Priceless. And Free. 1

• Alain Briand III

  One of the many reason I am a objectivist. Rational self-interests is the logical course of morality.

  

  Ayn Rand - Love is Selfish

  www.youtube.com

  Ayn Rand explains how real love and friendship must be in accord with one's rational self-interest.http://www.LibertyPen.com/

   ·  ·  · Share · September 15 at 7:30pm

  • • 

      Mark as Spam

      David Christopher Arnold Defend this. Many modern economic arguments not only show that people are not rational actors, that they fall for stupid things that a "rational actor" wouldn't fall for all the time.
      
      But there's nothing ethical about self-interest. Especially when you start getting into the idea that people's self-interest does not always agree with what would be beneficial to them.

      September 15 at 9:04pm · 
    • 

      Alain Briand III Its rational self-interest. Something you can prove was the best action in a given situation. Did you watch the video? It gives several examples. There is nothing ethical about self-interest? that would be to say that selflessness ethical EI altruism. Altruism is a impossible logical practice. If one where to be truly selfless they would kill themselves as the take up resources. Notice all the sighs of a suicidal person. They give valuable positions to people, they appoligys for there burden on the world, they seem to be overwhelmingly kind. Its is because a suicidal person has little to no self-esteem. They are thinking completely non-selfishly. If someone's family was starving and they found food and there was another stranger who wanted food after they had gatherd it the altruist would give them the food and let there family die, the rational egoist would ignore them as there self preservation as well as their family, which give him happiness, is more impotent to them. this is rational egoism. As for "when you start getting into the idea that people's self-interest does not always agree with what would be beneficial to them." your referring to irrational egoism such as hedonism. If someone is going to be a fool and live for the moment without considering the long term rational interest that is to there own self-destruction. Peaples primary self-interest should be there life and there happiness not there next fix. IDK what your getting at in respect to economics.

      September 15 at 9:33pm · 
    • 

      David Christopher Arnold To say the ultimate act of altruism is starving to death to save everyone else is seriously missing a point - sustainable altruism that comes at a low cost can provide a huge benefit to the giver. You're straw-manning altruism and avoiding talking about altruism by doing so.
      
      To represent altruism with a metaphor involving suicidal people, in fact, sort of pisses on a lot of things like Jonas Salk's altruistic act when he made the polio vaccine a general open patent rather than his own - he refused to profit from the sales of something he believed should have been free.
      
      And besides, if you have to talk about starving people to illustrate your thoughts on how selfishness applies in the real world, you're already missing the point. Starving people don't have time for selfless investments of time, because they are too busy trying to eat.
      
      In the last case, you simply betray your lack of knowledge of the way humans make decisions - largely, in fact, according to recent neuroscience, they do not make them at all. Emotions, previous experiences, environmental awareness, timing - such as whether the person recently had a sating meal, all of these things that they do not control affect every single decision a person makes.
      
      The only space left for free will, in current neuroscience, is the kind of long-term planning one makes when one plans their major. All the rest is simple biochemistry.

      September 15 at 9:44pm · 
    • 

      Alain Briand III Allow me to take the time to brake down every clam you made.
      
      “To say the ultimate act of altruism is starving to death to save everyone else is seriously missing a point - sustainable altruism that comes at a low cost can provide a huge benefit to the giver. You're straw-manning altruism and avoiding talking about altruism by doing so.”
      
      First allow me to define what altruism is as A LOT of people missunderstand its meaning. Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Disintrested is the key word. If you where interested it would fall underselfishness. If there were a big pay back for giving something it is not altruism. Its is rational self-interest. I would give 5$ to a man if I know I would get 100$ in return the next day. That’s selfish not selfless
      
      “To say the ultimate act of altruism is starving to death to save everyone else is seriously missing a point” you replacing my contest . Perhaps I was not clear enough. I am talking about an act of suicide that is to no benefit to anyone. As in a person is depressed enough to take there own life as in hanging yourself. To be capable of such an action one must be disinterested in there own life EI completely selfless. This isn’t the same as killing yourself to save someone of value like a spouse. To give a greater contest altuism would be killing your self to save you enemy IE Someone that will do harm to your love ones or you. Because by definition for someone to be altruistic they must be disinterested if they did not save there enemy it would be because they would harm there loved ones. They are then interested in the well being of there loved ones. You can not be interested and altruistic in a selfless context.
      
      This is by no means a straw man. There is no in-between from selfishness and selflessness. This is by no means a false dichotomy. You clamed that selfishness is not ethical. My counter is that it is. I gave examples of how rational egoism is good and how altruism is bad. IDK how this is avoiding your clam.

      September 15 at 10:55pm · 
    • 

      Alain Briand III “In the last case, you simply betray your lack of knowledge of the way humans make decisions - largely, in fact, according to recent neuroscience, they do not make them at all. Emotions, previous experiences, environmental awareness, timing - such as whether the person recently had a sating meal, all of these things that they do not control affect every single decision a person makes.
      
      The only space left for free will, in current neuroscience, is the kind of long-term planning one makes when one plans their major. All the rest is simple biochemistry.”
      
      You’re going into physiological determinism. Determinism is a self-refuting ideology. It clams that man is a zombie or an unthinking instinctual beast. Nobody can clam any knowledge in such an ideology. Because any conclusion one gains is only a result of the totality of there past. I don’t understand how in this ideology man was any free will in any form be it in there short term or long term planning as you clam.
      
      Man is a being of volitional continuances. You either think or do not think. You can either answer the major questions like “what should I do” or drift and react to anything that passes. You can trust your mind and forge the idea that there is no god or trust other people’s ideas, trust that they are right and not think for yourself.
      
      Where do you think emotions come from? There not mysteries instances. They come from someone conscious or sub- conscious understanding of something. There metaphysical understanding of the world. There a consequence of understanding not dictators of action. One doesn’t get angry, sad, or depressed without reason.
      
      As for environmental awareness and “timing” I assume you mean all that one analyzes empirically in any given situation. How instantaneous dose something such as a threat have to be for in to be a instinctual action Vs a quick analyze and conclusion. If a bolder is rolling toward me I can run away from it as it roll ever closer or I can move out of its path.
      
      K…the wore me a bit. Get back to me. I could go on but I think this will serfice for now.

      September 15 at 10:55pm · 
    • 

      David Christopher Arnold So, if you were to read your post just now without metaphysics, you'll realize how I saw it - and that is as a tattered sheet of loosely-connected ideas that miss most of the relevant information. To say that our emotions come from metaphysics means you weren't paying attention in psychology 101, or haven't taken it.

      September 16 at 12:07am · 
    • 

      David Christopher Arnold As for the rest, I'm too tired to pick it apart at the moment, but I'll post in the morning. :)

      September 16 at 12:07am · 
    • 

      Mark as Spam

      Alain Briand III Well whats reverent? What are we talking about and what should I focus my argument on? I'm was attempting to defend that rational self-interest is the proper morality. You said it was not ethical. I gave examples of how altruism fails and rational egoism dose not. You counters by saying I'm missing the point and that we have no free will (or that we don't unless where thinking long turm. witch doesn't work) Also I didn't say emotions where metaphysical. I said that emotions are a consequences of ones Funderstanding of reality IE Metaphysics. If you think someones trust worthy and they turn out they are not your going to get upset is some form. As a consequence of you emotions you will have a physical response be is crying, a adrenalin rush, or fitege. The emotions are not independent of reason.

      September 16 at 12:54am · 
    • 

      Alain Briand III Now I will admit I am not responding in a 100% focused manner but this isn’t a paper or something of great important. I am having truble fully understanding your rebudil as you started with something to do with economics and the clam that self-interest isn’t ethical. Then you go to a loose clam to physiological determinism. When your up to it late us start on a clean slate. I stand that rational egoism is the proper moral philosophy. Rational egoism being the most logical course of action to fulfill ones life and happiness. As a consequence of this stance altruism is immoral. This being on an objectivist philosophy if you are not formiler its metaphysical stance is objective reality (reality is independent of wishes, fears, emotion, prier, ect.) and its epistemology is reason. Reason in respect to objectivist epistemology being empiricism in the sense that are senses are the only means of obtaining knowledge and that we have a cognitive, volitional faculty of continuances. You being an atheist I’m share you fallow these philosophical stances in some form (at the very lest objective reality). I look forward to your rebottle as it gives me an opportunity to practice defending objectivism. Good luck.

      September 16 at 12:54am · 

  Steve Bass

  Kick ass! Thanks Tiffany: I hope you realize what you've stepped in! This may give you a clue: http://hipgnosis21.blogspot.com/

  hipgnosis

  hipgnosis21.blogspot.com

   ·  ·  · Share · September 15 at 11:54pm nearColorado Springs
• 

  Steve Bass was added by Tiffany UltrabergGreenberg.

   ·  ·  · September 15 at 11:47pm