The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt'

Box Office Mojo ^ | 9/2/2005 | Scott Holleran

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt' September 2, 2005

"...It was supposed to be a light column about this and that, with a brief update on a movie adaptation of my favorite novel, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged..."

[Willie Green]

There is nothing "relative" about the non-initation principle.

Randian atheists are like little children whining "Mom.... he started it first..."

[Dead Corpse]

And Paternalistic busy-bodies like yourself just want total control over "acts of Capitalism between consenting adults". Continuing to repeat your Authoritarian mantra against Objectivism isn't getting you very far.

[r9etb]

Objectivism doesn't require atheism any more than conservativism requires religion. There are many Chrisitian objectivists.

Rand's Objectivism is explicitly atheist. (Her philosophy is consequently fundamentally irrational, but that's a different topic.)

For Christians, "objectivism" would seem to make sense only if we supply numerous caveats, starting with the idea that everything is in fact relative to God's Will; that God's Will is unchanging; and that revelation is a valid form of knowledge that will not change from one person to the next.

I would be interested in seeing how you characterize objectivism in a Christian context.

[jmc813]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." Which Christian religion espouses this?

Lutheranism is one.

[Sloth]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

If a Christian's happiness is manifested in a rational desire to reach Heaven and avoid Hell while taking others with him, that'd seem consistent.

[r9etb]

There is nothing "relative" about the non-initation principle.

Sure there is. First off, let's be clear that the "non-initiation" principle is typically constrained to the application of physical force, so let's consider an example from that perspective.

We make exceptions to "non-initiation" in cases where a person has "reasonable cause" to believe that he is in imminent danger.

Let's take the case of an armed man.

Strictly speaking, the "non-initiation" principle would require you to take no action against a gunman unless 1) he had physically pulled the trigger; and 2) his bullet was headed in your direction.

If he hasn't pulled the trigger, then he hasn't really initiated physical force; and if his bullet isn't headed toward you, then you have no right to use force against him, because he has not initiated force against you.

Now, here in the real world I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be waiting for either condition to be satisfied before you decided whether or not to shoot him first. You'd be justified in shooting him first if you had good reason to believe he was a threat to you or to somebody else.

So your decision to initiate force is based on an assessment of the situation -- it's a decision that's explicitly relative to the gunman's intentions, and your understanding of them. If you've got "reasonable cause" to believe that the gunman will become a threat, then you've got a right to initiate force against him.

[x]

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

[Dead Corpse]

You are trying to be intentionally irrational about a very rational way to look at things. Situations like these do not arise apropos of nothing else. And no, the armed man just POINTING a gun in your direction is justification enough. The threat of force has been initiated.

Would you care to try and make an argument that just "anyone" owning arms is a threat to you? I had some idiot try that on me once. "Why do you all need guns if no one is supposed to initiate force?" Because some of you aren't adult enough to just behave on your own.

And no, non-initiation extends to fraud and theft. If someone steals your property, you are within your moral Rights to re-assert your claim of ownership by stealing it back.

[FreeKeys]

Randian atheists have no moral reference frame to temper their lusts and ambitions.

WRONG!!!! You are obviously making a bald assertion based upon either a misunderstanding of, or a blatant refusal to study, the facts. Rand's (VERY specific) Ethics have been spelled out in the first chapter of THIS book, as well as in this one, this one, and of course, in Galt's speech in ATLAS SHRUGGED. Not only are the ethics specific, but Rand soundly condemns all those who would subjectively make up their own "ethics" as excuses for bad behavior as they go along.

Morality has been the monopoly of mystics, i.e., of subjectivists, for centuries -- a monopoly reinforced and reaffirmed by the neo-mystics of modern philosophy. The clash between the two dominant schools of ethics, the mystical and the social, is only a clash between personal subjectivism and social subjectivism: one substitutes the supernatural for the objective, the other substitutes the collective for the objective. Both are savagely united against the introduction of objectivity into the realm of ethics.

Most men, therefore, find it particularly difficult to regard ethics as a science and to grasp the concept of a rational, objective ethics that leaves no room for anyone's arbitrary "decision."

-- Ayn Rand, here

[dfwgator]

So in my mind, I make an end run around Rand's atheism with the assertion that true happiness is found in a freewill sacrifice for others, in the Name of Jesus.

I like John Paul II's definition of Freedom, "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought."

[rlmorel]

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. Perhaps it is my fault for not being clear.

I am assuming from what you wrote that you think I am advocating socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I say "benefits others" I mean performing a task or service that provides value to society, in which they are paid in return.

This is in contrast to the panhandlers who sell "Homeless News" in Harvard Square for a dollar. The panhandlers are GIVEN the papers for free, which they then try to sell for a dollar.

It provides absolutely no value (other than propaganda for the Left)

These panhandlers are not producing anything or adding anything to society.

[Hank Rearden]

I apologize if I misunderstood you; it was the "having to give" phrase that got me. You know . . . "from each according to their abilities . . . etc."

[r9etb]

You are trying to be intentionally irrational about a very rational way to look at things.

I was merely taking Ms. Rand at her word: "...no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." It's an absolute statement, and you likewise were being absolute: "there is nothing 'relative' about the non-initation principle."

Situations like these do not arise apropos of nothing else. And no, the armed man just POINTING a gun in your direction is justification enough. The threat of force has been initiated.

Here we see a subtle but important shift: you've slid your standard from the actual initiation of force, to the threat of initiation of force; and you've also tacitly acknowledged my point about the subjective principle of "reasonable cause." Your standard here is explicitly relative, since it is based on your (necessarily subjective) assessment of whether or not the man represents an actual threat.

Thus we see that there is, in fact, something "relative" about the non-initiation principle.

[Dead Corpse]

You point a gun at me, you are initiating. And no, it isn't subjective.

Keep trying. You'll still be wrong.

[r9etb]

but Rand soundly condemns all those who would subjectively make up their own "ethics" as excuses for bad behavior as they go along.

LOL! That would mean so much more had not Ms. Rand made the following claim: "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Happiness is a highly subjective state -- what makes you happy today may be cause for extreme anger next year. To claim such a subjective standard as the "highest moral purpose" is in fact a case of making up your ethics as you go along.

And, of course, we could also take issue with Rand's statement of what constitutes the "highest moral purpose."

Indeed, to be utterly objective about it, our senses tell us that the "highest moral purpose" should probably be informed by what we can observe about the processes of biological evolution. The "highest moral purpose" is thus seen to be governed mainly by utilitarian, and therefore relative principles.

The fact is, Ayn Rand was a fraud. Her "absolute" principles aren't even self-consistent, and they're certainly not absolute.

[r9etb]

You point a gun at me, you are initiating. And no, it isn't subjective.

Ah, but I'm not pointing the gun at you. I'm pointing at the robber sneaking up behind you. It's only your assessment of the situation that makes you think I represent a danger to you. So it's subjective.

Be that as it may, you've changed your standard -- from the actual initiation of physical force, to your subjective opinion about whether or not I represent an actual threat to you.

You're doing the typical Rand dance. It's never been pretty, and it's less so when you continue to do it.

[general_re]

"The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Hmmm. Well, it would make me happy to own slaves. And it's certainly in my own rational self-interest to get others to toil on my behalf with a minimum of effort or expenditure on my part. I think I'll get me some slaves.

[r9etb]

;-)

[scoopscandal]

too cute

[Dead Corpse]

No. I haven't. You are just trying to find wiggle room where there is none.