tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2886929798108349119.post3873892934247084915..comments2010-05-24T23:20:27.934-04:00Comments on The Objectivist Mirror: The Objectivist Mirror Issue # 1Robbie Holtamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03724914918063040699noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2886929798108349119.post-21088062778067228632010-03-13T14:18:45.869-05:002010-03-13T14:18:45.869-05:00I understand your objection but I believe that it ...I understand your objection but I believe that it is misinformed. While it is true than in many cases people are born into circumstances which influence, positively or negatively, their choices in life. Our criticism of altruism does not deal with voluntary charity, as we said. Just as it does not deal with voluntary inheritance. Our quarrel is with the current Kantian morality which treats altruism as a duty which we must perform in order to be proper moral beings. I enjoy your analogy of the child born into a wealthy family and so I will continue it. Voluntary gifts are not in any way morally wrong, neither is voluntary charity. However, I think it would be universally accepted as a theoretical problem if you were to make the case that a wealthy parent had a DUTY to spoil his child. Or that a wealthy parent had a DUTY to leave all of his vast inheritance to a moronic offspring. Neither of these duties make any sense. In the same way to say that we have a DUTY to be altruistic makes no sense. Objectivism makes no claim that it is always wrong to give help to others and that anyone who accepts help is a parasite. The claim is simply that we have no DUTY, moral or otherwise, to help anyone else. To make the claim that we do have a duty to help others, and to use your analogy as proof, is to say that a man must give all, or at least a great deal of, his time, wealth, and energy to his child simply because of the virtue of genetics. And that regardless of how ungrateful, evil, or despicable his child becomes, that same man must leave the entire sum of his life's work to that child upon his death... I would hope this is not the claim you are making.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2886929798108349119.post-57112972036552560312010-03-12T22:17:01.191-05:002010-03-12T22:17:01.191-05:00I've been meaning to really read this through ...I've been meaning to really read this through for a while now, and I'm impressed; it's very well written. But I have a few problems with what you've said, particularly your one-sided definition of "deserving" something, which makes no allowance for initial conditions. Does the runner that started the race far ahead of the other competitors deserve to win? This comes up in your example of the boy and the beggar. The boy never actually earns his hundred-dollar bill, except by the good fortune of being born to a decent family. The fact is that most homeless have psychoses that make living a normal lifestyle hugely difficult, if not impossible. As such, this isn’t an example of a parasite, taking what they don’t deserve. The different situations of boy and beggar may not be completely determined by the initial conditions of the two, but they doubtless play a massive role that one should be careful not to ignore. Unless you take into account factors beyond the control of the individual, you cannot assume that the inequality between two people is deserved, or due to the relative quality of the people. This omission is why you arrive at the questionable conclusion that people aren’t equal, and that everyone who campaigns for the less fortunate is a “parasite” taking away that which you have deservedly earned, and giving it to someone who “deserves” only poverty.<br /><br />Altruism certainly isn’t the most important influence in our world that denies people what they deserve. To be so harshly critical of altruism for distributing wealth undeservedly one must, rationally, be equally harsh in criticising these other factors that distribute wealth contrary to the character of the individual, such as gender inequality or the socioeconomic status into which a person is born. This is where I feel the worldview of objectivism falls short, by criticising only altruism. If applied in this way, objectivism becomes nothing more than an attempt to make a virtue of enjoying undeserved advantages.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12672102279950148131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2886929798108349119.post-29806157734120867912010-03-09T21:57:50.293-05:002010-03-09T21:57:50.293-05:00Give me objectivity or give me death.
I'm exc...Give me objectivity or give me death. <br />I'm excited for this project, but will demand patience from myself to take the time and wrap my head around some of these concepts. Something tells me it will be worth it. Happiness, after all, is always worth it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236978867938081864noreply@blogger.com