, she's just a name to me so I have no idea if she at
one time had been a fascist. Youth, however, doesn't seem to
be a roadblock to the tag. In a world where a state
(Florida) tries a 13 year old as an adult (murder), where
the loony, lonely 15 year old suicide pilot is tagged as a
"terrorist", what is youth?
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net>
Lightning
news:8yH_7.58076$fo.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
[snip]
> He didn't use the logical fallacy; YOU did.
>
> Your argument was (as you yourself stated it);
>
> no legilsature = no laws
> no laws = no responsibilities
>
> In order for you to believe that, you would have to believe that
legislature
> = laws. That's hat he said, and he's right.
No. He's not. Speaking from formal logic, the first statement may be
written as "All states without legislatures are of the superset of states
that are without laws." The second may be written as "All states without
laws are of the superset of states without responsibilities." The only
thing you can logically conclude about either states with laws or states
with legislatures from the first sentence is "Some states without laws are
states without legislatures." Your conclusion falls apart because only the
"all states without legislatures" part is distributed but the "all states
without laws" is undistributed. And if you don't know what I mean by
distributed, then you don't have enough formal logic training to make
charges of fallacies where there are none.
Now, you may believe that the Patriot's *premise* is invalid, which I am not
addressing here, but her logic is not faulty, yours is.