honorentheos wrote:We're talking past one-another on what a free rider would be. The idea of a free rider is different from the GOP "taker". If human beings, as evolved social animals, benefit from having functioning social dynamics then a free rider is an individual that takes the benefits of the functioning society without participating in social activities/give-and-take that makes the society work.
I suspect we are communicating just fine. My first example is exactly what you state here is it not?
honorentheos wrote:We're talking past one-another on what a free rider would be. The idea of a free rider is different from the GOP "taker". If human beings, as evolved social animals, benefit from having functioning social dynamics then a free rider is an individual that takes the benefits of the functioning society without participating in social activities/give-and-take that makes the society work.
I suspect we are communicating just fine. My first example is exactly what you state here is it not?
In some ways. But while she talks about "thugs and thieves" being parasites, they are not parasites on society but on the genius of the individual. She isn't so concerned about free riders as described above because society isn't something that can be victimized. She describes those who pursue the immediate gratification of the self at the expense of the individual genius (their own neglected genius or that of others) as acting in a subhuman way, while the human ideal is that of Man acting in accordance with their own volition towards ends that satisfy for a lifetime.
From her "The Objectivist Ethics": Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.
Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.
It's a bit like Joseph Smith's cosmology built on bad Newtonian Physics. Sure it sounds cool. But there isn't any math that exists that can back it up.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote: From her "The Objectivist Ethics": Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.
Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.
It's a bit like Joseph Smith's cosmology built on bad Newtonian Physics. Sure it sounds cool. But there isn't any math that exists that can back it up.
I think the quality of her morality shows in how she characterizes the value of weaker people. She has bizarrely inflated views of the value of herself and associates and correspondingly imaginary deprecation of others. But she presents nicely and is capable of some well turned phrases.
honorentheos wrote: From her "The Objectivist Ethics": Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.
Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.
It's a bit like Joseph Smith's cosmology built on bad Newtonian Physics. Sure it sounds cool. But there isn't any math that exists that can back it up.
I think the quality of her morality shows in how she characterizes the value of weaker people. She has bizarrely inflated views of the value of herself and associates and correspondingly imaginary deprecation of others. But she presents nicely and is capable of some well turned phrases.
That's fair. I do think it's important to consider the flaws in her foundational thinking, in particular in the US where many of her "well turned phrases" could be placarded on political rally signs. It's the complete disregard for society, as a whole, that is contradicted by our own biological heritage. We are, as E.O. Wilson has said, eusocial animals, and our competitive advantages as a species are both derived from individual fitness as well as social or group fitness. To completely ignore the role of social organization or assume it is best defined by weak bonds of "live and let live" is suicide by ignorance. Or egoism/Pride.
ETA: it's not lost on my that the above could easily be turned into an argument for social conservatism. That's the dilemma we seem to face in our two-party system combined with our imperfect ability to justly use reason to harness our non-conscious minds. I'm of the opinion we are reaching peak complexity, if we haven't reached it already, and it is precisely these types of dilemmas that overtax our democratic republic's capacities.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:We're talking past one-another on what a free rider would be. The idea of a free rider is different from the GOP "taker". If human beings, as evolved social animals, benefit from having functioning social dynamics then a free rider is an individual that takes the benefits of the functioning society without participating in social activities/give-and-take that makes the society work.
Honorentheos, on further thought I think you have been clearer about the problem here than I have. I hear you saying that we have an obligation to the good of society that exists in its own right and and a person needs to recognize and try to fullfill that duty as part of being a real person.
I am always surprised, due to her atheism, by how much Rand's philosophy has worked its way into LDS thinking. Maybe there is a universal tug of greed that operates independent of religious identity.
moksha wrote:I am always surprised, due to her atheism, by how much Rand's philosophy has worked its way into LDS thinking. Maybe there is a universal tug of greed that operates independent of religious identity.
I believe there is a HUGE part of greed in Mormonism. Having a lot of money is a manifestation of God's great love, respect, and blessings. To be rich and be a Mormon in Utah is the best of all possibilities.
A friendship that requires agreement in all things, is not worthy of the term friendship.
moksha wrote:I am always surprised, due to her atheism, by how much Rand's philosophy has worked its way into LDS thinking. Maybe there is a universal tug of greed that operates independent of religious identity.
True observation I think. But of course it is not just Mormon tendency to greed. Even considering Zadoks observation the attraction is found in many places. It sneeks I think.
I posted on this topic to ask myself how a few attractive phrases could be left so open to greed. I appreciate the help people have provided here.