HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: The Beef Before Me
Date: 08 Jan 93 21:28:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <106422@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
| >5) The primary value of a living thing is its life
|  
| Well, it isn't exactly self-evident what is meant by "primary
| value" here. Does it mean "objectively most important aspect of"?
| Does it mean "aspect which is most valued by the owner"?
| Does it mean "aspect which *should be* most valued by the owner?"
| In any case, (5) seems to be doing a bit of question-begging.
| Certainly, it in no way follows logically from (1) through (4).
| In fact, suitable articulated, (5) would, I suspect, be seen
| to constitute the very conclusion stated in (8) below.

He skipped steps.  This isn't formal either.
A moral code is a heirachy of values.  A heirarchy suggests
a standard, ultimate value since an infinite heirarchy doesn't
seem to make much sense (at least for humans, and we are after
a human morality).
Now morality is also about choice.  The existence of non-living
things is constant -- they change forms but never disappear.  A
living thing, however is different.  It's life is a choice --
a battle against death (which it ultimately loses, which is
a different thing).

I don't think that I am doing a great job here, and this is
shooting from the hip.  But the origin of the #5 position
comes from an assertion that there are two fundamental
and opposite 'ultimate values' that a moral code can be
built upon involving the 'ultimate choice'.  In other words,
a morality with life as its fundamental value and a 
corresponding one with death as the fundamental value.

The fundamental *choice* in the Objectivist derivation is
for Life as the ultimate value.  

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Subject: Re: Capitalism and the environment
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:07:27 GMT

Robert Baruch writes:
> Remember that air is something which I use.  By polluting the air
> I breathe, the polluter is interfering with my well-being, or
> if not my well-being, then my natural enjoyment of clean air.
> If the air smells like sewage, it may not be harmful, but it
> certainly reduces my enjoyment.  Why couldn't I take a polluter
> to court for that?

Quite true, I wholeheartedly agree.  However, there is a logistical
problem I've noticed.  When you take someone to court, you have to prove
direct causality. (I don't know if this is the true legal term or not.) 
If you can't prove that Company A's smoke stacks are the cause of the ugly
air, then you're not going to stand much of a chance in court of winning a
suit against them.  Proving causality is often difficult with
environmental issues, because the cause of the problem and its effects are
often widely separated, both temporally and spatially.

There's also the problem of timeliness.  Let's say you do take Company A
to court and you do win, so therefore they stop their pollution. 
Unfortunatly, one day's worth of pollution may take years to reverse.  Of
course, this problem will exist no matter what sort of government you have
or how much regulation, but it does point to the fact that prevention is
very important.  The ability to take folks to court is not really enough.


> > Privitization, though, leads to the
> > problem of companies buying resources (land, water) strictly
> > for the purpose of polluting it ("It's my own d*mn land --
> > I'll buy what I want in it!")
> 
> That's reality.  It *is* my own land, and if I don't affect you,
> you have no say in how I use *my* land, or *my* resources.  After
> all, I *did* buy them with my own money.  Will you now say that 
> I can only use my money in "public-sanctioned" ways?

Again, I agree with what you say, but the key phrase in the paragraph
above is "and if I don't affect you."  To me, the interesting cases are
those where private land/water/air use *does* affect me.


Rob DeLine
Computer Science, University of Virginia
deline@Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Charity
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:17:22 GMT

betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher) writes:
>No problem!  There are many situations, like the one you mentioned,
>where helping an innocent person is a selfish thing to do.  It is a
>matter of the good old Objectivist virtue of Justice -- something always
>in one's self-interest -- of seeing that people one values (like
>innocent children) do not suffer unjustly.
>>There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are
>>worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.  I regard charity

I regard this as a very subjective statement.  Who is "worthy" of help?
Are there people who are "not worthy" to help?  How do you decide between
the two?  Note: Justice is defined by the courts; moral justice is
arbitrarily set by each individual and is as much an Objectivist value as
liking strawberries.  The idea behind "justice" is: "if we find reality or
personal action is wrong, we'll fix it according to our moral beleifs".  Which
is a highly subjective and non-Objectivist statement by any means, if conducted
through any vehicle but the Law.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:27:52 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) propounds:
 
    (in response to my scenario of Roark not bothering to
     throw the drowning man a life preserver)
 
>If the contemplation of his own glory is truly more valuable to him
>than the possible consequences of expending a little effort that means
>saving some one's life, then, IMO, he has acted in accordance with
>Objectivist principles.
 
By your own standards, though, who are you to impose this condition -
that the contemplation of his own glory is *that* valuable - on Roark?
Suppose he just doesn't *feel* like tossing the life preserver to the
drowning man. He just isn't in the mood. It isn't a question of awesome
values clashing in the heavens: he just doesn't particularly care
whether the guy lives or dies. Is this still "in accordance with
Objectivist principles"?
 
>                  Furthermore, I would point out to him that he might
>get a tremendous return for a bit of effort if the drowning person is
>wealthy.  Heck, he might even get another yacht.
 
Ah, the old "but the guy you help might be rich" maneuver. I'm familiar
with this kind of line often offered by "objectivists" to explain why
they generally act like decent human beings instead of the bastards
their theories would seem to make them. So let's rule out this
possibility. There's no-one else around watching, and Roark knows that
the drowning man is poor. The drowning man is screaming for help, Roark
sees the life preserver, muses on how easy it would be to toss it to the
man and save his life, and then goes back to contemplating his own glory.
And to close another loophole, let's assume that Roark is heavily
armed and otherwise protected from harm, so there isn't any real
possibility that his saving the guy's life could somehow backfire
on him (as in the case of the roadside Good Samaritan who gets shot).
 
Those who read this group out of curiousity as to what "objectivism" is
might pay particular attention to this issue. It is most revealing.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: failure of .......Re: Failure of Objectivism....(N)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:00:25 GMT

=======================================

 Pardon me, none of these "failure of obj..(N)" make sense. The
 general argument goes like this:

	 [1] Make assertion "X is true."
	 [2] Objectivism leads to "X."
	 [3] Add some more spice etc. here.
	 [4] Conclude: "therefore Objectivism fails."
 
 For these arguments to make any sense, please:
	 [1] Prove/justify your claims/assertion.
	 [2] Show us why "Obj. leads to "X." 
	 [3] Then base your conclusions.

 Now, here is a self-consistent example. Since, I have made the above
 assertions, the following is the justification:

 mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>A reading of history indicates that when people are allowed to
>accumulate wealth without any regard for their fellows, the result is
>tyranny.  What is to keep people from enslaving their fellows after
>Objectivism allows them to accumulate enough wealth to overcome any
>opposition?  Laissez-faire economics is not exactly a new concept.  It
>has been abandoned every time it has been tried, not because of any
>idealism but because it just doesn't work.  It would seem no matter
>how often or how thoroughly an idea is discredited, there is always
>someone willing to resurrect it.

 This asserts: A reading of history (which?) indicates...
 It fails to tell "what is wealth?." Is it green paper, cars, comfort...
 what is wealth? Is it constant sized pie, or does it grow...?
 Next the article asserts implicitly: "history (whatever he meant) is 
 applicable to modern times completely." I agree with Henry Ford here:
 "History is bunkum." (My life and times - Ford). So please justify this
 assertion too.
 Lastly, it ends up with the claim: "how often or how thoroughly an idea is
 discredited..."; ..........?????

 I do want to know the successes/failures/criticisms/etc.; but my mind ain't
 blank; It reasons. 
 Do I have to extend my ^k file? 

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu

Warning:
 Everything contained here or in this newsgroup may not be Objectivism. :)
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:36:08 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
>I agree that the post you are responding to is not accurate. I disagree that
>Godel's theorem is not relevant to Objectivism. Ayn Rand intended to provide
>a sound and complete theory of reality. According to Godel's theorem it can
>never be complete if it is formal and consistent as it was intended to be.
>Is atheism claimed to be so, too ? 

First of all, what on Earth is a "sound and complete theory of reality"???
Second of all, whatever "Objectivism" may be, it is most certainly NOT
a formal theory in the technical sense, and Godel's theory applies only
to formal theories. I have a feeling that if people were a little more
familiar with how the proof works, there would be less of this mystical
conjecturing on the basis of it. Third of all, atheism is not a "theory"
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:42:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Jan05.032002.14473@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes...

>	My friend, you are describing statism quite nicely.
>	What do you mean by "tyranny"?  If you mean violation of the rights to
>life, liberty and property, the purpose of government is to prevent that, and
>while it doesn't always do so, it's generally better than the alternative, which
>is total anarchy (which is always hard followed by tyranny).

Yikes! This wonderful anarchy we call USENET is about to be followed
by the awful tyranny of federal regulations.  

But seriously, be careful when using the word anarchy...in it's purest
dictionary sense, anarchy only means NO GOVERNMENT.  Anarchy can be
utopian or chaotic.  99% of the time when the media defines a situation
as anarchy, they really mean chaos due to the conflicts between various
groups trying to usurp power and BECOME THE GOVERNMENT.

Viking Iceland was an effective anarchist society.  Somewhat violent,
but much less so than other medieval societies.   And Viking Iceland
had freedom, unlike the church-king dictatorships.

*************************************************************************
*                                                                       *
* I advocate the violent overthrow of our government...but only if a    *
* simple majority (?!) votes for it.                                    *
*                                                                       *
*************************************************************************
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:35:04 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <Jan09.073020.24200@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>
>	The fundamental question, which all political philosophies ultimately
>must answer, is this: when, if ever, is it permissable to enslave other human
>beings?  Objectivism is the philosophy which answers: never!

Yeah, right, it's "the" philosophy that takes that position. Well, sign
me up right away. Now, if one could possibly be a non-"objectivist" and
also reject slavery, that would be a very different story...

Of course, let's bear in mind that what the "objectivist" considers
slavery might not accord with the normal usage of the word. As I
recall from my last night's viewing of the movie "The Fountainhead",
slavery includes any instance of work without pay, including work
done for charitable causes. Presumably, this would include such
degrading spectacles as people rushing in to earthquake-striken
areas to help their fellow humans.

Now, if *this* is what the poster has in mind when he refers to
"slavery", he is probably correct in asserting that "objectivism"
is the only "philosophy" that would oppose it.

P.S. - While I'm here, let me just add the "Fountainhead", for which
Rand wrote the screenplay, is a *most* entertaining piece of
"objectivist" propaganda. All the characters except the few
"objectivist" heroes are sniveling, gutless mediocrats, uttering
lines like, "How dare you be different! You must do things the way
they have always been done! There is no room for creativity and
originality in the world! We will destroy you if you won't be like us!"
Gary Cooper turns in a rather likeable performance as the lone
flame of "objectivist" dignity flickering in a world run by the
mediocre "mob" (a word that is used over, and over, and over again).
If people really were much like the characters in this film, it
would be easy to see why anyone might feel the pull of "objectivism".
Of course, what we see instead are fantastically exaggerated instances
of the "objectivist" Satan, with the middle ground between them
and the "objectivist" God Roark being left conspicuously unoccupied.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:59:04 GMT

In article <C0D6Eq.MHD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>   Is altruism the act or the motive behind the act? Can you condemn
>it or those who believe they practice it without knowing the soul of
>the Altruist? Maybe this is something to accpet at face value ...

*i* can't condemn any altruist.
i can only condemn his attempt to force his altruism
upon me. and i can pity his decision to voluntarily enslave himself
to those who care not for him.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck)
Subject: Objectivism can't fail, by definition.
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:01:58 GMT

It appears to me, having read this discussion (and _Atlas_Shrugged_
a long time ago) that Obj. cannot fail because it is defined in
such a way that it cannot be tested.  Any real-world implementation
of Obj. would require some compromises.  Then, when it failed, the
faithful would say:  "But that wasn't Pure Objectivism."

I propose a new definition for Objectivism:  The system which is
perfect but which cannot ever be tested.  A second tenet of Obj.
is that there is a world, somewhere in the universe, which resembles
the artificial world of Ayn Rand's science fiction, and in which,
therefore, objectivism would work.

f.deck
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:24:43 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <C0GMJK.1Hz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>In article <TORKEL.93Jan6004257@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>>the idea that philosophy consists of "philosophies" resting on
>>"axioms" has very little to do with how philosophy is understood
>>outside Objectivism and similar sects.
>
>This is just semantics.  If conclusions regarding human behavior, good
>and evil, morality and values, based on certain assumptions, do not
>constitute a "philosophy," ... What difference does it make?

It makes a great deal of difference.

They might well constitute total bullshit, passing themselves off as
"philosophy" to try to cash in on the intellectual legitimacy that such
an aegis provides. Saying that this is "just semantics" is to
trivialize the magnitude of the great fraud being perpetrated by
this spurious claim to legitimacy. Responsible thinkers have as
much responsibility to call Rand's bluff as they did to call
Hitler's when he tried to pass off his genocidal theories as "science".

>>Second, philosophers are
>>normally inclined neither to accept nor to reject Objectivist "axioms"
>>such as "A is A", simply because these much-touted formulas appear to
>>to be slogans into which the enthusiastic Objectivist inserts
>>whatever Randian wisdom seems appropriate on a particular occasion.

>You seem to be denying that any conclusions can be logically drawn
>from the Objectivist axioms.

Wrong. What he is doing is denying that these are genuine "axioms"
at all, in any philosophically respectable sense of the term, lacking
as they do any consistency of definition or application. "A=A"
appears to mean whatever a particular Randroid wants it to mean on
any given occasion, as does the notion of "logical conclusion".

So again I say: give us your axioms, give us your rules of
inference, and give us your conclusions, and then we'll see
whether your arguments are valid. Just don't change your definitions
according to whatever rhetorical mood you happen to be in at the time,
and don't castigate us for irresponsibly rejecting these allegedly
"conclusive proofs" when you refuse to present them to anyone who
doesn't already agree with you.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:25:46 GMT

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>Can you offer a counter Objective analysis that does not use
>math or logic at some level? Do so then. But if you do
>than you have brought the consequences of Godel's Theorem
>into play. For the specific conjecture above a TM may
>or may not halt. Humans will reach a decision no matter what. 

The advantage humans have is to terminate the problem at any time.  Computers
can be programmed to come up with a "best prediction in X time".  I have
spent much time myself on things I didn't come up with an answer to.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: A=A
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:26:31 GMT

In article <gthomas.726385943@unixg.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>This little axiom being A=A.  Well yes, Euclidean Geometry does procede
>from a set of axioms that has as one of its members A=A.
>However Euclidean Geometry has nothing to say about the physical world
>much less about ethics or morals.

If we believed that Euclidean (and any other type of) Geometry has
nothing to say about the physical world, we would not be where we are
today.  Much of our understanding of the world, and much of the
technological progress that has been made, is based on the assumption
that Euclidean and other types of geometry do say something about
the physical world.

Similarly, conclusions based on Objectivist axioms can help us
understand reality and help us progress morally and ethically.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Subject: Re: A=A: My Beef with the Bull
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:20:30 GMT

In article <106399@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>Thus spake srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc (Steve Rogers)
> 
>>Philosophy is not math.  . . .
> 
>My position is not that "any idea that cannot be explained completely to
>me in a posting is obviously false", nor have I given you any reason to
>make this silly charge. . . .

Your insistence that a proof be posted and repeated claims that the
failure to post such proof constitutes a default is what leads me to
make this 'silly' charge.

>What makes my (facetious) requests for short proofs of "objectivism"
>appropriate is the frequency with which we are told that "objectivism"
>is unique among all schools of philosophical thought in the
>self-evidence of its premises and the purity of its logical reasoning.
>In effect, we are told that "objectivism" *IS* a set of proofs; just
>re-read some of the recent postings to this group if you dispute this.

I agree that they said it, that's why I began my article (which you
conveniently failed to quote) by stating that I believed you had been
given the wrong impression.  In short, I disagree with those who have
been representing (implying really) that Objectivism is a set of proofs
all logically deduced from one or two axioms.  It isn't.

Instead of making facetious requests for proofs, why not ask them how
their philosophy can hope to explain the complexities of life and humanity
when it takes none of it into account.  Sure, geometry can help you build
a bridge, but it can't tell you whether it is *right* to build a bridge.
I would suggest that you leave off the facetious stuff unless you are
more interested in arguing down these people than you are in having a
real discussion.
-- 
| Steven Rogers  MCC/ESL  3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509  (512) 338-3691 srogers@mcc.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Rich getting richer? The facts....
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:01:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article tthiel@cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
| What a bunch of crap.  

Not crap, just the truth.  It also matches information generated by
the University of Michigan.

Me?  I'm just one of those 'bottom 20%ers' who is now in the
top 20% and periodically knocks on the top 5%.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism