Is Objectivism a Religion?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival.

[/ QUOTE ] You could imagine the consequences if it wasn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice. The objectivist ethics allows one to give up somehting of lesser value for something of greater value, but not vice versa.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival.

[/ QUOTE ] You could imagine the consequences if it wasn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice. The objectivist ethics allows one to give up somehting of lesser value for something of greater value, but not vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

First part: I'd go as far as to say my ethic is not my own survival, althought it is in part. The consequences are fine.

Second part: so my ethic is a code for what is most important to me. Sounds right but doesn't seem to be what Rand is saying.

Does she means something non-obvious by survival?

chez

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival. My survival is important to me but its not the only thing, I see no reason to believe its even the most important thing. Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick response here as I'm in the middle of a WSOP satellite:

What she is saying that it is an organism's ability to live or die that establishes the very need for a particular way of acting or not acting. An immortal robot (one of her examples from "The Objectivist Ethics") would have no need for any guidance as to how to act, since nothing could really ever make a difference to it. It's only because we (and the things we value) can go out of existence and because we can do something about it, that the whole realm of ethics, the science of what to do (or not to do), even arises.

And, yes by "your survival" she does mean "the survival all the things that are important to [you] even to the detriment of [your] survival." She has discussed (and I can't give references at the moment because I'm deep in the tournament) for example, that it is right to risk your life for that of, say, your spouse--as your life and your enjoyment of it would be so irreparably damaged, that it would not be worth living having lost such an important value.

Her view of what constitutes "a human's life" is not mere physical continuity, but the fulfillment of the widest range of values and interests possible to a human being.

Anyway, I can elaborate later and more coherently if you wish, but the blinds are escalating, and in a tournament it is all about physical survival. :-P

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival. My survival is important to me but its not the only thing, I see no reason to believe its even the most important thing. Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick response here as I'm in the middle of a WSOP satellite:

What she is saying that it is an organism's ability to live of die that establishes the very need for a particular way of acting or not acting. An immortal robot (one of her examples from "The Objectivist Ethics") would have no need for any guidance as to how to act, since nothing could really ever make a difference to it. It's only because we (and the things we value) can go out of existence and because we can do something about it, that the whole realm of ethics, the science of what to do (or not to do), even arises.

And, yes by "your survival" she does mean "the survival all the things that are important to [you] even to the detriment of [your] survival." She has discussed (and I can't give references at the moment because I'm deep in the tournament) for example, that it is right to risk your life for that of, say, your spouse--as your life and your enjoyment of it would be so irreparably damaged, that it would not be worth living having lost such an important value.

Her view of what constitutes "a human's life" is not mere physical continuity, but the fulfillment of the widest range of values and interests possible to a human being.

Anyway, I can elaborate later and more coherently if you wish, but the blinds are escalating, and in a tournament it is all about physical survival. :-P

[/ QUOTE ]

That's clear thanks.

Good luck

chez

"may your blinds escalate"

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
First part: I'd go as far as to say my ethic is not my own survival, althought it is in part. The consequences are fine.

Second part: so my ethic is a code for what is most important to me. Sounds right but doesn't seem to be what Rand is saying.

Does she means something non-obvious by survival?

chez

[/ QUOTE ] Chez, I'm not a huge AR buff. I've only read a little of her work. But what I've read so far I enjoyed, as it was similiar to my own philosophies.

First part- Right, we've had the conversation before on this part of ethics. The consequence is that you wouldn't survive.



Numero 2- Yes, this is what rand is saying but she also goes ahead and assumes what you value, or at least is stating what she values. If one wishes to prevent human suffering one must put their survival in danger. To be altruistic requires you to sacrifice something of lesser value for something of greater value. This doesn't sound like a rational idea to me.

I'm sure she means something more than just survival. Quality survival what ever that is. Fulfilling experiences, and so on. Survival might be better described as self interest, selfishness.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To be altruistic requires you to sacrifice something of lesser value for something of greater value. This doesn't sound like a rational idea to me.


[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you mean that the other way round but its an unfair definition of alturism that makes it irrational. It could just be putting the survival of someone else before your own survival which, if you're rational, must mean you value their survival more than your own.

However, I don't think it needs to be as extreme as survival, it could just be giving up something of direct benefit to yourself because you value even more the well-being of someone else. Giving money to a charity could be alturistic.

You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car.


chez

[Warren Whitmore]

Hi Kip,

Not really. Most psychology types like to break down people as to thier id, ego and superego. Ayn Rand seems to like breaking her characters into Rational, Mystical, and attila.

She makes the excellent point that people obtain thier net worth both physically and emotionally from one of those three sources. You can con people out of it (mystic), Steal it (wars taxes) or earn it rationally.

For a more in depth look at how she views us poker players give "An open letter to Borris Spasky" a read.

[HDPM]

To get into rand's view of altruism you need to see how she discusses it and how she addresses kant. The concept of duty comes in. Rand basically says you don't have a duty to help others, but you might choose to if you value them. An altruist basically says you do have a duty to help wretches and the less you value others the more moral the help to them is. Obviously simplified in this post, but rand talking about kant is some good reading.

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
For a more in depth look at how she views us poker players give "An open letter to Borris Spasky" a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this article is relevant. This article is about contrasting the clean rational logical rules of chess with the chaotic irrational reality foisted on their citizens by the Soviet government--and how living under such a system forces men of superior intelligence to mentally flee to the realm of games.

The poster wants you to see the following:

[ QUOTE ]
"Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape--an escape from reality. It is an 'out,' a kind of 'make-work' for a man of higher intelligence who was afraid to live, but could not leave his mind unemployed and devoted it to a placebo--thus surrendering to others the living world he had rejected as too hard to understand.

"Please do not take this to mean that I object to games as such: games are an important part of man's life, they provide a necessary rest, and chess may do for some men who live under the constant pressure of purposeful work....You, the chess, professionals, are taken as exponents of the most precious of human skills: intellectual power--yet that power deserts you beyond the confines of sixty-four squares of a chessboard, leaving you confused, anxious and helplessly unfocused. Because, you see, the chessboard is not a training ground, but a *substitute* for reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This poster is attempting to dissuade poker players from considering Ayn Rand's views, by making it seem as though she would disapprove of the attention and effort we put into poker. However, AR probably did not anticipate or know about the existence of such a thing as poker or gaming as a viable entrepreneurial profession.

I am fully confident that such a profession is entirely compatible with AR's philosophy. I have in fact been working on a paper speaking to this point to distribute informally to friends who ask me about my poker goals. I may make it available to this forum when it is complete. Suffice it to say that a valid profession trades something of value to parties willing to pay for it, and it is my view that poker passes this bright-line test.

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that for some players, poker is an escape from the necessity of dealing with the world rationally. For example, does AR's characterization of Bobby Fischer remind anyone of some famous poker players we might all recognize?

[ QUOTE ]
This confident, disciplined obviously brilliant player falls to pieces when he as to deal with the real world. He throw tantrums like a child, breaks agreements, makes arbitrary demands, and indulges in the kind of whim worship one touch of which in the playing of chess would disqualify him from a high school tournament. Thus he brings to the real world the very evil that make him escape it: *irrationality*. A man who is afraid to sign a letter, who fears any firm commitment, who seeks the guidance of the arbitrary edicts of a mystic sect in order to learn how to live his life--is not a great, confident mind, but a tragically helpless victim, torn by acute anxiety and, perhaps, by a sense of treason to what might have been great potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To get into rand's view of altruism you need to see how she discusses it and how she addresses kant. The concept of duty comes in. Rand basically says you don't have a duty to help others, but you might choose to if you value them. An altruist basically says you do have a duty to help wretches and the less you value others the more moral the help to them is. Obviously simplified in this post, but rand talking about kant is some good reading.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you abandon duty ethics then you can't just dismiss alturism because it was defined within a framework of duty ethics. Clearly people have different propensities to help other, so alturism is a useful concept and needs to be included.

I'm happy with Rand's moral framework, I suspect most people are because they make our own values all important. Does she go past a framework and say which values we should have?

chez