The single most important political principle ever

[Melkor Unchained]

Guys, argue the post, not the poster. If you think his posts are troll/bait, report them. If you think they're not worth your time, don't respond to them.

[Grave_n_idle]

So is objectivism just a poorly thought out philosophy or a poorly explained one? Because so far BC seems to be going out of his way to not explain it while maximising the amount of pissing people off. Probably not the greatest marketing strategy ever.

It's a philosophy that starts out well, and degenerates.

The most basic assumption is that reality is objective.

From there, we extrapolate that we can subjectively interact with it - through sensory perception, and through reason.

Good so far - not an unreasonable philosophy.


Then it makes a huge leap, that it asks you to follow - that, BECAUSE of this objective reality - our 'purpose', if you will, is selfish - to make our individual selves happy and or comfortable.

It then asks you to make a further assumption - that because of this selfish objective purpose, the ultimate valid unit is the individual - which descends into all kinds of arguments in support of individual 'natural' rights, and paramount property rights.

To me - it's fundamentally flawed in at least three places.

First: that Step 3 in the philosophy is not the logical conclusion from Steps 1 and 2. Objective reality does NOT intrinsically lead to selfish self-interest, and neither does out sobjective interaction with it.

Second: the assumptions are poorly supported, or simply stated. There is no reason for you to accept them, except that the philosophy says they are so. WHY should I accept the concept of 'natural rights' when they are so counter-intuitive?

Third: In an attempt to constrain rationally, the philosophy consumes itself. If the individual is the ultimate arbiter, then the ultimate entity of law or authority is the individual - but this argument is applied irregularly. Sometimes the individual is sovereign, and sometimes the individual is not. It is not a complete philosophy.

[FreeAgency]

So is objectivism just a poorly thought out philosophy or a poorly explained one? Because so far BC seems to be going out of his way to not explain it while maximising the amount of pissing people off. Probably not the greatest marketing strategy ever.

It's a philosophy that starts out well, and degenerates.

The most basic assumption is that reality is objective.

From there, we extrapolate that we can subjectively interact with it - through sensory perception, and through reason.

Good so far - not an unreasonable philosophy.


Then it makes a huge leap, that it asks you to follow - that, BECAUSE of this objective reality - our 'purpose', if you will, is selfish - to make our individual selves happy and or comfortable.

It then asks you to make a further assumption - that because of this selfish objective purpose, the ultimate valid unit is the individual - which descends into all kinds of arguments in support of individual 'natural' rights, and paramount property rights.

To me - it's fundamentally flawed in at least three places.

First: that Step 3 in the philosophy is not the logical conclusion from Steps 1 and 2. Objective reality does NOT intrinsically lead to selfish self-interest, and neither does out sobjective interaction with it.

Second: the assumptions are poorly supported, or simply stated. There is no reason for you to accept them, except that the philosophy says they are so. WHY should I accept the concept of 'natural rights' when they are so counter-intuitive?

Third: In an attempt to constrain rationally, the philosophy consumes itself. If the individual is the ultimate arbiter, then the ultimate entity of law or authority is the individual - but this argument is applied irregularly. Sometimes the individual is sovereign, and sometimes the individual is not. It is not a complete philosophy.

Perfect, I couldn't agree more.

If you want a well-reasoned, coherent, and less flawed argument for the existance of an objective morality read Immanuel Kant. Rand is simply not worth the time.

[Ifreann]

Hey guys, I just found a nice rich vein of authority in my garden. Lets get mining and maybe we can stop multiplying by zero!

[United Technocrats]

Trolling, heresy, or some kind of a joke I don't get?

Wrong, that's what.

e^0 = 1
0 = ln(1)

Exactly.

[Tekania]

Hey guys, I just found a nice rich vein of authority in my garden. Lets get mining and maybe we can stop multiplying by zero!

Maybe there will be some a vein of objective morality below it....

[GetBert]

Hey guys, I just found a nice rich vein of authority in my garden. Lets get mining and maybe we can stop multiplying by zero!

With veins like that kid I'd have myself a time

[United Technocrats]

No, the single most important political principle ever is:

KE = ½mv²

Everyone knows that.

How about this:

Let's say that x = 0.99999... (i)
Hence, 10x = 9.99999... (ii)
Also, 10x – x = 9x (iii)
However, substituting from (i) and (ii), it follows that 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... = 9 (iv)
Now, from (iii) and (iv) it follows that 9x = 9, so x=1.

Finally, from (i) and (iv) it follows that 1 = 0.99999...

[Melkor Unchained]

So is objectivism just a poorly thought out philosophy or a poorly explained one? Because so far BC seems to be going out of his way to not explain it while maximising the amount of pissing people off. Probably not the greatest marketing strategy ever.

It's a philosophy that starts out well, and degenerates.

The most basic assumption is that reality is objective.

From there, we extrapolate that we can subjectively interact with it - through sensory perception, and through reason.

Good so far - not an unreasonable philosophy.


Then it makes a huge leap, that it asks you to follow - that, BECAUSE of this objective reality - our 'purpose', if you will, is selfish - to make our individual selves happy and or comfortable.

It then asks you to make a further assumption - that because of this selfish objective purpose, the ultimate valid unit is the individual - which descends into all kinds of arguments in support of individual 'natural' rights, and paramount property rights.

To me - it's fundamentally flawed in at least three places.

First: that Step 3 in the philosophy is not the logical conclusion from Steps 1 and 2. Objective reality does NOT intrinsically lead to selfish self-interest, and neither does out sobjective interaction with it.

Second: the assumptions are poorly supported, or simply stated. There is no reason for you to accept them, except that the philosophy says they are so. WHY should I accept the concept of 'natural rights' when they are so counter-intuitive?

Third: In an attempt to constrain rationally, the philosophy consumes itself. If the individual is the ultimate arbiter, then the ultimate entity of law or authority is the individual - but this argument is applied irregularly. Sometimes the individual is sovereign, and sometimes the individual is not. It is not a complete philosophy.

zzz

The "huge leap" is explained in what I can only describe as agonizing depth in OPAR, which I would guess you haven't read. As I said earlier, I do agree that Rand tended to write (her essays as well as her fiction) in vague terms, and would leap from basic premise to over-arching philosophical tenets rather quickly and with little explanation. Peikoff, on the other hand, breaks down the thought process and explains much more in-depth how Objective Reality leads to Objective Morality.

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

[Unchecked Expansion]

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

Or the subscription of everyone in society to a collectively agreed subjective morality. The majority of people hold enough of the same standards of morality that sensible law enforcement stems from shared, subjective rules.
Nothing a human can do is truely objective, as we are subject to our own subconcious perspective and incapable of the detachment from ourselves required

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

How about this:

Let's say that x = 0.99999... (i)
Hence, 10x = 9.99999... (ii)
Also, 10x – x = 9x (iii)
However, substituting from (i) and (ii), it follows that 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... = 9 (iv)
Now, from (iii) and (iv) it follows that 9x = 9, so x=1.

Finally, from (i) and (iv) it follows that 1 = 0.99999...

Careful, you might prompt some of the math semi-literates into debating you about this.

[Melkor Unchained]

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

Or the subscription of everyone in society to a collectively agreed subjective morality. The majority of people hold enough of the same standards of morality that sensible law enforcement stems from shared, subjective rules.

So.. if a majority of people in $NATION declare it's okay to invade a neighboring country and rape its women, that's a legitimate moral mandate? I think not.

[Unchecked Expansion]

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

Or the subscription of everyone in society to a collectively agreed subjective morality. The majority of people hold enough of the same standards of morality that sensible law enforcement stems from shared, subjective rules.

So.. if a majority of people in $NATION declare it's okay to invade a neighboring country and rape its women, that's a legitimate moral mandate? I think not.

It's how it worked in the past (see old testament). And yet, in that time law was upheld in some way. Humans are fallible, and so our laws our fallible

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Objective Reality leads to Objective Morality.

Except that it doesn't, no more than objective reality leads to objectively good and bad art or objectively good and bad food.

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

This does not follow. Is it not possible that, while not being objective, laws which tend to benefit the greater good and the individual can be agreed upon by individuals in a society?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So.. if a majority of people in $NATION declare it's okay to invade a neighboring country and rape its women, that's a legitimate moral mandate? I think not.

It's really hard to say what is truly moral and what is truly immoral. It's all opinion. Is it wrong to kill people? If so, is it always wrong or does it depend on the situation? If it does depend on the situation, in what situations is it acceptable to kill someone? See how morality isn't a simple set of easy rules? If you want an absolute set of moral laws which is both free of contradiction AND applies to all imaginable situations, then you're inevitably going to end up with a system of laws so complicated, they make the three body problem in general relativity look like middle school algebra. In other words, you'll have a system that is too complex to ever be useful for anything.

[New Kereptica]

So.. if a majority of people in $NATION declare it's okay to invade a neighboring country and rape its women, that's a legitimate moral mandate? I think not.

It's really hard to say what is truly moral and what is truly immoral. It's all opinion. Is it wrong to kill people? If so, is it always wrong or does it depend on the situation? If it does depend on the situation, in what situations is it acceptable to kill someone? See how morality isn't a simple set of easy rules? If you want an absolute set of moral laws which is both free of contradiction AND applies to all imaginable situations, then you're inevitably going to end up with a system of laws so complicated, they make the three body problem in general relativity look like middle school algebra. In other words, you'll have a system that is too complex to ever be useful for anything.

Furthermore, in order to formulate those laws one would have to understand practically everything, thus making the creation of the laws next-to-impossible, never mind the implementation and use.

[Grave_n_idle]

So is objectivism just a poorly thought out philosophy or a poorly explained one? Because so far BC seems to be going out of his way to not explain it while maximising the amount of pissing people off. Probably not the greatest marketing strategy ever.

It's a philosophy that starts out well, and degenerates.

The most basic assumption is that reality is objective.

From there, we extrapolate that we can subjectively interact with it - through sensory perception, and through reason.

Good so far - not an unreasonable philosophy.


Then it makes a huge leap, that it asks you to follow - that, BECAUSE of this objective reality - our 'purpose', if you will, is selfish - to make our individual selves happy and or comfortable.

It then asks you to make a further assumption - that because of this selfish objective purpose, the ultimate valid unit is the individual - which descends into all kinds of arguments in support of individual 'natural' rights, and paramount property rights.

To me - it's fundamentally flawed in at least three places.

First: that Step 3 in the philosophy is not the logical conclusion from Steps 1 and 2. Objective reality does NOT intrinsically lead to selfish self-interest, and neither does out sobjective interaction with it.

Second: the assumptions are poorly supported, or simply stated. There is no reason for you to accept them, except that the philosophy says they are so. WHY should I accept the concept of 'natural rights' when they are so counter-intuitive?

Third: In an attempt to constrain rationally, the philosophy consumes itself. If the individual is the ultimate arbiter, then the ultimate entity of law or authority is the individual - but this argument is applied irregularly. Sometimes the individual is sovereign, and sometimes the individual is not. It is not a complete philosophy.

zzz

The "huge leap" is explained in what I can only describe as agonizing depth in OPAR, which I would guess you haven't read. As I said earlier, I do agree that Rand tended to write (her essays as well as her fiction) in vague terms, and would leap from basic premise to over-arching philosophical tenets rather quickly and with little explanation. Peikoff, on the other hand, breaks down the thought process and explains much more in-depth how Objective Reality leads to Objective Morality.

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

You may have noticed this was a VERY 'potted' history. I describe it as a big leap because, no matter how deeply you go into the chasm betweem step two and three - the one does not ever intrinsically lead to the other. It is no more logical to arrive at the self-serving individualism of Randian liberty than it is to arrive at self-sacrifice.

You do that whole leaping to conclusions things so often, you'd have thought you'd have started looking before you leap.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Furthermore, in order to formulate those laws one would have to understand practically everything, thus making the creation of the laws next-to-impossible, never mind the implementation and use.

To be the true, ultimate set of moral laws that is free of contradiction and applies everywhere, it would actually have to take into account the moral effects of the neutrinos that pass through the planet. It would also have to take into account the expanding universe, the exact symmetries of quantum theory, the curvature of space-time, quantum gravity, entanglement between particles here on Earth and particles somewhere out there in the universe, and pi meson formation. I think we're beginning to see a problem here.

[Grave_n_idle]

Furthermore, in order to formulate those laws one would have to understand practically everything, thus making the creation of the laws next-to-impossible, never mind the implementation and use.

To be the true, ultimate set of moral laws that is free of contradiction and applies everywhere, it would actually have to take into account the moral effects of the neutrinos that pass through the planet. It would also have to take into account the expanding universe, the exact symmetries of quantum theory, the curvature of space-time, quantum gravity, entanglement between particles here on Earth and particles somewhere out there in the universe, and pi meson formation. I think we're beginning to see a problem here.

It wouldn't have to 'take into account' neutrinoes, etc - it would just have to be equally true with or without them.

[Melkor Unchained]

Objective Reality leads to Objective Morality.

Except that it doesn't, no more than objective reality leads to objectively good and bad art or objectively good and bad food.

I c whut u did thar.

But seriously, I'm fairly consistently mocked for 'not knowing' what I'm talking about. All I was saying was that Peikoff explained it better than I or Rand probably ever could. Dismissing it out of hand without bothering to familiarize yourself with it (if you've read OPAR, feel free to correct me here) is intellectually dishonest.

This does not follow. Is it not possible that, while not being objective, laws which tend to benefit the greater good and the individual can be agreed upon by individuals in a society?

The terms here are a bit vague, and what "tends" to benefit the "greater good" is usually bad for pretty much everyone else, should said laws happen to extend beyond basic law enforcement and infrastructure needs, which they usually do. I've never been (try to conceal your shock ) a big fan of the "Greater Good," since it can conceivably mean "51%" which I don't consider an overwhelming mandate for carte blanche authority to "Do good" in their name. If it's ever demonstrated that said policies do not actually benefit an actual majority, the case is always subsequently made that by servicing the minority, we service the majority indirectly by, oh, let's say giving the minority money/resources so they don't rob/kill the rest of us for it. But, like I said earlier, a robber doesn't earn moral virtue by not shooting me if I hand over the cash that he 'needs.'

So.. if a majority of people in $NATION declare it's okay to invade a neighboring country and rape its women, that's a legitimate moral mandate? I think not.

It's really hard to say what is truly moral and what is truly immoral. It's all opinion. Is it wrong to kill people? If so, is it always wrong or does it depend on the situation? If it does depend on the situation, in what situations is it acceptable to kill someone? See how morality isn't a simple set of easy rules? If you want an absolute set of moral laws which is both free of contradiction AND applies to all imaginable situations, then you're inevitably going to end up with a system of laws so complicated, they make the three body problem in general relativity look like middle school algebra. In other words, you'll have a system that is too complex to ever be useful for anything.

Objective facts are still dependent on context and conditions. An ice cube is an ice cube... but not on the surface of the sun. Objectivist Morality does not imply Ironclad Proclamations like we might say in, say, the Ten Commandments.

And GnI, kindly shove it. If you're not willing to read Peikoff, you can get out of my face with that 'leap' crap. It's explained, I promise. If you don't agree with it that's fine, but you seem to be more than happy to dismiss it out of ignorance. Go ahead and read OPAR with your preconception that it's Always Wrong About Everything Except Objective Reality, but don't come in here and try to tell me it's wrong "just because," which is what you seem to be saying. For all the 'open mindedness' you seem to claim possessing, you appear more than happy to dismiss this position without bothering to research it. It'd be like if I never read a word of Kant and said "categorical imperative is a load of bollocks." I'd be challenged within seconds, but apparently it's totally honest and open-minded for you to dismiss Peikoff without reading it.

[Sapphista]

...I think my head just exploded from a data overload.

With that being said, cookies anyone?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It wouldn't have to 'take into account' neutrinoes, etc - it would just have to be equally true with or without them.

Which, considering neutrinos technically have mass and hence technically break flat space-time symmetry, is not really possible.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The terms here are a bit vague, and what "tends" to benefit the "greater good" is usually bad for pretty much everyone else, should said laws happen to extend beyond basic law enforcement and infrastructure needs, which they usually do. I've never been (try to conceal your shock ) a big fan of the "Greater Good," since it can conceivably mean "51%" which I don't consider an overwhelming mandate for carte blanche authority to "Do good" in their name. If it's ever demonstrated that said policies do not actually benefit an actual majority, the case is always subsequently made that by servicing the minority, we service the majority indirectly by, oh, let's say giving the minority money/resources so they don't rob/kill the rest of us for it. But, like I said earlier, a robber doesn't earn moral virtue by not shooting me if I hand over the cash that he 'needs.'

Essentially what I was saying is that we all agree that murder should be illegal simply because none of us want to be murdered. If you took every murderer and thief in every prison and stuck them all on a huge island and let them make their own government, thievery and murder would be illegal there, which should come as no surprise.

Objective facts are still dependent on context and conditions. An ice cube is an ice cube... but not on the surface of the sun. Objectivist Morality does not imply Ironclad Proclamations like we might say in, say, the Ten Commandments.

Fair enough, I suppose. So you're not looking for some ultimate set of laws that apply in all situations, but you still believe that there is an absolute right and wrong in any given scenario? But why? Why do you believe in an absolute right and wrong?

[Melkor Unchained]

The terms here are a bit vague, and what "tends" to benefit the "greater good" is usually bad for pretty much everyone else, should said laws happen to extend beyond basic law enforcement and infrastructure needs, which they usually do. I've never been (try to conceal your shock ) a big fan of the "Greater Good," since it can conceivably mean "51%" which I don't consider an overwhelming mandate for carte blanche authority to "Do good" in their name. If it's ever demonstrated that said policies do not actually benefit an actual majority, the case is always subsequently made that by servicing the minority, we service the majority indirectly by, oh, let's say giving the minority money/resources so they don't rob/kill the rest of us for it. But, like I said earlier, a robber doesn't earn moral virtue by not shooting me if I hand over the cash that he 'needs.'

Essentially what I was saying is that we all agree that murder should be illegal simply because none of us want to be murdered. If you took every murderer and thief in every prison and stuck them all on a huge island and let them make their own government, thievery and murder would be illegal there, which should come as no surprise.

Like Australia?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Fair enough, I suppose. So you're not looking for some ultimate set of laws that apply in all situations, but you still believe that there is an absolute right and wrong in any given scenario? But why? Why do you believe in an absolute right and wrong?

Pretty much, and because we need it for anything resembling a rational evaluation of actions and their consequences, which is a necessity for organized civilization. I believe in absolutes because reality is full of them. 'Absolute' doesn't mean that it never changes or is always the same; it can of course change as the environment around it does. It just means that it's identifiable within said environment and context.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Pretty much, and because we need it for anything resembling a rational evaluation of actions and their consequences, which is a necessity for organized civilization. I believe in absolutes because reality is full of them. 'Absolute' doesn't mean that it never changes or is always the same; it can of course change as the environment around it does. It just means that it's identifiable within said environment and context.

I just don't see how morality exists in the same way an electron does. It seems nothing more than something we impose with our minds. Sure, the concept of morality is useful, but so is the concept of Newtonian mechanics, and we know that the latter is technically incorrect.