Nice try, Immanuel.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that "anything I do is right because I chose to do it," is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality--so the notion that "anything society does is right because society chose to do it," is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues.

I’m not a moral philosopher, but I’m happy to try my hand at it.

I don’t personally think political ethics is a moral problem so much as an epistemic problem. In my experience people aren’t often mean spirited, they’re just kinda dumb. Some white guy on a Kentucky acreage isn’t necessarily evil for opposing a policy that solves a problem completely outside of his experience, and he isn’t necessarily wrong for opposing a policy that helps people he isn’t even aware exists at the expense of everybody he has ever met. Legally we might say that such ignorance isn’t an excuse, but that’s only because we can’t legally prove ignorance. When questioning morality, there are no such table stakes.

That said, I think the most interesting thing about “anything I do is right because I chose to do it” is actually denying the antecedent: “if I didn’t choose to do it, then it is wrong”. If you didn’t recognize anybody in the former version, you will certainly recognize people in the latter.

Speaking of:





Ohhhh boy.

Okay, I feel a little bad. Almost all of that post was directly plagiarized from Ayn Rand.

Tbqh, from what I've read, Rand never really explained wtf it was about Objectivism that bolsters its claim to "objectivity". Either way, Reid's post says we should probably hate it for trying.

Very few people earnestly believe in "solipsism" or "moral subjectivism" - they're more or less rhetorical positions people argue against to establish why they don't work.

Ayn Rand was a welfare queen.

It’s fine. Rand never explained much of anything about Objectivism. It might as well have been her Dymaxion.

In that case she'd probably fit right in today with the John Galt's of the world.

Oh, I see. If you seriously want to know why Ayn Rand's epistemology, is stupid, these guys discuss it in a fairly long podcast, basically some casual guys with some postgrad philosophy education discussing her ideas:

http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/01/ep78-ayn-rand/

In my views: there are some complicated arguments about why objective/subjective distinction is not really well defined: I use it as a heuristic distinction between kinds of thought, but I don't think they're the absolute way to categorize thoughts.

But that's not the point, for now, let's assume objective and subjective truths exist by the traditional model. The point here, is that, no matter what we may think, we don't ever directly access objective truth. Objective truth is always mediated through our subjectivity. And while we make many statements that appear obvious and trivial, they're often not really "objective" in some absolute, pure sense, they're objectively true with respect to some framework.

What I just said is basically the antithesis to Ayn Rand's epistemology: to her, objective truth exists, and all you have to do is understand it, and you'll come to her world view. She's basically the radicalized version of the "I think I'm objective but I'm unaware of my extreme bias" of philosophy.

What does this say about Eversor?

I am hoping to set off the greatest flamewar of all time.

Weapons of Mass Discussion

Honestly he's mostly fine, he seems morally competent and reasonable. Clearly we have some real divergences in our beliefs and we get heated but I'm okay with having people like him around. He's great compared to people like Wookie, where I don't think he's worth taking seriously at all.

Well that's a darned shame. Looks like I'll have to get something done tonight instead.

I cherish every one of Wookie06's posts

Like, saying someone has unchecked biases and they're too adherent to objectivity or rationality or whatever is a pretty mild criticism compared to being an incoherent apologist for the worst president in modern history.

The only reason anybody even has to sit here and listen to their crap is because of Red Privilege.

Woah... You're going to great lengths to portray your unwillingness to engage with me in a civil conversation as the result of an ideological chasm between us.

Thanks. I'm ambivalent about having people like you around, but it's not my choice.

a wild Objectivist appears

My favourite Ayn Rand novel is that one where a bunch of exploited workers use collective action to subvert a system of rentiers.

You know, that one where they build the commune in the woods?

That one where an inventor has no ownership of an idea and it is instead owned by large firms that all compete to make it?

You know the one.

Not an argument.

Who's that?

gross dude

GROOOWOLLLLLLL

Am I supposed to know who that is?

Stefan Molyneux, he's some libertarian cultish guy on Youtube who's famous for dismissing everything everyone says as "not an argument" and generally being a terrible debater.

He's a libertarian who baits kids into disowning their family and joining his objectivist cult.

Oh. I was probably better off before I'd heard of him.

He's actually one of the few internet personalities who I can't even watch. He's just too creepy.

So wait, I'm an objectivist now? Whyyyyyy

You used too many facts.

Should have spent more time refuting Reid's subjective arguments.

Nah, objectivism is just a really extreme version of the same problems I was getting at, but we're so far detached from the original point that it's gone silly.

You are literally Ayn Rand.

Unironically though I don't feel you offered a legitimate argument, and I haven't been engaging because of that.

Oh man. That cut deep. What am I doing with my time?

It’s the one where a bunch of CEOs go crazy and start mismanaging their companies, and the shareholders are powerless to stop it.

The one where a bunch of lazy people who produce nothing are taking over successful companies and plundering them for short term gain.

Agh. It’s on the tip of my tongue.

I haven't been engaging because one morning earlier this week, I woke up to an entire page of you guys savaging each other.

I don't even remember what it was about, to be honest.

Haha what, you don't know what it was about? Then what the heck are you disagreeing with him on?

I don't know.

“It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!”