Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GPS Info who wrote (42181)	9/27/2013 10:02:11 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

“I will guess that you were being sarcastic. “ No, I honestly was not being sarcastic. I thought my two questions framed a necessary conclusion. Next, you gave an example to attempt to show that it was “ possible for a woman of mature moral values to love the rapist who has attributes that she rationally despises?” However, it seems to me that positing the conditions you skilfully crafted certainly does away with my premise of “rational despite”! Certainly, I agree that it is possible for a rational person of mature values to love a rapist (or anyone) if circumstances change such that she no longer despises him--rationally or otherwise! “Else-wise, if the women despises the man, it doesn't matter whether it was rational or irrational repugnance” This is what I was getting at. I was presuming that mature and thoughtful love, indeed, is usually a rational trade arrived at by judging values. “I think there is some truth to the notion that 'love is blind' and that we might love someone enough to overlook imperfect honesty, kindness, dependability or lawfulness” I certainly do not disagree. My comments were in emphasis of those healthy and moral (in terms of Objectivism) humans who do not trade higher values for lower. Even Hank Readon, one of the heroic ‘producers’ thought it was ‘love’ to take care of his wife who gave him little of value in return . So I don’t pretend that anyone practices Objectivism fully on this planet. For many people, “love is blind” might fit. But I think you would agree that for most people with brains larger than birds, their choice of partner is a thinking process. Hey…we *can* choose smaller breasts you know! Do people trade higher values for lower values? Hell, yes! All the time. Is that rational self interest? Not according to the premises and conclusions I find in the arguments of Ayn Rand. More like self abuse, to be frank... “In small tribal units, even today, a man or woman may have very few choices for a partner and it may come down to the availability of a partner rather than some long-term search of the perfect soul mate” Yes. At one time, rational self interest, would include availability, hips, and breasts! Quite so. Choices today generally present far more pertinent factors to rationalize. Again…Ayn Rand was a realized objectivist--the rest of us are not. But many people think that we can become more rational and moral by simply making the effort. And in that vein, I give you the quote of the day. I bolded some of it. From Moral Judgment The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims. The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one’s mood, one’s memorized slogans or one’s snap judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare that “everybody is white” or “everybody is black” or “everybody is neither white nor black, but gray,” is not a moral judgment, but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment. To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, “instincts” or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer “Why?” and to prove one’s case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/quote_of_the_day.html "I am not comfortable with the phrase 'judge precisely’." Nor would I be in that context. I ought to have put a comma between the two words. Sorry for the confusion. Isn't the ability to judge, precisely what permits us to choose the better over the worse--although oftentimes quite imperfectly or irrationally? “I guess that guy really loves his car” Perhaps you were making a joke! But (in case you were not), that example followed the sentence: “Isn't every rational move we make a question of judgement?” and continued...Everything from not touching a hot stove to painting your car a new color to deciding you are chasing the wrong woman for marriage?! So painting the car was not necessarily a question of love. <g> “Well, I do criticize the Chinese Communist Party on another board with strongly-worded posts.” I certainly hope to visit that amazing country some day. I have many Chinese friends. I think the Chinese Communism will come apart in a very quiet way when it can no longer support its own weight.