Kelo Report, Part 2

[Michael Fisher]

The objectivist idea that all sacrifice is immoral makes no sense.

Take someone from a citizens' militia who died fighting the Nazis in Poland, someone who died fightning for the freedom and lives of others when there was clearly no hope for their own lives or freedom.? That completely selfless sacrifice is actually immoral according to pure objectivism.? That sacrifice is not only a moral act, it is one of the most morally righteous acts anyone has ever done, IMO.

In this instance, objectivism shows a tremendous weakness.? Voluntary self-sacrifice, as opposed to mandatory self-sacrifice, is morally righteous.? Objectivism does not distinguish between the two in the name of philosophical consistency.

Objectivism also states that when under the threat of death, morality is neutral.? So if you are forced at gunpoint to kill someone, you are not moral or immoral for doing it because your life is in your own best interest.? Thus, if someone strapped a bomb to a Randroid, watched his every move, and gave him instructions, he could do literally anything he's told without it being an immoral act.

Nonsense.? In this situation, voluntarily sacrificing your life is clearly morally preferable to initiating force against others.

Any reasonable morality must have a stronger foundation than this.? I will never initiate force against anyone, even if forced to do so by a third party because I believe initiation of force is immoral, and there are no excuses for it.

In Kantian philosophy (deontology, or the "categorical imperative"), there are perfect duties and imperfect duties.? A perfect duty is absolutely required and objectively justified as an end in itself.? Imperfect duties are subjective.? Objectivism rejects "duty" as always lacking in reason or purpose, but this is false with regard to deontology - there is no duty to anyone or anything, it is just an objective duty to act by laws that can be logically univeralized (and are justified as ends in themselves) and a subjective moral duty to act by maxims that you would like to be universalized.? I believe that lying, theft, and initiation of force are immoral in all circumstances.

Deontology, to me, makes a very clear picture of what is right and wrong.? It is a clear and powerful moral compass for an individual's everyday life.? Objectivism's practical applications are not very clear, especially with regard to sacrifice, theft, lying, and situations of "moral neutrality".

[KBCraig]

The objectivist idea that all sacrifice is immoral makes no sense.

Take someone from a citizens' militia who died fighting the Nazis in Poland, someone who died fightning for the freedom and lives of others when there was clearly no hope for their own lives or freedom.  That completely selfless sacrifice is actually immoral according to pure objectivism.  That sacrifice is not only a moral act, it is one of the most morally righteous acts anyone has ever done, IMO.

I'm not sure to whom you're replying, so I'll wade in here.

I'm a small-o objectivist. I believe AR would gladly rise from her grave and kick Peickoff's butt from here to Tuesday, and demand her name be removed from ARI. I base that not so much on her writings (for she was certainly fallible), but on those of Leonard & Co., who believe AR to be infallible, and believe they, as the Twue Disciples Of The One Twue Way, have inherited that infallibility.

I could be wrong. *shrug* I never claimed my rational approach guaranteed infallibility.

I call myself a small-o type because I approach her works as she offered them: in the romanticist tradition. I sought the contemporary truth that could be gleened from temporal fiction. I reject the ARIan cultist view that the Rational Mind can only reach one conclusion, and that if you differ from that conclusion, you're irrational.

But as for sacrifice: as I commented earlier, AR treated altruism as an oxymoron. It makes no sense. Everything we do is done either because we wish to, in which case it's selfish rather than altruistic, or because we're forced to, thus it's compulsory rather than altruistic.

Self-sacrifice isn't always immoral, nor is it always altruistic. A soldier seeing a grenade landing amidst his friends, knowing that the fuze has burned long enough to preclude throwing the grenade safely away, who then hrows himself atop it to save his buddies, is not an example of altruism. He selfishly fought for the thing he valued most: the lives of his fellows, above his own.

The altruist would be the one who continually sought grenades onto which he could fling himself, even if they posed no danger to his fellows.

Lauren did not seek this "self-sacrifice". She sought to attend a public meeting. When the grenade was hurled amongst them, she sat down on it. She didn't do so for the greater good of mankind, she did so because her right to speak, and her right to not be thrown from her home, was at stake.

The calmness of her expression was attributed to resistance through love. By you, Mike, if I'm not mistaken. And I agree: she was fighting out of love, but it was love of her own life and her own right to live. I see her calm visage as evidence of confidence: she was not distraught, because she knew she was right. She clamped her jaws because she was angry. To not be angry under the circumstances would be irrational.

We're not so far apart here, Mike, Lauren, and I. Semantics might bedevil us, but I believe we're truly of one mind in the end.

I salute you, Lauren. I salute Mike for his disobedience. I salute all who take a stance for liberty. That stance is, by necessity, selfish. That doesn't make it bad.

Kevin

[Dave Ridley]

God bless you Lauren!  Gandhi could have done no better. 

[Kat Kanning]

God bless you Lauren!  Gandhi could have done no better. 

/agree completely.  We're listening to the interview now.  If only Ian could shut up once in a while.

[Russell Kanning]

So Lauren, how did the process of talking to the reporter and such get started?
Did you contact them or did they come to you?
They said that your court date was going to be 10/7. Why did they move it up a few days?
Did they ever fingerprint you?

[AlanM]

Mike,
I, too, dismiss Peikoff and his followers. I look at Rand's writings. She gives a simple example of "altruism" as she defines it, which is an act contrary to one's perceived interest. If you give the only food you have to someone else, and let your own child starve to death, THAT would be altruism to Ayn Rand.

[Ron Helwig]

Paul, the self proclaimed 13th apostle, who never met Jesus?

I thought Rufus was the 13th apostle. 

[KBCraig]

Paul, the self proclaimed 13th apostle, who never met Jesus?

I thought Rufus was the 13th apostle. 

Good reference. 

I like Biff, though.

Kevin

[Ron Helwig]

As an aside, just want to let those of an objectivist bent know that there are some active objectivists in the Epsom area. (And one more in the area soon, as soon as my house in Deerfield is built)

So, if you haven't moved to the Free State yet, that might be an interesting factor in deciding exactly where to go.

[president]

Paul, the self proclaimed 13th apostle, who never met Jesus?

I thought Rufus was the 13th apostle. 

Since we are OT anyway....

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pmithra/

The man known as Paul, also called the 13th apostle, was originally named Saul. Until he was about 30 years old, Saul was an outspoken critic of the new cult of rebel Jews following the teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua, who we now know of as Jesus. Paul later became the first evangelist.

...

Saul had become convinced that Jesus would return within his  lifetime. He therefore thought it was necessary to convert as many people as possible. He was a powerful, charismatic orator, and an effective evangelist.

Sacrifice and resurrection are common themes among countless belief systems; patterned by early people after the cycles of nature, their religions often centered on themes of death, rebirth, and transformation. Saul (now Paul) no doubt found it easier to convert the Tarsans by weaving the story of Jesus in with their own beliefs, and making it more palatable to them.

Thus were formed the "Paulist doctrines" that form Christianity as we know it today, i.e, God's love compelled him to sacrifice his only son, so that our sins could be forgiven, washed in the savior's blood, and the ritual eating of the flesh and drinking the blood of God, etc.. Using the blood and sacrifice motif, Paul took Mithraism up a step, from an animal to a Man/God being sacrificed; a potent and compelling idea. An idea that differs, though, from what Jesus taught, which was a Buddhist influenced, psychedelic, shamanistic oneness with him, God, and eternity.

[FTL_Ian]

/agree completely.  We're listening to the interview now.  If only Ian could shut up once in a while.

You're the only person I've heard this critique from, Kat.  We had Lauren on for multiple segments.  Would you like us to simply put a caller on the air, then walk away from the mics?  It's a talk show, we ask questions.  We discuss.  We recap.  We give callers so much airtime in comparison to other shows, we've had critique from people in the industry saying that we keep them on too long! 

I can't make everyone happy... 

[president]

If only Ian could shut up once in a while.

You're the only person I've heard this critique from, Kat.

I will second it, so now you have heard it from more than one person.

[Kat Kanning]

The guys from New London said it drove them crazy.

[Russell Kanning]

Maybe you could let your good guests talk a little more.

[KBCraig]

It drives me crazy. It's why I fast-forward through most of the show, and only listen to the segments I want to hear.

There's waaaaaay too much talk-over. It comes off like a Morning Zoo show.

Taxpayer Radio is at the other extreme; it could use some perking up. Somewhere in the middle would be good for both shows.

Kevin