Ludwig von Mises Institute - Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School.
Now that our country is expected to be the foremost champion of the "free world" (for how long and at what cost nobody knows), it has become more important than ever for Americans to think clearly about American freedom. FULL ARTICLE by Bruce Winton Knight
Ludwig von Mises Institute · 518 West Magnolia Avenue · Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@mises.org · webmaster · AOL-IM MainMises · Save to MyMises
Comments (80)
Bala
" Individual freedom would be social nonsense if the strong did not protect the weak from invasion of their liberty, and if the fortunate did not help the unlucky. "
Unadulterated nonsense. By what moral code is this valid?
" Morally we are bound by the principle that man is his brother's keeper"
Two ways of looking at it. It is indeed sad that most of the world's population is bound by this immoral code. Secondly, it is utter nonsense to assume that social order is is impossible in a scenario where man does not act as his brother's keeper.
A rational man acting in his long-range self-interest is as likely, if not more, to act to preserve social order when the long-range benefits (to him) of (his) actions that preserve the social order exceed the short-term costs. He is just as likely to fight an unjust social order whose long-range costs to him far outweigh the short-term benefits.
For instance, a rationally selfish man does not go around killing and pillaging because acting thus sanctions the "principle" that to kill and pillage is alright and he has no defence when at some time in the future, someone stronger than he is decides to do the same to him. This is the true moral concept that we call rights.
A rationally selfish man will stand up for justice because he values the preservation and enhancement of the concept for what it means for him.
The sooner we get rid of this abhorrent piece of garbage (the notion that man is his brother's keeper), the closer we will be to true freedom. No freedom is possible as long as one man is expected to be responsible for the well-being of another.
Published: September 23, 2009 10:33 AM
mpolzkill
Oh dear, you've set him off, long-dead-guy-I'd-never-heard-of-before. A mythological villain makes one sarcastic crack and literalists fight over it for all eternity.
I sure am impressed with myself on how my hours of discussions with Bala have gotten him to moderate his sermons not one iota. Maybe there is a bit more nuance in this one.
"a rationally selfish man does not go around killing"
Unless Ayn Rand told him the victims are, quote: "savages."
Published: September 23, 2009 11:03 AM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Unless Ayn Rand told him the victims are, quote: "savages." "
That's your statement not mine. The last time we had a discussion on Israel, I conceded your point.
This time, try disputing mine for a change instead of ranting on.
Published: September 23, 2009 11:15 AM
Nate Y
Bala,
What on Earth are you talking about? If a person freely chooses to be his/her brother's keeper and no force or fraud is involved in the process, on what moral ground could you possibly object?
You also toss around the word "rational" with reckless abandon.
Published: September 23, 2009 11:23 AM
Arthur Franklin
"I am not my brother's keeper"
Sounds like something Bernie Madoof built his life around.
Greed is good...
...to hell with the ohter guy.
Published: September 23, 2009 11:50 AM
mpolzkill
Of course I appear to rant to you, you are overly-literal. It's at least partly you, Bala, trust me; your hilarious take on the Cain and Able story best shows your handicap. Every left turn, you're lost. Nearly all digressions, inferences, allusions, paraphrases, subtlety, nuance, parables - ALL the color in speech and ambiguities of reality - it's all lost on you.
I'm just not your cup of tea, Bala. For most people things stick better in the mind when they are colorful and also when points are worked for, not handed down by rote. Not everyone gets everything, however; everyone has their fields they excel at. You should probably give up on most of the ones you have delved into here. Definitely stay out of interpreting mythology. I'm thinking mathematics is your thing, maybe.
How did I get you to concede my point if I was merely ranting?
My points here were already made before and I was alluding to them. I was only laughing how they had approximately zero effect:
1. You're BOTH wrong: we are neither enjoined to be everyone else's keeper, nor must we willfully go the complete opposite way.
What exactly did you concede on Israel, btw?
2. You and Rand both show your objectivity and rationality to be highly suspect...no, downright a joke. You unwittingly revealed that your studies on Israel were all from a pro-Israel slant, this so skewed you to the point that you called Israel "the white" and THE Arabs "the black"! [Anti-collectivism!] It seems beyond a coincidence that your hero did the same. Now, from a haphazard conversation you're suddenly dropping your historically mortifying "white" and "black" position? (stay out of public relations too, Bala) If you two super-geniuses have such problems, how on earth is your philosophy going to work out for all us little-brains?
Published: September 23, 2009 12:14 PM
USA Today
How can I be my brother's keeper if I am not allowed to be myself's keeper ?
Published: September 23, 2009 12:17 PM
USA Today
What is wrong is to force someone to be his brother's keeper.
That must be voluntary and if it's voluntary, that means some people will decide to keep all for themselves and should they make that choice we must respect them nonetheless.
Forcing someone to provide aid reduces the moral value and merit of those who willfully decide to provide aid.
In a free and responsible society, your first duty is to be your own keeper.
And protecting the weak, isn't that like subsidizing the weak ?
Don't you always get more of what you subsidize ?
Therefore, isn't protection of the weak effectively weaking society as a whole ?
I say LIVE and LET DIE !
Published: September 23, 2009 12:20 PM
USA Today
@Bala,
"The sooner we get rid of this abhorrent piece of garbage (the notion that man is his brother's keeper), the closer we will be to true freedom. No freedom is possible as long as one man is expected to be responsible for the well-being of another."
I totally agree with you ! AMEN brother !
Published: September 23, 2009 12:22 PM
Mike
Objectivists often give libertarians a bad name, because they try to turn one of the corollaries of liberty, that nobody shall be coerced into serving another, into some kind of grand organizing principle of the universe. But humans, even by default without any reason, have all kinds of basic emotional constructs that belie this notion: love, admiration, empathy, pity, to name a few. Face it, we're social animals.
What we should instead be focusing on in debate is the simple fact that capitalism and freedom are far more communitarian than socialism. In socialism, in which all sorts of futile efforts are made to equalize people, envy breeds rampantly because any inequality is now an "injustice" to be corrected via social manipulation.
Further, the existence of a "safety net" makes people less reliant on one another for support during times of hardship. People laugh at the idea of "family values", calling it an anachronism, and in fact they're right. Family values of course seem arbitrary in this society of zero individual responsibility. In a civilization where people are responsible, family and community bonding comes naturally.
It seems like a paradox because socialists claim to be the communitarian ones all loving and caring, but the fact is socialism breeds apathy. Freedom and responsibility breed love and care.
Published: September 23, 2009 12:30 PM
DW
"Therefore, isn't protection of the weak effectively weaking society as a whole ?"
You were doing well until you said that. I say, give a man a fish and he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish and he is fed for a lifetime. There is "help" that makes you someone's nanny, and then there's help that makes someone their own master.
Confusing voluntary help with "subsidizing" is laughable at best. Subsidies are funds acquired through force without consideration of property rights; there's no free-market mechanism of checking subsidies against waste and abuse. That's why subsidies tend to result in less productivity over time. Actual charities, on the other hand, operate by earning the trust of their donors before acquiring any funds; the result is a more prioritized and disciplined use of resources than you'd find in the public sector. Those who need the greatest help would more likely get it first in a private charity than a public institution. Furthermore, private charities are more willing to deny help to those who are just conning their system. Compare that to the welfare-state. This does not "weaken" society in the least.
Furthermore, there are people who genuinely cannot help themselves, who are dependent on a "keeper" at some level or another. They are the lame, the blind, etc. Suggesting that voluntarily helping them too makes society weaker would overlook the demand for new products and technologies needed to overcome such disabilities, so that the helped can eventually help themselves. Since charities, as I've mentioned, earn their income, they are likely to invest in research that would be fruitful in helping even the unluckiest cases. I don't know about you, but it's good to know that there are kind souls out there funding a solution for maiming accidents should I become a victim of one myself. And out pure generosity, not force, no less! Charities demand innovation, and we reap the rewards.
Published: September 23, 2009 1:02 PM
Bala
Nate Y
" What on Earth are you talking about? If a person freely chooses to be his/her brother's keeper and no force or fraud is involved in the process, on what moral ground could you possibly object? "
None. My objection was to the idea of calling the notion moral. It is a pure choice if a person decides to be his brother's keeper. However, if the same is peddled as a noble moral principle, I shall stand and object louder than anyone else.
mpolzkill,
" You're BOTH wrong: we are neither enjoined to be everyone else's keeper, nor must we willfully go the complete opposite way. "
Depends on what you mean by the "complete opposite way". If you mean that one should treat one's brother's as one's mortal enemy and seek opportunities to kill him, that is not the opposite I mean. Unfortunately, that is what you are taking my stand to mean and I think you have got me completely wrong on this.
If the "complete opposite way" means that my brother is his own responsibility and that I am in no way expected to support him (though I may because I choose to), I am with it.
From a basic logical viewpoint, the opposite of "Man is his brother's keeper" is "Man is not his brother's keeper", not "man should treat his brother as his mortal enemy".
" your hilarious take on the Cain and Able story best shows your handicap "
And your take shows how easy it is for someone to pull the wool over your eyes. All they need is a seriously abhorrent background story and you are ready to swallow the most ridiculous suggestions as moral principles.
Arthur Franklin
" Sounds like something Bernie Madoof built his life around "
Sorry. You got it completely wrong. Madoff was acting selfishly but he was completely irrational to assume that his scheme would not fall apart till there was no way he could escape retribution (meaning before he dies). He was living the opposite of the "man is his brother's keeper" principle in the manner in which mpolzkill likes to twist my position on this.
Published: September 23, 2009 2:00 PM
Bala
The fundamental problem with this article is that it first yields the moral high ground to the altruists by accepting the credo that "man is his brother's keeper" and then goes on to try and rationally explain (to someone who is least interested in a rational explanation) why volutarism is a better way for this to happen. High hopes. When push comes to shove, the do-gooding altruist is sure to shove the very moral code you accepted into your face and down your throat to cow you into submission.
If ever there was an example of whining at the feet of a tyrant (or a potential one), this article is it.
This is the most absurd way to fight the battle for freedom. The only correct way is to reject the moral code that says "Man is his brother's keeper" and then say "There will always be men who are ready to engage in charity to support the unfortunate. Let us leave it to the voluntary spirit of the noble souls among us to help the unfortunate in their hour of misery."
To do this this, we need to first understand that selfishness is not a vice but a virtue of the highest order.
Published: September 23, 2009 2:08 PM
mpolzkill
Bala, your brain is a garble machine. You're a functional idiot and I'm not much better, knowing for a week now the chances of getting anything through your thick skull. Good bye.
Published: September 23, 2009 2:19 PM
USA Today
Mike,
"Further, the existence of a "safety net" makes people less reliant on one another for support during times of hardship."
I'd rather die than to get caught in that abandoned safety web.
How about safety spikes ? If you fall it will be quick and painless.
I've never seen a fly free itself from a spider's sticky and tacky web. And the more the fly tries to free itself, the more it gets entangled in the spider's web.
The concept of a safety net must be the most cruel thing mankind ever invented.
Back in prehistoric times, nature brutally let the weak go. It might look cruel, but it's much less cruel than to suffer a lifetime of weakness.
I'd rather die than be maimed or amputated.
If you have to chop my arms and legs, please chop my neck first.
Published: September 23, 2009 2:44 PM
USA Today
mpolzkill,
"Bala, your brain is a garble machine. You're a functional idiot and I'm not much better,"
Again attacking the messenger aren't you mopskills ?
I suppose your mop skills are greater than your argumenting skills.
I find Bala to make perfect sense. His arguments are sound and to the point.
For freedom to truly exist, one must be free from the obligation of being his brother's keeper.
If one is forced to be his brother's keeper than there cannot be freedom.
You can call us "noodle soup for brains" all you want, that won't make you win this argument whatsoever.
Published: September 23, 2009 2:47 PM
mpolzkill
Cute. Someone already beat you to that joke.
See how much sense Bala makes all over this forum:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010592.asp#comments
What's my argument? You don't know it because you don't know the rest, and Bala doesn't know it because his brain doesn't function very well. I never once suggested that all are required to be everyone else's keepers, no real libertarian would. You are only witnessing the last straw in my exasperation with him. I'm done arguing with him as I and others have destroyed many of his and his cult leader's arguments over and over again on that linked forum.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:00 PM
USA Today
Moptop,
Just because his different arguments about different subjects did not make sense in the past doesn't preclude the fact that his present arguments about this present subject do make sense.
Again, you are attacking the messenger by pointing to his past failures and trying to establish that because in the past he made mistakes, then now he is still making mistakes.
Please pay attention to his arguments. I find Bala to make perfect sense when he says that in order for individual freedom to exist, one must be free from the obligation to be his brother's keeper.
In this, Bala makes sense.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:07 PM
USA Today
"and Bala doesn't know it because his brain doesn't function very well. "
Even a parrot can learn to repeat E=MC2.
If you heard a parrot repeat that, would you dismiss the truthfulness of E=MC2 only because a parrot said it ?
Who cares about Bala's brains, it's what comes out of his mouth that counts.
Please, stay on course of the message, this blog is not supposed to be a kindergarten playground insult fest.
Freedom means that one man is free to let the other man in front of him starve to death without helping him but that everybody else is free to refuse to sell food to the first man who refused to help the starving man.
Freedom means freedom of association and freedom of business.
I am free to not go to the restaurant and the restaurant owner is free to not sell his food to me. If I did not purchase his food, it is still his private property and he is free to keep it for himself and not sell it to me if he wants to.
So, in a free society, individuals are free to be selfish jerks if they want to and everybody else are free to ostracize such jerks if they want to.
Fair enough ?
And maybe the starving guy in the street is a gazillionnaire searching for a helping soul to be his heir, you never know, LOL !
But I know by experience that some brother's are professional beggars and if you give them some money, they will ask for more and start to become threatening.
You better keep what's yours for yourself.
I once gave 2 bucks to a man in the street and he saw that I had $10 in my wallet and I gave in to his pressure and intimidation. That beggar was his brother's robber and was only satisfied when he took everything I had.
From that date, I vowed to never give anobody anything and to be a selfish jerk. That way they won't ambition on me.
If it's all or nothing with them, then I will keep all and give them nothing.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:18 PM
mpolzkill
How about you try paying attention? And how about knocking off the childish name calling? How the hell can you know the reams of abuse both these guys you've taken it upon yourself to defend have heaped on me and many others? My little jabs are mild in comparison, believe me.
If this is the only point, I never disagreed with it. (It's a "no shit" point for any libertarian, anyway. What are you getting so hot and bothered about?) Bala imagined I disagreed with the point due to god knows what exact mental malfunctions he has and now you attack me because you imagine he is correct on that.
I'm saying go ahead and check out the rest of the Randian package this clear thinker advocates. He didn't suddenly become some great thinker in the last two days.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:25 PM
mpolzkill
"this blog is not supposed to be a kindergarten playground insult fest."
Then why on earth do YOU take to it - in a far more juvenile vein - at the drop of a hat? As I told you, this was the culmination of weeks.
Please don't address any long diatribes to me, for your own sake. I don't ever read your stuff. (Not an insult, the truth that comes out as an insult.)
Published: September 23, 2009 3:38 PM
USA Today
Mpolzkill,
"Please don't address any long diatribes to me, for your own sake. I don't ever read your stuff."
I'm free to write long ones if I want to and you are free to ignore them. Deal ?
But I guess that you answered my questions by this declaration of yours.
So the truth is you ignore your opponent's arguments.
Case closed.
I understand that from now one, you are not worthy of discussion, argumentation or debating I will just ignore you myself and discuss with more worthy gentlemen like Bala et al.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:55 PM
USA Today
Mpolzkill,
"How the hell can you know the reams of abuse both these guys you've taken it upon yourself to defend have heaped on me and many others? My little jabs are mild in comparison, believe me."
I'm defending their current argumentation about freedom and I couldn't care less about their past. But I see your present isn't all that clear.
But remember, bricks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:58 PM
mpolzkill
Ah, you should be great pals with Bala. How are we opponents? Have you still not figured out that I never disagreed with your trivial point here?
Write whatever you want, that was not my point. I've seen your stuff, it's below pee wee league: don't bother writing anything to ME is what I said.
I try to ignore people who advocate aggressive violence (you, Gil and Bala) after showing how wrong they really are (Bala). Others just make fools of themselves constantly all on their own and need no help from anyone (you and Gil).
Published: September 23, 2009 4:10 PM
Nate Y
Bala,
In your first post you said "It is indeed sad that most of the world's population is bound by this immoral code."
So I asked on what moral ground do you object to the idea and you say "None".
You can't have it both ways. If you claim it immoral, you must make an objection to it on moral grounds. If you don't think it a subject of morality, then I have no idea why you bothered to write much at all.
Published: September 23, 2009 4:14 PM
Nick
I would say that I am a little confused on the "moral obligations" that are referenced in the beginning of the article as well. With that aside, I think that Bruce W. Wright has some eloquently written passages that make it well worth a read.
Published: September 23, 2009 6:18 PM
Bala
Nate Y,
" You can't have it both ways. If you claim it immoral, you must make an objection to it on moral grounds. "
The reason you have this confusion is that you have not understood what I mean by "moral" and hence "immoral".
In a rationally selfish code of morality, life enhancing choices are moral and life diminishing choices are immoral. Happiness being our gauge of the success of our actions in sustaining life in consonance with our code of values, long-range happiness increasing actions are moral while actions that that diminish it are immoral.
The key point is that neither are values nor where we place different values on the scale of our code of values automatic. Every part of it is a choice. If one man chooses to place "being his brother's keeper" over satisfaction of his own immediate or long-range needs beyond a stage of satisfaction, that is a choice. If another man never in his lifetime places "being his brother's keeper" above any of his other values, that too is a choice.
What is immoral is placing the value of "being his brother's keeper" in conflict with the value of a certain social order.
Man values a certain social order because of the long-range benefits it brings to him and for nothing else. This certain social order has to come very high in the scale of a rationally selfish-man's code of values based on how absolutely essential it is for the attainment of most of his other values. As an example, note that a capitalistic system of social organisation is of far greater value to a rationally selfish man than is a socialistic form of social organisation.
In fact, the certain social order jostles for position with values such as liberty, property and even life (which is why people join a volunteer army).
By placing "being his brother's keeper" in competition with the certain social order, you are making a conscious choice to value "being his brother's keeper" very highly. That would be an immoral choice because you are then getting ready to place it over your life and lose your life for it. That would contradict the choice of living and would hence be immoral.
Hope this clarifies.
Published: September 23, 2009 8:22 PM
Bala
Nate Y
Just a small addition to further clarify.
There is a world of difference between the phrases "Man is his brother's keeper" and "man choosing to be his brother's keeper". The latter is an individual's voluntary choice to be his brother's keeper while the former is a statement that posits that it is in man's nature to be his brother's keeper and he has to hence ascribe a high value (in his code of values) to "being his brother's keeper". This choice that makes it necessary to ascribe a high value to "being his brother's keeper" is what makes the statement "Man is his brother's keeper" immoral. The emphasis is on the IS.
Published: September 23, 2009 8:58 PM
USA Today
Mpolzkill,
"that was not my point. I've seen your stuff, it's below pee wee league: "
LOL, look who's talking.
That coming from someone who continually keeps making below atom league ad-hominem attacks.
I guess you're right, I should not bother wasting my keystrokes on a human piece of garbage like you.
Published: September 24, 2009 10:07 AM
USA Today
Mopskills,
I never advocated using aggressive violence to win a debatable argument.
I advocate using aggressive violence to meet aggressive violence.
Gil doesn't advocate going mass murdering your neighbors and Bala never advocated fleecing your brother.
They are saying that as long as they are not attacked, they will not attack others but they reserve the right to fight back should the be attacked in the first place.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of personal self-defense.
Look at nature, elephants have horns, tigers have claws, insects have venim, some bite, some serpents strangle you, crocodiles drown you.
Fight is everywhere in nature and so in mankind.
We must use our brains to avoid conflict in the first place but when you can't avoid conflict you must fight back.
Unless you advocate absolute pacifism but being a libertarian you cannot force others to share your worldview.
And being ready and willing to self-defense is not being a brainless neanderthal.
Published: September 24, 2009 10:14 AM
USA Today
Bala,
" The latter is an individual's voluntary choice to be his brother's keeper "
And that choice requires that this man can at anytime terminate his help and stop being his brother's keeper.
Published: September 24, 2009 10:16 AM
Nate Y
Bala,
Thank you for clarifying your point. Now I can clearly see that you are out of your mind. Your last post was just too good. I can reference it whenever I need a good chuckle.
Especially this: "The latter is an individual's voluntary choice to be his brother's keeper while the former is a statement that posits that it is in man's nature to be his brother's keeper and he has to hence ascribe a high value (in his code of values) to "being his brother's keeper"."
I mean, this is just off the charts awesome. It's as if you don't even consider that man's nature covers the whole range of behavior from the heights of virtue through the plains of indifference on to the pits of vice.
Cheers
Published: September 24, 2009 10:38 AM
mpolzkill
Nate Y said:
"It's as if you don't even consider that man's nature covers the whole range of behavior from the heights of virtue through the plains of indifference on to the pits of vice."
No, Nate, THAT was awesome. I would have saved myself many an hour if I had your skills, ha ha.
Published: September 24, 2009 10:46 AM
John Mac
I don't think that there is such a thing as man's "nature".
Man has free will and reason, therefore I don't see where nature fits in. There are no rules, only exceptions when it comes to man.
Published: September 24, 2009 11:44 AM
mpolzkill
John Mac,
Nothing fits outside of nature; or: there is literally nothing outside of it (unless you have been given an inside scoop from the beyond regarding the "super natural", like "fundamentalist". I didn't get the memo.) Man has a nature, there ARE rules, when they are broken there are predictable but not wholly predictable results. We are seeing them played out worldwide as the State tries to bend the nature of billions to the will of a handful. There is no exception to the harm caused by man dominating man (it takes different forms, sure.)
Published: September 24, 2009 12:11 PM
John Mac
mpolzkill,
In that case, I will argue that excentricity and unpredictability and unmanageability are man's deepest nature.
Granted, nothing exists outside of nature but the wording "man's nature" implies something to the like of "man's pattern".
Can you predict the stock market ? Can you predict the future ? Can you predict a man's future behavior ?
I just don't believe there is a pattern applicable to man like there is for animals or insects.
Man has free will and reason which allows him to create his own nature.
Published: September 24, 2009 12:38 PM
mpolzkill
John Mac,
Oh, no doubt, it is a nature perhaps infinitely more complex than the unreasoning (or very crudely reasoning) animals (leaving aside how animals and ecosystems are not so simple either). No, as I implied, particulars are not ours to predict. Not everything about human nature is so very mysterious though. Read the great literary psychologist Dostoevsky's "Demons", for instance. He predicted the future of Russia in frightening detail; all from his profound study of human nature. Mises made similarly awesome predictions applying his science of human action.
Published: September 24, 2009 12:58 PM
G8R HED
@ "In a rationally selfish code of morality, life enhancing choices are moral and life diminishing choices are immoral. Happiness being our gauge of the success of our actions in sustaining life in consonance with our code of values, long-range happiness increasing actions are moral while actions that that diminish it are immoral."
Can one pursue long range happiness without enhancing the happiness of his brother?
Exchange for mutual benefit would say not.
In this respect 'man is his brother's keeper.'
Voluntary abstinence from exchange or proximity to others excludes the possibility and opportunity 'deep one's brother', as such, one cannot be charged to do so.
Choosing only non-vonluntary exchange implies an immoral act.
Voluntary exchange for mutual benefit is synonymous with 'man is his brothers keeper.'
Published: September 24, 2009 1:03 PM
G8R HED
...ooops..."keep" not "deep"
Hmmmm, typo or freudian slip....
Published: September 24, 2009 1:09 PM
John Mac
G8R HED,
Define "happiness" !
Published: September 24, 2009 1:33 PM
mpolzkill
Watch out, "G8R", that sounds like moocher talk, ha ha.
I really like what you have to say here, but I'm all for ditching this word "keeper": "attendant, a guard, or a warden". These Randians think "keeper" means total responsibility for how everyone else does in life, apparently. You don't think that, I'm sure. How about: it would be nice if you cared about and helped your brother if he needs it. That's what my Mom would say (haha) and I think that's what the Bible says.
Cain in the story was sarcastically using a reductio ad absurdum: "How the hell should I know where he is, it's absurd"; "not my job"; "not my day to watch him." We've all heard people say things like this; probably never heard a murderer say them about his victim. It just added to the extreme crassness of Cain. "How dare anyone expect me to give a crap about my brother!"
Crazy to me that Randians should take this little bit of color in a story and make such a deal out of it (well not so crazy when you get to know Randians). It's crazy for a religious person to use it to say we must be everyone elses total caretaker (if any actually do this, as the Randians seem to imagine). It IS absurd, how can we each be everyone else's warden? Cain knew that, he was evil, not stupid! (he he)
It's also crazy in general for atheists to get hot and bothered about what the religious believe unless the religious are enforcing their views on them. That is certainly not happening anywhere around here, but if it does happen, if they do threaten you: get pissed about the gun, not the details of ancient myths.
Published: September 24, 2009 1:46 PM
John Mac
mpolzkill,
We atheists get amused when religous people try to justify their positions by stating "The Bible Says".
We would like to know what you say but then, when faced with this question, religious believers then reply "it doesn't matter what I say, the Bible says..."
I know what the Bible says, but what do you say ?
"it doesn't matter what I say, the Bible says..."
At this point, I usually give up. LOL !
Published: September 24, 2009 2:35 PM
mpolzkill
John Mac,
We fair-minded atheists get amused when anti-theists assume that our fair-mindedness to the religious and their texts must mean we are religious. You DO know what that says about you?
I can almost see your mind shutting as soon as the Bible is mentioned. What on earth did I justify? "My brother's keeper" comes from the Bible. I couldn't very well talk about this subject without referring to the Bible. I accurately stated what it literally says, and then I gave MY INTERPRETATION.
Now, pretending I'm religious:
"We would like to know what you say"
Bull.
"I know what the Bible says"
Highly dubious.
"At this point, I usually give up. LOL !"
You never started. You clearly did not read what I wrote. You really should when being incredible condescending.
Published: September 24, 2009 2:50 PM
mpolzkill
* incredibly condescending
I take that all back if I am misreading you. I've gone over and over it, and I can't see how. No, it's all there. The hilarious smugness excluding little old me: "We atheists", as if you were the Queen of England. The unconscious dishonesty, the idiotic "LOL"
In addition there is the fact that I have been through this with literally hundreds of anti-theists. Such a mass of geniuses this earth has been graced with all of a sudden!
Published: September 24, 2009 3:00 PM
John Mac
mpolzkill,
Don't take it personally and I wasn't even referring specifically to you. I did read your whole post and I know that you were not suggesting to "obey" the bible, etc.
My post was merely an anecdote about some christians I encountered who acted like this.
P.S. I was once a Bible thumper-quoter myself a decade ago, so my post is also a mesure of self-derision.
Cheer up, LOL !
Published: September 24, 2009 3:19 PM
John Mac
mpolzkill,
Ever been in a Ripley's believe it or not museum.
You know the mirror at the beginning where you are invited to touch your noze with your tongue only to find out later at the end of the tour that it is a one sided glass and you can see people making "faces" ?
Well, when I was a Christian, I was the guy looking at himself in the mirror trying to touch his noze with his tongue.
Life's miseries has got me to grow critical thinking and when I was looking at other people making faces and laughing about it, that's when I realized I had finally became an Atheist.
The "grimaces" I made in the name of Christ, when I look back I can only laugh it up.
Published: September 24, 2009 3:25 PM
mpolzkill
John Mac,
I'm sorry, you seem to be outrageously dishonest now. That it was addressed to me alone; the "We atheists"; "WE would like to know what YOU say": this could not mean anything but the fact that you thought you were giving the beat down to a Christian. Unless you are claiming to be a completely incompetent writer and/or an idiot; surely you're not doing that. If not, you surely believe I'm an idiot. Here, this is me believing your new cover story: "Well thanks so much for this meaningless to the discussion and out of the blue anecdote about some Christians you knew once. Boy, they sound dumb! It's just too bad you didn't say, "hey, here's a funny anecdote you reminded me of, 'total stranger guy.'" I wouldn't have been naturally offended then. And too bad that you forgot to put any trace of that self derision in your first post! That sure would have made you look a lot less like a pompous ass!"
I'm perfectly cheerful. It's hellavu lotta fun exposing smug, dishonest and biased people who look down on those they consider inferior.
Published: September 24, 2009 3:51 PM
John Mac
No,
I am referring to Christians who quote Bible verses but who someone can't make a mind of their own.
I would like to know what a christian think for himself but they say that it doesn't matter.
Must I conclude that christians don't think ?
Published: September 24, 2009 4:00 PM
John Mac
"I'm perfectly cheerful. It's hellavu lotta fun exposing smug, dishonest and biased people who look down on those they consider inferior."
Many "superior" minds can never the less entertain a fairy tale belief system and keep a straight face.
I do consider christians to be of inferior value, but I never underestimate my enemies. They can still outwitt me even though their belief system is completely stupid.
Published: September 24, 2009 4:04 PM
mpolzkill
* "helluva" [Damn, can't send one off with out some weird mistake]
Didn't see your last post. That's a real touching story, John, thanks. Are we done now? Is sharing time over? Got anything on the topic of the post?
[Mean, I know, but how about you just own up? Or don't, and we'll just drop it.]
Published: September 24, 2009 4:05 PM
John Mac
mpolzkill,
A famous Christian, Billy Graham, when asked about sex before marriage replied:
"It doesn't matter what I think, the Bible says it's a sin."
I rest my case.
Published: September 24, 2009 4:08 PM
Bala
Nate Y
Thanks for pointing a small but existing flaw in my argument. So, let me go around correcting it.
You asked
" You can't have it both ways. If you claim it immoral, you must make an objection to it on moral grounds. "
OK!! You are right. I can't have it both ways. Acting as "my brother's keeper" requires me to necessarily place his interest above mine, failing which I am not acting as his keeper but mine. In a rationally selfish code, acting thus is clearly immoral.
Note the correction - I am now saying that even if an individual chooses voluntarily to "be his brother's keeper", the action is immoral. However, the consequences of his immoral choice are faced by him alone. Irrespective of whether ornot he was aware of the consequences of this choice when he took it, he deserves those consequences.
That makes the statement "Man is his brother's keeper" doubly immoral because it tries to give high moral status to that which is rationally immoral. It therefore places man's self-interest in conflict with his moral code. Thus, it makes the very fact of holding a moral code (actually now an immoral code) a threat to his long-range self-interest. It thus makes man incapable of acting in his long-range self-interest in a variety of ways. If this is not immoral (as I defined immoral) what is?
Hope the correction clarifies the issue entirely. Nothing else changes in the argument.
Thanks for pushing me to make it more explicit.
Published: September 24, 2009 4:09 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
Just responding to a specific statement based also on what I have said.
" How about: it would be nice if you cared about and helped your brother if he needs it. "
Actually, that depends on whether I am convinced my brother deserves it. If he does, then by helping him, I am not being his keeper but mine. If he does not, then I am being his keeper but to my own detriment.
It would be interesting to note that I do indeed have a brother who is going through a lot of difficulty but I just do not bother with it because I think he does not deserve my time, what with he being parasitical by nature. By being his keeper, I know for sure that I will make my life a veritable hell on earth.
So, I do have first-hand experience of what I am talking of.
Published: September 24, 2009 5:58 PM
Nate Y
Bala,
You're welcome for the push. Allow me to nudge you just a little bit more.
Read what you just wrote. You're basically saying that if a person doesn't adhere to your personal code which you call "rationally selfish" (abusing both words in the process) then his actions are immoral. You honestly don't see a problem with that? I'll expand my thoughts a bit later...
Published: September 24, 2009 7:00 PM
Bala
Nate Y
It is really amazing to note how many mistakes and misunderstandings are packed into that short comment of yours. So let me deal with the most obvious ones.
" your personal code "
I was not presenting "my personal code" but the code of values a rational man is best off adopting if he makes a choice to live.
First up, reality is absolute and hence, so is morality. Here are a few examples of absolute reality.
1. You exist. I exist.
2. You are a human. So am I.
3. You are alive. So am I.
4. Life for humans like us is not automatic. We need to act to live.Consistent failure to act leads to death or the cessation of life.
5. Another aspect of the non-automatic nature of human life is that we need to make one fundamental choice - between life and death. (rational people under normal circumstances usually choose life over death)
6. Life presents us with a mind-boggling mix of choices. All these choices, however, follow logically from the previous choice - that of life over death.
7. Food sustains life while poison destroys life and causes death.
These are just a sample but sufficient for the explanation I plan to give.
Morality is a hierarchic code of values that man needs to formutale. This hierarchic code helps him compare different values with each other and choose from among them.
Having mentioned the word "values" it is essential to define it - Value is that which we act to gain or keep. That raises the basic question of why we do so. The simple answer is to sustain life for as I said, without action, life will soon cease.
Different physical and non-physical objects (including concepts) have different value to man. A Moral framework helps man place all these different values on a scale so that he may evaluate options for action and choose from among them.
There are two broad ways to choose values
1. Rationally - That means trying understand the gain/loss something brings him and grading it suitably. This requires an unflinching commitment to reality as it exists. As an example, if a man chooses life over death and he is still rational after making that choice, he needs to choose food to be a value because it sustains life and poison to be a disvalue because it extinguishes life.
2. Arbitrarily - This is what most people do - Absorb values from the society they live in without questioning why something is a value or a disvalue or why something is of greater value than something else. Arbitrary choices of values carry a great risk with them, the risk being that what one thinks is a value could turn out to be a disvalue. Hence, death may lurk at the end every choice made under an arbitrarily chosen code of values.
The basic point to note is that a person who has made the choice of life over death needs to then go on to choose other values in consonance with that because otherwise, he risks death or at least getting closer to death. Hence, a rational choice of values is a better choice for a person who chooses life. Please note that this is not my opinion but what objective reality tells us. It tells this to you as much as it does to me.
Now to some basic ideas of the objective nature of Morality, especially a rational morality.
1. Life is the highest value to any human.
2. My life is my highest value just as your life is your highest value.
3. All other values are judged in terms of how and to what extent they enhance this fundamental value. For instance, since concepts such as Liberty and Property Rights enhance life to a great extent, they come vey high up in the hierarchy of values.
4. That which diminishes life is called a disvalue and takes a suitable negative value on the scale
5. The scale is ordinal rather than cardinal
Where each value ought to fit is determined by reality. As human beings, what we do is try to understand that objective reality and try to place our value choices as closely mirroring reality as we can figure out. The better we do it, the better we live.
This brings me to the next mistake.
" you call "rationally selfish" (abusing both words in the process) then his actions are immoral "
You are essentially saying that I judge a person's actions as immoral. How wrong you are!!! The truth is that no one is a better judge of a man's choices than reality. All we mere mortals try to do is to be as close as possible to reality.
The error in your statement is that it is not "who" decides whether an action is moral or immoral but "what". That's because Objective Reality is the only true judge.
For instance, if a person chooses to live and then eats something poisonous under the arbitrary value choice that says it is not a disvalue but a value, his action is deemed immoral not by my but by reality. He receives the just punishment for his bad choice - death.
Another person who similarly chooses to live, let's say, chooses idleness over production. Reality judges his choice as immoral and doles out the most just punishment for his choice - poverty.
So, in any situation involving value choices, it is the Objective Reality out there and not any one - not you or me - who decides whether an action is moral or immoral.
Your question betrays your fundamental assumption that value choices are relative and arbitrary and hence morality too is subjective.
Now that I have done a little bit of explaining, could you please explain the following bit that you posted?
" which you call "rationally selfish" (abusing both words in the process) "
Please explain how I have abused the two words.
Published: September 25, 2009 12:40 AM
mpolzkill
I don't know what your mistakes were, Nate, but they MUST have been amazing.
Published: September 25, 2009 12:55 AM
Bala
Nate Y,
Just to add a small point, in questions involving evaluation of moral choices, the correct question to ask is not "Who decides?" but "By what standard?"
So, your statement/accusation is completely off the mark.
Published: September 25, 2009 1:30 AM
G8R HED
@ "Acting as "my brother's keeper" requires me to necessarily place his interest above mine, failing which I am not acting as his keeper but mine. In a rationally selfish code, acting thus is clearly immoral."
No, one acts as "my brother's keeper" also when he pursues his own interest by engaging in any exchange for mutual benefit.
Such action is not required, it is evident.
It also does not "necessarily put his interest above mine" by virture of the fact that the exchange was mutually beneficial.
The only alternatives to not acting as "my brothers keeper" are:
No interaction
or
immoral interaction.
Published: September 25, 2009 9:29 AM
G8R HED
John Mac
G8R HED,
Define "happiness"!
--------------------------------------------------
"Subjective"!
Published: September 25, 2009 9:34 AM
G8R HED
@ " These Randians think "keeper" means total responsibility for how everyone else does in life, apparently. You don't think that, I'm sure. "
No, I do not think that being "my brothers keeper" means total responsibility for everyone else.
@"I'm all for ditching this word "keeper": "attendant, a guard, or a warden".
I believe the word "keeper" is appropriate in the sense that one attends to, guards, and is a ward of peace and prosperity in society whenever one engages in any exchange for mutual benefit (economic or otherwise), regardless of selfish consideration.
Being "my brothers keeper" is a manifestation of the NAP...
....(and, since someone else brought it up) in addition a sound Biblical
principle - rightly understood.
By 'rightly understood' I mean that: if one believes that Biblical principles are somehow incompatable with liberty then there's some work to be done.
It is possible that this is central in the conception of "my brothers keeper" as used in this article.
Many, including Christians, see it as a political imperative. I believe that if this is what is understood as what ought to be, then Biblical principles are mis-understood.
Published: September 25, 2009 10:09 AM
mpolzkill
G8R,
I appreciate your thoughtfulness and I think you are quite logically sound on the meaning of the word. Logic does not prevail in this world though, perfectly innocent words collect dirt (just ask "progressives") and are many times completely redefined by the masses; I am only thinking from the propaganda angle. Perhaps you are right to disregard such considerations, I don't know.
"By 'rightly understood' I mean that: if one believes that Biblical principles are somehow incompatable with liberty then there's some work to be done."
That was excellent.
Please tell me; your definition of "keeper", do you believe this was Cain's definition, thus destroying my interpretation of the story? Thank you.
Published: September 25, 2009 10:41 AM
Bala
G8R HED,
" No, one acts as "my brother's keeper" also when he pursues his own interest by engaging in any exchange for mutual benefit. "
I would rather call that trading for mutual benefit rather than calling it "being a keeper".
To take this further, let us take a simple situation - Can "being his brother's keeper" come in conflict with a man's selfish interest? The truthful answer is that it can. In this situation, if the statement "Man is his brother's keeper" is a moral principle, man has two options.
1. Act as per his moral code and place his own selfish interest below that of his brother's interest
2. Violate his moral code and live a life of guilt knowing that he did so.
Sadly, this is the way the world lives. It creates a situation where being moral will someday mean acting against one's selfish interests (however rational) or choosing an immoral action in order to act selfishly. You can be either moral or selfish but not both. It thus makes morality impossible for a rationally selfish man. However, man cannot survive without a sound moral code.
This is why the notion "man is his brother's keeper" is truly immoral. Hope this makes it clear.
Published: September 25, 2009 11:00 AM
G8R HED
@ "I would rather call that trading for mutual benefit rather than calling it "being a keeper".
Exchange for mutual benefit is not limited to economic transactions and I do not limit them as such as I stated above:
" (economic or otherwise)"
--------------------------------------------------
@ "To take this further, let us take a simple situation - Can "being his brother's keeper" come in conflict with a man's selfish interest? The truthful answer is that it can."
Granted.... as I have already said above: "regardless of selfish consideration."
But it still does not (as you stated earlier) "require me to necessarily place his interest above mine".
------------------------------------------
@ " In this situation, if the statement "Man is his brother's keeper" is a moral principle, man has two options.
1. Act as per his moral code and place his own selfish interest below that of his brother's interest
2. Violate his moral code and live a life of guilt knowing that he did so."
Both of these are voluntary actions, and moral as such.
Living a life of guilt is also voluntary.
Up to this point being "my brothers keeper" is not immoral in the sense that you claim it to be.
I would add that there are at least two more options:
3. Be forced per his moral code and place his own selfish interest below that of his brother's interest
4. Be forced to Violate his moral code and live a life of guilt knowing that he did so.
Now we have reached a point of agreement in which option 3. and 4. are immoral.
But it is important to note that it is not the claim of being "my brothers keeper" which makes the act immoral, it is the use of force.
---------------------------------------------
@ "Sadly, this is the way the world lives. It creates a situation where being moral will someday mean acting against one's selfish interests (however rational) or choosing an immoral action in order to act selfishly. "
A subjective worldview (to which you are entitled) which precludes force as the only option.
-------------------------------------------------------
@"You can be either moral or selfish but not both."
Not true. Exchange for mutal benefit implies a moral exchange and satisfies the selfish desire of both parties.
Published: September 25, 2009 12:51 PM
G8R HED
@ "Logic does not prevail in this world though, perfectly innocent words collect dirt"
As a self-confessed village idiot I can only say that I often get handed a broom.
@ "Please tell me; your definition of "keeper", do you believe this was Cain's definition, thus destroying my interpretation of the story? Thank you."
He knew good-n-well the definition of "keeper" and that he had not acted accordingly.....but pride often blinds reason. There is a good example that it is the use of force, not the definition of "keeper" which makes the act immoral.
Published: September 25, 2009 1:12 PM
Nate Y
mpolzkill,
Thanks for the kind words.
G8R HED,
Thank you for already doing what I was about to attempt.
The entire discussion turns on the idea "You can be either moral or selfish but not both." You countered it quite well.
Published: September 25, 2009 2:02 PM
Bala
G8R HED,
The fundamental problem in your argument is that you are assuming that every action that is voluntary is moral. That is just not right. That would be a vain attempt to reality by saying that a choice is moral because you wished it to be.
If you go back to the explanation I gave on Objective Morality, if a person who chooses to live then goes on to choose to consume poison voluntarily, the fact that it was voluntarily does not make the act moral. As per the Objective Reality that poison kills, the person's choice of poison will be judged immoral and his punishment will be death.
I could cite many more examples in many more situations, but you need to drop the flawed premise that mere voluntary choice makes something moral.
If that is so, your options 3 and 4 get eliminated and we are left with only my 2 options.
Published: September 25, 2009 2:24 PM
Bala
Sorry...
Line 2 should read "vain attempt to evade reality". I missed out the "evade".
Published: September 25, 2009 2:27 PM
Bala
G8R HED,
" There is a good example that it is the use of force, not the definition of "keeper" which makes the act immoral. "
This too is a flawed statement because you are making the false claim that only the initiation of force is immoral. This is false because it assumes that morality governs only the interactions of an individual with other individuals. Morality, in reality, is just as valid for a man marooned on a hitherto uninhabited island as it is to a man born among a million others.
Published: September 25, 2009 2:31 PM
Bala
Nate Y,
" The entire discussion turns on the idea "You can be either moral or selfish but not both." "
Please note that I mentioned that this is the case when you accept the credo that "man is his brother's keeper". It is not valid under a rationally selfish morality because the moral and the selfish would become one and the same.
Published: September 25, 2009 2:38 PM
Nate Y
Bala,
I know you addressed your most recent replies to G8R HED but I'm gonna respond.
You say "The fundamental problem in your argument is that you are assuming that every action that is voluntary is moral."
No one is arguing that every voluntary action is moral. How on earth did you get that into your head? The argument is simply that voluntary actions and moral actions are not mutually exclusive.
The world of actions is bigger than moral and immoral. Other categories exist. You seem fond of this "consuming poison vs. food" example. Let's leave aside the fact that some foods are indeed poison if consumed in large amounts (for example, the beer I wish I was drinking right now) and focus on proper poisons.
Let's say a man sits down at home and decides to drink some highly toxic arsenic. In this case, his action is neither moral nor immoral . His actions fit into another category. That category is called "stupid".
(unless, of course, his aim is to kill himself after much suffering)
Published: September 25, 2009 3:08 PM
Bala
Nate Y,
You are right. In a rationally selfish morality, the "clearly stupid' is what one would call immoral. In my opinion, this is the beauty of a morality based on rational selfishness. It is easy to understand even for a person of well-below-average intelligence (once the other pollutants in his mind have been addressed) and very practical.
As I have said earlier, the purpose of morality is to guide human action. The purpose of human action being the sustenance of life, smart action, i.e., that which enhances life, is moral and stupid action, i.e., that which diminishes life is immoral. It is indeed that simple.
Why else would one need a morality if not to tell oneself how to act?
Published: September 25, 2009 6:24 PM
Bala
Nate Y,
" No one is arguing that every voluntary action is moral. "
This is factually incorrect. G8R HED was actually saying that because the action is voluntary, it is moral. That can only mean what I said. He used it to develop options 3 and 4.
Published: September 25, 2009 6:32 PM
G8R HED
@ Bala
Nate Y,
" No one is arguing that every voluntary action is moral. "
This is factually incorrect. G8R HED was actually saying that because the action is voluntary, it is moral. That can only mean what I said. He used it to develop options 3 and 4."
No, I said every voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.
I did not say 'every action', nor did I intend to imply 'every action'.
Nate Y is correct that "every voluntary action is moral" is excluded.
As I stated above:
The only alternatives to not acting as "my brothers keeper" are:
No interaction
or
immoral interaction.
Published: September 26, 2009 9:12 AM
Bala
G8R HED,
" No, I said every voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. "
This statement ducks the point I had made and hence has to be dismissed. If you go back to the point I made in my statement posted on September 25, 2009 11:00 AM, I took the specific situation where "being his brother's keeper" comes in conflict with a man's selfish interest. In this circumstance, which is metaphysically possible and involves an "either-or but not both", the interaction is not "voluntary interaction for mutual benefit".
By bringing that circumstance in to contradict my statement, you are failing to address my statement but claiming to have addressed it.
Published: September 27, 2009 5:09 AM
G8R HED
I addressed your statement directly. Your example does not function as claimed:
Both of these are voluntary actions, and moral as such.
Living a life of guilt is also voluntary.
Up to this point being "my brothers keeper" is not immoral in the sense that you claim it to be.
More specifically:
1. Act as per his moral code and place his own selfish interest below that of his brother's interest
In voluntarily choosing to place his selfish interest below that of his brother's interest he voluntarily manifests his moral code. That is not immoral.
2. Violate his moral code and live a life of guilt knowing that he did so.
In voluntarily choosing to violate his own moral code to benefit his brother at his own expense he manifests a charitable (selfless) act. This is not immoral either. Voluntarily choosing such action values the charitable act mor highly (and thus the interaction become mutually beneficial) than one's own moral code. One may choose to feel guilt for that or not.
Published: September 27, 2009 7:51 AM
Bala
G8R HED,
You are way off the mark for a simple reason. In a rationally selfish morality where reality is the judge of the moral status of an action, placing one's interest below those of another or accepting (unearned) guilt do not count as moral actions even if they are voluntary. The reason for this is that under a morality rational selfishness, human beings are expected to act to maximise their own long-range well-being or their rational happiness, the latter being a reflection of the consistency of their actions with their values. This is as moral as saying that once you have chosen "life" over "death", acting so that you die is moral because you have voluntarily chosen to act thus.
You are being stubborn in refusing to drop the notion that an act becomes moral just because it is voluntary. Reiterating it many times over does not make it correct. You are therefore bordering on whim-worshipping.
Published: September 27, 2009 6:18 PM
Nate Y
Bala,
Are you seriously so unimaginative? Can you not appreciate that a voluntary act of charity such as letting a friend stay in your spare room (being your brother's keeper) can very much serve to maximize a person's "long-range well-being or...rational happiness"?
This is why I posted this: You're basically saying that if a person doesn't adhere to your personal code which you call "rationally selfish" (abusing both words in the process) then his actions are immoral.
Because that's exactly what you're saying.
Are you really so arrogant to believe that you can determine what specific actions every person should and should not take in order to maximize his/her happiness? You must make this claim (however tacitly) in order to call voluntary actions immoral and promote your "rational selfish morality".
Published: September 28, 2009 12:56 AM
Bala
Nate Y,
" letting a friend stay in your spare room (being your brother's keeper) can very much serve to maximize a person's "long-range well-being or...rational happiness"? "
Letting a friend stay in your spare room is neither charity nor being "your brother's keeper". It is very much a selfish act you (and I) engage in because we value the friend for what he is, especially his virtues. It is an action in consonance with the first choice of seeking his friendship. It is an act of trying to keep that value that you have on hand - a friend.
To call it charity or "being your friend's keeper" is the biggest insult you can hurl at your friend and your friendship.
This is the point YOU are missing. When I make a friend, I know why I am doing it. When I then go on and help him, I once again know why I am doing it. I do it because I think he is a good person, the kind of person who shares the very virtues I admire and has a similar code of values. That's the kind of person whose very company gives me happiness. Inviting him is in my long-range well being too (that's why it makes me happy). I can invite him to my house with the confidence that he will not become a parasite on me. In case some time in the future, I really need his help, I can bank on him to be there for me because he admires me just as I admire him.
Now tell me if my imagination is lacking or yours.
" Are you really so arrogant to believe that you can determine what specific actions every person should and should not take in order to maximize his/her happiness? "
As I said earlier, I donot even claim to be capable of determining anything of that sort. If you go back to my posts, you will find me saying that the only real judge is Reality. And trust me, Reality is as harsh a judge as you will ever get. I just try to figure out how Reality tends to judge, why it judges specific things in specific ways, figure out if there is a consistency across time and space and use that understanding to figure out what is the best thing for me to do.
All I am saying with respect to other people and their choices is that if a person has first chosen life and then makes subsequent choices that are inconsistent with this choice (like reducing his well-being or his happiness, which is a measure of his success), he is making a mistake and that Reality will judge him very harshly. This is what I call immoral. Not because I think it is but because Reality treats it that way.
Published: September 28, 2009 1:46 AM
Nate Y
Bala,
Apparently we operate with different understandings of "being your brother's keeper".
I think I found a site that shares your views http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--2129-brotherskeeper.aspx
All I can do is laugh at this nonsense. The objectivist responds as if "be your brother's keeper" is the only moral/ethical idea by which people are suggested to live their lives. I've seen this before with those who call themselves "objectivists". They tend to look at concepts as isolated from all others. As such, their analysis is doomed from the beginning.
I'm curious, when were you first presented with the choice to live or die? I was not provided such an option before I was born.
Anyway, you use the word "life" as a catch-all and switch it out for other words like "well-being" and "happiness" so it's tough to nail down exactly what you're talking about. There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to issues of well-being and happiness. What makes one person happy can make another person miserable. How does the objectivist explain this? How would you reckon with those people who engage in activities that shorten their chronological lives but enhance their well-being? It seems reality can't make up its mind.
Published: September 28, 2009 12:44 PM
G8R HED
@ "In a rationally selfish morality where reality is the judge of the moral status of an action, placing one's interest below those of another or accepting (unearned) guilt do not count as moral actions even if they are voluntary"
Reality/nature is neutral as to morality.
"It" cannot value and is therefore incapable of moral judgement.
Published: September 28, 2009 1:31 PM