About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If the concern is that 'most people are good' and 'most people are bad' are collective notions, then the concern is mis-placed.... if one acts according to one's nature, then  by so acting, one enhances one's wellbeing - which is a good.....   since the tendency is to do so, as a survival mechanism, then, to that degree, 'most people are good' is merely an assessment of the validity of being human - as 'most people are bad' is a suicidal notion, and the species would have long ago ceased to be....

At the same time, as one who recognises that each is an individual, beholding to one's own actions, such notion as 'being good' or 'being bad' can only be referenced after the fact of that person's acting - taking in context that, as a specie representative, it would tend to act as good...


Post 21

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne,

You also said Joe should be evaluating people.  I pointed out that he was evaluating.  It would be wrong to conclude most people are good if you then act as if all people are good and trust anyone.  But concluding that most people are good and then acting on that judgement (by keeping a good spirit about meeting people while judging them individually so you don't get abused) is rational.

Kelly


Post 22

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne,

Are you a college student and one whose field is math-science oriented? Thanks,

Phil

Post 23

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Shayne, Please have mercy on Philip when you answer that question!

ROFL

George


Post 24

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly: You are missing the point. If someone says "People are stupid and evil, and therefore we need these laws to protect them from themselves", it's wrong to respond in in the opposite way while keeping the same wrong, anti-individualistic premise. So saying, "No, people are smart and good", implying that they therefore can be left free, is the wrong answer.

The percentage of good vs. evil people in the world is irrelevant when determining how to respond to a particular individual, or what laws are proper for society. It's meaningless to talk about how many good people there are in this context.

Phil: Exactly how is your question relevant to this thread?

Post 25

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Malcom is right that it's not collectivism.  I never call for blinding yourself to individual judgments.  I do make a generalization, but that isn't collectivist.  If it were, than it would be an epistemological failing to ever use induction or to look for patterns.  That sounds like a rationalist's dream come true, but it would be a nightmare in practice.

And furthermore, I believe this same kind of generalization is a necessary component of Objectivist politics.  It's been said that if a large minority of people in society were criminals (didn't respect your rights, and you needed to guard against them), society wouldn't last.  It's because of a general harmony of interest, both in theory and in practice, that living amongst other humans as we do is beneficial.  If the criminal element were larger (wouldn't even need to be a majority), that benefit would be gone.  It's because of a correctly identified generalization that we view society as a benefit to our lives.

Shayne, I think you're a bit trigger-happy with your anti-collectivist response.  If I wrote the simple claim "Most people in America speak English", it would be a reasonable parallel.  That is not a collectivist statement.  If you then decide to read this as "Assume everyone speaks English despite any contrary evidence", it's your own mistake.  Accepting a generalization does not in any way suggest you have to blind yourself to new facts.  Similarly you don't have to blind yourself to empirically formed generalizations.  In other words, you don't have to start every conversation with "Do you speak English?".

And it should be obvious to anyone who read the whole article that this is a side point. The real thrust is to recognize the good in people, instead of focusing on only flaws.  This is true for individual judgment as well.  If you dismiss every individual you meet because they fail to live up to your standards of perfections, you're only hurting yourself.


Post 26

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe said: Accepting a generalization does not in any way suggest you have to blind yourself to new facts.  Similarly you don't have to blind yourself to empirically formed generalizations.
 
Joe said: The real thrust is to recognize the good in people, instead of focusing on only flaws.  This is true for individual judgment as well.  If you dismiss every individual you meet because they fail to live up to your standards of perfections, you're only hurting yourself.

That was a perfect response to the criticisms, and a perfect summary of your intention with this article.

I had not read this article until today, its central message is wonderful, and one that we should all (myself included) never lose sight of.  

Thank you - Joe

George


Post 27

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe: You misconstrue my point and blow my comment about collectivism way out of proportion (obviously it's not collectivist to make statistical claims about the population). The real thrust of my critique, the reason I didn't like your article, was because I think you missed the central issue here: the active vs. passive approach to judging people.


Post 28

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think Phil is asking because the relevance is in understanding your context and experience judging people. If you are eighteen that experience is delimited at least quantitatively.

Come on, Shayne, what’s the big deal? Tell us if you were already old, just middle-aged, or a youngin’ when Challenger exploded.

Jon

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne said: I didn't like your article, was because I think you missed the central issue here: the active vs. passive approach to judging people.

Shayne, since Joe was the author of that article, he gets to determine what the central theme of it will be. I do not believe he was aiming at a ‘War and Peace’ length treatise, so please excuse him if he has failed to meet your minimum standard for discussion on this topic. He did not 'miss' the central issue because his focus was not what you would have preferred. If you feel his article is incomplete, and would like to see a better article, one that has as its central thrust the active vs the passive approach; please feel free to write it. We all await your contribution with great anticipation.

The central issue *he* was aiming at (and hit the target, in my opinion) was the advantage of having a benevolent sense of life in regards to people in general. He backs this up by advancing that as a generalization, *most* humans demonstrate enough virtuous and rational qualities that they are worthy of our benefit of doubt in regards to their character. Given his knowledge of people within the *context* of humanity as a whole - he views the good and the benevolent to be the common standard, and the evil as the greater exception.

The article was also a warning to the effects of being predisposed towards focusing on the flaws of others as opposed to their virtues. He is asking us to consider giving our fellow man the same 'benefit of the doubt' that we would like extended to ourselves. He is warning us that if we consistently fail to do so we may be hurting only ourselves through a self-created social isolationism that is not warranted and potentially damaging to ourselves. Therefore, it is in our rational self-interest to do so.

The true central theme here is none other than simple *justice*, and that the exercise of that justice is both beneficial and virtuous in itself.

 

At least that's my take.

George  

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/12, 9:07pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne,

Joe’s article was written for you and tragically you reject the plain lessons it offers.

My curiosity about your age stems from having an estimate of you that looks a lot like many angry, short-fused eighteen year olds I’ve known.

You seem intelligent and intellectually ambitious. Everyone I have ever known who was angry, short-fused, and intellectually ambitious at eighteen, lost the first two characteristics by thirty. They retained the ambitiousness but the anger and hair-trigger habit were jettisoned.

So I am curious if my previous observations apply to you or not.

Jon

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If someone says "People are stupid and evil, and therefore we need these laws to protect them from themselves", it's wrong to respond in in the opposite way while keeping the same wrong, anti-individualistic premise. So saying, "No, people are smart and good", implying that they therefore can be left free, is the wrong answer.


This isn't about uncheckable a priori conclusions.

I'm fairly sure you accept that the “innocent until proven guilty” premise of our justice system isn't covering up an implicit dichotomy of “everyone is guilty” versus ”everyone is innocent.” The “innocent until proven guilty” principle and its opposite serve to state our assumptions about the “default” state of an individual about whom we have no information to make a more specific judgement.

And the “people are basically good” premise serves exactly the same role. What is being talked about here is the premise that, until further information is known, a stranger should be assumed to be basically good and rational. Of course, you can take the alternative view and assume everyone is out to get you until they demonstrate their good will. But my point is, you have to have some “default” assumption one way or another. You have to have some level of trust (or mistrust) that you accord to strangers. There's no way to live and avoid dealing with strangers—and even if there was, choosing to live that way would be an implicit evaluation of the goodness of strangers in itself.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have had a few differences with some of the posters on this thread. But I can give a concrete example if what Joe wrote about.

Speaking only for myself...

Hell, I like all of you.. and I mean it. Even you, Shayne.

I start out from that point and then go on to the rest...

(Oops... was that a group hug? My apologies to the sourpuss brigade...)

One other matter. I keep hearing on TV and reading in the news that having an upbeat attitude (and that includes goodwill towards men) is good for your health - and that a negative attitude can cause/enhance serious diseases like cancer.

How's that for rational self interest?

Michael


Post 33

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George: I don't know anyone who thinks "people are basically evil". Maybe Bible belt preachers do. But not the people around where I live. On the contrary, "tolerance" is more the law of the land than anything else. Well, except perhaps, when it comes to "intolerant" people. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are passive about evaluating people. It probably stems from this "who am I to judge" mentality.

As far as Objectivists are concerned, most I've met are more confused than anything else when it comes to figuring out what makes people in general tick. Most Objectivists at this site are definitely not "people haters" - unless perhaps, those people are from the ARI.

Joe's obviously free to write what he wants. And I'm free to say that I think he missed the most important point of the subject.

Jon & Phil: I am not the subject of this thread. Perhaps you two can't help it with the knee-jerk ad hominems when facing an argument you don't know how to deal with, but don't expect me to jump in and help you out with them. If you have an argument to make, take a hint from Nature and George, and make one. Otherwise, take your psychologizing somewhere else.

Nature: I don't agree with your analogy, but I do agree that one should assume a stranger is basically good and rational until he proves otherwise. Which is all beside the point. I'm not disagreeing with Joe that one should treat new people one meets with benevolence. Obviously one should.


Post 34

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"One other matter. I keep hearing on TV and reading in the news that having an upbeat attitude (and that includes goodwill towards men) is good for your health - and that a negative attitude can cause/enhance serious diseases like cancer.

How's that for rational self interest?"

True. There are also studies showing that pessimists have a perception of reality much closer to the facts than do optimists. Maybe we have a dilemna of choosing objective reality or rational self-interest.


Post 35

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nature and George are right on. 

George, you did an excellent job of distilling Joe's points down to their essence.

And Nature, you're exactly right with the statement that an assumption must be made until evidence presents itself.  I don't see a way around that.  If one respects the potential of goodness in others, one will have a friendlier disposition toward them.  I've seen the "neutral" attitude too easily vascillate to "I'm suspicious of all people" attitude - in myself and others - leaving one to be an unsmiling, stiff Objectibot. 

Jason


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne said: On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are passive about evaluating people. It probably stems from this "who am I to judge" mentality.

That was a fascinating comment you made.

 

Ironically it has been my experience that the opposite is true. While the cliché of, "who am I (who are you) to judge" is thrown around quite often, I have found that it is usually done within the context of two or more people having a conversation/argument on an ethical issue. At some point, the participant that is *losing* that debate slings out that cliché. Now, I have come across people that literally live their lives as if that cliché was a moral axiom, but I have found them to be more of the exception than the rule.

 

In general, I believe that people tend to make far too *many* moral judgments about others, and to categorize them into their image of a particular type of group. These moral judgments are usually made on the 'fly' - without much or any evidence or proof. Thus Joe's article is spot on, in that it identifies this tendency among many people, and objectivist in particular. In my earlier post to you I used the word ‘evil’ - that was an error on my part, too strong of a word. Joe's example of an assumption of stupidity, highly flawed or mal-intentioned would be better. 

 

By and large I would agree with you that generally speaking Americans are 'tolerant' of each other. It is not a question of their being 'tolerant' of other people - but rather whether they are positively of negatively predisposed towards other people whom they have only cursory of knowledge of. It is more a question of a persons 'attitude' towards strangers and people in general, than their 'conscious' evaluation of them.

 

Objectivist in particular, with their emphasis on intellectual pursuits and discussing concepts abstractly - often tend towards making sweeping judgments about people with a quick glance of the eye or after only a brief conversation. Because this philosophy attracts a greater than average number of educated, intelligent and insightful people, the judgments made with that quick glance are often assumed to be as valid as the ones that are made after scrupulous and meticulous study/observation. Furthermore, I need not tell you of the unfortunate history within objectivism of a tendency towards 'elitism'. The great gods from above looking down upon that mass herd of the oh-so-average. When objectivists are not careful, they develop a quite Neitzschean outlook on humanity; a tiny minority of Supermen plagued with a herd of stupid sheep.

 

The more I think about it, the more I like Joe's article - it may be among his best.

 

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/13, 7:11am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Aaron,

Good to see you over here too. You wrote:
There are also studies showing that pessimists have a perception of reality much closer to the facts than do optimists.
I have never heard of any study like that - unless you are equating pessimism with having a critical attitude (which I do not). But anyway I would be fascinated to read about this. Really. Can you point me to any such study?

Michael


Post 38

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron: I wonder if the study wasn't mixing in realists with pessimists.

The worse off the culture is, the harder it is on those who can see it. "Ignorance is bliss" has this element of truth to it. I imagine that there were the blissfully ignorant types running around "liking people" when, say, Galileo was imprisoned for being a genius. And I certainly wouldn't blame him for feeling contempt for these self-deluded "everything is great" people.

I don't think this is a dilemma, any more than it's a dilemma when the culture burns its atheists at the stake. Unforgivable tragedy is the better term.

The more I think about it, the more I don't like Joe's article. I agree that we should treat new people we meet with the "good until demonstrates otherwise" standard. However, when I look at the state of the culture, I see a definite mixture of good and evil, and the potential to slip into evil just as deep as Weimar Germany slipped into. The ultimate cause is the root of all evil: evasion. Evading the evasion is just another form of it.

Reality trumps sense of life. If you wish to feel good at any price, the cost will be: your mind.

Post 39

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Well, I suppose it’s time to bury this particular debate.

 

Let me close by saying that I just cannot understand how Shayne arrived at examples that include Galileo burning at the stake and comparisons between America and Weimar, from Joe’s innocuous article on the topic of benevolent goodwill and simple justice. These examples are out of the context to the thrust of his article. Going from Joe’s article to being compelled to say, Reality trumps sense of life. If you wish to feel good at any price, the cost will be: your mind.” is quite a leap.

 

George


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.