Protest against public schools!!!!!!

[Obdurate]

First of all, I don't follow.
Second of all, it's not her.

I came to agree with the conclusions of the philosophy she developed (not her, her philosophy) by my self. I didn't follow her - she just opened a door. I went through by myself.
Second, (to speak in your terms, for lack of better ones) it's not her that I follow - it's the philosophy. I didn't go along with it because I because the ideas make sense.
Read her- you'll be surprised.

I have read her. It's entertaining junk. Her philosophy is a plague.
You follow her. I worded it like that because you claim to be such an individualist. It was just a little dig.

It scares me that you're a young man and you follow that stuff. You're the future.

 

[Peter Parka]

When that person is of more importance to you then the thing you are going to risk. For example, my out of circulation paper money is INCREDIBLY important to me. But my mom is more important. I'd give up my money collection because my mom is more important - to me. That's the key - her welfare is in my self interest more then a collection of paper money.

I see. So to use the example you gave in this thread, money is more important to you than someones life. What a lovely young man you are!

 

[Carthage]

Anyone ever told you that you are AllElseFailed's alter ego

Y'all are polar opposites, but about as analytical......Quit reading all that shit, find a girlfriend, join a baseball team, you know....

Have a little fun Lighten up for crying out loud

You'd never guess what a laid back person I can be when I'm not debating. :cool

 

[gLing]

First of all - selfishness is "limited" by reason and logic.

You forgot compassion which is perhaps the most important trait of any human being. Lack of that can be a cause to immense suffering simply because people don't give a shit and are too selfish to care.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You'd never guess what a laid back person I can be when I'm not debating. :cool

Hey I love your enthusiasm, hell Im jealous....I never took the time to involve myself in philosophic thought......It's nothing I ever really needed to do my job.

Engineers normally don't do philosophy

 

[Carthage]

I see. So to use the example you gave in this thread, money is more important to you than someones life. What a lovely young man you are!

The lives of people I don't know, who have no bearing on my life, whom I've never met and never will - I won't disgrace them by treating them as beggars and giving them my work for free. I'll treat them as real people and trade with them. The proper relationships among people is trade. The people whom I love and care for - they've given me their love and are important to me, they've traded with me already. I'd give them the cure for free. But if it's someone whom I don't know and haven't traded with - to give them the vaccine for free is to treat them as a completely helpless beggar, and I won't disgrace them by doing that.

 

[Peter Parka]

and you would still rather a stranger die so you can have more money.

 

[siasl]

When that person is of more importance to you then the thing you are going to risk. For example, my out of circulation paper money is INCREDIBLY important to me. But my mom is more important. I'd give up my money collection because my mom is more important - to me. That's the key - her welfare is in my self interest more then a collection of paper money.

ok....that's your answer about money vs. people when it comes to risk
but it's not what i asked

i asked about putting YOUR survival on the line to save your mom....not your money collection.

this goes to the "compassion" component that gLing mentions, imo.

 

[Carthage]

You forgot compassion which is perhaps the most important trait of any human being. Lack of that can be a cause to immense suffering simply because people don't give a shit and are too selfish to care.

First of all - compassion is shown to those whom I believe I have something to gain from. Example, my mom. I show her compassion because I expect to gain love from her. But other people's suffering is not on my hands. It's their own fault, and if I have absolutely nothing to gain from them, I will give them nothing. See what I posted above about beggars.
Compassion is just as much a trade as money for food. I don't feel compassion linked to absolutely nothing. It defies the law of causality. For almost all people, I feel some compassion as a form of species solidarity. But not enough to give them all a very valuable vaccine for free.

 

[Carthage]

ok....that's your answer about money vs. people when it comes to risk
but it's not what i asked

i asked about putting YOUR survival on the line to save your mom....not your money collection.

this goes to the "compassion" component that gLing mentions, imo.

Ah, my surviaval. Very well. Only when you don't believe you could live without that person, is it moral to die for them (my mom fits here). Only when you believe that it would be incredibly, incredibly difficult to survive without that person is it moral to risk your life for them with a slim chance of survival.

 

[Peter Parka]

First of all - compassion is shown to those whom I believe I have something to gain from. Example, my mom. I show her compassion because I expect to gain love from her. But other people's suffering is not on my hands. It's their own fault, and if I have absolutely nothing to gain from them, I will give them nothing. See what I posted above about beggars.
Compassion is just as much a trade as money for food. I don't feel compassion linked to absolutely nothing. It defies the law of causality. For almost all people, I feel some compassion as a form of species solidarity. But not enough to give them all a very valuable vaccine for free.

I wonder if you think your mum went through all the hardship of pregnancy, giving birth, bringing you up and spending thousands on it because she expects to gain something from it?

 

[Carthage]

and you would still rather a stranger die so you can have more money.

Thats a blunt way to say it, and it doesn't really get the point across, but if you want to put it in as coarse and offensive language as possible, you could say that.
But don't tell me you don't follow the same philosophy, if only to an extent. You know full well that you could drive down to Africa right now, pick up a starving person who's on the brink of starvation, and give him your home and belongings. But no - you'd rather let him die so that you can save the plane ticket money, your house, etc.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that you shouldn't accuse me when you follow the same philosohpy to an extent.

 

[Peter Parka]

Thats a blunt way to say it, and it doesn't really get the point across, but if you want to put it in as coarse and offensive language as possible, you could say that.
But don't tell me you don't follow the same philosophy, if only to an extent. You know full well that you could drive down to Africa right now, pick up a starving person who's on the brink of starvation, and give him your home and belongings. But no - you'd rather let him die so that you can save the plane ticket money, your house, etc.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that you shouldn't accuse me when you follow the same philosohpy to an extent.

No, I couldn't, I cant afford it, I'm not very well off.
Completely different example you use too. If you invented a cure for cancer you wouldn't need to hold people to ransom to beextremely well off from it.

 

[Carthage]

I wonder if you think your mum went through all the hardship of pregnancy, giving birth, bringing you up and spending thousands on it because she expects to gain something from it?

I wonder if you think that women go through the hardships of pregnancy, giving birht, bringing someone up, and spending thousands on it and expects absolutely nothing in return - no love, no respect, nothing. The way a mom acts when a child misbehaves proves that she expects at least some sort of respect, and when a mom cries because a child runs away proves that she wanted love from him.
I don't think women will say it consciously because most people don't understand what they mean, but in their actions, they prove that they do expect something from children.

 

[gLing]

First of all - compassion is shown to those whom I believe I have something to gain from. Example, my mom. I show her compassion because I expect to gain love from her.

That isn't compassion, that is called using somebody.

But other people's suffering is not on my hands.

If you have the ability to help somebody but choose not too out of pure selfishness, then it's on your hands too.
If you see somebody drowning is your decision to help them or not going to be based on whether you have something to gain or not?

It's their own fault,

Not always. It must make you feel better to believe that but that isn't how the world works.

and if I have absolutely nothing to gain from them, I will give them nothing. See what I posted above about beggars.
Compassion is just as much a trade as money for food. I don't feel compassion linked to absolutely nothing. It defies the law of causality. For almost all people, I feel some compassion as a form of species solidarity. But not enough to give them all a very valuable vaccine for free.

Then you don't know the meaning of compassion since the importance of a life to you is solely dependent on what you can gain from them.

 

[Carthage]

No, I couldn't, I cant afford it, I'm not very well off.
Completely different example you use too. If you invented a cure for cancer you wouldn't need to hold people to ransom to beextremely well off from it.

You could save that money up.
But on the other issue - how am I holding people to ransom? I didn't take anything from them, I'm not holding something of theirs by force, I'm not doing anything to their lives or property. How am I holding them ransom? And yes, I expect to benefit from my effort. Do you expect a paycheck? Then so do you. This is just on a bigger scale.
But once more - WHAT RIGHT DO THEY HAVE TO MY PROPERTY? (the cure)

 

[Peter Parka]

This isn't about rights, it's about being a decent human being, something you apear to fail dismally at!

 

[Carthage]

That isn't compassion, that is called using somebody.

No, not if I give them something. It's a trade. It's just called compassion, instead of trade, because it's a kind of trade involving spirit, not materials.

If you have the ability to help somebody but choose not too out of pure selfishness, then it's on your hands too.
If you see somebody drowning is your decision to help them or not going to be based on whether you have something to gain or not?

Actually, more on weather or not I have something to lose. If I don't stand to lose anything, then I'll help them, but it won't be an especially moral or courageous action. It won't be anymore moral then taking a rock off a park path.

Not always. It must make you feel better to believe that but that isn't how the world works.

Not always, but often enough. There are times, yes, when it isn't their fault, but 90-odd percent of the time, it is.

Then you don't know the meaning of compassion since the importance of a life to you is solely dependent on what you can gain from them.

No, you misread the post. I said, "For almost all people, I feel some compassion as a form of species solidarity." This means that almost all human life is of some value to me, because they are humans. But when it comes to people I don't know, the value isn't that high.
BTW - how do you define compassion?

 

[Carthage]

This isn't about rights, it's about being a decent human being, something you apear to fail dismally at!

What is your definition of a human being?
And what do you mean, it's not related to rights? You're claiming that they have an intrinsic right to the vaccine, and I am holding it form them. The thing that I want to know is - what right is that? They must have some right to it if it belongs to them and I'm holding it from them. Just answer me, please - what right?

 

[siasl]

Ah, my surviaval. Very well. Only when you don't believe you could live without that person, is it moral to die for them (my mom fits here). Only when you believe that it would be incredibly, incredibly difficult to survive without that person is it moral to risk your life for them with a slim chance of survival.

k....

have you ever heard of the concept of synchronicity
i don't think it violates any of the precepts of rand's philosophy, but it includes the value of "coincidence" in one's life

in our example, it could be argued that saving a stranger's live could end up providing something of value to your self interest....it could be something estoteric, like compassion, or love, or something material, like money or a job

one of the reasons that i've modified my perception of rand's "individualism" so heavily is because i've come to understand that there are no coinky-dinks (i'm not talking about some divine plan here, just to be clear)

and the taking of risk is not about analyzing the results before hand, imo....certainly, some critical thought is valuable -some risks are stupid....but the essence of risk is that you can't know how it will turn out.

you may die protecting your self interest (your mom)....you both may live
you may protect your self interest and refuse to risk your own life for a atranger, and let the guy who is THIS CLOSE to a cure for aids die....and then die of aids.

it is the nature of risk to be open to possibilities
it is also the nature of self-interest, imo.