[562] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: "Watch me pull laissez-faire capitalism out of this
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Sun May 6 18:18:28 2001
Message-Id: <200105062216.SAA03851@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:16:57 -0400
""Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> As I said, Objectivism is bankrupt in its inability to remain
> consistent with even its tenet that man can be ideal.
> Government -- social contract is unnecessary if we
> expected man to ideally and predictably operate.
Man _can_ be ideal, but he is often _not_. The idea is not to expect
perfection, but to expect the effort to attain it; the political system
is geared towards protecting people from persons who are so far from
ideal as to cause harm.
> No. You incur a legal obligation to follow the orders.
> Nobody's asking for your legal opinion. This is a moral
> question. [...]
And I gave a moral answer: the military has its rules for various
reasons, and you accept that reasoning when you join. That means doing
whatever it takes to defend your unit from violent aggressors. Hence,
your later "reduction" where A and B must kill one another is not
directly relevant to the military situation you present.
> >(I'm assuming in this scenario that if both A and B refuse to act, they
> >both die.)
>
> You assume wrong.
Then, what was the point of that exercise? Both parties could stand
down, and all would be well.
> [...] A more exhaustive way of saying this is that ethics
> does not presuppose a specifically defined right to life,
> and that "right to life," and "life" is defined by some
> other source. [...]
How, then, does one decide what is ethical? Or, are you dismissing
ethics altogether as a social internality? I contend that if there is
to ethics, it can be conceptual, and that right to life is the correct
basis for it.
> [...] Dismissing
> lifeboat situations with a presumption is not very
> interesting.
True, but it's the correct answer.
> >If there is ever a
> >situation where one person's life becomes mutually exclusive with
> >another, there is no basis for a consideration of ethics.
>
> Tell that to a Quaker.
Well, if I'm sharing a lifeboat with a Quaker, then I guess I lucked
out!
> The expansion is not terribly difficult to conceive. Ethics
> presuppose a great number of rights that are world wide not
> agreed upon. I for one accept very few rights. In fact,
> I reject the right to live.
In the Objectivist formulation of ethics, there is only one fundamental
right: the right to conscious life. Everything else is derivative.
So, what rights do you accept, and by what justification?
> Please, force is action compelling another action. You
> don't need to have a gun to your head or a finding of
> contempt to "force" somebody to do something.
The "force" I am referring to is removal of the choice to use one's
mind, either by _physical_ compulsion or by misrepresenting reality
(fraud). If Bill Gates and his cadre are tearing you up with their
so-called "anti-competitive practices," you have several choices, among
them: attempt to play his games, come up with a better product, or
pack up and go home. None of this involves physical compulsion, and
hence is not force in the sense that I mean.
The logic you present is the same by which the liberals you disdain so
much justify their programs, that the states of being poor or black or
female, which are totally irrelevant to one's volition, constitute
physical compulsion.
> Honest marketing is not continuous, because your ethics do
> not exist beyond the fallacy you've created in your mind.
> Dishonesty is reality, Sourav.
Yes, dishonesty is real, but that does not mean one should initiate it.
Again, I am striving for an ideal, and you are not, so this view does
not surprise me.
> >Force
> >is when you take away someone's values (life, property, etc.) without
> >consent.
>
> Generally, very few people surrender that consensually. Even
> gamblers.
Every time you buy something, you are surrendering money, i.e. value,
consensually, no?
> I wonder if the Etruscans were Objectivists, before they
> were slaughtered? It sounds like a recipe for weakness.
> Weakness invariably breeds itself and results in extinction.
> That doesn't sound like a very rational choice to me.
There is nothing in Objectivism that says you should not defend
yourself tooth and nail when you are being attacked by physical force
or fraud; rather, _initiating_ aggression is wrong. The obvious
rebuttal is that the Etruscans should have mounted a preemptive strike
against the Romans to nip the nation at the bud. I would _agree_ with
this if the Etruscans were in any way morally superior, but they were a
kingdom as well.
By contrast, since the US is morally superior to China, N. Korea,
Pakistan, etc. (but hardly shining in an absolute sense) there is no
need to worry about angering them apart from purely pragmatic reasons.
Let the surveillance flights continue!
> [...] I just have
> no intention of letting market forces govern strategic
> concerns directly. Unity of command is a principle
> of warfare and one not well suited to change. [...]
Yes, warfare is best waged with a unity of purpose, and therefore
command. I want a situation where those who _choose_ to work by those
rules can (by joining the military or any organization which seeks to
run that way), but the default is based on the ethical structure I have
described.
> >That's quite
> >possible, and without _much_ harm to the economy; [...]
> What are you trying to say here?
I'm trying to say that what is ethical and what is effective across a
population are not always the same thing. You might be right that
forcible funding of a military is required to establish the political
strategy most suited for a robust economy; the current US foreign
policy seems to be geared around this principle. However, that does
not make it right.
Again, our disagreement over ethics and the right to life of others
comes into play.
> That's why NASA is a little bitch of an organization. Nobody
> really gives a crap about what they think. They don't set
> policy, they just research and lift shit into orbit.
NASA's expressed intent is to develop manned space flight. As such,
their interest in general science and weapons development is limited,
and they resent any private efforts to muscle in on the _idea_ of
manned space flight.
> These
> philosophies that refuse to recognize their reducable quality
> tend to require modification in order to sell (or foist, as you
> say) on people otherwise inclined to stick with reality.
What is a "reducible quality" in a philosophy? At any rate, the
contention is that Objectivism _is_ about reality, and that most people
just don't get it. Unless, of course, you are referring to your very
special brand of "reality" ...
> I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Objectivism is
> going to give head to get the social contract? [...]
No. The first priority is to save our own skins, but there is no need
to compromise the philosophy. If half the US population were
Objectivists and the other half were thieving liberals, you can be sure
a war would break out.
> Pretty much. I don't always. I gotta little sister and I'm
> damned protective of her. [...]
As am I of my younger brother. If you value the life of your sister so
much, why not the lives of those who are just as good? Inversely,
would you be _quite_ as protective of her, if hypothetically, she stole
your stereo or wrecked your car or made your life hell?
> I never claimed to be a metaphysical realist. My premises
> are entirely irrational. I claimed to be a realist, as
> in I keep it real.
Ha -- I guess that's the bottom line. Disappointing, I guess, since
you believe in science and engineering, which demand Aristotelian
metaphysics, or at least enough to major in 6.2 ...
Well, when people other than Wally start to question the
inappropriateness of threads, it might be time to move on. I'd be
happy to continue the discussion on "spa-discuss" or in private, if you
don't mind me getting the last word on "mit-talk".
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
