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 unread


Post 0

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I could not agree more.  It all boils down to personal responsibility, which seems to be a lost concept.

So, who's dumber - the idiot with the thrice daily MacDonald diet or the court system which is considering allowing law suits against MacDonald, et al for providing food for those who choose to partake?

Gin


Post 1

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Semi-unrelated to the article, my appologies)

On the matter of responsibility...
One side of the argument claims that free will, i.e. acausality in the sense of a cause without an event, leads to an inability to hold people accountable for their actions. Another side argues that, like the people "coerced" by McDonald's, they are determined beings, bound by causality, and cannot be held accountable for their actions. Am I correct in thinking that objectivism sees this as a false dichotomy? I can't seem to find the discussion, so if it exists can anyone point my in the right direction (and the SOLO section on causality does not do it for me, I'm looking for something more rigorous).

Post 2

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.  The chapter on "Sense Perception and Volition" has a lucid passage that states: "Man chooses the causes that shape his actions."

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rob Reiner played 'meathead', didn't he?  perhaps took it to heart......

Post 4

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the defining characteristics to me of the left (in America, anyway) is their loathing of the choices made by the very people they claim to champion - the common man. In fact, it really is a fear. You see, you need big government to protect people from themselves. Since the primary source one has of other men is himself, it says volumes about how they feel about their own self-control.


Post 5

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luther, I'm all for that position, but can it be demonstrated (preferably scientifically)? Self-evident doesn't cut it for me; not substantial enough.

Post 6

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah, Objectivism treats volition as axiomatic, i.e. any attempt to refute it shows you chose to make the attempt.  That is how Peikoff handles it.  If you want the science behind it, perhaps someone else here can suggest resources.

Post 7

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Man chooses the causes that shape his actions."
It seems highly unlikely that the above statement is true.

It seems unlikely that man "chose" the external environment (sun, moon, Earth, radiation, chemistry, molecules, atoms).  It seems that all of these were around long before Man.  Surely these shape Man's actions.

It also seems unlikely that organisms initially "chose" to acquire the capacity to make decisions in the first place.  It seems highly likely that Man gradually evolved from single-celled creatures that did not initially have the capacity for choice.  The circumstances (complex physical causes and effects) caused the organisms to eventually evolve into organisms complex enough to possess the ability to choose. 

Granted, the ability to choose affects the outcome/development of those creatures who can choose, once they are actually able to make choices.  Nevertheless, as explained above, I suspect that the capacity for choice is a phenomenon that wasn't chosen.  I suspect that choice is something unintentionally thrust upon organisms by a coldly  impersonal and coldly uncaring process called Evolution.

Bottom line: Man brags about being able to shape his actions by his capacity to choose, which, ironically, is a capacity that wasn't "chosen" by anyone (including Man) in the first place. 

Jay

(Edited by Jay Young on 5/02, 5:01pm)


Post 8

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm assuming we're operating under the definition of free will as: given a number of relatively equally probable actions a person can take, the action that the person takes is not the only action that could have been taken.

any attempt to refute it shows you chose to make the attempt

What information does my action hold? It can tell you that I am capable of action. It can tell you that conditions made the action feasible. But can it tell you that I chose that action? That does not follow; that information just isn't there. A hard deterministic perspective does not discount the possibility of questioning one's volition.

I'll keep looking around the science sources.

Post 9

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anyhow, back to the article, I must tip my hat to you, Tibor, you've come through with yet another fine article.  It's amazing what the Left will go through to manufacture perceived oppression these days. 

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.