From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: RE: The Golden Rule
Summary: He who has the gold makes the rules
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 05:04:11 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Distribution: world
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435

> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> > It follows that by the Golden Rule, I would want to apply X to my neighbors, 
> > they should apply it to me.
> > 
> > Of course, this is nonsense, but if you try to spell out the rule in such a
> > way as to omit all the nonsense possibilities, you'll find it's not so easy.
> 
>     The claim has worse failures. As an Objectivist my objection to the
> claim that one "should" treat others as they would like to be treated is
> that it makes a person a slave to the wants of others, rational or not.
> 
>     I cannot see any legitimate reason why a person should do this.
> Why should the random whims of other people be a primary claim on your
> life?

<Oh my, do *all* Rand-ites talk this way? How do you propose treating people?
<I think the Golden Rule has problems, for instance:

<If I became an Objectivist, I would want someone to slap me until I came to
<my senses. Should I then slap any Objectivist I find, as per the Golden Rule?

Of course you shouldn't. But you approach the problem from the wrong side.

<I imagine that you might subscribe to the following: "Treat others as I see
<fit." This is a truism. You treat people the way you think you should
<treat them -- how can you *not* do that? 

Easy, you can accept the Golden Rule. You can accept that you are required
to treat people in a manner other than you would otherwise like to treat
them, for no apparent reason. 

It is only a truism when you take it out of its context. Its context is a 
rebuttal to arbitrary altruistic demands such as the Golden Rule.

<The Golden Rule can be "emulated"
<by saying, "I think treating people the way I would like to be treated is
<the way I should treat people." Presto! (to name an album by a group of
<Rand-ites) You now have the Golden Rule via Objectivist ideology!

Part of the Objectivist ideology is that you should treat people as rational 
people should be treated. Not as you wish to treat them. You apparently have 
some serious misunderstandings regarding Objectivism. (Do you confuse it
with Hedonism?)

<While Kant is an enemy of Objectivism (my friend told me so, but he only read
<it from one of Rand's books, so he can't explain why), I think the sentence
<"Do not treat people as *merely* means to an end" goes a long way. This in
<my view is why I should to an extent be a slave to the wants of others.

Kant is an enemy of Objectivism because his ideas are fundamentally incom-
patible with those of Objectivism right down the line. Your sentence,
"do not treat people as *merely* means to an end" is given with no context.
The reason not to treat people as merely means to an end is because a person
has sovereignty over themself.

<You see, while you may not, most people have these things called emotions
<and feelings in addition to being rational. To me, humans who exhibit these
<things deserve respect. Not for any particular reason mind you, but because
<I feel, and I know how it is to feel rotten and used and hated, and I do not
<generally want others to feel this way.

Did I ever say that you should use and hate people?

Your problem is not that it is wrong to give people respect but that your
justification for it is too weak. You treat people with respect, I gather,
because you feel like it. I treat people with respect because I rationally
understand that they deserve it (if they, in fact, do).

You grant people respect for no reason, I grant it for a rational reason.
I have a rational justification for my actions, you do them because you
feel like it. Fine.

<I think you Objectivists have sort of forgotten that humans are rational
<*animals*. Sure, we think, but we also feel. Do you like cuddling up with
<a puppy and playing with it? ("You and me, Sparky!") How about love? There's
<no rational reason for love. There's so much more to being human than simply
<thinking.

There is no rational reason for love? None at all? Do you gain no selfish
pleasure out of the one you love? How sad that you think so. 

Of course thinking is not everything. The only Objectivist criticism
of emotions is that they are not tools of cognition or subsititutes for
rational thought. No one would say they have no place at all.

<I'm not preaching irrationalism: I just think that *some* *people* have
<forgotten that we're human and not robots!

I don't see what it is that I have said that made you think I feel that
way. Maybe you had a few bad experiences with Objectivists. May I suggest
that you join my Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List.

Jeez ... You even objected to my sig!

>      I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
> sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine.

<This is another Objectivist strawman argument. Who thinks living your life
<for someone else is a good thing? 

Everyone who preaches self-sacrifice. Everyone who says that an act's
virtue is in proportion to how little the actor benefits from it.
Everyone who says everyone has a right to health care no matter who must
be enslaved to provide it. Everyone who believes the competent MUST provide
for the incompetent. Anyone who ........

This is not really intended as an agrument. It is intended to convey the
idea that there are other things to live for than other people. It conveys
a deep sense of respect for the self. It is a profound tribute to human
dignity. I sincerely regret that you cannot feel this.

<You don't need to be Objectivist to think
<straight (in fact, I think it helps not to be an Objectivist). Another
<Objectivist strawman argument I've heard is that open minds are for morons
<-- real people have active minds. 

I would not phrase it that way. I would prefer to say that claims require
justification. Most pleas for an "open mind" are pleas that judgment
NEVER be made.

<The last time I checked, being open-minded
<meant that you didn't dismiss things out of hand, and looked at things
<critically and objectively. It's a crime that the Objectivists have stolen
<the word 'objective.'

If that is what YOU mean by open-minded, then fine. It usually means to
perpetually suspend judgment and never seem sure of anything. (Look at the
claims of the astrologers, witches, numerologists, faith healers etc..) If 
you REALLY mean that by "open mind" then I apologize for the fact that the 
psuedoscientists have stolen your concept.

Stimpson J. Katz

Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine.

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2904 rec.arts.books:22196