How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Atlas Shrugged--the movie?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ]
 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Atlas Shrugged--the movie?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


175 posted 06-15-2007 11:17 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Hush,

quote:
You sound like a 12-year-old with an 8-year-old's understanding of English language and grammar.


I admit I cannot always understand what Drauntz is talking about and she has some backwards views about certain things. But you are being downright rude to her. Let's try to show a little discretion shall we.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


176 posted 06-15-2007 11:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Balladeer:
quote:
Henry Reardon, who had just created a new metal to be used replacing railroad ties (along with a myriad of other uses) states to a reporter that he intends to "skin the public to the tune of millions of dollars" with his new product. The reporter replies, "Wait a minute. Wouldn't the public be benefitting greatly from all of the possibilities this new invention open up?", to which reardon replies, "Oh, have you noticed that?"


And most people intuitively know that motives still matter.  One may feel better about making money, after one is assured they are acting out of a real interest for other people as people, and a desire to benefit them.  When that's not there, I think the propensity to hurt or disregard people as people is greater on the way to self's goals (even if it is said to be 'for their own good').  This hearkens back to Brad's C.S. Lewis thread.


The thing is, it sounds to me as if Reardon would not greatly care if the public benefited or not, as long as he could have his millions.  Reminds me somewhat of the Tobacco industry.  If the true public benefit is secondary, it is often expendible.


quote:
In sunshine's example of helping an old lady across the street, you don't just stand there and say to yourself "I'm going to help that woman across the street because it makes me feel good and that is my only concern so i'm gonna do it."  You simply help the woman across the street, knowing that she needed assistance and felling good that you were able to exercise an act of kindness for another human being.


Exactly!  It does not seem in your example, that self interest is the only motivation.  The awareness of another's need, is also a motivation.  


quote:
Let me ask you this. If helping the lady across the street was something you really didn't want to do, or something that you hated doing, would you do it anyway?


I might.  It is not my view that doing what is right is always something we "want" to do.  
    

Let me ask you a question.  Do you only do "good deeds" when you feel like it?  Would you only help the proverbial little old lady across the street when you were in perfect leisure, didn't have other things to get to, or just felt as if you had boundless energy?  Would you do it even if you had a headache, and reservation at the restaurant?  

I bet you might.

quote:
Let me ask you one better. Have you ever done a kindness for someone that went unappreciated? How did you feel then?


Disappointed, of course.  But what does that prove?  That certainly doesn't mean that I wasn't motivated (at least partially) from outward concern.  Perhaps part of the disappointment is self-centered, but part of it may be due to the fact that the person wasn't benefited, or didn't recognize it.  So even this disaapointment may flow from true concern about the other person, as well as from concern about my own ego.  

quote:
? If you helped that woman across the street and she responded by saying "Get your filthy hands off me, creep!", what then?? Would you still have that rosy feeling of having helped a fellow human being?  I find it unlikely.


Okay ... same answer as above.  

quote:
Ever hear anyone complain about not receiving a thank you note for a gift sent? Of course you have - it's human nature. So is having self interest as the motivation for every act.


Ever hear anyone say they really didn't mind that a thank you note didn't come?  Of course not, they typically wouldn't be so noticable.  They would demurely live on, and give on, just being glad to be able to bless.  Again, examples of selfish concern don't rule out better examples.  Heck, it doesn't even rule out the possibility of real concern in those who were the bad examples.  Mutualism is much more realistic, where motives may be mixed.


quote:
You seem to have zeroed in on the definition of egoism itself which explains why Brad wondered what happened to the direction of this thread, since the thread was initially about Any Rand, her book, and the feasibility of making it into a movie.



Well if you'll notice, very few have actually talked about what Karen first intended (sorry Karen     ).  It can be frustrating sometimes, and yet some of our best discussions can be about surrounding issues.  The philosophy (and the egoism within that philosophy) of Ayn Rand is certainly valid to talk about


Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


177 posted 06-16-2007 08:19 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The thing is, it sounds to me as if Reardon would not greatly care if the public benefited or not, as long as he could have his millions.

Stephen, I think you're still confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. It would not be rational for Reardon to unnecessarily complicate his life by cheating people.

Neither Ayn Rand nor egoism invented self-interest, any more than Isaac Newton invented gravity. These things simply exist. To claim that a person's actions are more complicated than simple self-interest, while certainly true, is irrelevant because ALL of those very complicated motivations are still rooted in our eternal quest to find pleasure and avoid pain. That's all there is. The removal of "self" would also remove all desire to do anything. Can you spell vegetable?

Ayn Rand didn't invent self-interest. She just explored a better way of doing it. Rationally.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


178 posted 06-16-2007 11:51 AM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

Ron,
"Ayn Rand didn't invent self-interest. She just explored a better way of doing it. Rationally."

Definition of Rational: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason.

So, rational is based on reasons.

May I ask if those reasons are self-interest or not? by your understanding of Rand.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


179 posted 06-16-2007 09:19 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
To claim that a person's actions are more complicated than simple self-interest, while certainly true, is irrelevant because ALL of those very complicated motivations are still rooted in our eternal quest to find pleasure and avoid pain.


I wouldn't agree with that reductionism (which is simply hedonism) ... but even if I grant it, it's still not only pleasure for myself.  I may desire to bring it to others for their sake.  It's still not only avoiding pain for myself.  I may desire to avert it from others for their sake.  And saying so is at least more relevant than the philosophy of egoism, since it is more true.  

quote:
Stephen, I think you're still confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. It would not be rational for Reardon to unnecessarily complicate his life by cheating people.


Not at all, you wouldn't even have to go so far as to say "cheating".  Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire.  Whether it be tobacco, pornography, or a myriad of other things.  Still one's interest may be centered around the self, which brings harm to others, and (arguably) doesn't bring significant trouble to oneself, or at least not enough to outweigh the perceived boon.


But even if we're talking about what most people consider "cheating", there are hosts of people who will argue that they have been helped and not harmed, by its measured and careful use.  It's always been a wonder (expressed in religious and ethical literature) why the wicked sometimes prosper as they do.  It would have to be that way (to some degree) else morality would be nothing more (notice I didn't say nothing less) than a business deal.  Which makes egoism ethically useless, having no ability to offer anything prescriptive.  The qualitative outcome of self-interest, (other than the glaring defeater of being wholly determined by self) cannot be judged in any case prior to the final outcome, as to whether it was rational or beneficial to the self.  Gamblers often win, even if the likelihood of losing is part and parcel of casinos.  The only alternative is the traditional view of morality which offers prescriptive insight, not based on morally naked reason or mere self interest, but upon an imposed standard of right and wrong, which is often just as true before during or after an action, and in spite of its percieved benefit or harm to self.
                    

quote:
The removal of "self" would also remove all desire to do anything. Can you spell vegetable?


A non-sequitur.  My argument has never denied that ALL INTERESTS must come through self.  My assertion is that the self may also hold interests that are truly other-directed, not merely masquerading self-interest.  I may own a piece of land.  And while it would be granted that everyone who walks on it would be on my land, it does not therefore follow that everyone must also be mine.  


self interest may be understood two ways:


1) interests which the self holds

2) interests which are about oneself


In your statement about self being all there is, you seem to be confusing these two definitions.

Stephen.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


180 posted 06-16-2007 11:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I may desire to avert it from others for their sake. And saying so is at least more relevant than the philosophy of egoism, since it is more true.
Why? Why would desire to avert it from others? Your answer would be in the first three words of your example- I MAY DESIRE...

Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire.   
which has to do with what, exactly, when discussing Rand's rational self-interest?

It's always been a wonder (expressed in religious and ethical literature) why the wicked sometimes prosper as they do.
Wicked people who prosper would have nothing to do with her philosophy, either.

I may own a piece of land. And while it would be granted that everyone who walks on it would be on my land, it does not therefore follow that everyone must also be mine.
I have no idea what this example is supposed to represent. If I owned land, everyone one it would either be my guest, a trespasser or someone who just got lost. What this has to do with egoism or Rand escapes me completely.

Stephen,  it is very clear that, even aside from your own admission, you are not familiar with either her writings or her philosophy, with the exception of superficial knowledge. That being the case,  the discussion becomes apples and oranges, since we are discussing one thing and you are describing another. That makes it an impossibility to arrive to a common ground. I will acknowledge your declared study of egoism in general. I would wish that one day you would include an in-depth study of Rand's views along with the others you have studied...either that, or just read Atlas Shrugged, which may well indeed answer many of the questions you have asked here. Peace....

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


181 posted 06-16-2007 11:12 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire. Whether it be tobacco, pornography, or a myriad of other things.

And you would consider that rational self-interest, Stephen?

quote:
But even if we're talking about what most people consider "cheating", there are hosts of people who will argue that they have been helped and not harmed, by its measured and careful use.

And you would consider that rational self-interest?

quote:
Gamblers often win, even if the likelihood of losing is part and parcel of casinos.

And you would consider that rational self-interest?

Again, and again, and again, Stephen, you're confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. The qualitative outcome of rational self-interest CAN be judged prior to the final outcome, as indeed it always must be. Indeed, it is far more prescriptive than your so-called traditional view of morality -- which can only advise action when your moral dilemma has been previously documented. Reason doesn't guarantee perfect answers, of course. Just as it doesn't guarantee accurate interpretation of Scripture. We all make mistakes.

quote:
I wouldn't agree with that reductionism (which is simply hedonism) ... but even if I grant it, it's still not only pleasure for myself. I may desire to bring it to others for their sake. It's still not only avoiding pain for myself. I may desire to avert it from others for their sake.

But WHY? Why would you want to bring pleasure to others or avoid pain for others?

The only reason to do so, Stephen, is to further your own self-interest. As the words I bolded in your quotation should attest? No matter what you want to do, it's still YOU wanting to do it.

Objectivism simply recognizes the INEVITABILITY of that link and advises being rational in determining what it is you want. Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them. Ayn Rand was pushing tough love long before Dr. Phil made it popular.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


182 posted 06-16-2007 11:18 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.


That's it.

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


183 posted 06-17-2007 09:07 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Yep. That's it. The above quote hits home with me.

I’m sure the below is completely circular in debate, but here goes:

RSI: A person who openly professes rational self-interest as the motivation.

“I’m doing this for me, not for you.”

Honest?

O: A person who openly professes caring for others as the motivation.

“I’m doing this for you, not for me.”

Honest?

I think at least we know what the RSI’s interests are up-front. The O’s? How can we be so sure?

I mean with the scams, guilt trips, ulterior motives, narcissists, liars, cheats, fakes, ignorance, etc.

Why not cut out the middle “mania,” and take it upon one’s self to look after self instead of becoming a victim of others for the rest of one’s life?

That’s what I don’t want. If I only value self-sacrifice, in essence, am I not setting all of society up to take the blame for my every need and disappointment?


BTW:

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO ALL OF THE BLUE PAGE'S WONDERFUL DADS!


[This message has been edited by rwood (06-18-2007 09:33 AM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


184 posted 06-17-2007 09:38 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

In case anyone's interested. There's a wealth of videos/debates of Rand on YouTube.

Including the Donahue interviews of 75 year old Ayn. I saw this when it originally aired. Nearly every sentence she utters is a topic of wild debate, including the hair styles.  

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


185 posted 06-17-2007 05:55 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

To Sir  Balladeer

“That being the case,  the discussion becomes apples and oranges, since we are discussing one thing and you are describing another.”

……Dear sir Balladeer, I see you changed your icon back to the little cute girl again. So I say to her, “Snow white, It is an “apple” but is it a “play dough” painted with poison colors. Don’t bite!!!

To Sir Balladeer,

“That makes it an impossibility to arrive to a common ground.”
……The common ground here is to keep a philosophical talk. Two opposite philosophies can not be in the same ground.
  

To Sir Ron,

“The qualitative outcome of rational self-interest CAN be judged prior to the final outcome, as indeed it always must be”

…..To be judged by whom and by what criteria and how?  If all the factors(a group of other rational self-interesters) involved in judgment all need to be pre-judged, then Sir, you get yourself into a dead cycle…the “philosophy” then has some logical problems.


To Sir Ron,
“But WHY? Why would you want to bring pleasure to others or avoid pain for others?
The only reason to do so, Stephen, is to further your own self-interest”

…. Then I consider your Smili is a sign of rudeness

To Sir Ron,

“Objectivism simply recognizes the INEVITABILITY of that link and advises being rational in determining what it is you want”

…..when one lives in Objectivism, one can not reason with yourself what you want. It is what you want, Sire Objectivism? It is to obey fully to it. A manipulatable Objectivism is not Objectivism.

To Sir Ron,

“Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.”

If you believe that every motivation is self-interest or rational self interest, then this sentence is the bomb of your own belief.

To Sir Ron,

“Ayn Rand was pushing tough love long before Dr. Phil made it popular”

………….Dr.Phil admires Oprah Winfrey who has quiet a heart to the children in underdeveloped world and area. His program is  sponsored  by Oprah to help people with life issues…which is quite contradictory  to Rand’s view of the world. Not in the same planet to the least between Dr.Phil and Rand.

Sir Ron is right again  “We all make mistakes.”.

To Brad,

If you believe that every motivation is from self-interest or rational self- interest, why do you believe that people will do such thing? As you quote.
“Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.”…
even people do this,  still because of self-interest or rational-self interest(by your philosophy, EVERY MOTIVATION IS BASED ON SELF-INTEREST”.. Then why do you have to warn them?


To rwood,

“I mean with the scams, guilt trips, ulterior motives, narcissists, liars, cheats, fakes, ignorance, etc.”

…..why do you give all those self-interests and rational self interests those evil labels?

**********************************
This is a purely philosophical

You have mortgage to pay
You have children to feed
Your cars have  dead  batteries

Then Rand invites your four for a meal
who is going to pay the bill?
Based on your rational self-interested “philosophy”?  

Happy father's day to all!!!!

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-17-2007 10:41 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


186 posted 06-17-2007 10:17 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
..To be judged by whom and by what criteria and how?

That's the second time you've asked me essentially the same question, Drauntz. I didn't answer then and I won't answer now because, had you read the book, you'd (presumably) know I've already answered the question. You certainly don't have to read any book you don't want to read, but please don't expect me to provide you with Cliff Notes. That isn't my job.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


187 posted 06-17-2007 10:21 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Again, and again, and again, Stephen, you're confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. The qualitative outcome of rational self-interest CAN be judged prior to the final outcome, as indeed it always must be. Indeed, it is far more prescriptive than your so-called traditional view of morality -- which can only advise action when your moral dilemma has been previously documented. Reason doesn't guarantee perfect answers, of course. Just as it doesn't guarantee accurate interpretation of Scripture. We all make mistakes.


Therein lies the problem Ron, Rand's objectivism categorises deviations as errors in judgement, the application of irrational self-interest if you will, or as you put it mistakes. Objectivism as a description of the method of ethical decisions in the real world as we see it fails because of the insistence that rational self-interest is the yardstick by which ethical decisions are said to be measured.

I know that sounds confusing so let me try to simplify it.

People use mathematics to arrive at answers to numeric problems.

The above statement is true.

People use sound mathematics to arrive at answers to numeric problems.

The above statement is clearly false, sometimes people use decidedly unsound mathematics which is demonstrated when people get the answer to numeric problems wrong.

The reason the first statement is true and the second is clearly false is that the first attempts to describe the mechanism by which people arrive at answers to numeric problems; it doesn't rely on a judgement of the outcome or answer to validate its own truth value Rand's subjectivism attempts to describe the mechanism by which ethical decisions are made but the insistence of using rational self-interest presupposes an objective (and external) judgement of the outcome as being a good choice or a mistake. Hume would have said objectivism describes the ought not the is and Moore that the application of a truth value is an example of naturalistic fallacy.

Worse still for Rand is the subjective nature of rational self-interest itself - one mans rational self-interest may be irrational to the next man.

Rand's Objectivism suddenly becomes the objective judgement of a subjective ethical decision.

I think Rand herself was confusing self-interest and rational self-interest she'd have been better off dropping the rational part and just sticking to self-interest.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


188 posted 06-17-2007 11:07 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

To Sir Ron,
First, Happy father's day to you!!!

I haven't expected you to give me any answers because there isn't one.

Such as, you use your smiley as a sign of politeness(other's interest). Then you say the politeness is for your own interest. Then you will say that your own interest for the good of other people (other's interest again), then you say a peaceful world is for your own interest (your self-interest again).

See, a smiley can be both a rational self-interest or other's interest just based on how you explain it. I do not consider  that this kind of theory is a "philosophy."
no smiley either.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


189 posted 06-17-2007 11:26 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Drauntz? Why are you so interested? Please prove you know how to read and answer the question or don't pose anymore to me.

Trust me. I'm not smiling.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


190 posted 06-17-2007 11:42 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

*sigh*

I never said that people are always and ever motivated by rational self-interest. That just makes the term vacuous.

Neither did Rand.

Given mistakes or confusing self-interest with rational self-interest, I do think rational self-interest, or if you want another adjective, enlightened self-interest, is the best way to go.

Why?

It seems to me you get better results that way.

Who decides and by what criteria? I decide and I make the criteria.

With all the mistakes and short sightedness that goes along with that.

While Rand's absolutism will always put me off (though I suspect that's part of her appeal for others), her basic point that one is fufilled by following what one wants to do is, I think, correct.

The problem isn't with this sentiment, it's that most people don't have any idea what they want.

I'm not sure, perhaps others who have studied  her more intensely than I can correct me here, but she doesn't deal with that fundamental question.

-----------------

As an aside, I was trying to explain my views on a possible utopia -- essentially, Galt's Gulch writ large -- and a good friend of mind rolled his eyes and said, "It's a great idea for a few people, but the suicide rate would go through the roof."

He's right and I don't know how to fix that.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


191 posted 06-18-2007 12:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

deviations as errors in judgement, the application of irrational self-interest if you will,
Actually, I won't.  I don't believe an error in judgement need always be the application of irrational self-interest at all. Making a mistake does not automarically make one irrational whether self-interest is present or not. Nor do I see where this is a flaw in Rand's philosophy.
Sound people use sound mathematics to arrive at answers. People who do not use sound mathematics will arrive at incorrect answers. That certainly coincides with her thoughts to me.

one mans rational self-interest may be irrational to the next man.  Sure, and murder to one man may be necessary population reduction to another....like Hitler, for example   Does that make it acceptable? People seem to run from absolutes for some reason, as if acknowledging their existence is evil.  There IS good and evil, there IS right and wrong and there IS rational and irrational.  A rock is a rock, no matter much  you claim it's bread and try to eat it. Ayn Rand does not claim that irrational self-interest exists, only that it is evil.

she'd have been better off dropping the rational part and just sticking to self-interest

LOL! Hardly.....rational is the entire base of her philosophy. Take away the rational and moral and you open the door for every criminal, dictator and murderer in history, who ALL were motivated by self-interest.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


192 posted 06-18-2007 12:33 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Grinch, I don't think rationality depends on "a judgment of the outcome or answer to validate its own truth value," any more than sound mathematics relies on the correct solution to a numerical problem. There are principles to be applied to each. People can learn sound mathematical principles and, in my opinion, people can also learn to exercise rational, critical thinking.

A man sitting at a blackjack table, staring at his Queen and five of spades, has a decision to make.

If he has a patient dealer or a quick mind, he can mentally calculate the odds of getting a card that will help his hand as just slightly less than fifty fifty. Glancing at the other cards already showing on the table, he might even be able to adjust the odds accordingly. If he does this -- whether he eventually wins the hand or loses it -- he is an Objectivist. The process determines his status, not the outcome.

Another alternative is to look at a cheat sheet. If the dealer's up card is six or less, he will stand, otherwise he will ask for another card. This is the realm, I think, of classical Ethics. Someone else has figured out your "probable" best course of action for you and listed it out for easy use. Of course, a blackjack cheat sheet reflects very finite possibilities and is thus MUCH smaller than the vastly greater variation in human interactions, but I think the principles are very, very similar.

Whether the man uses rational logic or a cheat sheet, his decision to stand or hit should ultimately be the same. Both processes lead to the same destination. Similarly, I really don't care why someone refrains from killing me as long as they DO refrain. Maybe they figured out it would likely be bad for their continued health? Or maybe their Sunday School teacher convinced them it would be bad for their soul? From my perspective, both work equally well.

Rand's complaint with classical ethics and morality, of course, is that not all the rules always seem to be geared strictly towards the benefit of the individual. One might almost suspect a few rules were slipped in there to benefit those already in power? To extend my analogy almost to its breaking point, if the blackjack cheat sheet was supplied by the casino, the players might well have good reason to be cautious. As Brad and Regina have resoundingly confirmed, I think THAT is one of the principle messages of Objectivism. Cheat sheets are dangerous.

Unfortunately, our blackjack player has yet another alternative, one that seems to be followed by many more people than not. He can listen to his gut. Maybe he's suddenly feeling lucky, maybe he's trying to impress the blonde sitting to his left, maybe he just has to use the bathroom really badly and wants to get the hand over, for whatever reason, he always has the option of asking for a hit JUST BECAUSE. Needless to say, the casinos just love to welcome this all too typical player to the table.

Here's the one thing, however, we can be pretty darn sure our blackjack player is NOT going to do. He's not going to purposely lose the hand so the strangers at the table with him have a better chance of winning theirs.    

From a semantic perspective, Craig, I tend to agree with you that rational probably isn't the best way to describe what I think Rand was trying to say. Personally, I would much rather differentiate between short- and long-term self-interest, not because the distinction relies any less on rationality, but because I think most people can more readily see the difference.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


193 posted 06-18-2007 12:43 AM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

My dear Sir Balladeer, I just knew that you had a skeleton in your closet. it is quite a miniature.

"There IS good and evil, there IS right and wrong and there IS rational and irrational"

.......who said this? what is your criteria for this grouping?

"LOL! Hardly.....rational is the entire base of her philosophy. Take away the rational and moral and you open the door for every criminal, dictator and murderer in history, who ALL were motivated by self-interest."

....tell me sir, how does  a "good" rational self-interest grows out of the dirt of "bad" self-interest? how?

have a very wonderful father's day, sir!


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


194 posted 06-18-2007 12:50 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Enlightened self-interest?

Thanks, Brad. I think I like that.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


195 posted 06-18-2007 12:51 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"It's a great idea for a few people, but the suicide rate would go through the roof."
Brad, I would suggest that the suicides would not be the people in Galt's Gulch, rather the people that would belong in Galt's Gulch but forced to live in the outside world. These would be the people in a constant mental tug-of-war between their thoughts and convictions and a world telling them that they were wrong. It would be them attempting to live their lives in a john Galt manner and being beaten down at every turn. It would be these people so torn apart by contradictions that they could choose suicide. Guess what? I suggest that it happens right now. It wouldn't happen to Rand's characters. They are too strong, which is another reason why I cannot identify with her heroes but even they, with the exception of Galt himself - Midas Mulligan, Reardon, Hammond, Dagny, and even Francisco were on their way to becoming broken people, saved only by Galt's recruitment. Remaining rational in an unrational world is a very hard thing to do.

It's remindful of the story of a kingdom in which an evil witch dumped a liquid in the drinking water which would cause insanity. The entire kingdom drank from the well, save the king, and all were made insane. The king tried to combat the insanity while the people tried to get the king to drink from the well. Beaten down, the king finally drank from the well, went mad, and the entire kingdom celebrated the king's return to sanity.

Drauntz, I thank you for the father's day wishes. As for the rest, I'll answer you after I have consulted with the miniature skeleton in my closet, whatever that is supposed to mean

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


196 posted 06-18-2007 01:00 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

A minute ago I knew what I was going to say and it made sense -- but now all I got is this:

I would have been interested in a debate between Rawls and Rand.

Wouldn't the 'Veil of Ignorance' be rational self interest though?
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


197 posted 06-18-2007 01:29 AM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

To Brad,

Is suicide a behavior of darkened self-interest or enlightened self-interest?

To Sir Balladeer,

“Remaining rational in an unrational world is a very hard thing to do.”

But with a beautiful mask of the soul, we are free. Esp the  sparkled ones which quite go with all sorts of enlightened self-interests. If you name them.

You told a marvelous story, Sir. But  the king is no longer a king to me if he has no authority over people. That is probably  Rand’s world.


And you ruined Local Rebel’s mood.

To Sir Ron,

How very interesting to read that you explained the logic of philosophy with the odds of gambling.
  
Man of the Year in Time, David Ho was kicked out two times by Casino because he kept winning ...even if one wanted to show one's enlightened self interest, it is just not allowed, even in Casino for a game.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


198 posted 06-18-2007 03:13 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I've already answered that question:

quote:
I never said that people are always and ever motivated by rational self-interest. That just makes the term vacuous.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


199 posted 06-18-2007 06:43 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Mood hasn't any effect here.  I'm a grownup -- I use my cerebral cortex for thinking -- not my hippocampus.  It's just that mine needs a new hard-drive.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Atlas Shrugged--the movie?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors