[563] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: "Watch me pull laissez-faire capitalism out of this metaphysics!"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Presley H Cannady)
Sun May 6 20:33:45 2001
Message-Id: <200105070033.UAA00538@test-sun2.mit.edu>
To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 May 2001 18:16:57 EDT."
<200105062216.SAA03851@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:33:22 -0400
From: Presley H Cannady <revprez@MIT.EDU>
>
> 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.
So Objectivism is now bankrupt in making a fundamental
assumption about the character of man.
> > 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.
No, you skipped the point entirely. A legal obligation does not
imply a moral obligation. That connection you assumed yourself.
The process of undertaking a legal obligation does not necessarily
connect with a moral appreciation for it.
> Then, what was the point of that exercise? Both parties could stand
> down, and all would be well.
No, they do not have that choice, period. The expansion
of the exercise was unnecessary.
> How, then, does one decide what is ethical?
I would suggest pulling it out of your ass.
> 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.
You can contend all you want, but the more you do without
reasonable support the more you whittle away at that so called
rationality underpinning Objectivism.
> True, but it's the correct answer.
Nah...don't think so.
> Well, if I'm sharing a lifeboat with a Quaker, then I guess I lucked
> out!
By your rationale. A Quaker's reasoning leads him to a better
place.
> > 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?
Yes, and in the Objectivist formulation of perceived reality,
you deny reality is reducable to unprovable statements. Your
rejection of irrational foundations of knowledge flies in
the face of the proliferation of assumptions throughout your
overly complex and uninteresting philosophy.
I accept no rights. All have fallen short of the glory of
God.
> 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).
Are you saying Objectivists find deception distasteful? Why
claim to be pragmatic?
> 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.
If Bill Gates employs clandestine measures to either
push you out of the market or isolate and limit
your ability to expand, what is the difference between
that and sending one of his boys to beat your ass down?
> 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.
Something like that. You seem to forget, though, the conclusions
reached by that logic are driven by a different set of ethics than
those held by liberals.
> Yes, dishonesty is real, but that does not mean one should initiate it.
Oh yes it does. And often.
> Again, I am striving for an ideal, and you are not, so this view does
> not surprise me.
Enjoy the ride, but watch out for the dead end.
> Every time you buy something, you are surrendering money, i.e. value,
> consensually, no?
Not if you shoplift or run it.
> 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.
In short, you sacrifice the initiative. I bet you fight fair, too.
> 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.
Probably be hard with an Objectivist general, always fair minded
in revealing the depth of his intelligence, his intentions, and
his plans to the enemy.
> 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!
THe United States is morally superior to the rest of the world
because God is on our side.
> 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.
Unfortunately, your ideal man does not exist, so the need to
conscript exists.
> 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.
Sure it does. Remember, God is on our side. At least on the
Republican side.
> Again, our disagreement over ethics and the right to life of others
> comes into play.
This is true. So how did you come up with this funny little
right?
> NASA's expressed intent is to develop manned space flight.
Yeah, and Marlon and Shawn expressed their intent to
be as funny as Keenan. They ain't, and that's not saying
much.
> 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.
As I said. Who gives a shit what they think? Looking at
their budget, not too many folk give them much credence
outside the specialized fields within which they work.
> What is a "reducible quality" in a philosophy?
The ability to reach fundamental assumptions.
> At any rate, the
> contention is that Objectivism _is_ about reality, and that most people
> just don't get it.
Considering reality can only be perceived, and that perception
is therefore subjective, on what basis do you make the assumption
that Objectivist reality exists? In short, why don't you just
admit it is an irrational statement and not a very good one either.
> Unless, of course, you are referring to your very
> special brand of "reality" ...
The one shared by the vast majority of people in the world?
"Get yours, mind your business, stay alive?"
> 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.
Who would win is another question.
> 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?
I find arbitrary choice makes life more interesting.
> Inversely,
> would you be _quite_ as protective of her, if hypothetically, she stole
> your stereo or wrecked your car or made your life hell?
Probably. It's an family thing.
> 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 ...
Nah, I'm willing to take it on faith. I don't require
a rational explanation of every damned thing, nor do I
fill like sitting through such a painful experience.
> 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".
I don't particularly care where we continue this conversation.
Rev Prez
