Just so there’s no easy outs, just like in the original example, there’s no phone available. Klemm will either spend the night in the cabin or die. I agree Tom is an asshole. Is it Tom’s presence that makes Klemm’s use of the cabin a positive obligation, in the sence that he would have to put up with him?
Another curious development. It seems that you are now basing the permissibility of Klemm’s use of the cabin on Tom’s consent. That is, since Tom said, “No,” the question reaches an impasse. Had Tom said, “Yes,” it obviously would not have been immoral for Klemm to enter. Why then, is it moral for Klemm to enter without consent when Tom is not there? Why is there not the same impasse? Is it your position that the “default” answer, if you will, is yes?
It’s merely the fact that Tom’s refusal makes Klemm’s situation even more dire. He could still concievably break in, but the risk of Tom using force in turn is added to the scenario, at which point Klemm’s death in essentially ensured as a consequence of Tom’s refusal. Whether or not Tom could be viewed as partially liable through neglect for Klemm’s death at such a point is debatable, as well as whether or not it would be murder if Tom used physical force to kill Klemm in the name of not letting him inside. What is certain is that Tom is not being reasonable, while Klemm’s will to life is. I still fully root for Klemm in this scenario, in fact, I root for him even more the more that elements are added to the scenario that make Tom unreasonable.
boinks the will to death Life-affirming values! [H]
Well, as certain we can be that he will die outside in the cold, there is at least a chance he could best Tom and gain shelter. The question is, would that be moral? And what about the other question? Why is it moral for Klemm to enter without consent if Tom is not there? Why is there not the same impasse as if he said, “No”? Is it your position that the “default” answer, if you will, is yes?
As an aside, it would be impossible to hold Tom even partially liable for Klemm’s death from exposure without claiming a positive obligation on Tom. There can be no neglect without an obligation.
BRAINPOLICE "Uh, not really. I explained that you are throwing out the word “aggression” without sufficient reason. For example, if one’s child is running into the street and one yanks them back to stop them from being hit by cars, would one call this “aggression”?
That’s kind of a semantic circle-jerk. On one hand, in the sense that one is physically controlling the child’s body, it could be called “aggression”.
On the other hand, it doesn’t make sense to use the term “aggression”, which usually has negative connotations, for morally permissible behaviors that (1) lack the intent of harm (2) are precisely for the purpose of negating harm and preserving life and (3) are things that most people would consider to not be immoral in the first place (saving your child is immoral? ha!)." The introduction of the child scenario is a strawman. There is no consistent position on how children “fit” into a free society (ie, are they their parents property, or are they an individual agent from birth or when they reach a certain cognitive level, etc.) and an attempt to bring it in here is misleading.
To repeat a post from nirgraham which you fail to acknowledge: "do you appreciate that although Soviet Socialists claimed superiority over western individualist capitalist counterparts, not least in issues of child poverty, industrial worker poverty, worker healthcare worker education, the “socialisation solution”, the “erode property rights solution”, led them inevitably to be worse at exactly these things that they aspired to be better at.
I put it to you that if you want fathers to feed their sons, promote an absolutist morality, and an approximation of your real world is brought closer to fruition. do the opposite and erode private property and you will have played apart in the death and misery of children of fathers. emotive enough for you?" Your entire position is a muddy slide into socialism. That you cannot comprehend it is saddening.
I don’t believe the author made a compelling case that people who through no fault of their own are so poor that they cannot meet their basic needs should be allowed to steal from the wealthy. Sterba seems to insist that people who are not blameworthy for their plight have the natural right to meet their basic needs, and that this natural right trumps the natural right of people to full self-ownership. While I believe that it is morally wrong to live in luxury while people (innocent or guilty) or non-human sentient animals starve to death, I also think that even the most uncompassionate extremely wealthy people still have the natural right to full self-ownership. Compassionate regard and treatment of suffering others (which is necessarily voluntary and individualistic), not forced redistribution of wealth, is the key to sentient welfare. Starvation of the innocent poor (or anybody) is a tragic but not unjust event.
Or perhaps you disagreed with what she was saying and hence reached the above conclusion, which is more likely. As a piece of ethical theory it sure as hell beats most of what I have read…
Again, what should inform our ends if not reason? I’m not exactly sympathetic to this criticism, in fact I find it downright stupid. Reason informing our ends is something originating in the ancients. It has little to nothing to do with the classical homo oeconomicus because the ancients did not operate on a purely mechanistic conception of reason.
I think it’s time you take your leave. You offer no substantial response to any criticism levelled against your positions and do nothing but reiterate blandly (like the silly little robot you are) how stupid/uneducated/uninformed libertarians are, echoing positions you’ve read in some author or other, whose own grasp of libertarianism may be tenable at best (as yours surely is.) So enjoy life, little nihilist troll. Perhaps some bundle of atoms will take a liking to you, or perhaps it’ll just find you as trite and dull as I do, and perhaps you can then use your AS as an excuse for it too.
Or maybe you’re just making things up, as usual? A fictionalism of your own? Ontological fictionalism, whereby Vichy makes up things as she sees fit? Yeah.
No, your interpretation of it is nonsense and your assertions (all you ever make) are nonsense. Everything you spout is nonsense. Read Douglas Rasmussen on Quine and essentialism and disabuse yourself of the garbage you’ve been inculcated with.
No, I was really willing to read it with an open mind, especially since I’ve read some of Veatch’s work and was somewhat in agreement, but TVOS was really poor. It was basically a rant about mystics and altruists.
A better question is, how can reason inform our ends? Is it “rational” to prefer strawberries to apples?
Nor do I see why “life” (the meaning of which is different depending on the context - equivocation) has to be the ultimate end, for many people utility is merely their ultimate end, which is why they’ll be found shooting up despite the fact that it’ll kill them. For others, life is merely a means by which they can gain entrance to heaven.
It’s still a good piece of work, and Rand still makes a lot of good arguments in it.
Strawberries and apples are means of satisfaction (they’re not an end so I do not know why you’d bring them up), the relevant end would be something like keeping a healthy body which would tie into a further, superordinate end and so on. If not reason is to inform ends (and it surely can, Hume and his assertion otherwise be damned), what is?
As for utility it is a concept that does not even make sense in the absence of life, nor does the concept of value, or any other such thing. They matter to conscious, living entities. So it is the more fundamental principle.
No, perhaps utility doesn’t make a lot of sense in the absence of life, all that shows is that life is a means to acheiving utility. The very fact that people join the army to fight for their country, or take a bullet for their loved ones show that life isn’t the ultimate end. By the way, why does there even need to be one ultimate end? Why can’t I enjoy strawberries for their own sake?
What does it even mean to value “life”? In this regard life could mean any of the following: scraping out an existance (which obviously, I don’t think is the case, since if this is what is meant by “life” then the argument for it being an ultimate end seems silly), does it mean living as long a life as possible (which would seem to have to be the case if I am indeed valuing life for its own sake - that is, as an end) or does it mean living a virtuous life (and if so, what do you mean by virtuous and why isn’t it virtuous to do whatever gives me pleasure).
The problem is that the argument seems to be based on the first meaning I’ve listed above, whilst entailing the second. Meanwhile in the TVOS the third is reached as the conclusion. With “the virtuous life” being defined with bad psychology.
And the pursuit of utility entailing what? A happy life? Sort of makes her argument for her. If anything it’s utility taken by itself that is a groundless, baseless concept. And actually she does account for those possibilities and she’d have no trouble accommodating them into her theory because she never says that bare survival alone is what is valued.
The fact that you’re a live is an indication of your valuation thereof, and if you deny this, the solution is too obvious to even need stating.
She means a virtuous life, or a rationally examined one (with the virtuous being expressive of this examination.) How is anything that gives you pleasure anywhere near to the meaning of the word “virtuous”? Sounds pretty stupid. In fact, it is, because as Veatch notes happiness (like misery or fear or whatever) consists in happiness in something or other. Why limit the object of your happiness and be content with less than you can achieve? In the end it’s up to the individual.
What “bad psychology”? And by the way she proceeds by steps in her argument, she doesn’t conflate the various meanings.
I fail to see how utility is a “groundless, baseless” concept by itself. I think that if you look for a short while of time, you’ll find many people who will do anything just pleasure, the fact that drugs seem to be such a profitable business tells me that I’m correct. To be sure, I’m not condoning such behaviour (as a Christian I’m sure you know what I think the ultimate end of life is). My point is merely that one can pursue utility for its own sake, and people often do, I don’t really know what you want me to say to your comment concerning what this entails, so if you’d wish to clarify the question I’d appreciate it. There’s other possibilities I didn’t mention earlier, I’d argue that biology implies that in fact, reproducing is the ultimate end in life.
Once again, I’ll have to ask why does there need to be an ultimate end?
As for my valuing life. Yes, I do, quite highly as a matter of fact. Nonetheless, it still hasn’t been proven that I need to value my life as an ends, and not merely as a means (or, at least, not as an ultimate end).
Right, but I don’t think that such an argument has been proven, at least not without some serious equivocation. I’ll read through The Objectivist Ethics again tonight, but I don’t see one manages to get from “man values things” to “man must live a virtuous life”. I think you can say that I value life (though, not necessarily as the ultimate end) and this is revealed in my acting. But the jump from there to a “virtuous” life, is lost on me. If I value life as an end in itself it means that I should do whatever I can to preserve it, which means eating the exactly correct diet, doing exactly the correct amount of exercise and taking various medicines. I don’t see how doing those can be seen as “moral”.
Pretty much every sentence written by Branden, and a few in various other essays (e.g. can the assertion that altruists lack self esteem be supported with actual physchology? I doubt it) Keep in mind, most psychologists (let’s ignore the fact that they’re mostly kooks) and most people would agree that people who keep their emotions bottled up as objectivists like to imagine they can, will probably be somewhat lacking in their social and personal lives.
Perhaps, but whilst “a = a”, step c follows directly after a, with b after that, d and e appear to be missing, with f then “logically” following.
I’ve of late been convinced that flourishing is the telos of human nature, which would mean if taking drugs is unhealthy, then that’s against human nature. To act against ones nature shows results of sickness or early death. That’s counter to human nature due to the scientific conclusion that the particular natural human is quickening to death or is dead. Quickening (sick) death or being dead are scientifically against human nature due to the factual result of no human nature. Natural death in and of itself is against human nature. So I think human nature is about the journey, which includes eating strawberries if you so desire or reading a good book, if you so desire that as well.