Comments on Certainty VS. Uncertainty, GoldenMean VS. Ayn Rand

Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron - Add a comment - Go to Certainty VS. Uncertainty, GoldenMean VS. Ayn Rand

Yeah, I've thought about that before, a Philosophy section. 

Right now I think where a philosophical blog fits depends on its religious orientation -- for if it's religious, it would seem to belong under Religion and Spirituality; if not religious, then I suppose Opinion is the best place for it.

But still, religion and philosophy are not the same thing. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on April 5, 2005 at 6:41 PM | link to this | reply

DV, I will take your advice

I will slow it down a bit, since I am not racing anymore. I used to take crazy chances making a pass on another rider, just to advance from say, 4th place to 3th place, in an amateur race that paid no money. Racing seems to turn off the safety switch in my brain. I was lucky to race from age 17 to 50 with no serious injury. But now I will just ride the trails in my "comfort zone," which is still fast enough to get the adrenalin pumping, and fast enough to startle other trail riders, which is part of the fun!

So keep smoking those tobacco-sticks, in moderation of course. It gives you pleasure, it harms no one else, and you are taking responsibility for the little harm it does to you.

So let us both continue to do our duty and stimulate an interest in philosophy around here! You too, Ariala. Maybe someday we will get our own category, instead of bumming around in Religion & Spirituality or New & Politics. We who enjoy philosophy are the wandering orphans of Blogit.

posted by GoldenMean on March 29, 2005 at 9:34 PM | link to this | reply

Also, thank you for the tolerance you show with regard to tobacco use --

there is no excuse for a person putting his or her life in imminent danger, but moderate tobacco use is pretty much on par with many of the things we routinely do to our bodies that, with the best health care, make us live to be 65 or 75 instead of 85 or 95.

I am making lame excuses, am I not?  I still think there is a slice of merit hidden in between my b.s., though --

like, your dirt-biking.  Now, you should take certain precautions -- but because you enjoy it so much, it is reasonable to subject even your life (!) to a small degree of danger, but a degree more substantial than if you gave up biking, because it is worth it to you.

Perhaps this opinion is too imbued with hedonism -- I appreciate that there are other important things than pleasure --

but to be honest none of them seems especially appealing if pleasure is absent more often than it is present.

So my rational compromise has been to sharply limit my smoking and adopt a much healthier diet and an exercise routine.

Yours might be to slow that bike down a bit(?) 

I would hate to have us lose such a valuable thinker -- not just lose him from Blogit but from society;

I say this for reasons that have nothing to do with flattery, although this will flatter: there are not many like you...

Thus you have a proportionally greater duty to stay alive and well!

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 27, 2005 at 6:20 PM | link to this | reply

Ariala, in "Atlas Shrugged" it was a cigarette with a dollar sign on it!  Close enough, though, lol...

Golden Mean, I figured you would agree with that comment -- thank you for considering it so carefully and responding specifically. 

Many of the comments people make are general and trite, not that I don't still appreciate the courtesy.

But it's nice when we can have more detailed, critically thought exchanges. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 27, 2005 at 6:15 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan

You wrote: "This raises a problem of moral essence, though. As you said, people can change, and people are not always consistent, sometimes being abusive, sometimes helpful. So we might have to narrow it further: if an abusive and predatory person's evil is so threatening to the life of another that a reasonable person can conclude that it is necessary to use lethal force against the abuser, then it is justified to end the abuser's life even if it is conceivable that the abuser might have a major change of heart or behavior later on. Exigency trumps potential."

Exactly so. Every predatory person has the capacity to change, and probably WILL change his/her ways sooner or later, after they have gone too far. But when they physically threaten another person's life or health, they forfeit their moral right to their own life or health AT THAT MOMENT, for as long as their destructive behavior continues.

But there is a difficulty that arises. While evil/predatory action originates as an INTENTION, we cannot act against the predator until he or she acts on their intentions. The trick is to discover the EARLIEST preparatory actions of the predator, which is what the Patriot Act is all about, in my opinion. The Patriot Act may go a little too far, but don't worry, when the liberals get control of Congress again, they will throw it out, and then go too far in the other direction!

posted by GoldenMean on March 24, 2005 at 9:14 PM | link to this | reply

Ariala

You wrote: "I don't agree with liberals on the ban on guns, but neither do I agree with conservatives who want to control our freedoms through censorship and excessive security measures, etc."

Yes, extremists can go too far on both sides. And even if they are well-meaning themselves, they can set the stage for future leaders to become tyrants very easily. The liberals would disarm us, and the conservatives would take us closer to being a police state. Both extremes are conducive to future destruction of American freedom.

It sounds to me like you are seeking a path of moderation, a Golden Mean of wisdom. My dear lady, we are in harmony here, a rare occassion to enjoy and celebrate!

As for Ayn Rand or anyone else smoking, I have no objection to it. We all have our little weaknesses and/or vices, and do things that are unwise or unhealthy. This does not necessarily impair our rationality or judgment. In fact, it may give us a valuable perspective on life that others do not have.

My primary weakness/vice is riding dirt bikes (motorcycles) at reckless speeds on dirt trails and tracks. I don't race anymore, but I still risk my health and livlihood, and upset my family considerably, but I will keep doing it as long as I am physically able. It gives me the greatest pleasure I have found in life. You can have your tobacco, but adrenalin is the most addicting chemical substance for me!

posted by GoldenMean on March 24, 2005 at 8:49 PM | link to this | reply

I always wanted a lighter with a dollar sign on it, like John Galt and them

had...or maybe it was something else? lol  Been a while since I've read Atlas.

posted by Ariala on March 23, 2005 at 6:29 PM | link to this | reply

lol, Ariala, it's OK...

Eminently forgiveable.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 23, 2005 at 6:27 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan, lol...oops, sorry! No, I had Rand in mind completely...forgot about

your love of cigs!

posted by Ariala on March 22, 2005 at 7:08 PM | link to this | reply

Well, to be fair, Ariala, Ayn Rand began smoking well before it became common knowledge that it was harmful. 

I suppose there was medical evidence that it was harmful even before the U.S. government and other leaders officially recognized it as such, but if I have my history correct it was not until the 50s that the government began warning of the dangers of smoking.

There was a king -- in England? -- who centuries before had decried smoking as a filthy habit of the savage natives, but he was only correct by accident, and for the wrong reasons.  Ironic, still, though. 

You just had to "go there" with regard to the smoking, didn't you?  Admit it, you had me in mind when you wrote that, lol. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 22, 2005 at 7:05 PM | link to this | reply

I have to agree with most of this...I do want to point out something,

however.  I don't agree with liberals on the ban on guns, but neither do I agree with conservatives who want to control our freedoms through censorship and excessive security measures, etc. 

Like you, I do not believe objects are either good nor evil, but it's what a person brings to that object that leads to either one or the other.

Also, if Rand was so rational, why would she choose to self-destruct through the smoking of cigarettes?  You see, the "self" desired something addictive and relaxing and she gave in to it (Hedonism).  There were several lifestyle choices she made which reflect the opposite of what she claimed was rational.  I suppose she rationalized those away as well...

posted by Ariala on March 22, 2005 at 6:11 AM | link to this | reply

Carpenter

You said "Consequences hidden by internal choices…"

That is not exactly what I said. The consequences are visible, the internal choices are hidden from the rest of us, but each person knows his or her choices, simply because he or she made them! Owning up to them is another matter.

You said "Personal responsibility is a major deficiency. When it comes to responsibility, we should take our cue from God. How can he blame his own creation…for anything? If he is responsible for the bum and the shooter…then so are we…"

I am not able to tell if you are arguing the ACCEPTANCE or the AVOIDANCE of personal responsibility. But I do know that you take a Hindu-like position that we are all part of God, so perhaps you want it both ways. I take no position on God, and trust that He will tap me on the shoulder when He feels like it. But I do not presume to be part of Him.

posted by GoldenMean on March 22, 2005 at 5:44 AM | link to this | reply

Fair enough.  Cheers and well wishes...

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 21, 2005 at 7:43 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks for all the great comments

As usual, I find myself short of time just when I am getting excellent comments. Please bear with me, I will return to this when I can give it proper attention.

posted by GoldenMean on March 21, 2005 at 5:52 AM | link to this | reply

In my usual blunt way, allow me to say,

brilliant writing. Entertaining in its educational abundance.

posted by _teddypoet_ on March 20, 2005 at 12:02 PM | link to this | reply

Yes, I think that what we have agreed upon is a correction of Rand's flawed paradigm of physical survival. 

I believe she would never have given moral approval to the survival-enabling behavior of a person who was clearly doing it to prepare himself to commit an evil act. 

Maybe she would have modified her analysis if faced with this argument.  The argument can be simplified, unless I am mistaken, to the principle that any action which furthers and enhances the life of a good person (non-abusive, non-predatory) is good, but any action with furthers and enhances the life of an evil person is evil. 

This raises a problem of moral essence, though.  As you said, people can change, and people are not always consistent, sometimes being abusive, sometimes helpful.  So we might have to narrow it further: if an abusive and predatory person's evil is so threatening to the life of another that a reasonable person can conclude that it is necessary to use lethal force against the abuser, then it is justified to end the abuser's life even if it is conceivable that the abuser might have a major change of heart or behavior later on.  Exigency trumps potential.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 20, 2005 at 11:41 AM | link to this | reply

Great Post

Consequences hidden by internal choices…

Personal responsibility is a major deficiency. When it comes to responsibility, we should take our cue from God. How can he blame his own creation…for anything? If he is responsible for the bum and the shooter…then so are we…

Consequences hidden by internal choices…

If one is truly responsible…then one cannot blame anyone for anything…

Maybe blame is a choice with hidden consequence…

posted by justAcarpenter on March 19, 2005 at 11:02 PM | link to this | reply

It seems to me

You and I have avoided an error that Ayn Rand did not escape. She focused on physical requirements for physical survival, while we should focus on moral requirements for "spiritual" survival. We are in a position to benefit from her mistake. But she pointed us in the right direction. That is sometimes the greatest contribution one can make.

posted by GoldenMean on March 19, 2005 at 10:47 PM | link to this | reply

Indeed.  We might be drifting into the sort of semantic dispute that masquerades as moral disagreement to no one's edification.

We both would agree that it is morally good to cook for a person who is not a mass murderer or otherwise irredeemably predatory and nondeserving of our service. 

If you are serving a good purpose in cooking the food, then the act of cooking in this case is good -- it is work; it is a duty; it is a demonstration of responsibility.  If you are serving a bad purpose by cooking, the mere fact that cooking enables survival does not make the act of cooking good.

I suppose we are arguing on very nuanced terrain, here, and it might be of little consequence.  I just cannot bring myself to separate the act of cooking -- or cleaning the house, or taking care of children, or whatever -- from the moral purpose it serves, and the result it brings about. 

The act itself has moral content depending on one's intention, one's purpose, and the likelihood of a good outcome.  If one has bad intent, an evil purpose and seeks an evil outcome, then the act of cooking is itself bad, in this case.     

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 19, 2005 at 4:05 PM | link to this | reply

Let me express it another way

Everyone, whether saint or serial murderer, must do countless operational things every day to maintain health and stay in the game of life. Eat, sleep, communicate, interact, drive vehicles, navigate from one destination to another, keep appointments, satisfy superiors, direct subordinates, and so on. The best and the worst of people must do these things, just to remain a player in the game of life. These operational things have little significant moral value. They are the basic things we all must do to support the opportunity for activities with REAL moral value. So I do not understand Ayn Rand's assigning the baser life-sustaining activities such great moral importance.

Instead, it is the higher moral goals one aspires to that matter. It doesn't matter what we cook for breakfast. Is one working toward harmony or discord? Help or harm? Cooperation or control? Romance or rape? Nurturing or murder? These are the moral values and choices that matter.

And if I cooked a poison dish to serve to a mass murderer, such as Osama Bin Laden or Kim Ill Sung, wouldn't I be doing a deed of great goodness and virtue?

posted by GoldenMean on March 18, 2005 at 10:25 PM | link to this | reply

"...it is not conceptually accurate to assign morality to the possessions, physical operations, or technical actions of people; nor to say that the building of a steel mill or the cooking of food are moral operations, in any sense of the word "moral." Good and evil people alike must feed themselves, and must observe procedural integrity and precision in carrying out their various activities, from the simple act of driving a vehicle to the complexity of amassing an army. It is not accurate to equate correct procedure with moral correctness."

I actually have to dissent here, although I share the other views expressed in your essay.  Rand was saying that every action resulting from conscious choice is a response to values.  One either values life and health and progress, or he values the opposite of these things.  When he acts, he acts to further his values.  Even if he is mistaken in thinking that a particular act will fulfill his values, or even if he is doing something that is technologically and intellectually sound but has a malicious intent, he is acting on values. 

So cooking food, for example, is a moral act because it puts into practice the value that could be stated as such: "I need to eat in order to live, and so does my family; we value life, so I must prepare the food so my family and I may eat."  Since the act is done because of a person's values, it has moral content.

If the cook is somehow preparing food for a bad reason -- say, poisoning it to carry out an assassination -- then of course the preparation of food becomes evil.  In this case, the preparation of food does not continue or enhance life -- it threatens sickness and death. 

I suppose you could respond that this just proves that cooking food is not moral in and of itself, but that it depends on what the purpose of the cooking is.  That is a point well taken, so I suppose I would say that cooking food for one's own and one's community's survival, that is, cooking for the legitimate purpose of cooking, is a good thing.  But in any case, one's intention and purpose gives his act moral content, even if it is bad moral content.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 18, 2005 at 7:38 PM | link to this | reply