Eugenicist Takes Hostage at Discovery Channel, Issues Anti-human Manifesto

[James Madison]

Like I thought, you seriously know nothing about biodiversity.

How so? We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We also share a common ancestor with fish (lungfish). I guess we're fish then.

 

[James Madison]

I'm not sure about this. I help people because I expect the act can indirectly be helpful in the future, even if I don't know how - I think it's good to be in good favor. I don't expect anything in return, but I consciously factor how helpful the person could potentially be in considering whether or not I should stick my neck out for them.

Edit: Beyond that, dishonor has to be factored in. I'd be frustrated if I had to keep repressing a story where I let a paraplegic roll into a river, and I'd be considered (rightfully so) an asshole if I ever let it slip.

I can see your point. I suppose that complete altruism may not occur often in nature or in human populations. But I also don't blame you for being slightly selective in who you help. You can't be completely careless.

 

[EndDaFed]

One less psychopath in the world. What a huge loss.

 

[Mini-Me]

Again, not if socialists and people like you can help it.

You've expressed how its wrong to judge and wrong to select, so idiocracy can't be prevent the way you're enabling liberals and socialists from pushing "all are equal" down our gene pool.

The solution to socialism is to fight state power, not augment state power with a coercive eugenics institution.

 

[James Madison]

One less psychopath in the world. What a huge loss.

Very true.

 

[Mini-Me]

I can see your point. I suppose that complete altruism may not occur often in nature or in human populations. But I also don't blame you for being slightly selective in who you help. You can't be completely careless.

I think it really depends on how Randian your definition of altruism is. I mean, tons of people help others expecting nothing in return except the feeling that they're making a positive difference. You could then call the act "selfish" and not altruistic, but I think that's a cynical take on it. Such a view bears the connotation that it comes from egotism and a narcissistic desire to think highly of yourself (and maybe that was the case for Rand - who knows? ), but I think that for most people, it comes from feeling an outward personal connection with the person you helped. If an act can only be considered altruistic if it is some kind of loathesome self-denigrating sacrifice, then I'd agree that altruism is rare...but frankly, I think this Randian view of selfishness vs. altruism is a bit contrived and far removed from everyday understanding of the terms.

 

[low preference guy]

frankly, I think this Randian view of selfishness vs. altruism is a bit contrived and far removed from everyday understanding of the terms.

Frankly, I think you don't have an even mediocre grasp of Objectivist Ethics.

 

[Endgame]

How so? We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We also share a common ancestor with fish (lungfish). I guess we're fish then.

Some schools of taxonomy would actually argue that.

 

[James Madison]

Some schools of taxonomy would actually argue that.

 

[Mini-Me]

Frankly, I think you don't have an even mediocre grasp of Objectivist Ethics.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not a total noob either. I understand what Rand was trying to get across, but I can't help but feeling like she was trying to put a square peg into a round hole with her definitions of terms. I think it's not so much that I disagree with her, as it is that I'm looking at the same thing from a different angle. I'm aware of her differentiation between good selfishness and bad selfishness (and I really like this Internet essay on it), but as I stated in my edit above, the exclusive use of selfishness in describing the reward for charitable acts connotes narcissistic meaning, rather than a feeling of genuine interpersonal connection with the person you helped. I think it's crucial to make a distinction between the two, and if you're familiar with narcissists in real life, you may understand what I mean here and why I stress this. People with that disorder may end up acting just like the rest of us (if you're lucky enough to know a benign one ), but their motivations are very different.

 

[low preference guy]

rather than a feeling of genuine interpersonal connection with the person you helped.

self-interest alone indicates that such acts where we can help people a lot with relatively little effort are moral. feeling a "genuine interpersonal connection" is not necessary but it's not immoral to feel it.

a truly self-interested person sees the benefits of living in a society. the division of labor allows humans to live a much higher quality of life. the more people there are, there more division of labor there is.

morality deals with the effect of your actions in the long term. helping one particular person once might not benefit you, but you do it because it's good practice. just like telling the truth one particular time might not benefit you, but having the practice of always telling the truth will likely benefit you in the long term (lies can sometimes be revealed in weird ways, and when it happens you lose credibility).

human relationships and friendships are perfectly OK under Objectivist Ethics. if your morality is based on Objectivism, you will naturally be attracted to people with your values: hard-work, ambition, independence, etc., and their company will not be a burden, but the contemplation of their virtues alone can inspire you to accomplish more things yourself, even if you're an accomplished person already.

so there is no altruism at all in anything i described, and yet you can have relationships and help people. at the very least, those actions are morally permissible.

 

[Mini-Me]

self-interest alone indicates that such acts where we can help people a lot with relatively little effort are moral. feeling a "genuine interpersonal connection" is not necessary but it's not immoral to feel it.

a truly self-interested person sees the benefits of living in a society. the division of labor allows humans to live a much higher quality of life. the more people there are, there more division of labor there is.

morality deals with the effect of your actions in the long term. helping one particular person once might not benefit you, but you do it because it's good practice. just like telling the truth one particular time might not benefit you, but having the practice of always telling the truth will likely benefit you in the long term (lies can sometimes be revealed in weird ways, and when it happens you lose credibility).

human relationships and friendship are perfectly OK under Objectivist Ethics. if your morality is based on Objectivism, you will naturally be attracted to people with your values: hard-work, ambition, independence, etc., and their company will not be a burden but the contemplation of their virtues alone can inspire you to accomplish more things yourself, when you're shown that over human being is dong it, even if you're an accomplished person already.

so there is no altruism at all in anything i described, and yet you can have relationships and helping people. it's morally permissible to say the least.

Yes, I know. I'm aware of all of these selfish, non-altruistic motives; I just don't view the world exclusively in terms of them. I see them as part of a larger whole, where feeling a genuine connection with other people is not just "not immoral" or "permissible" but an integral part of our humanity.

 

[low preference guy]

Yes, I know. I'm aware of all of these selfish, non-altruistic motives; I just don't view the world exclusively in terms of them.

so what's contrived about what i described? or what do you think is contrived about Rand's conception of selfishness?

 

[Mini-Me]

so what's contrived about what i described? or what do you have contrived about Rand's conception of selfishness?

I think that Rand did well to point out the [positively] selfish aspects of all of those things, but I think that she's only viewing one part of the picture in a contrived effort to categorize [essentially] all virtue under the banner of selfishness. This allows her to strip all positive aspects from the concepts of selflessness and altruism until an act can only be considered altruistic if it is loathesome and self-denigrating.

Rand revolutionized the understanding of selfishness vs. selflessness with her radical argument, but she was the master of the "macho flash," and I think she overstated her argument a bit in order to shockingly reverse the connotations of the two concepts and cleanly eliminate any positive overlap between them.* Ultimately, I just don't think that clean divorce entirely reflects the real world, even if it's a valuable perspective to consider. In addition to all the motivations that you [and she] gave, interpersonal connections are an integral part of both our humanity and motivations for doing good, yet they are too outward-focused to honestly call "selfish."

*After the fact, I think she was just too rigid to give an inch or admit any kind of overstatement, in fear that it would undermine her argument entirely (which I don't think it does; I think her argument has a lot of value, even though I view things differently). She protected her worldview so fiercely that she basically hated libertarians for not being in lockstep.

 

[WaltM]

How so? We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We also share a common ancestor with fish (lungfish). I guess we're fish then.

We share common ancestor with MODERN monkeys, and our common ancestors are monkeys too.

If you are descendent from monkeys, you are still a monkey.

At least as of now, we share all characteristics of our common ancestor, that which would be classified as monkeys.

We do have a VERY distant ancestry with sea life, but that is VERY far removed that it's misleading and unworthy of mention. However, dogs and cats are much more distant that man & monkey (but closer than man and sea life).

 

[WaltM]

Some schools of taxonomy would actually argue that.

it's called phylogenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

the most consistent of which is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

which means if you're ancestors are mammals, you're still a mammal.
Snakes are still lizards, and birds are still dinosaurs.

This is based on genetics and ancestry, not morphology.

 

[low preference guy]

*After the fact, I think she was just too rigid to give an inch or admit any kind of overstatement, in fear that it would undermine her argument entirely (which I don't think it does; I think her argument has a lot of value, even though I view things differently). She protected her worldview so fiercely that she basically hated libertarians for not being in lockstep.

I still don't get what was contrived. Being selfish means acting according in one's self-interest, where an action is in one's self-interest if it benefits the life of the individual in the long-term. I find her conception very natural.

Regarding her opinions about libertarians, sadly I agree with her. If you go to debate about what rights are that is talking place right now, it's hard to not see the majority of posters as "hippies of the right". I find her description strikingly accurate.

She might not have had the best strategy to convert libertarians to her position, but that's a completely different issue, and a minor issue in relation to the actual philosophy.

 

[low preference guy]

In addition to all the motivations that you [and she] gave, interpersonal connections are an integral part of both our humanity and motivations for doing good, yet they are too outward-focused to honestly call "selfish."

There are people who actually practice Objectivism, at least most of it (I don't agree with her views on IP), and we view relationships with other people as selfish and don't see anything weird about it. I guess the description I gave in one of the posts above is the most I'm willing to write about it right now.

My guess is that you haven't been able to see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual. Or maybe you do have altruistic relationships with some people. I personally don't think I have those relationships. "Altruistic" is a word that makes me feel disgusted whenever I hear it.

 

[Mini-Me]

There are people who actually practice Objectivism, at least most of it (I don't agree with her views on IP), and we view relationships with other people as selfish and don't see anything weird about it. I guess the description I gave in one of the posts above is the most I'm willing to write about it right now.

My guess is that you haven't been able to see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual. Or maybe you do have altruistic relationships with some people. I personally don't think I have those relationships. "Altruistic" is a word that makes me feel disgusted whenever I hear it.

It's not that I don't see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual; I do. I just see these as partially incidental to healthy relationships rather than entirely central to them. The distinction is useful for describing the different mindset and motives of narcissists when it comes to relationships...and if you know any narcissists, you'll know what I mean. With any luck, you don't.

 

[low preference guy]

It's not that I don't see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual; I do. I just see these as partially incidental to healthy relationships rather than entirely central to them. The distinction is useful for describing the different mindset and motives of narcissists when it comes to relationships...and if you know any narcissists, you'll know what I mean. With any luck, you don't.

Yep, that's where we disagree. I see the non-selfish aspects as incidental. And I'm not a narcissist. Hehe.