The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt'

Box Office Mojo ^ | 9/2/2005 | Scott Holleran

[T Minus Four]

Ooh, good point, LOL! I never saw "Taxi Driver", I was thinking of "Silence of the Lambs" and "Contact" :-)

[StormEye]

"I'm certain that there is pent-up public demand for a
pro-industrial movie. Perhaps the market isn't as
large as for movies that are faithful to Christian
theology. But nevertheless, it is a legitimate market niche
that Hollyweird is failing to service."

Have you ever seen "Major Barbara?" Old but an
interesting movie.

[r9etb]

Are you prepared to state, now and for the record, that the existence of large numbers of people who enjoy material prosperity all their lives while rejecting a certain philosophy is proof that the philosophy in question is erroneous?

To put it in context, we were testing the following quote: "In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive."

I was pointing out an objective historical fact: it is eminently possible to "trample others," and not only avoid "self-destruction," but indeed to profit handsomely from trampling others.

So according to the evidence, Mr. Dunn is clearly over-reaching in his assessment of the effects of "trampling others." It is not "a fact," but merely a possible consequence that can be avoided. Obviously you can trample others and get away with it -- it can serve long-term self interest, and self-destruction is not an inevitable consequence.

There is, of course, a difference between "can" and "should." The problem is to provide an objective basis for why one "should not" trample others. It is not enough simply to say we musn't do it, especially when the fact is that we can do it, with apparent impunity.

The question is: is it possible for a philosophy to be "objective" when it is possible to violate its tenets with impunity? Or is it a logical requirement that violating the tenets of an objective philosophy will result in an inevitable consequence?

[Willie Green]

Have you ever seen "Major Barbara?" Old but an interesting movie.

I don't recall that one,
but I certainly enjoyed Cheaper by the Dozen.
(The ORIGINAL, not that revisionist fluff that was cranked out by Hollyweird a couple years ago.)

[dimquest]

-- narcissistic "objectivism" always decays to moral relativism which undermines their altruistic claims.
Rand is a false prophet.
76 Willie Green

______________________________________

Or translated, "They do icky things I don't like therefore they are wrong."

There is nothing "relative" about the non-initation principle. No matter how you want to try and twist anything else.

78 Dead Corpse

________________________________________

r9etb wrote:

Sure there is. First off, let's be clear that the "non-initiation" principle is typically constrained to the application of physical force, so let's consider an example from that perspective.

The 'golden rule' is not constrained to only the use of force.

We make exceptions to "non-initiation" in cases where a person has "reasonable cause" to believe that he is in imminent danger.
Let's take the case of an armed man.
Strictly speaking, the "non-initiation" principle would require you to take no action against a gunman unless 1) he had physically pulled the trigger; and 2) his bullet was headed in your direction.

Not true. An odd acting man with gun in hand is in affect initiating an action.

If he hasn't pulled the trigger, then he hasn't really initiated physical force; and if his bullet isn't headed toward you, then you have no right to use force against him, because he has not initiated force against you.

Silly strawman wordplay. Dangerous assumption.

Now, here in the real world I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be waiting for either condition to be satisfied before you decided whether or not to shoot him first. You'd be justified in shooting him first if you had good reason to believe he was a threat to you or to somebody else.

Yep, its a judgment call that you bet your life on.. Either way.

So your decision to initiate force is based on an assessment of the situation -- it's a decision that's explicitly relative to the gunman's intentions, and your understanding of them. If you've got "reasonable cause" to believe that the gunman will become a threat, then you've got a right to initiate force against him.

Obviously you do. You've just made an argument for the objectivist POV, one who follows the golden rule under a Constitution of 'reasonable' laws.

As DC remarked later you seem to be trying to be "intentionally irrational" about common sense applications of the golden rule. Do you too imagine Rand as a "false prophet"?

[general_re]

I was pointing out an objective historical fact: it is eminently possible to "trample others," and not only avoid "self-destruction," but indeed to profit handsomely from trampling others.

Indeed. Statements like that one tend to remind me a bit of Marx's Iron Law of Wages - looks great on paper, runs into problems in reality. Which is, by way of understatement, a nice way of saying that it's completely false, empirically speaking. Cheers! ;)

[LS]

Agree on all. I see Dagny as somewhat masculine---a little buff, not "soft" feminine at all, but athletic feminine---a cross between Cory Everson's body and Peggy Noonan's brain.

[FreeKeys]

The problem is to provide an objective basis for why one "should not" trample others.

Aha. Good point. Let me try this out:
When men, or I should say, a man, rises above the strictly perceptual level of consciousness, the first of the conceptual levels (if he lives among others not of his family/clan/tribe) could/should/ought to include the concept of the Golden Rule. How do we prosper LONG-TERM instead of just for today? By engaging in specialization and trade. And making sure that everyone treats everyone else the same. Then the concept of rights appears -- basically as claims to be left alone until willing to be socialized with and/or traded with. And so on.... (clumsy as I may be in trying to address this issue; I've always thought the Golden Rule should be "obvious", as a necessity, not needing to be commanded) ...

Thus the concepts of rights, property, etc. could be said to derive naturally from men's wishes to deal with one another long term. Those who don't recognize rights (and rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time) are to be regarded as criminals. And criminals, at least in some basic sense, remain at the perceptual level, not thinking long term, only of what they can "get away with" today, and certainly not recognizing that their own actions help build, maintain or destroy civilization. I would consider ancient Rome and even the slave-holding American colonies to be primitive societies and "bridge" societies, growing out of primitivism, and not yet fully civilized. Was the Union right in considering the Confederacy's slave owners criminals? Yes, I think so.

[r9etb]

Yep, its a judgment call that you bet your life on.. Either way.

And if it's a "judgement call," by definition it's not objective. Game over.

[r9etb]

The problem with your attempt is the same problem that Ayn Rand failed to properly address. In essence you're starting with the Golden Rule, and then trying to define conditions under which it becomes "obvious." The difficulty arises when one begins to question the conditions you've defined.

In your first paragraph, you're assuming that the individual is the only proper "basic unit" of moral thought. But is that logically necessary?

The answer is, probably not. If we take an objectivist approach we must ensure that any philosophical principles are in accord with what we can observe of reality. In observing reality, we are immediately confronted by the principles of evolution, in which the individual is seen to be less important than the genetic chain of which he's a part. From that perspective, the highest moral good would center on the success of genetic lines, and thus in contrast to Ayn Rand's claim, observation tells us that we're not "an end in ourselves," but rather a means to the next generation's end.

Put another way, evolution tends to favor the strong over the weak, and on that basis we can justify a claim that the use of slaves for our long-term gain is morally justified.

The point is that the logic of "reality" as we can observe it, tends to be more amenable to moral principles that are not reliant on the concept of individual rights. Which takes us to your second paragraph:

Thus the concepts of rights, property, etc. could be said to derive naturally from men's wishes to deal with one another long term.

Again, you're working from an assumption that one individual shares the same fundamental rights as any other -- but we've seen a couple of rational approaches where this is not necessarily so. Concepts of rights, property, etc. could still be derived, but their properties would be different because the underlying moral landscape is different.

Those who don't recognize rights (and rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time) are to be regarded as criminals.

First off, it's not clear that "rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time." As noted above, observation seems to tell us that certain individuals are "more equal" than others.

We could belabor this at length, but the end result of the argument will eventually boil down to some version of "systems based on individual rights have generally better results than otherwise." Although this is probably true in a general sense, it is not necessarily true as regards any given individual. The very poor and the very rich tend to do better in systems other than free market capitalism, for example.

Aside from that, the essential standard in this argument is a utilitarian calculus that disposes of any objective concepts of right and wrong, in favor of "metrics of success," which can be defined many different ways.

Which brings us back to the Golden Rule: it may seem obvious, but it is not clear that it has any basis in objective reality, except perhaps as a utilitarian (and therefore non-objective) convenience. So you're still left with having to find an objective basis for it.

[PGalt]

...to National Guard combat brigades unavailable to enforce law and order in America—because they were sent in the name of sacrifice to Iraq

Scott Holleran could do more thinking.

Thanks for the ping.

[dimquest]

You'd be justified in shooting him first if you had good reason to believe he was a threat to you or to somebody else.

Yep, its a judgment call that you bet your life on.. Either way.

And if it's a "judgement call," by definition it's not objective. Game over.

Your ability to define objective reality is being questioned here.
Thus by immaturely declaring the "game over", you've admitted your own incompetence. How droll.

[dimquest]

Freekeys correctly observed:

" --- Those who don't recognize rights (and rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time) are to be regarded as criminals. "

First off, it's not clear that "rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time." As noted above, observation seems to tell us that certain individuals are "more equal" than others.

Yep, that's the way a criminally orientated mind would argue, - in order to justify its refusal to operate under the golden rule.

We could belabor this at length, but the end result of the argument will eventually boil down to some version of "systems based on individual rights have generally better results than otherwise." Although this is probably true in a general sense,

In effect, you're claiming that our [constitutional] system based on individual rights is questionable. Very telling as to your politics.

it is not necessarily true as regards any given individual. The very poor and the very rich tend to do better in systems other than free market capitalism, for example.

Again, your own words betray your political leanings.

Aside from that, the essential standard in this argument is a utilitarian calculus that disposes of any objective concepts of right and wrong, in favor of "metrics of success," which can be defined many different ways.

Thats quite a nice string of meaningless words. Highly humorous BS. Congrats.

Which brings us back to the Golden Rule: it may seem obvious, but it is not clear that it has any basis in objective reality, except perhaps as a utilitarian (and therefore non-objective) convenience.

The golden rule works, and is real. What is not clear here is your rejection of its reality. -- Which brings us back to FreeKeys observations on the criminal mind. I think he hoisted you on your own petard.

[Dead Corpse]

Ok... so you are arguing that "initation" only kicks in when the bullet is on its way to my head. That only if the knife blade is actually breaking my skin and shedding my blood, only then can I react.

If you can't see that the "initiation" starts when you POINT the firearm or advance on someone with a blade or cudgel, then there is no further point in talking to you at all.

[steve-b]

To put it in context, we were testing the following quote...

The first step in this process is to determine whether or not the proposed test is relevant.

If you stipulate the proposition that the existence of large numbers of people who enjoy material prosperity all their lives while rejecting a certain philosophy proves the error of said philosophy, then your test is relevant. If not, then not. Which is it?

[steve-b]

I have no plans to offer any alternative views on this thread.

This goes beyond ordinary chicken$#!^ -- this is what is excreted by chickens who eat other chickens' $#!^.

[steve-b]

Second, I did not "pull a switcheroo." I was consistent in this sense of the dictionary definition of subjective:
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.
At issue here is DC's statement that he is justified in initiating force if he perceives himself to be in danger. There is no room in this for the gunman's actual intent, or any actual threat -- DC's justification for shooting is based solely on his perception of the gunman's intentions.
The justification for violating the non-initiation principle is therefore explicitly subjective.

Your "consistent" definition is irrelevant. In the context of philosophical discussion, the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is not merely the difference between reality as it actually is and reality as we are best able to apprehend it through our finite senses and knowledge -- it is, instead, the more fundamental difference between a fixed universe "out there" and a malleable universe inside your head. By invoking the former and implying the latter, you are (as a matter of objective fact) pulling a clintonesque switcheroo.

[steve-b]

How do we prosper LONG-TERM instead of just for today?

Another flaw in the examples of pharoahs, plantation owners, etc is that only in retrospect do we see that they managed to avoid the inevitable negative consequences for their abuses. They themselves had no way of knowing that the axe wouldn't fall on them (rather than their descendants), and therefore did not, in fact, get off scot-free.

[steve-b]

Put another way, evolution tends to favor the strong over the weak,

Great Ghu, and I thought that creationists had an intellecutally vacuous cartoon picture of evolution! Compared to this, they're Darwin, Wallace, and Mendel all rolled into one.

and on that basis we can justify a claim that the use of slaves for our long-term gain is morally justified

Yep, just look at all those rich slave nations and dirtscabble non-slave nations in the world today.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Kindly define the difference between religion and superstition. Thank you

I'd say what makes a superstition is beliefs based on wants, emotions, traditions and feelings. In short, beliefs not based on rational evidence. I do not think that religion has to be divorced from reason. The admonition in I Thessalonians to prove all things, hold fast to that which is good is sound advice.

I'd say anyone who thinks that they can positively know that there is no God is a superstitious person. In this matter, Ayn Rand abandoned reason and embraced superstition.