nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/18/90)
Alt.individualism used to have a lot of objectivists, people who claimed that there was a rational way to derive ethical values from an objective look at the world around us. In the thread "objectivism as religion" I claimed that the ethical values were *injected* into their system, not derived logically. Since then a lot of people have attacked this position but when pressed, most of them who appeared to be defending the "absolute value" position have denied actually being objectivists. People like Phil Ronzone and Mike Ellis say that they're not really objectivists but that they're trying to explain or paraphrase what objectivists think. Steve Mason, who says he is an objectivist but not an Objectivist was putting up a good debate but he seems to have disappeared before getting to the heart of the matter. In his last posting he said (to Paul Torek): >>Let me get this straight: Nelson asserts that no one has such rights. >>Now suppose (I'm not saying he would do this, but just suppose) he starts >>killing people left and right. Are you saying that you have no argument >>that, were he to rationally listen to it, would persuade him to stop? > >No, I am not saying that. The key to your question is the phrase "were >he to rationally listen to it," after which I would add "and >act accordingly." If he rationally listens, then I say I do have such >an argument. Perhaps so, but we haven't heard what that argument is. And no other objectivists or Objectivists have come to Mr. Mason's aid. The objectivists on this net give up too easily. So, for that matter, do some Libertarians. When I made a crack about there being no real-world social laboratory for libertarian ideals June Genis said, "Aha! Surely you've never heard of Big Water, Utah." But when I cited some facts from a recent phone conversation with the newspaper editor there, I thought or hoped, that she would come back and show me where I was wrong. But instead, that was the end of that. Really, folks I *wish* that I knews some rational basis for absolute ethics. I *wish* that a social and economic system based on true individual political, ethical, and economic liberty could be constructed that would work in the world-as-it-really-is. I don't criticize the ideals of Objectivism or Libertarianism because I'm opposed in principle to freedom or the idea of true merit winning out against a deadening sheeplike bureaucracy. I just don't see how any of this can map to the Real World. But I am trying to give believers in these things every opportunity to prove me wrong. I sincerely wish they could. ---Peter
GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) (01/18/90)
In article <48178c77.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > So, for that matter, do some Libertarians. When I made a crack > about there being no real-world social laboratory for libertarian > ideals June Genis said, "Aha! Surely you've never heard of Big > Water, Utah." But when I cited some facts from a recent phone > conversation with the newspaper editor there, I thought or hoped, > that she would come back and show me where I was wrong. But > instead, that was the end of that. Nope. I'm just still working on it, that all. On it's way to me at this very moment is a Mac disk with a copy of a story on Big Water which appeared in a recent issue of LPNews (I tried to get them to use email but they hadn't used the Compuserve gateway before so felt safer with the diskette approach for now). Expect a posting within the next week. /June
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (01/18/90)
In article <48178c77.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
+ Alt.individualism used to have a lot of objectivists, people
+ who claimed that there was a rational way to derive ethical
+ values from an objective look at the world around us. In the
+ thread "objectivism as religion" I claimed that the ethical
+ values were *injected* into their system, not derived logically.
The problem with Objectivism is it hasn't come up with a convincing case
against ethical nihilism; for that matter, neither has Libertarianism.
Most of them just don't realize it. Making light of Henry Hazlitt's
comment in his book "The Foundations of Morality" ... "The first thing
we do is kill the ethical nihilists!"
+ So, for that matter, do some Libertarians. When I made a crack
+ about there being no real-world social laboratory for libertarian
+ ideals ...
If you want to see an example of a society where all or even many
Libertarian/Objectivist ideals are practiced, even a small society of a
few thousand, you can stop looking; it doesn't exist. However, we can
find in the real world examples of what Libertarians and Objectivists seek,
e.g., legalized <name your favorite vice>, privatization of gov't services,
more just or no regulations of industry, less onerous gun control, etc.
I believe these examples provide ample evidence for the superiority of
Libertarian and Objectivist means and ends and the inferiority of statist
means and ends.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbdkc1!larry or larry@cbdkc1.att.compkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <48178c77.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > Since then a lot of people have attacked this position but when > pressed, most of them who appeared to be defending the "absolute > value" position have denied actually being objectivists. People > like Phil Ronzone and Mike Ellis say that they're not really > objectivists but that they're trying to explain or paraphrase > what objectivists think. Look asshole, let's get this straight. I am not trying to explain or paraphrase anything. I am stating what I believe and think. I realize that you have a square hole that your trying to fit the round peg of reality into, but, damn it, try and be accurate. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (01/19/90)
Peter asks where have all the objectivists gone. After all the flames and torrents of irrational slander we had taken, one wonders why we left. (and why Im back). You would honestly be curious as to some of the mail I got last time around. "why do you post to those idiots??" "here's the address of an O'ist mail list", etc. Honestly. I was arguing with Roger Lustig and Larry Cipriani over whether REALITY EXISTS (or not)! That reality is some fluid flux and no one can be certain of anything and that any arbitrary idea can be true (the more arbitrary the more true) can (and was) used to justify anything. On the off chance that you werent part of that "flame brigade" I will once more don my asbestos suit and post the O'ist basis for politics. I will make some assertions that I wont prove. Not everyone can prove them. But no honest person would question them. 1) Human life is the fundamental root of ethics. 2) As a living creature, a human being's nature requires sustenance. It also continually demands the answer to the question "to live?" Failure to answer "yes" means that the human will die (eventually); its sustenance is not automatic or a "right". 3) Each human has only one means of sustaining his life: his mind, and the use thereof. 4) Thinking is an individual process; it cannot be done as a collective. 5) Therefore, it follows _directly from metaphysics_ that each human must be free to use his mind. This means freedom of ideas, and of actions. 6) As a corollary, since some of these actions may lead to the CREATION of material values (property), the right of property follows. This is merely a right to own any property one produces (or trades from its producer). It is NOT an arbitrary assertion, or a "consensus". T. Edison did not invent a light bulb by consensus. Nor would he have if a consensus could take it away from him once done. (Production does not "happen". It is made possioble only by freedom) Notice that humans do not derive their rights from the govt (whos rights are presumably supernatural in origin?). The rights derive FROM THEIR VERY NATURE. Notice also, that the above mentioned rights (life, thought, action, property) all follow from this; and that they are NOT compatible with any other rights which liberals have named in recent years. Like "a decent house", "medical care", "food", etc. Notice that not all men may have such rights. This is due to another fact of metaphysics: What is consumed must have been produced! Someone must work involuntarily for others gain (slavery!) in order for some men to have those "rights". This was not an exhaustive essay. There is much more to be said. But it leads in the right direction. Honest inquiries will be answered. Flamers will be met by: flames! :)
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/19/90)
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) posts... >The problem with Objectivism is it hasn't come up with a convincing case >against ethical nihilism; for that matter, neither has Libertarianism. >Most of them just don't realize it. Making light of Henry Hazlitt's >comment in his book "The Foundations of Morality" ... "The first thing >we do is kill the ethical nihilists!" I suppose this depends on what you mean by ethical nihilism. Is an ethical nihilist one who categorically denies the existence of ethical standards or is he one (like me) who merely challenges those who claim there ARE ethical standards to show why they think so? Objectivism claims to have no problem with the latter because they claim to start off with an ethical blank slate. They claim to derive ethical standards from the objective facts >+ So, for that matter, do some Libertarians. When I made a crack >+ about there being no real-world social laboratory for libertarian >+ ideals ... > >If you want to see an example of a society where all or even many >Libertarian/Objectivist ideals are practiced, even a small society of a >few thousand, you can stop looking; it doesn't exist. However, we can >find in the real world examples of what Libertarians and Objectivists seek, >e.g., legalized <name your favorite vice>, privatization of gov't services, >more just or no regulations of industry, less onerous gun control, etc. This makes Libertarians look like Republicans. In any case it's not clear how well these things have actually worked. Even liberal Democrats have favored "privatization of gov't services" on an innocous scale, like garbage collection. I haven't seen results of attempts to privatize things like police, fire, schools, etc. (there are, of course, private schools, but these are elective and so are not comparable to public schools). And deregulation has been a mixed bag. Deregulated S&L's are a mess. The airlines were deregulated and business volume went up, prices for economy seats went down, prices for 1st class went up, delays and crowding went up, safety at first improved, then declined, and profits for airlines went down (Source: OAG Frequent Flyer magazine). On the other hand, deregulating the phone industry seems like a major win. I don't know any place craeting less onerous gun control laws, the tendency seems to be MORE gun control laws everywhere. >I believe these examples provide ample evidence for the superiority of >Libertarian and Objectivist means and ends and the inferiority of statist >means and ends. I still think that a more clear-cut experiment is needed to actually test causes and effects. Libertarians propose much more sweeping changes than anything that's actually been tried up to now and we should all know the dangers of "if a little is good, more must be better". The other problem is that one could easily use the same arguments that Mr. Cipriani is using here to support statist ideals. For instance, Japan has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world and they have an extremely low crime rate. The Scandinavian countries have extensive social welfare systems compared to the U.S. and they also have much less poverty than we do. Canada has national health insurance and they have a much lower infant mortality rate than we do. Etc, etc. Does this show a causal relationship of just coincidence? ---Peter
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/20/90)
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) posts... >On the off chance that you werent part of that "flame brigade" I will once >more don my asbestos suit and post the O'ist basis for politics. I will make >some assertions that I wont prove. Not everyone can prove them. But no honest >person would question them. Well, I'm an honest person and I certainly question a number of them... > 1) Human life is the fundamental root of ethics. Not sure what this means. Ethics is *about* humans, that is it is not clear that we have ethical obligations to rocks or rabbits (though some claim we do). But when you say human 'life', are you making a claim about the ethical significance of the arbitrary, individual human life? >2) As a living creature, a human being's nature requires sustenance. It also > continually demands the answer to the question "to live?" Failure to > answer "yes" means that the human will die (eventually); its sustenance > is not automatic or a "right". Agreed. >3) Each human has only one means of sustaining his life: his mind, and the use > thereof. Again, I think this is a little vague. I claim that physical traits, personality characteristics, and other human factors are also important for sustaining life. A stupid person with a good immune system may be able to sustain himself better during a plague better than an intelligent person with a poorer one. A beautiful but dumb blonde may have better survival chances than a rational plain woman in some situations. An idiot with confidence may do better sometimes than a self-doubting Nobel laureate. A socially popular person may often survive in situations where the bright nerd won't. I'm not splitting hairs here; I'm contesting the notion that rationality is the be-all and end-all of man's survival capacity. It is also worth noting that a good-looking rational person has better chances than an ugly rational person, etc. Rationality is one of a constellation of factors. I'd rather be rational than not, but that's because I'm already popular and good-looking 8-) . >4) Thinking is an individual process; it cannot be done as a collective. Again, I think this is vague. Obviously groups of people don't fuse their brains or meld their minds to think. But intellectual creativity is a social and cultural phenomenon. We use the ideas of others, "bounce ideas off of" others, etc. >5) Therefore, it follows _directly from metaphysics_ that each human must > be free to use his mind. This means freedom of ideas, and of actions. "Must", in what sense? What happens if they are not free in this way? If I have an adversary in some matter, might it not be to my advantage (rationally) to prevent him from using his mind? >6) As a corollary, since some of these actions may lead to the CREATION of > material values (property), the right of property follows. This is merely > a right to own any property one produces (or trades from its producer). It > is NOT an arbitrary assertion, or a "consensus". T. Edison did not invent > a light bulb by consensus. Nor would he have if a consensus could take it > away from him once done. (Production does not "happen". It is made possioble > only by freedom) I agree that freedom to echange ideas and freedom to enjoy the fruits or benefits of one's creativity makes for a good climate to foster such creativity. But this then becomes a pragmatic issue rather than a philosophical or theoretical one. #6 does not show that taxing wealth derived from inventions (assuming the inventor is still allowed to become wealthy), or allowing patents to run out after so many years, significantly inhibits creativity. Japan and the West are experiencing a veritable explosion of inventions, discoveries, and creativity these days, despite taxes or the fact that the individual inventor may work for a large corporation and only receive modest returns on his particular invention. I think that the relationship between motivation and creativity in the Real World is more complex than objectivists suggest. >This was not an exhaustive essay. There is much more to be said. But it >leads in the right direction. Honest inquiries will be answered. Flamers will >be met by: flames! :) Well, I hope you don't think any of my comments were flames. But I would appreciate a little more specificity from objectivists here. ---Peter