Wow, it's been over nine months since I last checked this forum, and I think I've gotten a few things a bit more straightened out. The bulk of my last few posts were in Serious Business and they were about libertarianism, and I've learned a bit since then.
Andromeda321 wrote:Where I don't get Ayn Rand in ways many apply it to life is I'm pretty sure the woman had Asperger's, as none of her characters ever seem to have anything resembling emotion or compassion (and people who knew her earlier in life say she was quiet and never had friends and quite a few other Aspie tendencies).
I'd just like to say that this is a really unfair characterization of people with Asperger's. People with Asperger's feel emotion and compassion, but many just don't know how to express it properly. Some are quiet, others are loud. It makes no more sense to identify Asperger's as a possible cause than it makes sense to identify atheism as Hitler's motivation to do everything he did. (Yes, I know Hitler was a Christian. That's the point.)
ghanburighan wrote:Ok, a very leading (and poorly parsed) question.
So don't ask it. It's a straw man relying on the notion that either you're a pure anti-statist or you're a fascist or something. If anything, you're the one making ad hominem fallacies here.
endianx wrote:I don't think it was right for dipique to refer to those things as "intrinsically" better. Productivity is virtuous, not intrinsically, but because it furthers you life. In fact, it is necessary to sustain your life. So you ought to be productive, not because productivity is magically good, but because your life requires you to take action to sustain it. Rand specifies numerous virtues, but they are good for a reason, due to the nature of man and reality, and are not intrinsic.
You're just kicking the can by moving the intrinsic value from productivity to the reality of needing to sustain one's life. If you're trying to say that productivity is a moral imperative because that's just how it is in reality, you're committing the just-world fallacy. Reality is not inherently moral.
Gedatsu wrote:Why should I, as an individual actor, care more about the global minimum than my own rational self interest?
Because you're not a psychopath? At least I'm presuming you're not a psychopath.
lgw's response is trying to say that altruism is good for one's self-interest, but I think that that's a self-defeating argument. Is it that hard to believe that people have empathy and therefore act in ways that are beneficial to others rather than themselves?