From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:08:45 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <106765@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>                as to "what he should do" -- he should do whatever
>>he feels is right, based on his prioritization of actions and consequences.
>
>I reply:
> 
>>This is an absolute total cop-out. Hitler, presumably, felt that
>>his actions were right. This is clearly not a criterion for
>>moral or any other kind of acceptability.
>
>Mr. Kozierok replies in turn:
>
>>if you want to set up a very specific, very convoluted example, that is
>>fine, but don't generalize the conclusions from it!
>
>Sorry, but this is what is known as "philosophical argument".
>
>My generalization is not from the example, but from your citation
>of the supposed ethical principle that the criterion for "rightness"
>in any given situation is one's "prioritization of actions and
>consequences".

correct -- given that it does not violate anyone else's rights,
as i also explained if not in this post than in another one.

>>i said "he should do what he feels is right" based on the
>>particular (ludicrous) example you described. that does not mean
>>this is the case in every situation.
>
>My point is that your "principle" fails to exclude Nazism,
>and is therefore unacceptable (assuming that you find Hitler's
>actions morally unacceptable).

that's bull. do you even read my posts? 
you deleted the part where i explained about Hitler. re-read it
and if you have a specific problem with my explanation, state it
directly.

>>the obligation of "Roark" (i hate it when anti-objectivists use
>>the names of Rand's characters in their arguments) ...
>
>Gee, I didn't realize this was such sacred ground... perhaps
>I should have said "R*ark"?

"sacred ground" is your word, more anti-objectivist hyperbole.
the reason i don't like it is because it is confusing as hell.
sorry for not having a more glamorous reason.

>>>But I thought selfishness was the ultimate virtue! How can
>>>an "objectivist" use this term with negative connotations?
>
>>easy -- you don't understand what the term means wrt objectivism.
>
>So, what *does the term mean "wrt objectivms"?

i explained that in the very same post. i'm not going to re-hash
it again. once more, if you have a problem with part of my explanation,
state it.

>>presumably people don't want others to die; they
>>would rather suffer the financial (and time?) loss of walking over
>>to get a life preserver and throwing it in than suffer the emotional
>>turmoil of knowing their actions directly and simply led to the death
>>of another.
>
>Again, for the fourth or fifth time, it is beside the point that
>most people, Randites included, would throw the life preserver.
>This is a matter of psychology, not philosophical ethics.
>My question is - why *should* they, if they don't happen to
>feel like it?

they shouldn't. it's been said a number of times now.

>How can we condemn, as I believe we must, the
>coldhearted bastard who *does* let the poor guy drown?

because we disagree with their decision. i see no conflict here.
maybe you could explain the problem to me. i learn new things
all the time.

>>if they feel no such turmoil, they are cold and bitter and i would
>>stay far away from them.
>
>So your particular tastes disincline you to associate with
>non-life-preserver-throwers. So do mine. But why? And more
>importantly, why *should* they, if in fact they should?

because we have different prioritization structures in a situation
where we are free to make an independent decision.

>>[the example in question is] is so ludicrous and
>>particular that nothing can be generalized from it. objectivism does
>>have some weak points, but you're not going to get at them by putting
>>"Howard Roark" on a yacht yawning while [the] guy goes under...
>
>The example is intended, as are most hypothetical examples in
>ethical arguments, to bring out the operative general
>principles by which we would take one position or the other.
>If my example is so ludicrous, then you should be able to just say,
>"of *course* objectivism would dictate that Roark throw in the
>life preserver, and here's why...". But all I've heard so far
>are arguments to the effect that
>
>	(1) He probably *would* throw it, so leave him alone
>
>	(2) He *ought* to throw it because it might make him some money
>and
>
>	(3) What a stupid example
>
>All three are somewhat less than persuasive.

that's because you continue to ignore my argument which is:

        (4) It's his decision, which we can agree with or disagree with
            but not make ourselves; it is consistent with the technicalities
            of Objectivism, but not its spirit, IMO.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism